CreateDebate


Debate Info

125
184
theory fact
Debate Score:309
Arguments:131
Total Votes:377
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 theory (59)
 
 fact (71)

Debate Creator

Spadedude(227) pic



Evolution - is it a theory or a fact?

theory

Side Score: 125
VS.

fact

Side Score: 184
8 points

Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection.

When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.

Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.

Side: Both
5 points

Perfect answer. It diminishes the extreme view on both sides by pointing out "yes, evolution is true, but is not 100% proven yet".

Side: theory
5 points

First of all I don't see how anyone can say its a fact because even evolutionists say it is a theory since it hasn't been proven. Second, as the guy before me said you have to make a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro evolution can be called a fact because it has been observed in actual experiments. However this doesn't mean that macro-evolution is a fact. It would make perfect sense for a creator to design life so that it can adapt to its environment and not die off at the first sign of change.

Since the burden of proof is on those people that say it is a fact or even a good theory please provide me with evidence. What do you have?

I will go over some of the "proofs" that are often brought up:

1. Many species share a lot of genetic code and have similar body plans. This seems like it would support evolution but really cars are designed and we use the same basic design for all cars so this piece of evidence supports both intelligent design and evolution. There is no reason why a creator wouldn't use the same design multiple times.

2. We have observed development of immunity in bacteria and viruses. This is actually micro evolution. It's not like a new species of bacteria arose. Scientists have actually grown large cultures of bacteria and viruses in labs trying to get them to evolve new traits (new protein protein interactions) but all they got are minor changes and often these changes make the organism worse (loss of an ability or other for the sake of short term gain). We have never observed examples of macroevolution in a lab even with viruses that have a huge mutation rate and population. Read about his in the "Edge of Evolution" by Behe.

3. A sidenote: There are calculations that have been done by scientists (including in the book by Behe) where it is shown that it is extremely improbable for life to arise from non life but also for species to evolve into others. Actual evolutionist scientists are looking for new ways to explain these improbabilities by abandoing the idea that life arose by pure chance. They are coming up with new theories that suggest ideas such as that amino acids have a certain attraction that makes them want to arrange themselves in a certain order etc.

4. Transitional Fossils: Few of these have been found and often not even evolutionists agree on the evolution of that transitional form and its environment. I watched a lot of documentaries about these and have observed that really we can't know very much about that long ago and there are constantly new theories and stories that are invented to explain these fossils. They almost never even find a large part of the skeleton of that animal. They find a tiny bit and infer the rest using various suspicious methods. Also evolutionary theory fails to explain how instead of a tree of species you get a grass field during the Cambrian explosion where in a relatively short period of time tons of new body plans arise.

What everyday people need to understand is that the evolutionary theory is very incomplete and has many many serious problems. The only reasons it is accepted is because it is the only theory other than intelligent design that explains life and a lot of scientists simply don't want to accept a creator no matter what.

Side: theory
zombee(1024) Disputed
3 points

First of all I don't see how anyone can say its a fact because even evolutionists say it is a theory since it hasn't been proven.

The fact that objects fall when you drop them is part of gravitational theory. The fact that the earth moves around the sun is heliocentric theory. The fact that allele frequencies vary by generation is a part of evolutionary theory. Before you speak dismissively of theories, learn what theory means in a scientific context, and why no theory, even one that is infinitely evidence, can be proven.

Second, as the guy before me said you have to make a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro evolution can be called a fact because it has been observed in actual experiments. However this doesn't mean that macro-evolution is a fact.

Macro-evolution is simply the accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes over a vast length of time.

1. Many species share a lot of genetic code and have similar body plans. This seems like it would support evolution but really cars are designed and we use the same basic design for all cars so this piece of evidence supports both intelligent design and evolution. There is no reason why a creator wouldn't use the same design multiple times.

So, in other words, it might look like evidence for evolution...but God could have done it!

If something cannot be tested scientifically, it is not part of science. Saying 'God did it' in response to everything is untestable and it has no place in a scientific debate.

2. We have observed development of immunity in bacteria and viruses. This is actually micro evolution. It's not like a new species of bacteria arose. Scientists have actually grown large cultures of bacteria and viruses in labs trying to get them to evolve new traits (new protein protein interactions) but all they got are minor changes and often these changes make the organism worse (loss of an ability or other for the sake of short term gain). We have never observed examples of macroevolution in a lab even with viruses that have a huge mutation rate and population. Read about his in the "Edge of Evolution" by Behe.

1. This and this take care of your claim that speciation has never been observed.

2. Speciation takes a massive amount of time and it is no surprise it has rarely (not never) been observed. I have confidence that, as we go, we will continue to well-documented examples of macroevolution.

3. Surprise surprise, the poster boy of intelligent design and pioneer of the annoying irreducible complexity argument. I'll pass on the book for now, but in the meantime, here's a deconstruction of the irreducible complexity argument. I'd be happy to address any other specific claims you'd like to cite from his book.

3. A sidenote: There are calculations that have been done by scientists (including in the book by Behe) where it is shown that it is extremely improbable for life to arise from non life but also for species to evolve into others. Actual evolutionist scientists are looking for new ways to explain these improbabilities by abandoing the idea that life arose by pure chance. They are coming up with new theories that suggest ideas such as that amino acids have a certain attraction that makes them want to arrange themselves in a certain order etc.

The origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory nor does evolutionary theory claim that evolution is purely a result of chance. While your arguments are more complete and complex than some of the other sorry examples in this thread, it seems you still have, at best, a tenuous grasp of what evolution actually posits. Either that or you are constructing a deliberate strawman.

Furthermore, improbability does not equal impossibility. In fact, given the huge amount of time encompassed in the history of life, there is an element of inevitability to even the smallest of chances: given the billions of organisms that have lived on earth in the billions of years since life began, it would be absurd to assume that some of them participated in incredibly unlikely and significant events. The fact that you are alive is an amazingly improbable, even if you only consider the minute chance of the particular sperm that carried half your DNA being the one to successfully fuse with the egg that carried the other half. And yet, here you are, arguing a theory you do not understand.

Side: Fact
2 points

I somehow missed the rest of your post. My mistake. I would also like to amend a typing error:

"..it would be absurd to assume that some of them participated in incredibly unlikely and significant events..." should be: "it would be absurd to assume that none of them participated in incredibly unlikely and significant events."

4. Transitional Fossils: Few of these have been found and often not even evolutionists agree on the evolution of that transitional form and its environment. I watched a lot of documentaries about these and have observed that really we can't know very much about that long ago and there are constantly new theories and stories that are invented to explain these fossils. They almost never even find a large part of the skeleton of that animal. They find a tiny bit and infer the rest using various suspicious methods. Also evolutionary theory fails to explain how instead of a tree of species you get a grass field during the Cambrian explosion where in a relatively short period of time tons of new body plans arise.

Not sure who told you 'few' transitional fossils exist, what 'few' means to you, and how you can still deny evolution even in the face of the existence of a 'few' transitional fossils.

Yes, scientists disagree about the finer points of evolution, such as who descended from who and when. This is in no way evidence against evolution itself.

Please elaborate on these 'suspicious' methods of inference.

If you had actually searched for an explanation of the 'Cambrian explosion' you would have found that, although there not really a consensus yet, we are well aware of several factors that probably contributed to a dearth of precambrian fossils. Precambrian life was mostly lacking in 'hard parts' like shells and exoskeletons, and soft tissue does not fossilize well. Additionally, until the Cambrian era, it is quite possible than the cold, low-oxygen environment hindered evolution.

On a side note, even if these theories are insufficient to you, or even if they turn out to be incorrect, I am baffled as to how you can be aware of the Cambrian explosion and not see it as evidence for evolution.

What everyday people need to understand is that the evolutionary theory is very incomplete and has many many serious problems. The only reasons it is accepted is because it is the only theory other than intelligent design that explains life and a lot of scientists simply don't want to accept a creator no matter what.

Yes, we do not have all the pieces of the puzzle and we should still be asking questions, but as for evolution being accepted solely on the basis that scientists personally prefer it to creationism? Ridiculous. Evolution only adds more evidence to its enormous library every day. Creationism, despite the desperate attempts of its proponents, has nothing that can stand on one leg in the face of real scientific inquiry. At best, they can point out gaps and uncertainties in the historical record, and try to make it seem like these somehow disprove evolution as a process.

Side: Fact
Mifune1423(17) Disputed
0 points

The fact that objects fall when you drop them is part of gravitational theory. The fact that the earth moves around the sun is heliocentric theory. The fact that allele frequencies vary by generation is a part of evolutionary theory. Before you speak dismissively of theories, learn what theory means in a scientific context, and why no theory, even one that is infinitely evidence, can be proven.

The topic of this debate is whether evolution is fact or theory and it is generally accepted by scientists that it is a theory. It really doest matter if it is a generally accepted theory it is still a theory and therefore the topic of this debate is pretty stupid. The rest of my post isn't proving it is a theory it is proving that it is a bad theory.

Macro-evolution is simply the accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes over a vast length of time.

Nope. just cause i can jump 2 feet doesn't mean I can fly. There is a lot more complexity in Macroevolution which gives rise to different problems and limitations. Why do you think evolutionary biologists separated the theory into microevolution and macroevolution in the first place.

So, in other words, it might look like evidence for evolution...but God could have done it!

If something cannot be tested scientifically, it is not part of science. Saying 'God did it' in response to everything is untestable and it has no place in a scientific debate.

First of all noone said God it might have been a designer in our own universe who isn't all powerful. When you have 2 possible theories to explain the facts and the facts support both, the facts aren't evidence for either. Please cite where you got your definition of what science is and what testing is becasue there are multiple opinions. Also you can't completely test evolution either otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate.

1. This and this take care of your claim that speciation has never been observed.

2. Speciation takes a massive amount of time and it is no surprise it has rarely (not never) been observed. I have confidence that, as we go, we will continue to well-documented examples of macroevolution.

3. Surprise surprise, the poster boy of intelligent design and pioneer of the annoying irreducible complexity argument. I'll pass on the book for now, but in the meantime, here's a deconstruction of the irreducible complexity argument. I'd be happy to address any other specific claims you'd like to cite from his book.

1.Not really. The wikipedia article has some of the same examples as the other one and seems to mostly just describe how they think speciation happens. The first article gives very suspicious example of speciation. Scientists cant get viruses or bacteria to speciate in labs and they are describing much more complex organisms that mutate slowly and supposedly speciate. None of those examples of speciation have actually been observed in labs. Just cause you find a new specie that is similar to another one and hasn't been observed before doesn't mean it speciated.

2.Well no offense but scientists have been confident and wrong before.

3.I will address this point after I have finished the article which takes a long time to get to the point.

The origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory nor does evolutionary theory claim that evolution is purely a result of chance. While your arguments are more complete and complex than some of the other sorry examples in this thread, it seems you still have, at best, a tenuous grasp of what evolution actually posits. Either that or you are constructing a deliberate strawman.

Furthermore, improbability does not equal impossibility. In fact, given the huge amount of time encompassed in the history of life, there is an element of inevitability to even the smallest of chances: given the billions of organisms that have lived on earth in the billions of years since life began, it would be absurd to assume that some of them participated in incredibly unlikely and significant events. The fact that you are alive is an amazingly improbable, even if you only consider the minute chance of the particular sperm that carried half your DNA being the one to successfully fuse with the egg that carried the other half. And yet, here you are, arguing a theory you do not understand.

Then if your theory doesn't explain the origin of life isn't it incomplete? I was under the impression that evolutionists have been trying to explain the origin of life by random chance for a while. I mean look at the miller experiments(which are flawed by the way).

You misunderstand. I am not talking about improbabilities at the scale of your sperm example. I am talking about improbabilities at the scale that approach impossibilities. At the scale where you have to invent parallel universes just to explain life.

Side: theory
selfgov(89) Disputed
2 points

First of all I don't see how anyone can say its a fact because even evolutionists say it is a theory since it hasn't been proven.

Evolutionists say it is both.

Also, the act of "proving" something is the same as "testing" it. Tests of evolution looks at the facts within the context of the hypothesis and see if the facts support or refute it. The theories of Evolutionary Biology have been "tested" against the known facts. Some haven't passed the tests, like recapitulation.

Evolutionary theory then, is a collection of all of the facts that support it. The reason it is called a theory is because there are so many facts that are in support of it.

So yes, given the fact that the word theory is used by scientists when talking about Evolution means that it has been tested which also means it has been "proven."

Supporting Evidence: Recapitulation (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: Fact
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

First of all I don't see how anyone can say its a fact because even evolutionists say it is a theory since it hasn't been proven.

Let's pretend we're talking about gravity:

First of all I don't see how anyone can say its a fact because even (those who believe in gravity) say it is (the theory of gravity) since it hasn't been proven.

So yeah, that's how they can say the theory of evolution is a fact.

Evolution has been proven to the furthest extent possible. There is no more or less proof of gravity than there is of Evolution.

For instance, I could say "There's no gravity, that's just god holding my shoulders down."

Then as you go through listing proofs of gravity I could follow each argument by saying "yeah but it still could be god holding my shoulders down."

It becomes silly after about 2 times.

Side: Fact
apathy56(51) Disputed
1 point

Where does it state that Gravity is a theory? Your comparing apples to oranges.

Side: theory
4 points

If a fish evolved into an amphibian into a reptile into a bird into a mammal, there would be loads of inbetween animals, like birds-repltiles with wings too weak to fly with. There are no follisils, bones, or any proof of these, so where did they disappear to?

Side: theory
ricedaragh(2500) Disputed
5 points

You obviously have been listening to creationist propaganda.

Check out these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Side: Fact
theallknowin(50) Disputed
2 points

anyone who uses anything from wikipedia in their argument should be discredited immediately. nothing on that site is fact. at all.

Side: theory
zombee(1024) Disputed
4 points

Do a google search for 'transitional fossils' and take your pick.

Some of my favorites:

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/hominids2_big.jpg

http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

Side: Fact
clearEn(207) Disputed
2 points

I've chosen the first link (and then only the bird section) to write a really short comment.

The very first animal on the list already has flight feathers, which are highly complex structures. There is no reason Natural Selection would 'choose' flight feathers if there was no flight, as they are useless for insulation.

Also, the list gives a nice transition, although the last to gave me problems. The only thing they have of the Vorona are legs, but let's say that's enough for now. The ages given to the Vorona is 70-84 MYA, while it's supposed descendant, the Ichthyornis, is aged 85-95 MYA.

And I'm wondering something else (this is actual wondering, not a coy argument). Is there a transitional phase between a dinosaur foreleg and a functional wing? It seems to me (fairly uneducated in these matters) that a foreleg would be dysfunctional as a leg long before it would be functional as a wing, and thus Natural Selection would never 'choose' it. Please help.

Side: theory
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
3 points

They've cleverly hid themselves in books, the one place they knew creationists would never look!

Actually there are many transitional species. Titaalik, is a Fish with wrist bones. The Panderichthys is a fish with a pectoral girdle. The velociraptor, while being a dinosaur and reptile, had quill knobs for sporting feathers. The gerobatrachus, is generally considered by biologists to be a common ancestor of both frogs and salamanders having characteristics of both.

Side: Fact
shomos5(27) Disputed
2 points

where is there any fact inh religions?

and just because we havent found them doesnt mean there not there

Side: Fact
selfgov(89) Disputed
2 points

There is some fact :) Not a lot where it matters though.

The cool thing about the "theory of evolution" is that since the theory cannot be tested (proven) so vigorously as to be determined 100% true, all scientists can do is keep producing and find the facts. Evolution happens.

Side: Fact
2 points

Don't listen to those guys. They don't even realize that a few fossils that might be part of the chain of missing links don't even come a fraction closer to linking the whole chain.

/

I mean imagine if evolution were actually true. Just going from four legs to two, or two to four. Just going from no hump to a hump or from no horn to a horn, going from six to eight legs or from no wings to wings or from scales to actual feathers, or from nose to bill, or e.t.c... would mean several links in a chain of organisms.

/

A few fossils that seem to be part of that chain means nothing. Unless you have like thousands of fossils of different organisms that demonstrate the actual transition and not just a grotesque deformaty that happened to be present in one animal of one species that happened to be preserved.

/

Evolutionists and Atheists sure love to say missing link fossils prove something, but the fact is that there should he links all over the place from organisms that have come gone, stayed and travelled the globe to another location, and there should be quite a bit more than a mere few of them.

/

The fact is, if atheists and evolutionists really actually saw evolution as though it were an actual fact, they'd be questioning all sorts of things and they'd never be able to believe it for sure like they pretend to now. They only believe it now because that's what politically popular science tells them to believe. There's plenty of evidence for creation, they just ignore it because that what politically popular science tells them to do.

/

They have too much faith in the scientific community to be completely fair and unbiased, completely forgetting the fact that science research and it's results are paid for, err, I mean "funded," by those that prefer one opinion over another.

/

Why else would sound scientific evidence be ostracized, downplayed, denounced for little reason, not persued in research to begin with, e.t.c...

/

It's not a conspiracy necessarily, although with the attitudes of current-day atheists that religion must be stopped at all costs, I wouldn't be suprised, but money talks, and money stops talking when science proves the source of that money to be a fool.

Side: theory
zombee(1024) Disputed
4 points

Don't listen to those guys. They don't even realize that a few fossils that might be part of the chain of missing links don't even come a fraction closer to linking the whole chain.

The idea that evolution is a chain is outdated and restrictive and I don't really hear people who actually understand evolution use that terminology. It is more like a tree, and just because some branches are missing doesn't mean the tree doesn't exist.

I mean imagine if evolution were actually true. Just going from four legs to two, or two to four. Just going from no hump to a hump or from no horn to a horn, going from six to eight legs or from no wings to wings or from scales to actual feathers, or from nose to bill, or e.t.c... would mean several links in a chain of organisms.

Yeah, luckily, for some modern species (like cetaceans and hominids) we have a pretty smooth series of fossils showing exactly these transitions. Also, I'm a little worried by the phrasing of this...you don't think evolution claims that every modern species descended from another modern species, in a straight line, right? Because that would be absurd.

A few fossils that seem to be part of that chain means nothing. Unless you have like thousands of fossils of different organisms that demonstrate the actual transition and not just a grotesque deformaty that happened to be present in one animal of one species that happened to be preserved.

Do you know what conditions it takes to create a fossil, to preserve bone and other tissue for millions of years? It is amazing we have the ones we do. If evolution is false, how do you explain any transitional or intermediate fossils? The devil put them there to trick us? God put them there to test our faith? The government created them to cover up the existence of aliens? Atheists commissioned them at the local pottery story because they didn't want Christians to be right?

Evolutionists and Atheists sure love to say missing link fossils prove something, but the fact is that there should he links all over the place from organisms that have come gone, stayed and travelled the globe to another location, and there should be quite a bit more than a mere few of them.

Yeah. There are. There are tons of fossils; try typing 'fossils' into Google and looking around for a scant minute before you make an argument.

The fact is, if atheists and evolutionists really actually saw evolution as though it were an actual fact, they'd be questioning all sorts of things and they'd never be able to believe it for sure like they pretend to now. They only believe it now because that's what politically popular science tells them to believe. There's plenty of evidence for creation, they just ignore it because that what politically popular science tells them to do.

Please, tell me, what kind of questions would arise if we stopped 'pretending' to believe in evolution? In fact, tell me why anyone would bother to pretend to believe in evolution. And why someone would need to pretend to believe in something that has been observed to happen, and indeed happens all around the world every single day?

They have too much faith in the scientific community to be completely fair and unbiased, completely forgetting the fact that science research and it's results are paid for, err, I mean "funded," by those that prefer one opinion over another.

Oh no, you've caught on to our conspiracy! Researchers don't really care about seeking truth or disproving faulty hypotheses...they only care about the sweet, sweet cash that comes flowing in by the millions of dollars every time they lie about something. They must be laughing at us poor, faithful fools, blindly believing their peer-reviewed reports and recreated results, all the while sipping on expensive champagne and taking their private yachts and jets to their favorite island resort, where they burn money to keep themselves warm.

Seriously, do you know what most well-known scientists owe their money and/or fame to? Discovering something new, or disproving an existing idea. People may make a solid name for themselves by adding new evidence to the library for evolution, but few of them will be remembered in history books if they haven't made an extraordinary find. They will also probably not become particularly wealthy purely from conducting research.

If someone were to come up with a real experiment that really showed evolution was not true, they would be unbelievably famous. They would easily overshadow Darwin, Dawkins, the Leakeys, etc. If a scientist was in it for the money or fame (haha) then I can't think of a better thing to do than find something that disproved such a hugely evidenced and widely accepted theory like evolution. Unfortunately for opponents of evolution, that's about as likely as a horse giving birth to a dolphin.

Why else would sound scientific evidence be ostracized, downplayed, denounced for little reason, not persued in research to begin with, e.t.c...

If you are talking about 'evidence' against evolution, literally none of it is 'sound scientific evidence'. Some of it is complex enough to seem that way to foolish people. Some of it is nothing more than a highlight of known questions concerning the finer points of evolution. None of it actually disproves the fact that evolution as a process is a very real thing.

Side: Fact
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
4 points

A few fossils that seem to be part of that chain means nothing. Unless you have like thousands of fossils of different organisms that demonstrate the actual transition

We don't have thousands of fossils....we have billions.

The remains of around 400 individuals have been found for neanderthals, and this is just one species. There are at least 22 species of hominids and roughly 5 billion extinct species total, now multiply that by the number individual fossils discovered for each species.

And now you understand why scientists are so confident in Evolution.

Side: Fact
4 points

It's all rather simple here. The matter is not the truth or falsity of evolution, but the distinction between 'theory' and 'fact'. A 'fact' is a perceived phenomena (or merely a phenomena recorded). A 'theory' is an explanation of multiple phenomena.

Thus evolution is necessarily a theory. It explains the phenomena we have recorded the best. However it cannot be a fact, in the correct usage of the word, unless it is perceived or recorded: which it can't be. It may be a true or false theory, but it is still a theory.

The opposite - or perhaps composite - of a theory is a law, not a fact.

(I'm new here, and it doesn't seem like I'm going to enjoy it much...)

Side: theory
4 points

Evolution is the most widely accepted theory for the existence of life as we know it because the other main alternative (creation) is scientifically unfeasible. Evolution is a theory like the atomic theory is a theory. But atomic theory doesn't come under fire because it doesn't contradict anyone's religious beliefs.

Side: theory
3 points

Evolution is clearly theory or those that claim it as fact would have presented their case on the other side.

Side: theory
zombee(1024) Disputed
4 points

Theories and facts are not always mutually exclusive. Evolution is both.

Side: Both
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

Evolution is the imagination of one man, and you believe it? Facts are prov-en beyond doubt, evolution is not.

I have fact you have no brain, okay it is only a theory like evolution.

Side: theory
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

2+2=4, find the exception and I will agree that facts are not always mutually exclusive. Until you do, then facts must be mutually exclusive.

So evolution is neither fact or theory. Science fiction is must be.

Side: theory
selfgov(89) Disputed
2 points

Presented their case?

Done and done'r. Long time ago in fact...

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Side: Fact
3 points

A scientist from oxford(so he's a genius) said that the chances of Spontaneous generation, how evolution was started, are the same as a tornado blowing through a a warehouse full of abandoned parts and assembling itself. It is only a fact if it is proven over and over, but because there are so many flaws it must remain a theory.

Side: theory
2 points

Its a theory in the sense of literals. The THEORY of Evolution as a whole, however, is completely accepted in the modern scientific community. But, its still a theory as it cannot be proven, merely infinitely evidenced. Thus, its not fact.

Side: theory
stmac10(59) Disputed
6 points

You sound like you understand why the term 'theory' is used...which makes me think you know that being infinitely evidenced makes it as much a fact as it can ever be! Evolution is both theory and fact. Why mislead people by stating that it anything but? If working on that basis we can argue that gravitational theory isn't fact, but in the more practical sense of the word, it is clearly 'fact'..nobody would even question it without some religious agenda.

Side: Fact
2 points

I hope you say religious in non-theist terminology. Regardless, I still adhere to THEORY seeing as thats what they are all titled as. You are not going to go up to your professor and ask him about the FACT of Evolution, or gravity for that matter, you ask them about the theory. Its just a mater of name, really. As such, I still state it as the THEORY of Evolution.

It is not a fact, by the way, as you cannot actually prove Evolution, as is true with most scientific principles. Just as the theory of Ferroactive Ether was considered fact by many, it was proven wrong with the simple example of Space. Even then, Space was considered an emptiness and now we wonder whether or not their might be anything less than space itself. Nothing(more or less) has definitive proof, a good example of which is Energy, until irrefutably proven otherwise. If Evolution was a fact, then why did this man post this debate to begin with? Ill leave you on that nice little note.

Side: Fact

it is the most reasonable theory, but unless we can go travel in the past and see it all happen for ourselves, it will remain a theory.

Side: theory
2 points

Now my argument may have been covered already but i am coming into this late so forgive me. Evolution is a theory for the simple fact that it has yet to be proven. The missing link anybody? besides the fact that who are we to say that god didn't create evolution? that he didn't make us with the ability to evolve to the damage we do on the earth. i won't ever believe evolution until it is proven which it will never be in my opinion.

Side: theory
zombee(1024) Disputed
1 point

Now my argument may have been covered already but i am coming into this late so forgive me. Evolution is a theory for the simple fact that it has yet to be proven.

Even theories that are true will never be proven because proof is the domain of mathematics and deductive logic.

The missing link anybody?

The missing link is an outdated religious argument leftover from the days when people thought there was a Great Chain of Being, with all living things inherently ranked from top to bottom on a ladder based on the amount of 'spirit' versus 'matter' that they possessed.

Side: Fact
2 points

it is a theory, although it could be a fact for all i can say.......

but in my opinion it's a theory. now my theory is that we didn't evolve from other beings. Darwin's was that we did...

he is a different person, I'm a different person we are different people with different opinions...

Side: theory
2 points

Why is it called the Theory of Evolution if it's not a theory? Darwin himself stated that it was just that a theory.

Side: theory
1 point

I hate to appear on this side of the board really, but evolution is only a theory - a compelling and much-supported theory but still only a theory because we have no actual proof. All theories are not created equally though, if you will pardon the expression: the theory of creationism, for example, is clearly silly - there is no evidence at all to support that one while the theory of evolution has much support. The actual mechanism of evolution and some other details, namely probable ancestors, causes, time, and so on, are hotly debated and are likely to never be resolved, but the notion that species evolve over time is only really questioned by folks who dislike the idea that our ancestry has been guided by rather random environmental pressures and stresses. This is fine with me. I am not embarrassed to admit that I pray at times and my prayers aren't directed at Darwin.

Side: theory
1 point

A message from the heart to debaters who fight in favor of evolution. Adaptation is not evolution no matter how you define it. Adaptation takes a formed life form and adapts within its own fully formed makeup. It doesnt adapt by becoming a different creature.

Evolution defined as used to describe the establishment of life and nature as we sknow it is not adaptation. As a term used in the debate of Creator vs self creation of evolution.

So please stick to the definition. Adaptation is subtle. Evolution is creative in a foundational sense

Adaptation would be darkening of pigmentstion or lengthening a nose to adapt to changing atmosphere. But there is no drastic changes needed for evolution.

I dont argue and poke fun out of a dislike for you. I am hoping at some point you will question reasonably and logically some of the things you accepy as truth and isnt founded in science or logic or reasoning.

I am not being mean or cruel, I'm challenging you for a greater purpose, to question and weigh reasonably.

Like evolution starts aftwr life forms are already in process and builds on it, balancing nature in the process to foster the evolving life forms and to support its progressive action to its current presentation.

Yet when proof of the Bible has connections confirmed, in front of your face, it is denied.

Arent these connections similar. Yet at least with the Bible evidence is tangable and visible, and not just assumptive, as seen in the foundation of the biginning of life, the first life form that assembled itself to start with, then the balancing act needed to progress from the beginning.

Neither of these at the foundation are logical, no matter what biology connects similarities, and no matter what adaptations we see after the fact of a living thing at its completion.

There is only evidence of biological simillarites. Not sound science in the beginning of the first formed living thing. Nor in the balance required beyond that, with entropy working against it from the creation of the first cell, and naturally beyond that!

Creatures with eyes have eye genes. But its a big jump to then say life formed and stabilized out of nonliving matter.

Its a religion of idiots.

Its the greatest insult to the Creator. The actual creator.

Man being a god created himself out of a process from nothing.

Man breathed life into himself out of evolving from a combination of dead matter.

Not even another god, a nothing god ... the earth was void, unformed, darkness over the deep. Into nothing He brought forth life, into chaos He established the balance for life to continue.

And evolution is the god nothing. The self god, nature and man created self by selection of the best. The self made man, evolved from nothing.

.

Side: theory
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

This seems a lot less like a message from the heart the more you repeat it.

Side: fact
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

If I didnt care I wouldnt try to give so many points, from so many directions. I literally try to come from different points of evidence. Not just be fearful of Hell or I believe so you should believe.

I have argued by way of continuity and sensibility of the message. Many religions lack a reasonable purpose. Like compare Islam to Christianity - Islam is an idea of a standard of moral living or holiness, has unfairness and violence st its cire, and shows God to be cruel and demanding. Murderous and not opposed to decietful practices, lies, and a deceptive trickster. With His will forced upon man, with execution of natural law in force through violent people who say they are Gods standard in the earth and His executioners. And Islam believed God accepts the most violent on the earth.

Not like the Beattitudes!

Because His standard is by curve, works can achieve righteousness. Even though man cannot match righteosness, but prayers and violence bridge the gap. So in other words God judges murderers by accepting murders. Murder motivation is judged righteous or unrighteous.

One type of murder leads to rewards of righteusness, the other reaps judgement because it is not murdering to promote Allah Mohommad and Islam. - Does this make sense as a religion to please a Deity?

Compared to Christianity that has a judicial foundation, with forgiveness and pardon at its roots. And a solution that makes sense. Wereas Islam says the murder of a sinner provides them a possibility of attonement.

So where are the fair rules. And what society nation or kingdom has trived under this principle. None? Then how does this model show a Kingdom of God that exist under the principle "a kingdom divided ...falls"

Christianity has a logical order of events, a clear message that has clarity based on reasonable logic. Its not unrestrained violence. And its judicial and fair, even patient in its action to restore mankind and each individual.

It has line upon line an unchanging message and directive. It is ligical in its reasoning and purpose and in its conclusion and in its method progression and its finality in the end. With every work of prophesy explained with a logical reason for its beliefs views and actions.

So Islam shoots in the dark and if you are extreme enough you will have eternal life having sex with many virgins. Do they then stay virgins after sex, or is this a momentary reward? Or does Allah dispose of the virgins and replenish then throughout all eternity? Does it make any sense?

Compared to Christianity, which is descriptive and explanatory and clear on what righteousness is, and what is expected, and also spells out the dilemma and the solution. And it makes complete sense. To the point that many fictional stories, books, and entertainment follow its logical progression. Clarity and purpose logical and clear.

Even if you are blind spiritually, Christianity has a logical process from problem to solution. Unlike Islam and others that are disjointed and without any purpose or continuity, and without a seemless connection.

Christianity has a seemless connection from the fall.

Each author draws from and expounds on details uniform with everything built in the same materials, in the same manner, with its final conclusion and outcome in the same spirit from beginning to end.

Creation, image, two forces, a fall of angels, a fall of man, two images, free will, then became weak will, a wrestle to do good, under judgement, dudt to dust, (even science says many things come from one thing, the Bible tells us why and how, He formed creatures and man from dust.

So the Bible says a hand picked up elements that were deposited on the earth, and the dust He picked up, He made many life forms from it. So even though we say He spoke it into existence.

The Bible was more knowledgable than any other sourse, because the elements were in the dust of the earth and assembled! They just did not assemble and breathe life into themselves.

We see consistency, and science confirms the Biblical eyewitness account. The elements in the dust were purposely squeezed together and life was breathed into it and nature balanced by the Creators intelligent design.

So the fall back to dust after life is lived, the serpent grounded to eat dust. And then a promise of seed, with enmity between seed of serpent and Seed of Salvation.

A judgememt decree that separates fallen dust from the Creator. And the Bible goes on to expand this to a final conclusion returning man to a place prior to the fall. Where Adam brought death to mankind, Jesus brought redemption, to return Creation back to the Creator. With choice given kust as man was given in the beginning. Eat from the tree of life or feed from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Knowledge of good and evil, a crazy thing, does God hate knowledge? No God is knowledge and understanding. So then what is the tree of knowledge of ... Its the difference between free will to choose by suggestion outside of being part of our nature. Free will is now weak will, knowledge of good and evil means we became trees of knowledge of good and evil. We bear both fruits, we are divided within ourselves, conflict of will from with-in, not from with-out.

So then the Deity gave seed into a virgin, to bring God into mans fall, in order to make a pathway back, which He carries us through. And Him walking in flesh, taking our judgement, and empowering us with forgiveness and His Spirit, bringing us through the eye of the needle out from under the fall.

So one message and its pretty simple to understand. Even if you do not believe in God, the logic is at least uniform and consistent, and follows a reasonable patterns, with its course taking a reasonable approach, resulting in a logical conclusion that is consistent with the entirety as a whole and also cosistent with each detail mentioned and/or expanded on.

Side: theory
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

.

I dont feel like any of you are a waste of time!

Jesus came to save the lost. I try to reason with you and others to at least have you look and weigh the evidence,. And apply a true evaluation of the presentations of evidence! Grenache is the only one so far that even acknowledged points made that are possibilities used in proof of at least Jesus existing and crucified.

But none weigh the points made and then setting them in a pile of possibility to then measure when all the evidence is compiled in the evidence room.

I value the biology presented. Even if I'm challenging in response. Because biology is factual, adaptation and mutation are factual and scientific. But evolution as creation is neither factual, probable, possible, or scientific.

Because no one can really explain evolution as creating life without input of something. In other words a cook cooking an elaborate recipe may need to assemble some ingredients, then make a reduction, then add further ingredients. Its a dance not possible because independent steps need to be taken, then added to the perfect reductio, also made from the available ingrediets.

Its not possible because its not probable, and even if it were its extreme jumps to fully formed creatures and eco system we see in nature and the firm basic physical laws of which everything follows. EXCEPT for when purposely with effort and energy and design they are moved against for a purposed outcome.

Like its against natural law for man to fly. But putting together many natural laws, intelligence can design something using natural laws to defy natural laws. Thats like a miracle!

God takes many natural laws and lets the universe be governed by them, but He can take them and work them in His intelligent design to defy natural laws.

Because He is outside of natural law. Just like the intelligence creating air travel, intelligence takes knowledge and then uses it in accordance with natural laws. Yet can use them to defy natural laws.

As Islam proclaims a religious world view, there are illogical and unreasonable parts that do not fit even within their own religion.

So also Evolution as a force explaining creation proclaims a world view that is illogical in accordance with human experience and also natural law, and order of reasonable methodical conclusion. The first foundation is illogical and then ignored by academia. With nothing more than skepticism without challenge, teaching skeptism and promoting unscoentific methods - refuse challenge, and remove thought, and ignore contraficting data without measuring it validity and merit.

Even what is measured is selective through a preconceived narrow limitation of information. Evolution as creation ignores everything outside of that lens. Is that a scientific thing to do?

And it results in ignorance of knowledge, shamed by its evidence disproving its foundations and origin, specifically the origin of life.

Evolution as an explanation of lifes origin leaves firm logical reasoning unanswered. And there is more faith required for creation by evolution than by the Creator as God, specifically God of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.

The Bible answers all questions, and has many levels of evidence confirming its authority to give answers reasonably and with logic in accordance with natural laws, cause, effect, result. Connections in order, logical order!

Like what happened for the 1st living cell to exist, against odds and destructive chemical processes that were unfavorable without intelligence.

At least look with an open mind and then piece together what makes sense.

Its not possible for God to not exist. All the evidence shows He exists and there are to many coincidences in the Bible to be dismissed without a fair trial.

Unfortunately many of you are closed jurors who do not weigh any points of evidence because of preconcieved faulty information. -Starting with foundational what archaeological findings at least prove historic merit in the basic sense, then beyond that what is the true messages, what contradictions actually exist, and what prophesies actually say, and what liklihood would they be fulfilled as they are written, and the other validations, and also the logic of likelihood in action of individuals and nations, and is there threads that weave a complete picture or is it twisting imaginations.

So Im tying to have people step back and be objective and truely weigh the evidence. Your belief is your belief. But has it been openly challenged by yourself weighing evidence not just "beliefs?"

Side: theory
0 points

The bible is correct and evolution goes agains the bible so evolution is wrong.

Side: theory
stmac10(59) Disputed
5 points

The bible is correct and evolution goes agains the bible so evolution is wrong

The Wizard of Oz is correct and talking lions exist in Oz, so talking lions must exist.

Side: Fact
stmac10(59) Disputed
2 points

you must be kidding?

Side: Fact
2 points

This is obviously a joke. . .

Please have religious bigots removed from this website so we can have a good experience.

Side: Fact
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

The bible is correct and evolution goes agains the bible so evolution is wrong.

You have it backwards.

Side: Fact
Mentieth(16) Disputed
2 points

Skewed, not backwards.

Evolution doesn't disprove the Bible. In fact there are many Christians who do reconcile evolution and the Bible.

These sorts of debates aren't the core issue of the Bible, so it is kind of futile that we debate them all so fervently. Whether you're a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist doesn't particularly matter in terms of the Biblical world-view.

Side: theory
Mentieth(16) Disputed
1 point

How dare you?!

No, I don't want to be judgemental. However may I suppose that you take the Bible a bit more seriously, engage with it. Jesus doesn't want us to be mindless followers - love with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your MIND!

Also, Paul speaks of resurrection of the dead: if it's not true then faith is useless. It's quite clear that if Christianity is not true we are commanded not to believe it. As such we should always think and weigh, to make sure it is true. I agree the Bible is true, but that's not the only reason I argue against things.

Side: Fact
KNHav(1957) Clarified
1 point

I appreciste the bottom line. But why should they believe you or the Bible?

I think you need some substance here. These people are lost, they need the reason for the hope within you.

Side: theory
0 points

There are six different meanings of Evolution. Which one do you mean?

The Six Meanings of Evolution

Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”

Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen

Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds

Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter

Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another

Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind”

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has anything to do with real science. For all of human history we have observed variations within the kinds such as 400± varieties of dogs coming from a dog-like ancestor such as a fox or a wolf. Dogs produce dogs and corn produces corn. There may be great variations within the basic kind but that is NOT evidence that dogs and corn are related! Every farmer on planet earth counts on micro-evolution happening as he develops crops or herds best suited for his area, but he also counts on macro-evolution NOT happening. Anything other than minor changes within the kind is not part of science. Evolution as defined as macro-evolution is a religion in every sense of the word. People are welcome to BELIEVE the first five types of evolution, but they are not part of science or common sense.

http://www.drdino.com/six-meanings-of-evolution

Side: theory
zombee(1024) Disputed
3 points

varieties of dogs coming from a dog-like ancestor such as a fox or a wolf.

First you say this, showing that you do realize that chihuahuas, Irish wolfhounds, and everything in between descended from this...

Dogs produce dogs...

...then you say this, which would make your first statement impossible. If dogs always produced dogs, then wolves would always produce wolves, and dogs would never have come into existence.

that is NOT evidence that dogs and corn are related!

No one is trying to claim that dogs and corn are sister species, but dogs, corn, and all living things share a pretty big chunk of genetic material. This is a fact.

Every farmer on planet earth counts on micro-evolution happening as he develops crops or herds best suited for his area, but he also counts on macro-evolution NOT happening.

Domesticated plants and animals are not subjected to natural selection nearly as much as artificial selection at the discretion of the farmers themselves.

Also, considering farmers generally don't plant corn for millions of years in succession, macroevolution is even less of a concern.

Anything other than minor changes within the kind is not part of science.

Yes they are, because these changes can be scientifically explored and explained and their results can be traced through the fossil record. Theoretically, they could even be observed in a lab, if a study could be conducted for a long enough period of time.

Evolution as defined as macro-evolution is a religion in every sense of the word.

Except it's based on facts.

People are welcome to BELIEVE the first five types of evolution, but they are not part of science or common sense.

Something about this is ironic but I can't quite put my finger on it...

http://www.drdino.com/six-meanings-of-evolution

Just realized you copied and pasted your entire argument. Bravo.

Side: Fact
aveskde(1935) Disputed
3 points

There are six different meanings of Evolution. Which one do you mean?

Why would you quote a known purveyor of bullshit like Kent Hovind?

That immediately throws your credibility out the window.

Side: Fact
7 points

The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection.

When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.

Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.

Side: Fact
thisischuck(5) Disputed
0 points

Implies? That is pretty weak.

Evidence? Not as much as you believe:

Yes, scientists have proved that ADAPTATION exists.

EVOLUTION, (i.e. that humans are from monkey, who came from fish, from an organic accident) isn't supported at all. I think that this debate is debating whether the latter is true or not– in that case, there is not evidence supporting it. The fact that fruit flies have shown to get wrinkled wings in now way connects to how humans are from monkeys.

And, for evolution to work, from the first simple living organism to the indescribably complex US, there needs to be a crazy above fifty percent mutation rate in between generations to make those "mutations that helps us and advance us". What are the mutation rates that have been recorded? Astonishingly low, because if a successful organism mutated that much, it would die off.

Side: theory
stmac10(59) Disputed
5 points

uuurgh, another debater with a religious agenda posing as someone with scientific knowledge but spouting nothing but pseudoscience.

EVOLUTION isn't supported at all.

absolute nonsense. It pains me to even reply to a statement like this.

there needs to be a crazy above fifty percent mutation rate

..and here was me thinking you understood evolution.

From your other post I thought that you understood the term 'theory' in the scientific sense. In the colloquial sense, theory means 'speculation' or 'opinion; in the scientific sense a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions. In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory. Evolution is a theory and fact in the same way that you having a nose on your face is theory and fact.

Side: Fact
selfgov(89) Disputed
2 points

EVOLUTION, (i.e. that humans are from monkey, who came from fish, from an organic accident) isn't supported at all. I think that this debate is debating whether the latter is true or not– in that case, there is not evidence supporting it.

No I think that's how you're narrowly defining it so you can argue against it.

We evolved. That is a fact. It doesn't matter whether it was from monkey like creatures or not. The path our ancestors actually took through history don't matter. The fact remains that we have ancestors and their genes were different. They in turn had ancestors and THEIR genes were different. That is evolution.

Everything evolves. Technology is great at it...

Side: Fact
4 points

i say this to annoy you guys tis a fact so there

i am a monkey

answer 2 question 5 is tru

u no i dont believe this really i just like going against u

Side: lol annoying argument 4 the sake of it
1 point

I think that evolution is as much of a theory as gravity is.

Side: Fact
clearEn(207) Disputed
1 point

But we can readily test gravity (drop a pencil, it will fall. Drop a hammer on a feather on the Moon, they will fall together).

We cannot readily test 'Particles to People' evolution. Only Natural Selection and Genetic Drift.

Side: theory
1 point

Evolution has been proven, it has been observed on a micro and macro scale in biological organisms. There is a theory but independent of this, though there might be a few glitches in the highly specific assertions of some elements of the theory, the fact of evolution is indisputable. The entire basis of modern biology is based on the theory of evolution, the reason for this is that all other possible explanations are invalidated by the evidence

Side: Fact
michaelbm10(7) Disputed
1 point

Can you give an example of macro evolution that can be seen today that I do not have to have faith to believe?

Side: theory
1 point

ALL facts in science are also theories.............................................................

Side: fact
0 points

I am Christian and I should say evolution is a load of crap. But first off, what about the dinosaurs?

Also I think that although Adam and Eve were the first two humans, others were evolved.

When God created the earth, he went by his days. Now that could have been billions of our days or just one. But for now I will say they are far longer than our days.

So when God was creating the earth, he figured that after Adam and Eve, he would help the earth development made evolution.

By the time Adam and Eve got to Earth, the dinosaurs were gone and we already had civilizations happening.

Side: Fact
zombee(1024) Disputed
2 points

If God's days are not equal in length to human days, then where does the practice arise of resting on Sundays, the same day that God rested after completing creation?

Side: theory
3 points

By the time Adam and Eve got to Earth, the dinosaurs were gone and we already had civilizations happening.

Also how did Adam and Eve arrive amidst established civilizations if they were the first humans on earth?

I am glad you have found a way to accept evolution in spite of being a believer in the Bible, but you have made some bewildering decisions about how the opposing explanations supposedly meshed.

Side: Fact
Leashed(53) Disputed
2 points

Because God rested on the last day, which is in his days. So we rest on our last day.

Side: theory
AntiUncleC(12) Disputed
1 point

We try to celebrate the day of rest, the seventh 'day' of creation. as we cannot say how long each day was, and cannot celebrate on the perfect 'God Sunday', we celebrate on our sunday.

Side: theory