CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Evolution is Not Science
To be a part of scientific inquiry, the subject of the inquiry must be observable, testable and repeatable. Yet, goo-to-the-zoo evolution is none of these things. Therefore, it is not science.
Evolution is a fact , the very few who seem to disagree are mostly Americans religious nuts their collectively spectacular stupidity leads them to sites like Answers in genesis as the leading authority for any “ information “ needed on Evolution thus their continued ignorance and confusion on such matters
I agree with both you, Dermot, and deepdiver, but I appreciate your eloquence over "deeps" raw truth. Not sure which (or either), will "penetrate" the owner of this "debate", (which isn't), .... likely neither. ;-)
the very few who seem to disagree are mostly Americans religious nuts who stupidity leads them to sites like Answers in genesis as the leading authority for any “ information “ needed on Evolution
Yup. Spot on.
I think in this case however, the debate is a troll.
You have to love how these losers cannot respond to reality and much vomit irrationalities. But in viewing their sociopathic posts, it is easy to see how they can turn into psychopathic mass murderers when given political power. ROFL.
When dealing with evolutionist scum, you have to remember that they say something is true on the sole evidence that they say it is true. This fool could not provide evidence of goo-to-the-zoo evolution if his life depended on it. It is why he ran from my Q about his silly moth example.
This is what logicians call the red herring, ad populum and ad hominem argument. I would ask this fool prove evolution is a fact, but I already know he cannot. Instead, I will ask him to deal with the OP. Of course, I know he cannot do that either. Cogitative dissonance has its downside.
You say.......This is what logicians call the red herring, ad populum and ad hominem ..........
But you are not qualified to say what logicians say as you’re an idiot , also it’s not an ad hominem to call you such as your posts cleary demonstrate your idiocy and to state evolution is fact is also a ......fact and not as you stupidly assume argument ad populum .
I will ask you as an American religious “ intellectual “ ( 😂😂😂 ) to present your counter theory that disproves evolution seeing as the theory is “nonsense “ you and your fellow American nut jobs must have one or perhaps two peer reviewed counters to what most people accept as fact ?
But of course we know you being a prize idiot cannot do that don’t we ?
Believing in virgin births , a zombie called Jesus and Balaam the talking ass ( no doubt a realation of yours ) has its downside
You're the stupid one....Government schools (public schools) promote evolution and atheism strongly while increasingly attacking Biblical beliefs and any student who holds those beliefs.
.......on your way to Hell. You can be saved but you won't, will you?
Public schools, government schools, turn out droves of big mouths like you and this site is full of them with an extra load of faggots which go hand in hand with atheists and evolutionists.
To disguise itself from its predators the light coloured peppered moth turned black during Britain's industrial revolution to match the soot covered trees and smoke blackened skies.
Now known as Darwin's moth, this species has reverted back to its original light colour as the smoking chimney stacks of heavy industry have all but disappeared from English landscape and the foliage and sky have returned to their natural tones.
Even though this is a classic example to living evolution it is nevertheless freakish, as evolutionary change is insidious and therefore difficult/impossible to observe the subtle changes which occur over millions of years.
So a moth evolved into a moth? ROFL. Yea, that proves you evolved from pond scum. ROFL Come on, you fools, get serious. Start with showing me in the field life evolving from non-life. Until then, shut up.
ROFL. This fool does not even know his own worldview. His worldview DEMANDS life evolve from non-life and yet he has ZERO evidence. Indeed, the laws of science say it CANNOT happen. But evolutionists hate science.
The easiest life form to view evolve are viruses, they mutate quite quickly as does all life, but if the basis of your acceptance of these laws is tied up in a desire to see one animal turn into another, you have a fundamental miscomprehension of evolutionary laws. A stable species slowly changes over time in reaction to all forces acting internally and externally or adapt which may change some small trait of an animal. These collective small changes turn out to be like a family tree, separating animals at points of convergence backwards in time. Simply put, you have evolved from primitive primate into modern primate, you do not evolve into a moth.
What evolutionary laws? Name them so that I can test them? And since you claim that we are all evolved pond scum, you will understand why I want to see some SCIENTIFIC evidence that we actually evolved from pond scum. Yet, you have none. Just supposition, like your post.
Hey, evolutionist fools, notice this dude admitted that goo-to-the-zoo evolution is NOT observable, which means it is NOT science. Thank you for playing.
BTW, automaton, the moth did not change colors. The darker and lighter ones always existed. The darker ones tended to be eaten because they were easily spotted by pray. Then when the in industrial revolution came around and pollution settled on the trees, the lighter ones were picked off. Now that the environment is cleaner, the lighters ones are making a comeback. This myth has been disproved over and ever, but stupid evolutions are too brainwashed to think.
Hey, moron, I am not interest in your meaningless, irrational declarations. Prove your claim by showing us the laws that govern goo-to-the-zoo evolution or shut up. Atheists are dumb as a box of rocks.
Hey shit-hawk, it would be a totally futile exercise trying to prove anything to a brainless, close minded piece of neanderthal filth such as you.
I bet in real life you're an insignificant, cowering, pimply little turd who is ignored by all and sundry so you use the anonymity of the internet to spew out your eye-wateringly stupid bullshit.
You're a prime example of how this site attracts the cyber heroes and misfits with MAD DOG'S SHIT FOR BRAINS.
YOU SHOULD ISSUE A FORMAL APOLOGY TO ALL OTHER CREATE DEBATE PARTICIPANTS FOR CONTAMINATING THIS SITE WITH YOUR CYBER DIARRHEA
You can either believe that life evolved, or that sentient life forms magically popped out of the ethereal planes of the astral realm. Because if you believe in creationism, You believe that the first thing that ever existed was a fully developed sentient being.
This is what logicians call the fallacy of the false dilemma fallacy, where the arguer tries to force his listen to chosen between false alternatives, and the red herring fallacy, which the arguer tries to divert the attention away from the topic at hand rather than address it. And I will not even mention the Biblical illiteracy.
No, I choose to believe that God create the universe ex neilo, with the heavens and the earth being His first creation. Why? He says so.
You are a lopsided scrotal wart Viceregent. Christianity is responsible for countless wars, the war on science, the destruction of historical artifacts and entire cultures, it promotes the idea that it's mans purpose to destroy the environment and overpopulate. I hope a monkey shits on your face and an elephant rapes you.
Hey, moron, don't try to change the subject. It is irrational. And the irrationality of the evolutions is almost as funny as their arrogance in thinking they are wise.
Evolution is observable: see the intergenerational divergence of bacteria; and the development of sickle cell as an immune response to malaria in high-risk regions. I'm sure there are other observations within our life-times.
Evolution is testable in many ways. Ignorance of this is not proof of its absence.
Evolution repeats all the time, in every study of the fossil record; every piecing together of the divergence of species.
I love this. These fools say evolution is science because it is and if you do not believe them you are "ignorant" Well, that is hard to argue with. ROFL
There problem with all of these evolutionist fools is that they have been programmed, not educated. They have no idea what to do with contrary data or how to defend their views. They have been taught to be emotive, not intelligent. Is shows.
I was born in 1980 and was never once taught evolution in school, I had to go to the book store and pick up books and read them, then read opposing viewpoints to work out a most probable position and then decide if I thought that viewpoint had enough validity to become a truth that existed in my head, regardless of what I was taught. I’m just gonna guess and say you’ve never done this and instead argue like a 12 year old. I am being extremely amenable in this conversation so far, and without reciprocation because I actually care what may be true.
Unlike you, you presumptuous, arrogant, ignorant fool, I am a credential scientist. Imagine, for all that "study", you still cannot answer my Q and are compelled to irrationally change the subject to try to hide your ignorance.
You have to love the arrogance and mental illness of these atheist fools. This loser knows nothing about me, but that does not stop him from offering his worthless and deluded claims. Get off my thread, skid mark.
Your response certainly explains how and why evolution isn’t science, as it delves deep into the subject of what I learned in grade 9, which as everyone knows is when you receive all pertinent data related to evolutionary theory, and when you make up your mind in permanence about the nature of the universe.
Assume I do not put my faith in the same websites you do. Prove me the procedures by which I can observe, test and repeat goo-to-the-zoo evolution in the lab. If you cannot, it is NOT science. You people need to learn science, and no, a Google search is not science.
In other words, this fool has no idea how science works or how evolution fits into it and when you take away his man-centered oracles that he puts his blind faith in, he has nothing intelligent to say. What a loser.
Nice red herring, pond scum. Let me know when you have something other than a mindless, irrational, straw man cliché to share, or be banned. Your choice.
Let me guess, you have zero scientific credentials?
I want you to describe for me the laws of science that govern life evolving from non-life so that I may test them in my lab by applying them over and over to create life. If you cannot provide them, not only do not hold you view on scientific grounds, but you are full of crap.
No, state the laws that government process by which goo evolved into the zoo. I will then test them in the lab to see if I can be the first human being even to observe goo turning into something alive.
Life first came to be as molecular bonds reacted with the energy that’s created by the moon spinning around the earth. The moon is a large prime mover that creates electron movement in the particles in and around earth. These bonds inevitably created a simple “computer program” a quadrilateral instead of binary launguge used for simple line by line coding using a neat little encoding process based on the mandelbrock equations. A simple law of mathematics that is exploited by simple life over and over again until over millions of years, this computing language was able to trap small molecular machines inside of cells with protective outer coatings. At this point life can be thought of as purely reactive and dependant on external variables, with an outcome as predictable as any, life will use up resources until depleted without thought or intention, necessitating a change, which will either present itself and allow the furthering of that creatures lineage or won’t present itself in which case the creature becomes extinct. You see, life is a chain of incidents that are dependant on the incidents behind it happening, and it is likely that all life transpired in a manner quite similar to the way it has here on Earth.
ROFL. Now the moon did it. So show me your scientific paper where you document the moon creating a "computer program"? And show me simple life exploiting math. ROFL You people are mentally ill.
All supposition is first devised inside a brain, a small but efficient waveform calculator and hologram generator. Inside a brain ideas can be put together with loose associations to form a working model of reality. It is traditionally a very inaccurate form of coming to a conclusion because it rests on logic that may be faulty.
This theory is mine alone and rests on logical associations of facts I know to be true. If I program my personal hologram generator to only recognize things that conform to a reality that is taught at me, I couldn’t come up with new ideas or theories, all I could do is regurgitate meaningless drivel, which Is like a computer stuck in loop, the program needs to shut down and reset with improved parameter distinction. You may want to read books with opposing views to see which has more validity, just as a way to prove all us dirty evolutionists wrong.
"We show that precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids can all be derived by the reductive homologation of hydrogen cyanide and some of its derivatives, and thus that all the cellular subsystems could have arisen simultaneously through common chemistry."
Inorganic compounds to "22 amino acids, 5 amines" etc.
Miller Urey experiment
observable, testable, repeatable
"We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, cytosine, and thymine, all three components of RNA and DNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space"
The results demonstrate that the initial dissociation of the formamide molecule could produce a large amount of highly reactive CN and NH radicals, which could further react with formamide to produce adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil."
We don't currently know which of the myriad paths from non-life to life occurred for the early earth. This is not an argument that it did not or can not occur.
As I said, he cannot show us even one example of life evolving from non-living things, yet his worldview demands this. This means his worldview is not scientific.
This is not evolution. Are the bacteria turning into a different species? Nope. They are just adapting to the environment that they are placed in. It's not just bacteria that does this...Humans also do this...When the first explorers arrived in the new world, they contracted different diseases that their immune system had not encountered, thus they could not fight it...But over time, the newer generations gained an immunity to the "New" diseases. Did we change as a species? Nope.
Yes it is. The reason you do not think so is that you believe there is a distinction between microevolution and larger scale evolution - there isn't. Smaller changes over time add up to larger changes.
Are the bacteria turning into a different species?
This is generally the argument until we observe speciation (ref, ref, + wolves to dogs, etc., etc.)
Then it morphs to an (undefined and unscientific) argument of 'kind's - for which we present transitional fossils, etc., etc.
There is evidence for evolution at every level.
Here is a debate you can use if you want to dispute a change of kinds.
He doesn’t understand what a virus fundamentally is and that we could be the product of a line of viruses that existed when there was only simplistic life like viruses and that the fact it is still going on today is one of biggest proofs for evolutionary law.
A human can't count to a billion in their lifetime, so how would you prove that counting by 1 (1 + 1 = 2 + 1 = 3 + 1 = 4, etc.) will eventually result in 1 billion?
At all observable levels, it is observed, and there is evidence that the trend continues beyond the observable scale, and there is no evidence of obstacles on larger scales - the same is true for evolution.
Observation of the constituent parts (mutation, heredity, selection) in the lab and through multi-decadal breeding experiments.
e.g. In less than 20 generations, foxes changed to have floppy ears, curly tails, piebald coats, shorter muzzles, rounded skulls, higher seratonin, lower corticosteroid levels, and exhibited barking. ref
Beyond the observable level, there are other lines of evidence that the same process occurred throughout the past:
I am thinking of an animal - can you guess which one?
It eats,
breathes,
moves,
poops,
has sex,
sleeps,
produces red and white blood cells,
and can feel fear and pain
It has:
a bilaterally symmetrical body
a head, torso, and appendages
a brain with a memory
eyes that see in color
ears
taste glands
sense of smell
sense of touch
spinal chord
vertebrae
ribs
jaw
teeth
esophagus
stomach
intestines
gonads (testes/ovaries)
kidney
bladder
spleen
liver
pancreas
four chambered heart
skin
well... ?
Hint: you can even sometimes find them in a school...
It's a fish.
Whenever people start rambling about how major changes can't happen, I wonder if they realize that major changes don't/haven't... Just lots of little changes over lots of time.
Hey everyone - I have no model, no science, and no rebuttal for anything you post, but your process of hypothesis, experimentation, observation is definitely not science...
Let me start off with the meaning of Science. It's Latin for "Knowledge". Do we have knowledge of species becoming entirely different species? Nope. You might say "Oh, well what about darwins finches?" Yea....Have you ever heard of adaptation? It is the ability of a species to adapt to its environment. Does it turn into a DIFFERENT species? Nope. You might say "Oh, well it takes millions of years of adaption, random mutations, natural selection, along with isolation of different groups over time to eventually create a new species." Firstly, going back to my main point, have you observed this? Nope. Thus, is it science? Nope.
An animal turns into a different species as soon as two lines of the same animal diverge enough that they are unable to create offspring if mated. And it has been proven and observed many times, you need to read from books that aren’t approved by your mommy first.
Each point I made can be individually researched and disproved, your unwillingness to do so proves your mind is already made up, and no amount of logical reason could make you turn from your brainwashed account of reality. It’s taken me 25 years to accumulate the knowledge that gives me my working theory, where is yours?
I am not asking you to tell me what to do, but to provide the laws of evolution so that I can test them and observe evolution in action. Your deflection not only confirms you are irrational, but believe in fairy tales. Put up or shut up, you ignorant fool.
To view the effect of evolution, one has to OBSERVE evolution taking place is your brilliant arguement. Everybody accepts that evolution takes millions of years and countless bodies of biologically stagnant materiel to happen. How would you propose I go about observing something that takes millions of years, since you have so tidily done away with the relevance of all related data except what you can view in your short pointless life.
It seems to me you have opinions and attitudes forged in the pursuit of attempting to pry people from their opinions based on knowledge and fact. No matter how stringently you hold to your beliefs, it does not make them any more or less testable. I prefer to listen to scientists who have spent years digesting facts on the subject, not authoritative groups that don’t require any further clarification because they have made up their mind based on ‘holy’ books. Such power knowledge is, that it allows humans to negate the laws of evolution and exist despite our inability to defend ourselves against earthly organisms with specialized murderous intent.
Are you wankers still debating this white? Its been almost a year since I been here and I see the braindead Godists still blathering about how science is not science but their holy book which has zero science is the truth. Anyone who thinks that in this day and age with all of our discoveries and technology is bloody hopeless. Deluded beyond help. They need to go all bugger off to the same island and live together and sing Kumbaya and get in one big circle jerk.
To view the effect of evolution, one has to OBSERVE evolution taking place is your brilliant arguement. Everybody accepts that evolution takes millions of years and countless bodies of biologically stagnant materiel to happen. How would you propose I go about observing something that takes millions of years, since you have so tidily done away with the relevance of all related data except what you can view in your short pointless life.
No, crap stain, my argument is that evolution is not science because it is not observable, testable and repeatable. Can you not read? Since you agree with me, debate over.
Hypothesis: if evolution, the geologic column, etc. are true, then we might be able to find a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapod in rocks of the right age.
Why would fish have to turn into a land dwelling animal, which has happened by the way, why couldn’t a completely different organism slowly evolve around the fish which had a newer, transitional type body, more suited to eventually gain the traits of a land animal.
The hypothesis would have been based largely on comparative morphology and known fossils.
Fish and tetrapod shared: a bilaterally symmetrical body, a head, a torso, appendages with similar attachment sites, spinal chord, vertebrae, tail, eyes, jaw, teeth, ribs, etc.
That a separate lineage which either rarely fossilized or fossilized only in areas that had not yet been discovered could evolve all of that without being related to fish would have been an exceedingly negligible case.
Evolution is proofed by archaeology. The scientific part is when you extend your mind out 50 million years in the past, and view fossils for their place in the puzzle. Fully observable changes in the way Precambrian life dealt with its environment has been frozen in time by fossils and is on display in museums across North America.
You can go and view these for yourself and then start to look at other layers of fossils in those areas and a story starts to present itself. The truth a scientist is searching for is never in a book, that’s where you start, but you have to get out into the field.
I have trouble reading can you provide a youtube video..................................................................................................................
Is that right? Putting aside the double-hearsay nature of your claim, please tell me what kind of creature evolved into another kind of creature? And then tell me when you observed non-life evolving into life. Thanks.
Ninety nine percent of professional biologists seem to think so. Why would I ignore them all and listen to an unqualified, ignorant religious nutbag on the internet who has probably been sniffing his own homemade methamphetamine all morning?
Putting aside the double-hearsay nature of your claim
Describing recorded history as "hearsay" is about the level of spectacular stupidity one can expect from you, FactMachine.
please tell me what kind of creature evolved into another kind of creature
Yeah, obviously you're stupid as fuck. If we compare the creatures living on the Earth a million years ago with the creatures living on it today, they are almost all completely different. Hence, either life evolved or someone came down and physically swapped all the creatures with different ones, you dopey Russian shill.
The cool thing about being a mindless evolutionist is that when reality fails you, your delusions can kick in to give you something to say. Putting aside the delusion and ad populum fallacy, the red herring fallacy, the and general ignorance and the foul mouth, can you answer my Q? Of course you cannot. For all you make-believing intelligence, you are nothing but a mindless drone.
He did answer your question. If the creatures that existed millions of years ago are clearly different than the ones we see today, how did the ones that are here today, get here?
"Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law."
"It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations."
Another theological arguement trying to refute claims. Laws are what comes out of a proven theory. Sometimes I think people are slowly unlearning everything.
"An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain."
"Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does."
"The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations."
The ‘theory’ of gravitational ‘action at a distance’ is the principle law that the theory is attempting to explain. Seriously, if you were born in 1752, I’m positive you’d be the one screaming that witches stole your soul while you slept.
You think I don’t know what the laws of evolution are, do you know the difference between natural and sexual selection?
Or the group-in/group-out law of dominance and learned behaviour?
No, evolution is your silly claim that what was once pond scum has no evolved in the vastness of life we see today. Surely you do not deny this?
And I did not ask for a definition, but the laws that govern this "natural selection" and how you came up with them (other than reliance on you faith in those who agree with you)?
evolution is your silly claim that what was once pond scum has no evolved in the vastness of life we see today. Surely you do not deny this?
Abiogenesis - origin of life from non-life
fact of evolution - changing allele prevalence in gene pool
theory of evolution - heritable mutations and selection pressures result in shifting phenotype frequencies over time, and that this process can explain the diversity of both extinct and extant life.
if a moth has an allele of a gene that results in light coloring, and another moth has a different allele of that gene that results in dark coloring.
In a light environment, the lighter moth will blend in, not get eaten by birds, and live on to have progeny with that allele - alleles for light coloring will become more prevalent than the allele for dark.
In a dark environment, the darker moth will blend in, not get eaten by birds, and live on to have progeny with that allele - alleles for dark coloring will become more prevalent than the allele for light.
Still not laws of natural selection. Well, we have seen this guy at his best and he still has not shows us any observable evidence that he evolved from pond scum. Moving on.
Evolution is proven and witnessed ever single day. It has passed with flying co!ors every test that has ever been thrown at it. There are zero processional biologists ir anthropologists who deny it.
It is mind numbingly absurd and sad that anyone in this age of information and knowledge be so deluded as you and your ilk to believe the words and dogma of Bronze Age Hebrew Mythology over that of modern science.
Evo!ution is proven daily And has been for decades now. Do you really think that all those tens of thousands of professional scientists are wrong? And that a Bronze Age compendium of Hebrew Mythology is right? Are you really that far gone? That spun? Indoctrinated that harshly as a kid? Its a shame what some parents do to their kids. Child abuse, I say.
Nope. There is no evolution. NO ONE has proven that one species can evolve into another. There is nothing you can do to change my mind. Keep your atheism off of mne.