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.
I've only watched the first 15 (out of 67) minutes. While I think evolution is scientific fact, it would be really hard to prove it in a conversation, and so far Dawkins isn't coming close.
At one point he tells her the evidence is there, she just needs to read an elementary science book. She should have said that her evidence is there too, and he just needs to read an elementary Bible. When he tells her to go to a museum, she should tell him to go to church, and so on.
It all depends on to what extent evolution is being advocated. Evolution does happen; it's why you need a flue shot every year. However, the Darwin's Theory of Evolution (humans coming from some sort of primitive ape-like thing) is just a theory. That is why it is referred to as a theory and not a law.
The earth orbiting the sun is also a theory. A law and a theory in science mean different things, but both are supported by observation. A law describes an event, and a theory explains it.
Newtons law of Gravity and the theory of General Relativity show this. Newtons law describes gravity, but tells us nothing about what gravity actually is. Relativity on the other hand explains what gravity is.
It is a theory, but because of all the evidence for it, people call it a fact. The same as atoms making up matter is a facts, germs causing some diseases is a fact and evolution is a fact. All are still called theories because that is the scientific term.
I assume that you have no formal education so I will try to use simple sentences.
You do not understand the meaning of word theory, for example Gravity is a theory, Electromagnetism is a theory, Theory of Relativity, Quantum Theory ...all this "theories" we use in daily life so why is Evolution Theory something less for you creatards than the Theory of Gravity? It was worked out by same way with overwhelming evidence from multiple sources. Are you really so brainwashed by bronze age mythology? Are you really incapable of thinking on your own?
Gravity is a theory it's not a law, simply because it's observable but the cause it's not known. Also:
g = G * m / r^2
(theory of gravity - (physics) the theory that any two particles of matter attract one another with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them)
it's not very accurate but in many schools is being taught as a fact simply because general population would have no use for more complex and accurate theories of gravity.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
please show me where is the explanation for gravity. You keep pointing out High school physics and classical mechanics. I don't know how ask for it simpler.
Newtons equation is actually called a law because it describes gravity. General Relativity is a theory because it explains what gravity is. A law describes, a theory explains.
Newtons law of Gravitation is a law because it describes but doesn't explain. The theory of general relativity explains what gravity is, so it is a theory. A theory and law in science are totally different things.
Both a law and a theory are supported by the observations. From what I have seen you type, you seem to think that a theory when supported by more evidence becomes a law. That isn't the case.
Although I personally believe in evolution, I don't think it's unreasonable to not believe in it. Although I do think it's unreasonable to write it off as "not a possability".
One of those two things you just said is really really easy and the other is incredibly difficult if not impossible.
Wanna know which one?
Understanding it is gonna be the easy part. Seriously evolution is a very simple theory. Animals existed long ago. Random mutations occured in their DNA (these cause downs syndrome and other birth defects today) which changed their bodies. These defects may have allowed them to survive easier (for example a girraffe is born with a longer neck). Then since these animals survive they pass on the traits (the long neckism in this case) and the young are born with long necks and so on and so on until we have todays giraffes with loooooong necks when in ancient times they might have been really short. Its natural selection. Survival of the fittest. And thats all there is to it:
1) primitive species
2) Genetic mutations
3) Survival/passing on genes
4) trait passes on
5) repeat.
Simple.
Now the hard part is going to be "studying the flaws of it". Why? Because there are none. Seriously evolution is fact. Thats why you need a flu shot every year because the virus evolves to be immune to the vaccine before it. Scientists have tried to disprove it but they cant. So i highly doubt an average joe science knowledge type like yourself could. Sorry, its probably not worth the trouble unless you wanna look stupid. There are some "arguments" against evolution out there but they are flawed and made up. They will get demolished if you try to use them in an argument.
Now the hard part is going to be "studying the flaws of it". Why? Because there are none. Seriously evolution is fact. Thats why you need a flu shot every year because the virus evolves to be immune to the vaccine before it. Scientists have tried to disprove it but they cant.
I don't get the flu shot at all whenever it comes out because I never have gotten the flu in my life so there is no need for me to have the flu shot. You can believe that its a fact but to me its just going to be a theory because if it was fact if wouldn't be called Theory of Evolution. It would just be called evolution but since there is theory in front of it its not fact. A theory is something that it could be true or not. And there is a lot of evidence against I believe but I am not going to argue about that.
So i highly doubt an average joe science knowledge type like yourself could. Sorry, its probably not worth the trouble unless you wanna look stupid. There are some "arguments" against evolution out there but they are flawed and made up. They will get demolished if you try to use them in an argument.
Well so what if I look stupid so be it. I don't care if people think I am stupid for doing that. They can think and say all they want but the people that care for me they will support me in doing this.
You can believe that its a fact but to me its just going to be a theory because if it was fact if wouldn't be called Theory of Evolution. It would just be called evolution but since there is theory in front of it its not fact. A theory is something that it could be true or not.
I saw this and thought I had to respond. The word theory in science means something different to what it means in everyday language. In science a theory is a hypothesis or group of hypotheses, that are supported by repeated testing. Once it has sufficient evidence supporting it ,it is called a theory.
The Heliocentric Theory, is the theory that the earth orbits the sun. This is still called a theory, and will continue to be called a theory. Another couple are Germ theory and Atomic theory . All of these are supported by overwhelming evidence.
In the same way as the earth orbiting the sun is a fact, germs causing diseases and atoms making up matter are facts, so is evolution.
I don't get the flu shot at all whenever it comes out because I never have gotten the flu in my life so there is no need for me to have the flu shot
First off I don't believe for a second you've NEVER gotten the flu but that's not the point. Whether you've gotten it or not the flu evolves constantly to adapt an immunity to the current vaccine. This is fact. So where you yourself may not get the shot they do have to keep making them for other people because the virus evolves. This is fact.
You can believe that its a fact but to me its just going to be a theory because if it was fact if wouldn't be called Theory of Evolution. It would just be called evolution but since there is theory in front of it its not fact. A theory is something that it could be true or not.
I don't believe it like a religion. I've been convinced to accept it because of the evidence supporting it. There's a difference.
Actually science can never declare something a fact, the closest to a fact in science is a theory. Gravity is actually a theory. Now you and I both know gravity is a fact but science calls it a theory. This is because "theory" doesn't mean the same when science is concerned.
In regular English "theory" means exactly what you said. But a "scientific theory" is totally different. A theory can be right or wrong and have no evidence for it but a scientific theory is this:
A detailed explaination of an event or occurancr that is supported by significant evidence.
Evolution is as true as gravity. They're both scientific theories.
And there is a lot of evidence against I believe but I am not going to argue about that.
Okay, 1) no there isn't. In dead serious. Scientists themselves try tirelessly to debunk evolution and haven't for years. It's one of the most solidified theories in scientific history. There is honstly nothing that contradicts it or disproves it I assure you.
2) if SOMEHOW you did in fact have this evidence that disproves or contradicts it then why on earth are you withholding it?! That's important information that would A) win you this debate and B) would change science forever!
Unless of course you don't have this "evidence" which is what I'm guessing.
Well so what if I look stupid so be it. I don't care if people think I am stupid for doing that. They can think and say all they want but the people that care for me they will support me in doing this.
Okay good for you I'm actually very happy that you are able to be self confident and not let others opinions affect you. That's a great quality to have. But I'm a little frightened that you have complete disregard for what is true. You don't even care what is true you just want to not believe evolution no matter what. That isn't mentally healthy. What if evolution is true? (It is). Will you still try to fight it?
Let me put it this way. A healthy person will change their beliefs when confronted with evidence. Lets say someone doesn't believe that the holocaust happened. If you confront them and give them pictures and video and all this evidence for it, that person if they are rational will change their mind and believe the holocaust happened. Because there's evidence. Now if you find and understand the evidence FOR evolution. Will you change your mind? Or will you remain stubborn and reject it just out of spite because you don't WANT to believe it? Like someone who denies the holocaust happened. Think about it. Changing your mind isn't a bad thing, people do it all the time.
I am agnostic, I don't really have a personal opinion on anything regarding religion, but what I do believe is that everyone should have the right to believe anything as long as it hasn't been disproved, and you have the right to disbelieve anything as long as it hasn't been proved - if you wanna believe in unicorns please do, just don't bother me with it.
Not believing in evolution is being ignorant, ignoring basic biology. So I think it is stupid to not believe in evolution.
BUT it is okay to not believe in Darwin's version of evolution. It hasn't really been proved that we come from monkeys.
We don't come from monkeys, we evolved from a similar ancestor. Like sharks evolved from a similar ancestor as the clown fish, but didn't come from clown fish.
It would be no more unreasonable than disbelieving in the law of gravity, theory of osmosis or genetic engineering. As outrageous as it would sound for someone to say "I don't believe in gravity", if you have tangible, replicable evidence for the contrary, then you have a good opinion. If you simply don't "believe" in them, then you look like a fool.
Evolution is occurring - dogs evolved from wolves, dinosaurs into birds, large cats (like lions) into small, domestic cats. Genetic modification and evolution go hand in hand - if you breed a group of dogs with different dogs (shepherds with pit bulls), you will be inducing directional selection, a method of evolution. Natural selection, as proposed by Darwin, isn't actually about "adapting" as it would seem when Giraffe's stretch their necks for leaves and eventually become completely long necked. Rather those with long necks were able to reproduce, passing along their genotypes.
So yes, all evidence points to the living primates (humans, gorillas, chimps, orangutans, baboons) as evolving from a common ancestor - meaning we didn't evolve from each other, rather we are distant cousins, part of a family with the same "grandpa".
In summation, if you have evidence (IE you've found through break through research that humans are not at all related to chimps or the other living primates OR you have arranged an interview with God to discuss how humans got here, you will be able to state that you do not subscribe to the theory of evolution. Otherwise, you can claim ignorance using the "un-educated" excuse, and it would be "reasonable", but foolish.
There is proof for evolution, I will not deny that. But evolution only tells HOW humanity and other creatures evolve, not ORIGIN or anything else on that matter. That's what bothers about this theory.
It doesn't need to, it is simply the explanation of the diversity of species. Take the famed comparison of gravity. We are only just touching on the 'why does matter attract' question with the higgs boson particle research. Not so long ago we had no idea at all.
That's what we've been trying to say. Its not evolution vs creationism. Creation is origin of life and evolution is origin of species. They're two different things though some things about creation contradict evolution in some cases.
The scientific theory that DOES explain origin of life is called abiogensis theory. That talks about the beginning just like creation. And of course then there's the Big Bang vs the first part of creationism.
Surely you would run into the argument in which the origin of life is taught if you wanted to know the origin of species. However, I do see where you come from
Absolutely. It is completely reasonable for people do disagree with the theory of Evolution. I completely do. Also, Evolution radicals make no sense at all.
I'm not saying I don't see any proof. But I don't see how it isn't reasonable when it is still just a theory up to the person if they want tot believe it or not.
Theory means something different in science to what it does in everyday language. In science there isn't anything above theory.
The earth orbiting the sun, is a theory in science, the heliocentric theory. Atoms making up matter is the atomic theory and germs causing some diseases is germ theory. All of these would be unreasonable to deny, it is also unreasonable to deny evolution.
I can see why it is unreasonable to deny germ theory, atoms making matter etc. But with evolution there are different view points: The religious view point and the scientific view point it's up to the person whether they believe it or not I don't see how it is unreasonable to say "I think evolution is fake" it's just like saying "I think god is fake."
I don't see why a religious viewpoint is relevant. Some religious people think that sin causes diseases, so does that make it reasonable to reject germ theory?
It is unreasonable regardless on what the religious views are because evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence.
Saying "evolution is fake" is different to saying "God is fake" because evolution is supported by lots of evidence and God is not.
Whether God exists or not is irrelevant. Evolution happened, it is supported by mountains of evidence from Fossils, Embryology, Genetics, Geographic Distribution and Morphology.
It is reasonable to, but most people will call you unreasonable for it anyway.
Micro evolution, that is inter-species evolution, is observable, so it's relatively fact (feel free to dispute it and try to prove it wrong, that's a perfectly reasonable position as well).
Darwin's Theory of Evolution however, particularly the premise that animals all originated from some primordial soup, land creatures came from fish, and that humans evolved from primitive monkey-creatures, is complete hogwash.
There's just no real substantial evidence for it. All they have are a couple sample of bones and half skeletons they "assume" are links in the chain, and refuse to consider any other possibility, like, a genetic mutation disease of a regular human, or a separate creature completely unrelated, or improperly identified (see brontosourus).
While there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. (Skeletons of Giants, footprints of man with dinosaurs, physiologically and anatomically correct artistic depictions of dinosaurs on old human ruins, and reports of living dinosaurs still today.
(I'm a creationist BTW, if you hadn't figured that out)
I don't find it at all reasonable not to believe in evolution. If you look really really hard and close at reality you will see a trend of constant evolution. Nothing ever just pops into existence. Evolution is like saying "I am declaring everything takes time to achieve the state of here and now". Creationists I find fail to rationalize the concepts of kinetic energy and potential energy. For potential energy to become kinetic energy it must first come into contact with... say a planet. From then the disaster (in our eyes) Evolves from one thing (asteroid hitting the earth) to another (Impact winter). The evolution of the phone is another good example. The prime one for life is sex. Proven time and time again that we take on the traits of our earlier ancestors in a random shuffle of genetic code. But honestly, if you're more comfortable believing everything just popped into existence the way it is since you were born then you got a hard lesson of reality to come to terms with. Sad fact is no one knows how old the universe is. How big it is or if an atom has a consciousness all it's own. They will try to tell you their best guess and that's what makes it theory. These creationist have to remember and respect the fact that the universe is incredible and we are sorting out things the best we can as fast as we can. To me the creationist doctrine is just a lazy (or ancient way) of explaining things in low detail through the use of symbology. However, it is just that. Symbolic...
At least at the magnitude of life appearing instantly much like it is now only 2000 years ago. quantum mechanics does have that quirky virtual particle that blinks in and out of existence. anyways, cheers.
Again, the word believe. I don't believe in maths, or science, I know they exist. Evolution has been proven, there is countless evidence proving so, so I really don't see why you wouldn't. Unless religion says otherwise, and you completely bypass modern logic.
Evolution is one of the most tested theories in science, and still there is not any contradicting evidence. Evolution has evidence from Fossils, Embryology, DNA, Geographic Distribution and Morphology.
Evolution is as well supported as any scientific theory, it is unreasonable to not accept it.
I've added a link to a video in which Professor Jerry Coyne talks about the evidence for evolution.
Not a vast amount of evidence? I have so many fossils in my house, including my (most definitely real!) ammonite bracelet on my wrist now, there are also fossil 'hotspots' I can name close to my home, including one exactly 150m from my house (loads some kind of prehistoric stretched cockle). There are so many fossils, so much evidence, how much does she need?
Whereas i agree with the No side i dont think you HAVE to believe it. Its just unreasonable to not accept it. If you are ignorant of the evidence then of course you may not accept it but if you are a person with full knowledge of evolutionary theory and the supporting evidence for it then id say yeah, you should accept it. If youre not convinced by that then youre either in denial or just stupid.
You don't need to look back in time thousands of years in order to prove evolution. It usually takes about 9 months. Every time a baby is born it is slightly different to the mother and father but at the same time inherits some of their characteristics. The fact that people change generation by generation is proof that evolution over millions of generations is at the VERY LEAST possible.
I actually have personally known people who genuinely believe in Creationism 100% and claim that evolution is stupid because monkeys and apes both still exist and that at least monkeys should have been wiped out of the theory were true.
I have, however, had the fortune of being raised by scientifically-minded parents.
I find it amusing how Creationists always struggle to understand that evolution isn't a mass conversion, it's more like a sub-species to begin with.