The Instigator
TheMasterLink12
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kyudisease
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution: FACT or THEORY

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 847 times Debate No: 43258
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

TheMasterLink12

Con

Before we start I want to make it clear that we are working with Macro-evolution. I have no doubt that micro evolution is true.

Macro evolution is taught as fact in public schools however there is no hard, physical evidence that it is true. All we have is a bunch of bones (and some of them were falsified) and a bunch of assumptions. And we all know what assuming does. I want evidence that I can test macro evolution, To be clear: the change of a animal from one KIND to another. I am talking about the animals family not species. So Darwin's Finches are out of question. I want you to prove that we really did evolve from apes and not just by saying "well the fossil record shows" because the fossil record isn't perfect, and there has been to many times people have placed fake fossils underground to make it look like a possible link between humans and apes, as well as other animals. Give me video evidence if you like, just get me hard clear proof that MACRO EVOLUITON is true
kyudisease

Pro

"Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3] Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[1][4]"
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

I intend to argue from the point of a creationist. I propose that the "Cambrian Explosion" is evidence that most forms of complex life were created during a relatively short period of time and that diversity of life is what we see today.
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

I link this video as proof that micro and therefore macroevolution is a flawed concept.
https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 1
TheMasterLink12

Con

TheMasterLink12 forfeited this round.
kyudisease

Pro

kyudisease forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheMasterLink12

Con

TheMasterLink12 forfeited this round.
kyudisease

Pro

kyudisease forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheMasterLink12

Con

TheMasterLink12 forfeited this round.
kyudisease

Pro

kyudisease forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
TheMasterLink12

Con

TheMasterLink12 forfeited this round.
kyudisease

Pro

kyudisease forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheMasterLink12 3 years ago
TheMasterLink12
OK so from now on con is for fact pro is for theory understand everyone??! ok thanx :)
Posted by TheMasterLink12 3 years ago
TheMasterLink12
The point of this debate is to show that people can't just say its fact just because that's what "experts say" People will say anything and I don't like it when people go around saying that we evolved from animals because this one guy said so, he wasn't there, he has no idea what happened and there are too many variables to guess what did. As for the pro and con problem, miscommunication? I meant for the con to be that evolution is a theory and pro to be that it is fact. But because kyudisease has already started an argument on the pro side for theory, ... I guess we'll have to invert it...
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Well, what I mean is that "theory" is about as far as scientists can go for these sorts of things. Molecules are theory, atoms are theory, gravity is theory (and also law, depending on what part of gravity one is talking about). Scientists don't talk about "facts." So I'm just confused as to the reason why this is a "fact" vs. "theory" case, since both words suggest positive evidence, with one using "layperson" terminology that suggests an irrefutableness and the other using a scientific term that suggests positive evidence from a large body of empirical scientifically-validated evidence.
I guess I was expecting an "Evolution: True or False" kind of debate, rather than "True or Probably True" debate.
I'm also a bit confused by the debate, because (correct me if I'm wrong) it seems like Pro and Con are agreeing that "macroevolution" is false...
Posted by kyudisease 3 years ago
kyudisease
@kbub
Just because something is a "theory" doesn't mean that it is exempt from scrutiny. A theory can be shown to be implausible. Or are you trying to intimate something different?
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
...Still confused on why there is a "fact" vs "theory" binary...
Posted by kyudisease 3 years ago
kyudisease
I spoke too soon. I finished converting the clip, but youtube says it will take 120 min. to upload. I'm going to shut utorrent down to speed things up. Will keep you posted.
Posted by kyudisease 3 years ago
kyudisease
I'm converting the video for upload right now. I'll post with in the next 30 min. or so.
Posted by TheMasterLink12 3 years ago
TheMasterLink12
A few websites that I read claim that macro evolution is true, I just want to see what everyone else thinks of them :P
Posted by TheMasterLink12 3 years ago
TheMasterLink12
Alrighty :) go right ahead
Posted by TheMasterLink12 3 years ago
TheMasterLink12
Alrighty :) go right ahead
No votes have been placed for this debate.