Instigator / Pro
1
1584
rating
30
debates
71.67%
won
Topic
#5446
The Theory of Evolution is Correct, and Bible Creationism is Incorrect
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
1
1
After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 7,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1389
rating
418
debates
44.74%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
Introduction
First, let me preface by saying that I don't want to insult or offend anyone's religion. I am personally an atheist, but I respect anyone's choice of religion. I don't believe it, but that doesn't mean you can't.
I would like to keep this debate nice and civil. I would like to think of this debate more as a Socratic conversation for knowledge rather than a contest to change someone's mind, or convince others of your point of view. However, there will be voting on whose argument is better.
One more side note, when I say 6-day creationism, I am referring to the exact Bible story in genesis, that describes how God created everything.
Anyways, on with the debate.
Neither me or you will be able to actually prove that our side is correct, seeing as we can't accurately measure evolution because of how slow it is, or that fact that we don't have concrete proof of God creating the world. However, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of evolution opposed to 6-day Creationism. Like I said, you can't completely rule out God creating all animals, but if he did, why did he put vestigial bones in some animals that they don't even use them. For example, humans still have the muscles to move our tails, even though we don't have tails anymore. Why? Evolution would say because during the process of natural selection when we began losing our tails, there was no evolutionary benefit to losing those bones and muscles, even though there was no reason to keep them around. Creationism (as far as I can tell) is stumped.
Lastly, I would like to quickly explain what evolution is so no one is confused here. Contrary to what Pokemon has taught us all, species do not just change form all of a sudden. Rather, genetic mutations happen at random, and the best ones are kept. Here's an example of what I mean. Let's say a group of brown bears begins to move to a colder area. In that group of bears, there is a mother bear who gives birth to one normal brown bear, and one with a genetic defect that makes its fur white. In this colder region, there is lots of snow, so having a white coat of fur helps the bear blend in. This makes it easier for the bear to hunt for food without being noticed. This bear is more likely to survive and pass on its genes than its sibling. Thus, over many generations, this group of bear, and some others that moved to that region have more bears that survive with white coats, so that species lives on, while the brown bears that moved up north die out. It also doesn't have to be a big change like albinism, literally every person is born with at least some sort of genetic defect, it's just some are big like that, and some aren't even noticeable. But the defects can grow bigger over time. Anyways, I've been yapping about this for too long.
Point #1
Quoting from ncse.ngo, "The genomes of all organisms contain overwhelming evidence for evolution. All living species share the same basic mechanism of heredity using DNA (or RNA in some viruses) to encode genes that are passed from parent to offspring, and which are transcribed and translated into proteins during each organism’s life." To summarize, all species have DNA or RNA which are passed down to their offspring. We can study what happens when this happens, and we see the exact process described by Charles Darwin. Even if God did create all animals, they are still passing down their genes, there are still genetic mutations, and if all of this is true, it follows that evolution is happening. That may seem like it isn't in direct contradiction with the bible, but it says God created all animals. In the long amount of time since either humans were created or evolved, animals would have evolved whether God liked it or not. But if God created all the animals, that means none of them evolved from the ones he already created. Thus follows that evolution is happening, and God could not have created all the animals.
Point #2
Believe it or not, evolution is happening to this day. Think about the Flu vaccine. I don't know if you believe in vaccines (sorry, bad joke), but every year, you have to get a new one. That is because the virus becomes different each year, and your body hasn't encountered the new strain before. The old virus does less infecting because more people have gotten herd immunity, so it dies out mostly, but because it can mutate so fast, evolution is sped up, and the virus emerges slightly different, because if it is different, it has a better chance of surviving. If this ain't evolution, IDK what is.
Conclusion
Please do not make the mistake that this is all there is to say on this matter. I would like to go on, but my word limit is running out, and I would like to keep my opening statement relatively short. In conclusion, neither side can be definitively proven right because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. However, the evidence suggests that evolution is what took place, and there is a lack of evidence for creationism. In closing, I ask my opponent to please keep the discussions civil, and I turn the floor over to them.
Works Cited
- https://ncse.ngo/evolution-fact-and-theory#:~:text=The%20genomes%20of%20all%20organisms,proteins%20during%20each%20organism's%20life.
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01753-8#:~:text=Polar%20bears%20diverged%20from%20brown,the%20Arctic%20continental%20shelf15.
- https://www.biblegateway.com/
Con
#2
"Whoever accpets this challenge will be arguing that the existence of animals and humans was the direct result of the Christian God."
From the short description I am to argue this and I'll be arguing this from biblical scriptures.
For part of the topic says "Bible Creationism is Incorrect".
So I'll be arguing for creationism being a correct biblical doctrine , lesson or segment of information from the Bible.
The segment concerns the creation of animals and humans from the "Christian" God or more accurately biblical God.
Completely spot on, the holy scriptural God but I understand what the opposing side is communicating.
Therefore is it correct that the biblical scriptures gives information on creationism (God creating animals and humans)?
Is this correct from the Bible or incorrect?
Does it offer other information that says otherwise that is not creationism(God creating everything)?
I will be arguing for all these questions to be answered.
Upon a google engine search for argue:
give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.
So I will give my reasons or explanations in explaining how the scriptures support creationism.
As the opposing side according to the topic it says the theory of evolution is correct and bible creationism is incorrect or it's not correct that creationism is of the bible, out of the bible, from the Bible.
Also I'll finally argue or explain that a theory has to be proven true for it to hold the title " correct theory " thus holding no longer the label theory in the presence of a new established fact. No longer a theory but just an established fact. So the terms "correct theory" in the present don't go together just as "correct guess".
The guess or theory may be strong or weak based on appropriate proper correct deductive reasoning.
The topic title says "The Theory of Evolution is Correct". This is a present sense declaration. If evolution is how everything began to exist is correct, it would no longer be a theory.
Biblical creationism is correct or it is a correct segment of information from the Bible according to at least the book of Genesis.
It is correct to say creationism is a trait of the bible. Creationism is biblical so it is biblically correct according to Genesis 1 at verse:
"20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth."
Verse 21 gets every creature. Creationism is dealing with creating. The verse said God created every living creature that moveth.
So creationism is correct biblically and is not biblically incorrect which would make biblical or bible creationism not incorrect.
Creating humans and animals, that falls under every living creature that moves.
In verses:
" 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Creationism is correct biblically and is not biblically incorrect which would make biblical or bible creationism not incorrect.
On to explaining about theories.
Upon the google engine search for theory:
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
So a supposition or uncertain belief is what it is because facts have not been reached. There's no certainty in the absence of facts.
When there's uncertainty there's nothing known to be correct.
This is why the present expression of "correct theory" is an oxymoron.
So just on the face of it, the opposing side is not able to hold the stance "the theory of evolution is correct". It's impossible thus no argument can be made to defend anything.
It also continues to remain a theory because evolution hasn't been proven correct because there is no evidence of what happened from the beginning of the existence of everything as we know.
What we have is deductive, inductive, abductive reasoning depending on the perspective to posit possibilities for what caused the beginning of everything.
No matter how strong you argue, the prediction you're left with is still that.
It may or may not be true (uncertainty) because of incomplete observations such as the beginning of time. That is the abductive approach.
A specific observation of life would be what can be observed now but not for all times which leaves the conclusion in a general sense(observation for all times) that may be true. It is uncertainty again because there's only a specific observation used to form a conclusion in attempt to apply a case generally(all cases). This is the inductive approach.
The general observations or general rule in this case is still only based on what is generally observed. Doesn't mean all has been observed which still may make the specific conclusion regarding the dawn of everything false. But based on the limited scope labeled as "general" provides a specific conclusion to apply to a specific case expected to be valid based on the correct generality leaving the conclusion always true. But remember the conclusion is only as good as what is known. It'll always be true inside a box with rules that have been constructed inside. All we see really may not be all there is which would be outside the box leaving uncertainty there again. That is the deductive approach.
The uncertainty remains thus leaving a theory, thus keeping us unable to assign the label "correct" to it.
Round 2
Pro
#3
I'll start out by apologizing for being really bad at writing titles and descriptions. I'm usually pretty bad at leaving out loopholes and stuff like that, so if you have any tips on how I could be better at that in the future, please share. I suppose a better way to phrase it would have been, "the theory of evolution is a better alternative to creationism", or something like that.
However, I am now stuck with this so I might as well argue it.
Now, you said that creationism is biblically accurate. I'm not sure if this was confusion about the title of the debate, but (sorry) the Bible is just not a good source for this kind of thing. It's the word of some random people who wrote it many years before evolution was even suggested, versus actual scientific proof.
Near the end of your argument, you said that evolution cannot be proven correct because it is just a theory.
... the present expression of "correct theory" is an oxymoron.
You made one common mistake though. The Theory of Evolution is not a theory anymore. It has been scientifically proven, and can be observed in a lab. If you recall, I used viruses as my example. Because viruses reproduce so fast, evolution can be observed and measured, and overwhelmingly, it has been shown to happen. It is no longer a theory, thus your point is null and void. But even if it was a theory, it could still be true. The Theory of relativity was once just that, a theory, but all the while it was still true, regardless if it was proven yet. And evolution has been proven anyways, so this line of thinking is kinda pointless anyways.
You argued that evolution hasn't been proven yet because we have no accurate record of what happened at that time, but you forget that evolution is still happening, and we can measure it. I turn the floor over to my opponent.
Con
#4
Before I start let me clear up the confusion in the comments.
I'm going to refer them back to what the Google search engine defines as theory:
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
So a supposition or uncertain belief is what it is because facts have not been reached.
Do we have that straight now? Whatever you want to call it. A highly educated guess, hypothesis, belief, whatever. Bottomline it's not fact. So therefore something cannot be established as correct without establishing it as fact.
Until it is that, you don't know, you're uncertain.
This should be very simple terms. Maybe people are confused about the difference between fact and theory, fact and belief. Please don't conflate the two.
Now onto the topic.
"I'll start out by apologizing for being really bad at writing titles and descriptions. I'm usually pretty bad at leaving out loopholes and stuff like that, so if you have any tips on how I could be better at that in the future, please share. I suppose a better way to phrase it would have been, "the theory of evolution is a better alternative to creationism", or something like that. "
Yes words are very important. Be very careful and specific with them. I appreciate the honesty from you on that .
The topic could simply be , evolution appears true.
Just as a compact title. Can't really say evolution is true because I think we both understand what a theory is better than those commenting. No disrespect but just the impression given.
So that could be a doable title alternatively and a sub title in the description: evolution appears true based on these very strong arguments; the basis is weaker for creationism.
"Now, you said that creationism is biblically accurate. I'm not sure if this was confusion about the title of the debate, but (sorry) the Bible is just not a good source for this kind of thing. It's the word of some random people who wrote it many years before evolution was even suggested, versus actual scientific proof."
Bottomline to make this simple, the scriptures haven't been proven to be false so to jump in saying they're automatically false is erroneous. You'll lose that argument every time. Even atheists that have been there know this.
"Near the end of your argument, you said that evolution cannot be proven correct because it is just a theory. "
Please quote exactly where I said the words "evolution cannot be proven ". We should be careful with exact words versus individual interpretation of the actual words given so there's no instant misconstruing.
"The Theory of Evolution is not a theory anymore. It has been scientifically proven, and can be observed in a lab. If you recall, I used viruses as my example."
Oh it's not a theory anymore. Why does the topic have the word "theory" in it? Did you lie or make a mistake?
Furthermore this does not coincide with what the opposing side stated in the previous round.
You stated the following:
"Neither me or you will be able to actually prove that our side is correct, seeing as we can't accurately measure evolution because of how slow it is"
Don't try to backpedal now.
The theory of evolution is dealing with a guess of how everything started and came about. Why it is a theory obviously we can't experiment or observe the beginning of time.
"But even if it was a theory, it could still be true. The Theory of relativity was once just that, a theory, but all the while it was still true, regardless if it was proven yet. And evolution has been proven anyways, so this line of thinking is kinda pointless anyways. "
Possibly being true or "could be true " is different from being true flat out. Let us no waffle on this . It's either a theory or it's not . Now you wish to say evolution has been proven.
So this is pretty much the end of this topic. You can show all the strongest arguments in the world but it doesn't remove the title of theory.
If it was proven you wouldn't of started this topic off as "The Theory of.....". At least presumably not.
"You argued that evolution hasn't been proven yet because we have no accurate record of what happened at that time, but you forget that evolution is still happening, and we can measure it. I turn the floor over to my opponent."
Until it has been proven what has happened from the beginning of time, case is closed. You even said yourself you cannot prove that. Now you trying to abandon that to avoid the refutation.
Let me roll out this example of what the theory of evolution is likened to when it comes to making a conclusion about things based on premises, propositions, similar and general observations.
This will be an instance very practical not needing a lab for testing being able do all kinds of complex calculations with all capable kinds of equipment.
We can observe people purchasing merchandise at a kiosk. You can witness them collecting receipts.
Plenty of evidence there right.
Just because we can observe this, it doesn't prove that everyone that has purchased merchandise at that kiosk has a bill of sale.
There was a point of time when we did not witness this.
This is why we may say theoretically this is the case. Given that we're honest, we can't say it's fact although it "could" be granted we're honest.
I yield.
Round 3
Pro
#5
What is a Theory?
The first point you made was about the definition of the word theory, so I'll start there. You made this same point in your last argument, but you don't seem to be getting what I'm saying.
Side note: you said some very pointed things about baggins in the comments, but they have a very valid point, and I totally agree with them.
You kept saying that the theory of evolution cannot be true because it is just a theory, but I will reiterate, it is not a theory anymore. It is still referred to as that because when Darwin first proposed the idea, it was a theory, but it has now been proven to happen, and thus is NOT A THEORY ANYMORE!
I am not, as you said, conflating theory and fact. You are grasping at straws here, and I think you know it. You keep attempting to say that evolution cannot be true, "because it's a theory", but you're ignoring the actual facts of the matter, and trying to dance around them.
So this is pretty much the end of this topic. You can show all the strongest arguments in the world but it doesn't remove the title of theory.If it was proven you wouldn't of started this topic off as "The Theory of.....". At least presumably not.
I still say "the theory of evolution", because that is what it just goes by now. The name stuck when it was still a theory, and now people colloquially call it that, so I do too. That way, people understand what I'm talking about.
Oh it's not a theory anymore. Why does the topic have the word "theory" in it? Did you lie or make a mistake?
This is an example of what I mean. You're saying it is just a theory (A GAME THEORY, sorry couldn't resist), but it has scientific evidence to back it up, and you still haven't provided any response to that.
The difference between evolution, and the starting of animals.
You accused me of trying to backpedal, because I previously said that you cannot prove either side, and then I said evolution has scientific proof. I can see the mistake you made, and it is my fault for not clarifying. When I say evolution has scientific proof, I'm saying that we can see the process of natural selection happening even today.
However, that does not mean that God did not create all animals and then let them evolve. I said that no one could prove their side was right because we have no actual records of either God creating animals, or not creating animals, but I never said that you can't prove evolution doesn't happen. You would think this would be an argument for your side, but I debunked that in my first argument, and so I will do it again. The Bible says that God created all animals, but in the time since that has happened, evolution has to have taken it's course, thus making some animals that God did not create, thus rendering your argument invalid.
Using the Bible as a Source.
Bottomline to make this simple, the scriptures haven't been proven to be false so to jump in saying they're automatically false is erroneous. You'll lose that argument every time. Even atheists that have been there know this.
You are putting words in my mouth here. I never said that the Bible could be proven false, I just said it's not a good source. Sure, it is a first hand account, but testimony from a few people, is not in any way more reliable a source than simple logic and science showing that evolution is what most likely happened. Yes, some things in the Bible can be cross referenced with other historical records and be shown to most likely be true, but that doesn't automatically make it all completely true. The Bible just cannot hold a candle to scientific evidence, and sound logical reasoning.
Conclusion
In summary, your argument did not provide any actual evidence or reasoning for your side. You instead danced around my points, getting us bogged down in the definition of theory, which doesn't even matter, because evolution is not a theory anyways! You also portrayed my points to be something they weren't. You still have not directly addressed the key tenets of my argument, and continued to make false claims, assumptions, and used unrelated evidence.
Con
#6
I'm just about out of time for this round.
Making it super short.
So you said you will not able to prove your side.
You're waffling now. Are you recanting your statements now and in attempt to prove something x amount of years ago became a complete human?
Well take the next couple of days , gather the evidence, we can take a look at it.
Round 4
Pro
#7
First of, I do apologize if you found the time constraints of this debate limiting. I prefer to go faster, but I am sorry if you were unable to write a full argument in light of the 2 day limit.
You didn't give me much to rebut in your last argument, so I'll quickly start with that, and then go into my closing statements.
Well take the next couple of days , gather the evidence, we can take a look at it.
This is what I'm saying. You will make a point, I will refute it with evidence, and you will just completely ignore it and pretend it's not there. I Have shown you evidence, but if you insist on more, here you go, so lets "take a look at it".
- https://lenski.mmg.msu.edu/ecoli/index.html
- https://faculty.wallin.wwu.edu/envr325/kettlewell_1955.pdf
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4222749/
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4395868/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27873730/
These are five studies done by credible sources that have all done research in labs, and shown that evolution is happening. I don't know how you can possibly argue against this, but you probably will find some way to dodge it.
You're waffling now. Are you recanting your statements now and in attempt to prove something x amount of years ago became a complete human?
In answer to the last part of your question, yes I am trying to prove that something long ago became a human. You're trying to make it seem unrealistic by phrasing it in such a way that it seems preposterous, but it's really not IF YOU LOOK AT THE RESEARCH!
You still claim that I am waffling on my stance, but as I explained before, (and you either did not see, or chose to ignore it), I mean two different things when I am talking about proving evolution. When I say evolution is a proven scientific fact, I mean that it is proven that the process of natural selection does happen. When I say that neither side can prove the other wrong, I am saying that even though natural selection is real, we have no records from that long ago, and thus perhaps god created all animals, and created evolution as well. However, the bible makes no mention of this, and specifies that god created every animal, which we know is impossible due to evolution existing, and creating at least some new animals in the time period between then and now.
Conclusion
I still maintain that under the current circumstances, neither of us will be able to definitively be able to prove the other wrong, but there is evidence to support my side of the argument. There are some points that I wanted to mention earlier in the debate, but unfortunately, we got bogged down arguing over proven scientific research, and the time got away from me. I mentioned this earlier, but vestigial bones make no sense under creationism. In case you didn't know, vestigial bones are bones in animals that serve no purpose to that animal, but are leftovers from previous evolutions. Why would God create animals with body parts that serve no function if he (I use "he" only in reference to the actual text from the Bible) set out to make all animals perfect? Also, that raises the question, why would he create all animals in a slow meandering fashion with evolution, rather than just create them all at once. You may respond by saying something along the lines of, "It was all in his grand design", but there is no practical reason for these things. It doesn't matter if you're God, logic is logic, and these things don't serve any purpose. One last point, why would the almighty create animals and evolution, if animals were already supposed to be perfect when he created them. Shouldn't there be no room for improvement?
In closing, I will talk to anyone voting on this debate. My opponent spent most of their time dodging around my main ideas, and arguing about definitively proven science, instead of engaging in an actual debate. I urge you to vote impartially, and vote only on the merit of both arguments, not which side you believe in.
And to my opponent, I may disagree with your beliefs, but I had fun debating this with you, and I hope nothing I said came across as a personal attack, but rather as an attack on your arguments. I notice you have accepted another one of my debates, so I look forward to arguing with you in the future. I yielded the floor.
Con
#8
"I still maintain that under the current circumstances, neither of us will be able to definitively be able to prove the other wrong, but there is evidence to support my side of the argument. "
Now you switch to proving somebody wrong. In other words, you can't prove me wrong on you not being able to prove evolution.
"My opponent spent most of their time dodging around my main ideas, and arguing about definitively proven science, instead of engaging in an actual debate."
You conceded your position in the very first round with the following:
"Neither me or you will be able to actually prove that our side is correct, seeing as we can't accurately measure evolution because of how slow it is, "
The topic is The Theory of evolution is correct....
It can't be proven correct with being unable to prove it.
You can't ad hoc or move the goalpost now waffling with this "well let's demonstrate who has the strongest argument". That's not the topic.
That's why the opposing side went into about suggestions of what the title could of been and I gave some suggestions.
Hopefully next time if so, this will be tightened up so there's no waffling from it or from the mixed up folks in the comments .
Everything else I laid out clear in the first round. The opposing side admitted the creationism in the bible cannot be proven false. Biblical creationism is correct according to the bible.
You can say that's a circular argument. But it's not an argument. It's fact that the scriptures do explain creationism as defined in this topic. They don't explain anything else of how the origin of everything came to but what is called creationism. So I didn't have to prove that. You can read it for yourself.
"Neither me or you will be able to actually prove that our side is correct"
This was over before it started.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
End thoughts,
I lean towards voting Con,
Partially due to Pro not addressing the Bible and creationism much,
'Yes Pro made arguments for evolution, but that is only half the battle per debate title.
Hm, rereading,
Con does not make arguments of Creationism being correct (Except for Creationism being correct Biblically, as 'in the Bible and correct to Creationists)
Fair bit of a dodge that pushes me towards Pro, since I prefer debaters engage 'spirit of debate, what was 'meant by creator.
So currently in tie,
Yes, Pro claims evolution commonly accepted,
But 'many times 'throughout debate, states neither side can be proven,
While in good faith, and true, this can still weaken a person's argument,
. .
It is good to steelman one's argument,
It is often good to preemptively address opponent arguments,
But it's 'only good if opponent is touched by show of good faith,
Or if you manage to direct the flow of the expected opponent argument as to weaken it.
Part of 'winning a debate, is style, is 'appearance.
One 'can admit weakness with style, but in this debate, it did not come off well for Pro, partially because of Con's style and strategy.
Though Con strategy 'was at expense to their proving Creationism as logical/reasonable to be accepted as true.
I remain for tie as a vote,
Because even though I think Pro had some chinks in their evolution arguments,
Con did not address them, instead focusing more on semantics,
Pro gets points for staying on topic and making arguments,
Con gets points for attacking debate framing, and Pro admitting difficulty of proof.
See comments 6 and 7 for my thoughts during debate.
Part 1/2
Pro Round 1
Pro states out debate, argues for inconsistencies in human body, cites examples Pro argues are evolution.
Source/definition for Creationism might have been nice, though maybe too limiting.
Of course people have a common conception of it, but they also have many variations in definition and belief in it as well.
Heh, tails, one could argue that 'Primates, are what God created, or that man has evolved and devolved some over time since God creation, but that we did not evolve from a fish.
That might work for longer time Creationism, but not for the 6000 year creationism.
For bigger time Creationism, I hear scientists don't like caveman and dinosaurs together, but a Creationists could argue humans were just hiding.
Species 'can manage to grow even with very few members left.
Some people joke about incest and claim impossible, but Minimum Viable Population theory.
Point #1, eh, even if a fish evolves, it's still a fish, even if a primate evolves it's still a primate.
Of course the problem with such an argument are those evolutionary record claims that whales used to walk on land and have legs.
But eh, even humans born without legs, we still call human.
Point #2 'Is evolution the same as natural selection?
Or does evolution claim bacteria to human evolution?
Sorry if dumb question.
Conclusion, argues for 'tie, but I note debate is an either or. Not whether the question cannot be proven.
Con Round 1
I'm not sure that theories 'ever stop being theories.
Interestingly Con seems to take same approach of neither, as Pro.
"The Theory of Evolution is Correct, and Bible Creationism is Incorrect" dangerous title, puts proof on Pro.
Pro Round 2
My suggestion for a title would be,
Evolution, Pro. Creationism, Con,
As well as explicitly stating in the description, that the burden of proof to be shared,
Perhaps allowing ties in voting (I forget if this is possible).
Biblically correct, heh, that'd be a sneaky loophole,
Though there 'are Theists who believe in evolution, so you could still argue that evolution is Biblically correct.
Still, I think you're fine arguing that correct is speaking of what we conclude to have happened, regardless of Bible record or common interpretation of Bible record.
Well, evolution being 'proven, depends what one 'means by evolution, much as Creationism has various interpretations, so too evolution I'd argue.
Wikipidia Alternatives to Darwinian Evolution
Though I might be misreading this.
"neither side can be definitively proven right because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative" - Pro Round 1
I view more as initial thinking that debate title and description styles debate as choosing the stronger position. Eh still, push on.
Con Round 2
Eh, semantically correct maybe, but such reasoning does not allow the existence of 'any facts then.
Common understanding allow for facts as a word we use to accept as most likely true.
I have a theory I'm using a computer right now, I'm so confident I'll even call it a fact, though I admit I 'could be wrong, common usage allows me to call it a fact.
Con makes efforts against how theory is defined,
Still won't effect my voting, unless Pro gives in to Cons arguments in Round 3.
Arguing that accepted theories are not correct because they are technically theories does not sway me,
They might if this was a debate about it being good too allow slight doubt in all facts/theories/assumptions.
But this is a debate about Evolution being correct and Creationism not being correct.
Though I note Evolution and Creationism 'could both be correct, in some people's arguments outside of this debate.
Part 2/2
Pro Round 3
Well, it 'IS still a theory, it's just that ideas have multiple meanings,
And one of our ideas is giving higher status and different name/meaning to certain theories as we 'think them more correct at some given moment.
You 'are backpedaling a bit, but such happens to most everyone in life, we say something not quite as we might have meant, then clarify what we 'did mean.
I backpedal plenty in life.
If I mix a cake batter, and the oven changes the batter into a cake,
Did I not still make the cake?
Additionally if I forge a sword, and the warrior I give it to wraps cloth around the handguard, is it 'not still close enough to my original creation?
Pro makes arguments that the Bible is lacking, to hold it as prime source of all truths in the world.
But this is 'light addressment of part of the debate, remember the title.
Con Round 3
Con points out earlier words of Pro.
Hm, I hope there is a tie option in the vote.
Pro Round 4
It's still bacteria though, not bacteria evolved into humans.
Though it's possible I'm being stupid in my understanding of evolution agreed understandings.
I don't 'like people going against spirit of debate, and using loopholes (Usually),
But it's 'allowed.
Con Round 4
Makes use of Pro statements in Round 4 accepting difficulty in proving one side or another.
@NoOneInParticular
When I create a sand castle, is it necessary that I created the sand?
To say to someone I created the sand castle I mean,
I mean, maybe I 'did create the sand,
But one could argue creating the Earth, is speaking of it's current form, changed from another previous.
Well, probably not, my Biblical knowledge sucks.
P.S.
Hm, possibly I should have voted Con,
Third rereading made me note BOP again,
Ah well, too much effort, and it's not as though I voted Pro,
I voted Tie.
Interesting tactics...
“Yes words are very important. Be very careful and specific with them.”
*continues to completely misunderstand the definition and the difference between A Theory and A SCIENTIFIC Theory, AGAIN* LOL
Atomic theory is just a theory and somehow atomic bombs work, interesting isn’t it?
Electromagnetic theory is just a theory but we are able to communicate through phones and computers now right?
The GERm theory is just a theory too right? But somehow we know all about bacteria, germs, viruses and diseases?
Please google the definition of scientific theory and don’t assume scientists use the word “theory” in the same way regular people do. Scientific theory is not a mere guess. Its the highest possible title a scientific hypothesis can be lifted to.
thanks for the tip! I wrote the opening statement very quick and shoddy, so I'll try to make my next ones better.
“Neither me or you will be able to actually prove that our side is correct, seeing as we can't accurately measure evolution because of how slow it is”
You most definitely can prove evolution and not all evolution requires billions of years. You did start to get into that later on in your argument by saying vaccines evolve fast which is a contradiction of “we cant prove it bc its so slow” . You can and you did just prove that bacteria or viruses evolve much faster than animals which CAN be observed in a lab. It happens way faster because viruses reproduce extremely fast and are able to create multiple generations very quickly. You just need more details on that in my opinion and maybe a different less controversial example.