The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Evolution and science is an oxymoron

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Thiest_1998 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,034 times Debate No: 96150
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (45)
Votes (0)




Hi I'm Thiest and I believe that evolution and science is an oymoron because science by definition is a study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. and since evolution does none of those things I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

By evolution I am talking about:
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

with the exception of micro evolution which happens.


I accept.
I also noticed that there were no definitions provided 1st round for the most crucial term of the resolution.
So, I shall supply my own.

oxymoron - a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.

figure of speech - a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect.


Therefore, I'm rejecting the resolution that "cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic, and macro evolution and the study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world" is a phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical effect in which contradictory terms appear in conjunction.

1. "Evolution and science" is not a phrase used in a non-literal sense.
2. "Evolution and science" is not a phrase used for rhetorical effect.
3. "Evolution and science" is not a phrase in which contradictory terms appear in conjunction.


Now, I'm happy to make my case now, but as the resolution is worded, Pro most certainly holds the burden in this debate.
Pro's burden is to show that the two terms, "evolution" and "science," as defined in Pro's round 1, match the definition of "oxymoron," as defined in my round 1,

I've shown 3 reasons why the resolution is false, and I'm most willing and able to defend any of those evolutionary concepts...just after Pro makes his case about how evolution and science is a non-literal, rhetorical figure of speech with contradictions.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you MagicAintReal for accepting my debate.

Firstly the definition of science;
"by systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"
And since evolution (1-5) has never been observed or experimented the fact that it is considered a form of science makes evolution and science an oxymoron.


Thanks Pro for
I'm glad that Pro has no issues with the definitions of "oxymoron," from round 1.
This means that Pro accepts the burden as described in my round 1.
Pro accepts the burden to show that the phrase "evolution and science" is a rhetorical, contradictory, non-literal phrase.

*Pro's Case*

Unfortunately, Pro didn't make a case for a non-literal, contradictory, rhetorical phraseology, rather Pro used their round 2 to remind us of the definition of the term "science" that Pro had already provided in round 1.

Pro claims:
"since evolution...has never been observed or experimented the fact that it is considered a form of science makes evolution and science an oxymoron."

My response:
What does this have to do with being non-literal?
How does this indicate that "evolution and science" is a figure of speech?
What rhetorical device is being employed when one utters "evolution and science?"

This is where Pro should actually focus their case...

But you all know what's about to happen, right?

*Observation and Experimentation*

Pro has claimed that five arbitrarily chosen forms of evolution do not observe or experiment, so I'll defend each one.
Oh, and I hope it's obvious that IRL, the term evolution almost exclusively refers to the mechanism behind the biodiversity of life on earth, not cosmology, chemistry, or biochemistry; I did however, agree to those terms, so...

1. Cosmic Evolution - the origin of spacetime and matter.

The space of our universe is expanding at a constant rate, called the Hubble Constant.

As time passes, the universe's space expands at this constant rate, relative to the proportional distances between galaxies.
This means that if you were to go back in time, space would contract at that constant rate, the inverse of the Hubble constant.

So when we trace space back to its smallest point, using this constant, we reach the origin of spacetime itself, the Big Bang.
What's great is, one can OBSERVE the galaxies moving away from each other at this constant and, using a radio telescope, one can see the remnants of the big bang.

The origins of space and matter, though, have more to do with quantum mechanics, because if space gets smaller and smaller as we trace the constant back in time, space must have been the size of a subnuclear particle at one point.

Given that empty space, as EXPERIMENTED here on earth, is shown to have incomplete sub nuclear particles existing and being annihilated, we know that these quantum fluctuations are a fact and make up the nothing of empty space.

I have to make this point perfectly clear.
These sub nuclear particles fluctuating in and out of existence, quantum fluctuations, are what nothing is, and this is always the case.
There is no "nothing" without these fluctuations, period.

However, when there was no universe, there was no space, and instead, space and time fluctuated along with the existence and annihilation of the incomplete particles; nothing matter/energy/space/time/gravity...nothing.

This nothing is inherently unstable, with all of that fluctuation going on, so something is inevitably expressed from this nothing state...that something was the big bang.

2. Chemical Evolution - all elements evolved from hydrogen.

"The early universe was a very hot place...[which allowed for] the formation of heavier elements, atomic nuclei with many protons and neutrons, from the fusion of lighter elements..."

" second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos. As the universe cooled, the neutrons either decayed into protons and electrons or combined with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen)."

Nucleosynthesis, the formation of heavier elements from hydrogen, is an observable and testable scientific fact that explains the cosmic formation of elements from hydrogen...thanks NASA.

3. Stellar Evolution - stars and planets formed from gas-rich nebulae.

Once you have a bunch of heavier elements being formed from lighter elements, the gaseous, dusty network coalesces thanks to gravity and creates massive clouds rich with gaseous elements and compounds.

"Turbulence deep within these clouds gives rise to knots with sufficient mass that the gas and dust can begin to collapse under its own gravitational attraction."

"Stars form inside relatively dense concentrations of interstellar gas."

4. Organic Evolution - life begins from inanimate matter, abiogenesis.

A. With an atmosphere, water salinity, inorganic compounds, electricity, and UV rays likely of a prebiotic earth, inorganic compounds can naturally become organic compounds in the form of amino acids.

B. Amino acids make up proteins, in chains called polypeptides, and the sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active.

C. Biologically active amino acid sequences can in fact metabolize compounds.

D. Amino acids are catalysts, because they tend to increase the rate of chemical reactions, and in a prebotic network full of amino acids, RNA can emerge due to its auto-catalytic property.

E. RNA is also self-replicating, and because of this, was able to thrive in a prebiotic amino acid network.

F. With biologically active amino acid chains and self-replicating RNA, membranes can form, which all combined forms a protocell.

G. Protocells can metabolize with amino acids and replicate with RNA, and this is the origin of genetic polymers.

H. A protocell with a membrane and genetic polymers that can metabolize and self replicate is a full blown living cell, and these single cells are life; they're simple life, but they're life.

I. These simple life forms would need to eventually consume more, and the network of amino acids and other compounds in the region were in fact edible.

5. Macro-Evolution - animals and plants change from one type into another.

The apple maggot fly has been observed speciating and has an awesome explanation to it.
The original species, the Hawthorne Fly, used to feed on the fruit of hawthorns using that fruit for its maggots.

Once apples were introduced into their environment, some of the hawthorn flies fed only on the apples, while the typical hawthorn fly remained eating the fruits of hawthorns.
Now, since so much time has passed, currently, apple eating hawthorns (apple maggot flies) mature later in the season, and require chemicals from apples that help with fertilization/reproduction.

The original hawthorn fruit eaters simply cannot interbreed with the apple eaters,and remember the apple eaters were once hawthorn flies.
They are now two different species, and the parasites that inhabit them have also evolved along with the diet change.

Oh, of course, humans' 2nd chromosome is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes proving our descent from apes.

Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 9 months ago
Yeah, you woulda lost anyway...good for you right?
Posted by Thiest_1998 9 months ago
sorry I ran out of time when replying sorry to everyone who is viewing I will try and redeem myself with another debate
Posted by MagicAintReal 10 months ago
Thank you Jerry.
Posted by Jerry947 10 months ago
Interesting...I do not support everything in the evolutionary theory. But I would never say that the whole theory is unscientific.
Posted by Heirio 10 months ago
If you're done trying to debate, then I bid you good day.

If you're not... continue trying, I guess. You're only going to dig yourself deeper.
Posted by Heirio 10 months ago
"2. You want know what the source was for the 2.4 billion base number.
It was published in the Journal Science, which is probably the most prestigious Scientific Journal in existence. The title was Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%
The author Jon Cohen, is a atheist who written books like "Almost Chimpanzee""
"Further here is link to the Genome Project results. You will find the same numbers there.;

You actually read some part of my responses.

You've grown.

Though I stand by my point that our genomes are still similar. You have still - oddly enough - done nothing to disprove that. All you have done is proven that they are not 99% similar, which is funny, considering how no expert in the field would claim that anyway.

"Once again, sorry about trying to help you."

You don't seem to understand what "help" means.
Nor many other definitions.
I'll give them to you so you can be better educated.

"help - make it easier or possible for (someone) to do something by offering them one's services or resources."

You have lied and purposefully ignored many things I and others have said. You have provided nothing to support your case. You have not helped, you have wasted your own time but provided some nice comedy.

"majority - the greater number."

You seem to think that "majority" alludes to "99%". This is not the case and I'd expect a 10 year old to know the difference.
The fact that you don't comes to no surprise.

"scientific theory - a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of factors phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation"

What I love about you is that in another debate you not only showed your ignorance to this definition, but you flat out REFUSED to accept it.
You're akin to a child sticking their fingers in their ears.

It's funny.
Posted by Heirio 10 months ago
He also has provided no sources after this. We basically have to trust what he says. Based on what he has said before, we shouldn't do so so readily.

I believe my words were getting an expert for that little section of text I mentioned so they could explain thoroughly what it meant. Not getting a scientist involved in general. Just to clarify.

(And by your logic, the fact that you misunderstood that means you don't know what scientist means. By your logic, that is).

Might I also add that getting a scientist on your side doesn't mean you win. If you assume that, you assume the appeal to authority fallacy. Their words have to be logical and correlate with reality. This man's words were just humorous.

He then says that when evolutionists compare genes, they're typically only comparing a certain type. Firstly, he doesn't give sources, he just states it. Not very nice. Secondly, he says "typically", "usually".

He then says that the only parts of the genome which were 99% identical were the parts we compared.

It's odd how both me and one of your sources have been saying this for ages, yet you seem adamant that people say it's the whole of the genome.

Do you look at your own sources?

He's backing me up here. The part that was compared was 99% identical. Not the whole genome. Just the part that was compared. This part was the majority, therefore it's logical to state that the two are similar.
Posted by Heirio 10 months ago
"1. Someone said lets get a get a scientist involved, ok
This guy is Prof. Jeffery Tomkins PhD. He was the director of the University of Clemson Genetics Dept.
Just fast forward to the 11:00 mark and 19:45 mark, that may address your questions, or watch the whole thing."

Ha, I love this guy's description.

" This channel involves orthodox Christianity within the scope of theology, philosophy and science."

I can tell it totally isn't biased.

But I looked at his first point: "the chimp genome was placed over the human genome thus bias". Oh my that's dumb.
Let's say you want to analyse how the 1st chromosomes gene's are similar to that of a humans, alright? With me so far?

What this professor is stating is that comparing the 1st chromosome of chimp DNA specifically with the first of a human's is bias.

He's basically stating that we should be comparing the genomes out of order.

He then says: "I don't have a slide for this, but they put human DNA into chimp DNA."

He says that the ensembl website - which you also cited - backs this up.
He says that they state: "They projected human proteins into chimp genomes".
Either the man cannot read or he is lying.

They said they projected the human genome -onto-. This is VERY different. Projecting the DNA of one onto the DNA of another is a method of comparison.

If you project one line graph onto another line graph, you aren't adding the data together, you're just showing them together so you can better compare them.
Posted by Heirio 10 months ago
"I really seem to have set you off."

You seem to have a different definition of "setting off".
But you seem to be confused on a whole host of matters, including basic definitions and logic.
However, considering your position, none come as a surprise.

"Sorry about that, I was just show you some facts you probably never were taught in school. My fault."

This actually made me laugh.

"I will try one more thing and then leave you alone."

Try to convert me, alright.
Posted by Heirio 10 months ago
If you wish to try to debate again, message me.
I need a laugh.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.