CreateDebate


Debate Info

328
218
Yes No
Debate Score:546
Arguments:187
Total Votes:707
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (119)
 
 No (44)

Debate Creator

SexyBanana(306) pic



Do you accept evolution?

Yes

Side Score: 328
VS.

No

Side Score: 218
8 points

Yes, next question!

Side: Yes
auyeungyat(72) Disputed
7 points

So,What do you mean in your unclaryfying argument 1 day ago????

Side: No
Cartman(18192) Disputed
6 points

I accept evolution, is that too hard to understand? What are you disputing?

Side: Yes
1 point

Hey! I saw this.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yeah, sorry man, had to do it.

Side: Yes
1 point

Why would anyone bother to down-vote this? Freakin' psychos on this site

Side: Yes
3 points

We have no alternative to it .

Side: Yes
Awesome1202 Disputed
4 points

We have the bible.....................................................................

Side: No
kaveri(319) Disputed
3 points

and I have all books about Harry Potter

Side: Yes
MuckaMcCaw(1968) Clarified
1 point

True. Kavari should have said "we have no viable alternative".

Side: Yes
Ronaldebater(2) Disputed
1 point

The bible talks about how you can heal a skin disease with a dead birds blood...

Side: Yes
auyeungyat(72) Disputed
1 point

But it (Evolution)isn't a fact;it had a lot of missing links!

Side: No
2 points

Many of the so-called 'missing links' have been found.

Consider, for a moment, that fossilization is generally the exception, rather than the rule. Most creatures that die are completely devoured by other organisms, even the bones eventually succumbing and turning to dust. Particular conditions must be present to preserve the structure of the bone long enough for fossilization to occur. These conditions are not found everywhere.

Not just that, but we've only searched a tiny portion of our world for fossils. From these, it is reasonable to infer that the majority of extinct species have not been discovered in fossil form yet.

Despite the facts that only a tiny fraction of dead organisms fossilize, and we've only looked for fossils in a tiny fraction of the earths crust, we've still managed to uncover enough fossils to demonstrate a clear progression, including most of the previously touted missing links.

The fossil record alone, as it stands, is already a very strong argument for evolution, and we haven't even touched on other supporting information, such as phylogenetics, or the fact that we've actually witnessed the genome of species changing in response to selective pressure in a lab.

Side: Yes
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

We still need an alternative.

Plus, what missing links are you even talking about?

Side: Yes
3 points

Only moron would pick Magic :D

Side: Yes

Evolution actually gives us a more understandable way of how everything was made. It actually explains to us and makes a lot of sense. Why do you think Humans look and act so much like other Primates, evolution tells us that. Why does Primates along with Marsupials have thumbs, Evolution gives us a clear answer to that. The bibble just tells us lies. It tell us how we're supposed to live our own lives. Plus Evolution was proven, and there's fossils to prove it. There's barely even any clues given in this "Bibble"!

Side: Yes
3 points

Evolution means getting better and go on beyond every day. Doesn't matter how the world began.

Side: Yes
3 points

It is simple.

We have evidence for it. Thus we are inclined to accept it.

The other side has no evidence. Their only tool is to ridicule Evolution or cite pseudoscience for that matter. Nothing short of idiocy and is simply unacceptable.

Good day.

Side: Yes
2 points

No reason not to. It's pretty much proven. We can't see it with our own eyes, like snow, or colors, but we can observe it's affect on generations of quicker aging species. A virus doesn't become airborne because God wanted it to kill more people, it evolves. A Bird with a short beak doesn't have children with long beaks because God decided not to punish the next generation making them starve, they do because of natural selection and evolution.

Side: Yes

Only a fool wouldn't with the evidence we have to back it up. It can't be proven 100% but it is the only logical explanation and it has evidence so it is the obvious thing to believe.

Side: Yes
Awesome1202 Disputed
6 points

The bible is a logical explanation.......................................

Side: No
kaveri(319) Disputed
3 points

The bible is a logical explanation Especially that part about human made from mud his wife from his rib ..followed by talking snake offering magical fruits... yeah fucktard.

Side: Yes

It was nice of you all to upvote me again after that trolling multi accounter downvoted me down into the negatives.

Side: Yes
2 points

Someone isn't playing fair.

Side: Yes
2 points

Someone fears the realization that they are wrong so much that they feel they will accomplish something by downvoting the winning arguments, and upvoting the losing ones. It's almost funny.

Side: Yes
4 points

Seems almost like a minor parallel to the Catholic churches suppression of science hundreds of years ago.

Side: Yes
2 points

How many alt accounts does it take to do this much down/up voting? WOW! Someone needs a life. Cough! Jc cough!

Side: Yes

Or Prod. Maybe JC is Prod. .

Side: Yes

You guys are missing the real point. Christianity is a young religion. It's only 2000 years old. There has been many religions before that. Different gods, different ways the world was made. Too many concepts and Gods.

Side: Yes
2 points

and here we have it again, mentally fucked creationist creates new accounts just to support their delusion...

Side: Yes
2 points

C.mon people it is like asking "Do you accept gravity?" or "Do you accept oxygen"?

Side: Yes

Of course

Side: Yes
Awesome1202 Disputed
6 points

Read genesis again...................................................................

Side: No

It was proven. There's a lot of evidence proving that Evoution is fact. Simple Evolution is in Nature when a Tadpole Evolves into a frog. Also compare Humans To Chimps.

Side: Yes
Awesome1202 Disputed
5 points

I've got a question for you..... If evolution is true and we evolved from apes why are there still apes?

Side: No
kaveri(319) Disputed
2 points

If American came from British, why we still have British ?

Side: Yes
GuitarGuy(6096) Disputed
2 points

We didn't come from apes. We just share a common ancestor. Apes went one way and we went the other.

Side: Yes
Ronaldebater(2) Disputed
1 point

your an idiot...

we have a common ancestor the same as dogs with wolves.

Side: Yes
-2 points

There's too much of evidence of the Big Bang. Plus evolution was actually proven.

Side: Yes
3 points

There's too much of evidence of the Big Bang.

So what? That doesn't have to do with evolution. Note: I have to do this to you because I have done it to all the Theists.

Plus evolution was actually proven.

Not exactly, but about as close as can be.

Side: Yes
1 point

There is clear evidence of progression of living things, all animals, plants, fungi and bacteria. Irrefutable evidence of this is the growing problem of pathogenic diseases that can be treated by antibiotics becoming resistant to antibiotics. How are they becoming resistant? EVOLUTION. There is no other plausible explanation. The one evidence that seems to contradict this is the bible. However, the bible refers to times 8,000 years before the earliest dated piece of inscribed writing. If it wasn't a work of fiction, it was a giant game of Chinese whispers. This is incredibly weak evidence and cannot be supported by any solid proof. Therefore, evolution is true.

Side: Yes
1 point

Of course: it is backed by scientific evidence, and many decades of research.

Side: Yes
1 point

You don't have to except evolution, it will happen weather you like it or not, the fact is you have a chance to except evolution.

Side: Yes
1 point

I accept evolution, but I believe that God created this thing we call life and creationism. I do not believe that we came from plant-like animals with no eyes or sense of smell, but I do believe that some things have changed a little bit since creation.

Side: Yes
1 point

yes i really accept the evolution. Because as we take our own life we cant born suddenly as a grown up individual, it would take a gradual time to transfer us from a child to a adult. in mean time we undergo many changes in our body as compared to before. So in the mean while evolution also occurred with out that we cant improve like as today. In other way there is direct proof was given in the Hindu literature like

BHAGAVADGITA, MAHABHARATA, and BHAGAVATAM

Side: Yes

I accept evolution as a theory only. I am still waiting for Science to prove it.

Side: Yes
Cuaroc(8840) Clarified
1 point

You do know what a theory in science means right?

Side: Yes
10 points

No. Evolution gave me a 3 inch penis. And yes, that's with an erection.

Side: No
10 points

The Bible(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So,it means that the Bible doesn't suppport the evolution theory.

Side: No
GuitarGuy(6096) Disputed
5 points

How is that proof that the Bible doesn't support evolution?

Side: Yes
A_Christian(6) Disputed
8 points

How is that proof that the Bible doesn't support evolution?

Read it.....

Side: No
L0gical(12) Disputed
2 points

Man created from mud? Women from his rib ?Does that feel like Evolution ? :d

Side: Yes
SexyBanana(306) Disputed
2 points

The Bible also doesn't support the earth being a sphere or revolving around the sun, what is your point?

Side: Yes
auyeungyat(72) Clarified
1 point

If you talks round the Bible,take a closer look of it and it had said the earth being a sphere and revolving around the sun in Psalm(I remember it is...)

Side: Yes
kaveri(319) Disputed
2 points

Yes, bible does not supports Evolution but it supports flat Earth, genocide, slavery, talking animals....

Side: Yes
GuitarGuy(6096) Clarified
2 points

The Bible also uses metaphors and includes talking animals as symbols (by the way, the serpent didn't become a snake until after he was punished), similar to that of Aesop's fables. People just interpret that stuff literally, so now we have delusional Christians, and delusional atheists who think they are making the Christians look stupid, even though they too have misinterpreted the Bible.

It's the blind making fun of the blind for their blindness.

Side: Yes
SexyBanana(306) Disputed
1 point

How does that disprove evolution, because a book says so?

Side: Yes
kaveri(319) Disputed
0 points

Bible also refutes logic and common sense ...but enjoy :D

Side: Yes
9 points

THE BIG BANG THEORY:

Theorizes that a large quantity of NOTHINGNESS decided to pack tightly together, ----and EXPLODE outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless ", so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons.

According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness condensed by gravity into a single, tiny spot; and it decided to explode! This produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which flowed outward at incredible speed throughout empty space; for there was no other matter in the universe.

As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at supersonic speed, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atomic structures of mutually orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms.

Gradually, the outward-racing atoms are said to have begun circling one another, producing gas clouds which then pushed together into stars. These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of the stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements. Gamow describe it like this "In violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density of 10 94 gm/cm2 and a temperature in exess of 10/39 degrees absolute. (That is a lot of heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness, especially when it is impossible for nothing to get hot).

This theory stands in clear violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense. Here are a number of scientific reasons why the BIG BANG THEORY is unworkable and fallacious.

1. Nothingness can not pack together

2. a Vacuum has no density

3. There would be no ignition to explode nothingness

4. How do you expand what isn't there.

5. Nothingness cannot produce heat

6. The anti-matter would have destroyed all the regular matter.

Now lets look at the outward pushing particles

1. There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, tehy would keep getting farther apart.

2. Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles.

3. The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. They could not get together and begin circling one another.

4. No way to change the direction of even one particle

Now look at the gases (lets imagine the particles could get together)

1. Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated

2. Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together

Look at "Push themselves into stars"

1. Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together

2. Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars

3. There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently know expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars.

4. Gas clouds in outer space to not contract.

We could go on and on.

This information came from "The evolution handbook" by Vance Ferrell

this book has over 3,000 facts which annihilate evolutionary theory

Side: No
trumpet_guy(502) Disputed
7 points

1. The singularity was not nothing.

2. The singularity was all of the universe, there was no vacumm because there was no space for matter to be absence in.

3. The big bang is not an explosion, so no "ignition" needed

4. It wasn't nothing...really research the singularitty

5. Nothingness did not produce heat. The universe expanded in an initial release of pure energy and was light.

6. I'm not even addressing this point due to this topic going over your head.

The rest are ignorant ramblings with an elementary understanding of physics (Newtonian or otherwise) and so is Vance's book.

I'm guessing you're a Christian? Guess what, so am I but you should look up some old-creationism articles.

Side: Yes
Anthonyhook(178) Disputed
12 points

one question no one has ever answered for me. NO ONE.

Where did the very first thing (what ever you want to call it) come from.

Evolutionist have no problem saying we do not know, or it just always was. But when I say the very same thing about God, they think I am crazy.

It takes more faith to believe "it just happened" than God did it.

In both arguments, something had to have either just appeared or always been.

Side: No
5 points

I always thought that you are just another braindead religious drone. I would expect you to simply support that retard rambling about BBT in Evolution topic...

Just wow :D

just the (5) during the initial expansion was no light present. Universe was not transparent for about 300 000 year

Side: Yes
ICANTSPELL12(5) Disputed
2 points

No please explain point 6, it might not go over the rest of every other persons head .

Side: No
SexyBanana(306) Disputed
1 point

Learn science before you look dumb talking about it.......................................

Side: No
Elvira(3445) Disputed
5 points

What does any of this have do do with the origin and diversity of species of living creatures?

Side: Yes
Hitler(2364) Disputed
2 points

If the Big Bang is wrong, all of science is wrong and religion is right... Like seriously, are you dumb or something?

Side: No
J-Roc77(70) Disputed
5 points

Err....that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. A quick google may set you straight but guessing from your knee jerk reaction I can guess you do not believe in evolution.

Side: Yes
Anthonyhook(178) Clarified
7 points

you are correct I stopped believing in fairy tales when I was around 4 or 5

Side: Yes
kaveri(319) Disputed
4 points

Dear Retard, this topic is about Evolution that has nothing to do with cosmology.

Side: Yes
Anthonyhook(178) Disputed
10 points

Dear Idiot, in your theory the big bang had to happen before the evolution started. Or it would not have any where to start.

Any way where did the very first living thing come from? Did it just appear from nothing? Or, did it just always exist?

Don 't be a hypocrite and say either one. Evolutionist laugh at us when we say it about God, but you think it is Okay to believe it about your THEORY.

By the way I typed REAAAAAAL sloooooow so you could comprehend.

Side: No
3 points

SO STUPID, RIGHT?!

LIKE 'BANG' AND MAGIC OMG! SO FAKE!

Side: No
Edir Disputed
3 points

Like there's no magic in the bible?

OK, make a man out of mud, then decide it's too sloppy, make a working man out of wood, and make a woman out of his (wooden) rib without using magic then post me pics, ok?

Please don't point holes in the opposition when your argument has the same holes.

Even if we were originally made from wood, which we were not, we are clearly not now. The only way the transformation could have taken place is by evolution!

Side: Yes
SexyBanana(306) Disputed
3 points

Did you copy and paste those fallacies or did you type that all yourself?

Side: Yes
SexyBanana(306) Disputed
3 points

Did you copy and paste those fallacies or did you type that all yourself?

Side: Yes
DrawFour(2662) Disputed
2 points

Let me tell you why that's bullshit. You opened with:

"THE BIG BANG THEORY"

This debate however was about evolution. You're out.

Side: Yes
SexyBanana(306) Disputed
2 points

What does the big bang theory have to do with evolution. Also, learn what the big bang is before talking about it.

Side: Yes
QuestionMan(603) Disputed
1 point

THE BIG BANG THEORY:

Theorizes that a large quantity of NOTHINGNESS decided to pack tightly together, ----and EXPLODE outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless ", so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons.

According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness condensed by gravity into a single, tiny spot; and it decided to explode! This produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which flowed outward at incredible speed throughout empty space; for there was no other matter in the universe.

As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at supersonic speed, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atomic structures of mutually orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms.

Gradually, the outward-racing atoms are said to have begun circling one another, producing gas clouds which then pushed together into stars. These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of the stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements. Gamow describe it like this "In violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density of 10 94 gm/cm2 and a temperature in exess of 10/39 degrees absolute. (That is a lot of heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness, especially when it is impossible for nothing to get hot).

This theory stands in clear violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense. Here are a number of scientific reasons why the BIG BANG THEORY is unworkable and fallacious.

1. Nothingness can not pack together

2. a Vacuum has no density

3. There would be no ignition to explode nothingness

4. How do you expand what isn't there.

5. Nothingness cannot produce heat

6. The anti-matter would have destroyed all the regular matter.

Now lets look at the outward pushing particles

1. There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, tehy would keep getting farther apart.

2. Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles.

3. The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. They could not get together and begin circling one another.

4. No way to change the direction of even one particle

Now look at the gases (lets imagine the particles could get together)

1. Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated

2. Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together

Look at "Push themselves into stars"

1. Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together

2. Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars

3. There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently know expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars.

4. Gas clouds in outer space to not contract.

We could go on and on.

This information came from "The evolution handbook" by Vance Ferrell

this book has over 3,000 facts which annihilate evolutionary theory

This is about evolution not the big bang.

Side: Yes
MuckaMcCaw(1968) Disputed
1 point

Most of your statements are not taking gravity into account, not to mention the other forces.

Not that it matters though. You are in the wrong debate. Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

Side: Yes
Anthonyhook(178) Disputed
1 point

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

"This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception." {E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32. }

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

27.Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.

Side: No
9 points

The bible disproves the lie of evolution........................................

Side: No
kaveri(319) Disputed
4 points

same way as it proves talking snakes and flat Earth .

Side: Yes
Choose-life(32) Disputed
8 points

same way as it proves talking snakes and flat Earth .

The talking snake was Satan and the bible supports a round earth please see the book of Job

Side: No
Anthonyhook(178) Disputed
1 point

The Bible does not teach a flat earth.

Isaiah 40:22

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

Side: No
L0gical(12) Disputed
2 points

Also it proves that Earth is flat and snakes can talk :D

Side: Yes
zephyr20x6(2386) Disputed
2 points

How does the bible prove anything, if the bible itself is unproven?

Side: Yes
1 point

Can you prove that? .

Side: Yes
SexyBanana(306) Disputed
1 point

Is that before or after the talking snake and flat earth?

Side: Yes
9 points

No, I don't accept evolution.

Side: No

Not too much to be said eh Srom?

Side: No
8 points

Yeah.

Side: No
7 points

The bible disagrees with evolution so it's not true................................

Side: No
SexyBanana(306) Disputed
2 points

The bible also disagrees with the earth being a sphere..........................................

Side: Yes
kaveri(319) Disputed
1 point

It also says that Earth is flat ... so be aware of the edge ..you may fall over :D

Side: Yes
L0gical(12) Disputed
1 point

SO does Harry Potter .... so it is win-win :P Fuckyeah

Side: Yes
-1 points

You mean that Bullshit book that responsible for millions of deaths. You mean that book who brainwashes people and gives them wrong information. The bible is historically inaccurate.

The j in Latin was invented in the 1400's, while Jesus is 200 years old. How does that happen. In accurate. Even the great flood is a lie. So is Adam and Eve asshole.

Side: Yes
2 points

I think it's funny how you got downvoted for actually making sense.

Side: Yes
Anthonyhook(178) Disputed
1 point

You better do some checking. The bible has been proven to be more accurate than some history books. Archeology is also proving the bible to be true.

They have in the past few years even found chariots in the bottom of the Red Sea. As in Exodus. The Bible has things in it scientifically that science has only discovered in the past hundred years. It is way ahead of its time.

Almost the entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew during the thousand years of its composition. But a few chapters in the prophecies of Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah were written in a language called Aramaic. This language became very popular in the ancient world and actually displaced many other languages. Aramaic even became the common language spoken in Israel in Jesus' time, and it was likely the language He spoke day by day. Some Aramaic words were even used by the Gospel writers in the New Testament.

The New Testament, however, was written in Greek. This seems strange, since you might think it would be either Hebrew or Aramaic. However, Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD. The fact is that many Jews could not even read Hebrew anymore, and this disturbed the Jewish leaders a lot! So, around 300 BC a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek was undertaken, and it was completed around 200 BC. Gradually this Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, was widely accepted and was even used in many synagogues. It also became a wonderful missionary tool for the early Christians, for now the Greeks could read God's Word in their own tongue.

Side: No
3 points

We were created about 10,000 years ago by a super-intelligent father who fancied playing with reality for the lels and making a species in his 'image'. :)

Side: No
2 points

No, Humans came here 7 million years ago. Your Facts are wrong. Modern Humans appeared 400,000 years ago.

10,000 years ago would be when Civilitation was established.

Side: Yes
2 points

All petty insults aside. There's one fundamental area I have yet to hear from anyone; the distinction between micro and macro evolution theories. When someone asks me if I simply believe in evolution, my simple answer yes and no. Evolution happens all around us all the time. This would include our biological adaptation to the world around us, everything from immunizations, to physiological changes to adapt to our climates and our development as a species. However, if someone were to ask if I agreed with our biological relation with anything other than the human race, I would have to disincline to agree. There has been no concrete geological or biological evidence to support our development as a species from anything other than each other. This is not to say there are plenty of scientific theories. But in my observation, science says very little by itself, scientists say a lot. Now I admit I am not speaking as a geologist, biologist, anthropologist, or cosmologist. I'm simply speaking as one who has compared and contrasted arguments from both sides of the spectrum. My question is why does everyone think that God has nothing to do with science? If there was an intelligent designer, I would only logically assume fundamental laws to be interpreted by science would be a natural necessary part of that creation. Just to put it out there, the scientific method was actually developed by a theist. Just a thought.

Side: No
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

There has been no concrete geological or biological evidence to support our development as a species from anything other than each other.

You have stretched the word concrete to the limits in order to make this true.

My question is why does everyone think that God has nothing to do with science?

That's a good question, why don't Christians believe that God works through science? Evolution does not require that there be no God.

If there was an intelligent designer, I would only logically assume fundamental laws to be interpreted by science would be a natural necessary part of that creation.

You know what would be really intelligent? To work smart not hard. Instead of creating a special design for each animal, why not create a method where animals can become other animals over time.

Just to put it out there, the scientific method was actually developed by a theist. Just a thought.

The Theist you refer to is Galileo and he was abandoned by the Church. Plus, the techniques used in the scientific method are older than that.

Side: Yes
zephyr20x6(2386) Disputed
1 point

There's one fundamental area I have yet to hear from anyone; the distinction between micro and macro evolution theories.

Allow me, macro-evolution IS micro-evolution, but over a longer period of time.

There has been no concrete geological or biological evidence to support our development as a species from anything other than each other.

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html

http://www.prehistoricplanet.com/news/index.php?id=48

There is your evidence. Rocks form layers in a way, that the layers on top are more recent then the layers down below. So the deeper into the ground we find a fossil, the older it is, this allows us to line up all the fossils we have in a way that shows the time period that all the organisms existed, or lived.

My question is why does everyone think that God has nothing to do with science?

Because god can't be scientifically verified, the inquiry of god, can't be explored via science. However this means, science can't disprove, prove god's existence, which makes god utterly irrelevant to science.

If there was an intelligent designer, I would only logically assume fundamental laws to be interpreted by science would be a natural necessary part of that creation.

How do we know there is an intelligent designer?

Side: Yes
MuckaMcCaw(1968) Disputed
1 point

the distinction between micro and macro evolution theories.

That distinction is purely one of definition. Micro identifies evolution below the species level (which itself is a somewhat arbitrary definition since there is no one definition of "species" that works for all life.) Macro is anything indicating speciation or divergences at higher levels.

Its like the difference between walking one mile and 20 miles. The second takes longer and you will probably get a bigger change in scenery, but the process is the same, and if you can do one, you can do the other.

Unless you had some conditions that prevented you from walking such a distance of course. That is where we could delineate between the two; if there was a deficiency or mechanism that limited the amount of variety we could achieve over greater amounts of time. This has never been found.

Side: Yes

Evolution is wrong because I didnt adopt a gay kid. ` `

Side: No
1 point

IF evolution is right,there will be less and less species due to the extinction of the 'filtered out' ones in the Natural Selection.And the remaining species will be fighting for their flesh.The last species will fight themselves and when the fighting ended,one of the last species will die of hunger.

So,evolution=extinct.

Side: No
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

The theory that all living things will spread out and adapt to the environment leading to diversity does not say that all species will disappear. You have things backwards.

Side: Yes
1 point

Scientific method:

Formulation of a question

Hypothesis

Prediction

Testing

Analysis

Conclusion

Evolution misses part 3-6 so it isn't a matter-of-fact,it is a hypothesis only.

Supporting Evidence: Scientific method (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: No