Science Debates

Sort By:
Showing: 141 - 150

The Theory of Evolution Cannot Explain All Organisms.


The Theory of Evolution is an ineffective method of explaining life on this earth. Through the careful examination of specific organisms and their structures, we see evident the insufficiency of the theory. Evolution, which explains life in small, gradual steps, does not provide the answers we seek. While Microevolution occurs within the gene code and is evident all around us, Macroevolution is a scientific impossibility. The idea that all forms of...

Post Voting Period
Updated 1 Year Ago

Philosophy: Determinism Accurately Describes Reality


In this debate, my opponent is taking the hard determinist stance that everything in the whole of existence is predetermined. My duty is to demonstrate that some things are not determined, and I will also present a case for free will. Definitions: Determinism - The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs. [1] Free Will - The philosophical doctrine that the conduct of...

Post Voting Period
Updated 4 Years Ago

Creationism has made verified predictions.


I would like to use mostly the same form as used by Microsuck, because I like it. Definitions: These are the definitions that will be used throughout this debate. Theory - A well supported, conceptual framework that encompasses a large body of scientific facts, inferences, data, and observations and explains them in a coherent way (Fairbans, 2012) Predictions-In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what will happen under specific conditions...

Post Voting Period
Updated 1 Year Ago

should exotic animals be kept as pet?


Should they?...

Post Voting Period
Updated 6 Months Ago

Naturalistic evolutionism cannot be rationally affirmed


Hey everyone 1st round is for acceptance. "naturalistic evolutionism" is the view that evolution is the process by which all life, including homo sapiens, arose, via natural processes and without the intervention of the divine, supernatural, or guiding intelligence. The Burden of proof is shared; I have to show that naturalistic evolution cannot be rationally affirmed, and Con has to show that naturalistic evolution can be rationally affirmed. Good luck and God Bless...

Post Voting Period
Updated 3 Months Ago

DNA is a code and therefore requires an intelligence to create it


DNA is not a code, instruction, or message and does not contain letters or symbols or meanings. It is a molecule which causes chemical effects under certain conditions. To claim DNA is a code is metaphorical reasoning similar to claiming that one billiard ball "sends a message" to another telling it to drop into a pocket when struck by the first; or that warm air "sends a message" to an ice cube telling it to follow the coded sequential instruction to become water and then vapor. Physical...

Post Voting Period
Updated 9 Months Ago

Global Warming is Happening!


Global Warming is happening! Over the last decades, Earth scientists around the world have evaluated pools of atmospheric, geographic, and oceanic data to reach the same conclusion: the Earth's surface is getting warmer. Besides registering a constant increase in the Earth's average surface temperature decade after decade, scientists also show that the world's sea levels are rising 3.16 mm per year (and have risen a total of 8 inches over the last...

Post Voting Period
Updated 1 Year Ago

Evolution is not a viable origin model


Evolution is not a viable origin model. It has been shown incorrect many times but no one seems to notice. An excellent example is salt in the ocean we all know the ocean is getting progressively saltier. So if the earth is billions of years old then how do you explain the fact that there is not enough salt for the ocean to be billions of years old. 457 million tonnes of sodium now comes into the sea every year....

Post Voting Period
Updated 3 Months Ago

Creationism should be taught in school (as in science classes)


I don't think creationism should be taught in schools. There aren't enough evidence for the idea that we are 6000 years old, but there are for evolution: immunology, DNA analysis, findings of skulls, and especially modern radiometric dating based on empirical study of radioactive decay. Although these processes are not inaccurate there uncertainties are blown out of proportion by creationists. Young earth creationists think that the Bible is 100% true and that only the word of God (i.e. the B...

Post Voting Period
Updated 3 Months Ago

Terra-forming Venus vs Mars


This debate will focus around the potential to terra-form Venus (me) vs terra-forming Mars (Imabench). Measuring the winner will be based on two values that we will be pushing. 1) How close we can get our respective planet to Earth like conditions. The closer the better. 2) How close the technology needed is to technology that we already have. Obviously everything that is "scientifically possible" is fair game, but things that can be done with tech that we already have available should sco...

Post Voting Period
Updated 2 Years Ago