All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

# Evolution is Simply a Theory and Should not be Taught in Schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
thomasbrooks16
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 12/6/2015 Category: Education Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 559 times Debate No: 83550
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 Pro Imagine I had a water bottle. I fill the water bottle up half way from the faucet and then turn the water down so it is simply dripping into the cup. You walk in the room. I ask you how long you think that cup has been under the faucet, and you measure how much water each drip drops into the cup, then you calculate how long that speed of dripping would take to fill the cup to where it is. What you don't know is that I used the faucet first at a high speed and then turned it down to a drip. Why don't you know that? You weren't there. Your theory is perfectly acceptable, and so would the theory of someone who said that I filled up the bottle quickly before slowing the flow to a drip. My point is, the theory of evolution is just that: a theory. And no matter how much you try to prove it by calculations and science, no one is alive that was there during the creation and development of the Earth, and therefore, it will never be stone cold fact. Therefore, the teaching of evolution in schools is the teaching of a religion. if the teaching of creationism, or intelligent design, cannot be taught in schools, the theory of evolution shouldn't be either. You cannot have one taught without teaching the other, or you are simply hypocritic. If you disagree, please feel free to accept my debate.Report this Argument Con Evolution is more than mere theory as my opponent has stated their is actual factual proof supporting negation ile my opponent is stuck using metaphors about water bottles. Now lets put a ripple in her bottle of nonsense. When looking evolution we are looking at the development of an organism overtime. Which can be as simple as the evolution of man from the Netherlanders to modern day man. When looking at evolution we see key animals who evolved over a period of time such as elephants who are slow evolving to where they no longer have tusks so poachers no longer target them for their ivory tusks. Another example of evolution is giraffes National Geographic have found the remains of several short necked giraffes. Scientist have come to the conclusion that sense giraffes main food source is the acacia tree which is a very tall tree. Giraffes have slowly increased in neck length to reach theses leaves. So in reality students should learn how animals have changed over time because it was part of science as well as history http://sci.waikato.ac.nz... https://www.gci.org... http://a-z-animals.com... Here is factual evidence proving my case and i hope you stand as do I in firm negation that evolution is just a theory and students shouldnt be taught in shools.Report this Argument Pro By using a metaphor of a water bottle, I have made a clear example that we can in no way be sure of what happened during a time when the human race didn't exist. We can only make mere speculations. Evolution includes both the origin of life itself and the development and maturation of life. I shall respond to your comment with a series of questions: Where did life originate? If the law of biogenesis states that life can only be made from life, where did life begin? How did the DNA code originate? The human body is an extremely complex life form. How did a big bang create such complicated life? How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival learn to cooperate and specialize to create complex plants and animals? How could mutations create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? Why is natural selection taught as evolution when it simply explains the survival of the fittest and not the arrival of the fittest? Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? The problem was noted by Darwin and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? If you can't teach religion in science classes, why is evolution taught? See: http://creation.com... http://creation.com... http://creation.com... http://creation.com...Report this Argument Con What this debate has come down too is Evolution vs Religion however they are one of the same. Evolution is just the study of gods creatures and how they have evolved over time. My opponent keeps mentioning her bottle water analogy so i would like to spin it in a different direction as my partner stated in the first round is that the bottle is full but we don't know how long the water has been running. Now that's exactly why evolution is being studied. We have the proof our in the case the water but we don't have the how and the why which is the how long did it take the water to fill. Yet in the end result the bottle is still full and now we have to study how it got this way in the first place. It was evolution when Eve and the rest of women would half to suffer the pain of child birth. Evolution can be as simple as a baby to a man. Evolution is more than just Darwin's theory. Everything changes overtime. It evolves to adapt to its environment its part of life, So just because we don't know how long it took the bottle to fill we know that the bottle is still full. So I hope that you still stand in firm negation of the resolve.Report this Argument Pro katherine.reed forfeited this round. Con ... she quitReport this Argument
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Midnight1131// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: FF

[*Reason for non-removal*] A forfeit is sufficient reason to afford conduct.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Sdio// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a terrible metaphor and never presented any real evidence, just a ton of questions for Con. Do your own research. Also, the link was to a biased site. Plus the forfeit.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G or arguments. Merely stating that one side didn't do their own research and forfeited doesn't automatically justify any of these points unless it's stated clearly how. (2) The voter insufficiently explains sources. Even if Pro presents absolutely no sources, the voter has to justify allocating sources to Con, and not merely justify why Pro doesn't deserve them.
************************************************************************
Posted by NothingSpecial99 1 year ago
I agree, there are much stronger arguments both sides can use.
Posted by WorldSkeptic 1 year ago
Sorry, this is an extremely sad debate. Neither Pro nor Con know jack about evolution, so I'll just get away before I get pulled down on something even sadder.
Posted by WorldSkeptic 1 year ago
So is gravity. YEAH!! Go test that out.
Posted by BIBLETHUMPER 1 year ago
Evolution is just a theory!!!! YEAH!!!
Posted by WorldSkeptic 1 year ago
Fine, I just mentioned it as a passing comment, not really to get into specifics. (fossils) I gave several examples of creationists using bad facts and useless arguments (maybe I'll go back to the forum and post them, but I really think that is unnecessary), which are ubiquitous throughout all creationist websites, even if some facts are true. What I meant was that using websites that notoriously use bad facts and inaccurate information isn't helpful for getting points in the 7-point system for credible sources.
Posted by NothingSpecial99 1 year ago
If creationist scientists are misrepresenting facts then prove it. I'd be more than willing to call out any intellectually dishonest scientist whether creationist or evolutionist who manipulate facts to fit their worldview. With your conversation with a creationist, some of the arguments used strawman evolution, that I agree with. However, he says she says isn't solid ground for calling the supposed creation scientist intellectually dishonest. In fact, the creationist website that Pro uses has an article about arguments that creationists should not use:

http://creation.com...

I didn't ask for specific fossils because I'm not aware of those fossils. Rather I was just pointing out that making statements like hundreds of fossils have been discovered that support Darwin's theory is not a strong argument without specifics. For example, if I make a statement that there are hundreds of fossils that support creation and the person I tell this to accepts it. He/she accepts it based on faith whereas a critical thinker would ask "What fossils?" and "How do they support creation?". Making general statements like that don't encourage critical thinking.

Now I won't say anything about the fossils you list as I don't want to help either side with their arguments.
Posted by WorldSkeptic 1 year ago
Yes, I realize that some creationists have PhDs, but that doesn't change the fact that they intentionally try to change the facts to fit whatever they wish the answer to be. Recently discussing evolution with a creationist, multiple times he cited creationist websites that said things like "scientists think we came from monkeys", they used something called the St Helen problem to justify a claim, when that problem was solved years ago, and they say that scientists claim "we came from rocks."

I don't have a problem with anyone if they use correct facts and scientific research that solves problems, discusses them, determine what works and then use this knowledge. These have way more credibility. So no, it's not because they have a different opinion, I have a problem because their facts are wrong.

I thought it unnecessary to mention fossils we have found, as I thought I might be faced with a more or less educated audience, but fine, here is a list: http://www.livescience.com...
And an example on humans: http://www.talkorigins.org...
They are called transitional fossils because they show change from one species to anther, that is why they are vital. All of it is explained in these articles.
Posted by ZacGraphics 1 year ago
Interesting debate so far. Pro has used some interesting sourcing, but not invalidated quite yet. We shall see if Pro's bottle metaphor holds up through Con's deliberate arguments. I wish the best of luck to both sides for the remainder of the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
© 2017 Debate.org. All rights reserved.