Evolution is a Truth
Debate Rounds (4)
I do have something to debate with you, however.
You said, "...evolution is a TRUTH that demands NO FURTHER EXPLANATION"
These are your words, and I am afraid you are going to have to eat them.
I am not even certain why you used the word "truth" so loosely. Matters of "truth" are usually reserved for philosophy, theology, and law, whereas the Theory of Evolution deals primarily in Biology and Chemistry and other "hard sciences".
You use it in a way that contradicts the very model and framework of a Scientific Theory, which is what the THEORY OF EVOLUTION is. Science can ONLY use the evidence that is currently available, and it CHANGES with new evidence and new data.
So by your statement, you believe that there should be no more research, "NO FURTHER EXPLANATION", with regard to the Theory of Evolution. So all of the Evolutionary Biologists should just call it quits? They have no further questions to ask or answer based on their on going studies?!
That is ironically un-scientific.
Through this definition we can see it is a TRUTH in society and our world today through the process at which we can see by example of bacteria growing stronger and becoming immune to certain antibiotics as the antibiotics are not yet strong enough to kill off the genetically different bacteria. It is also seen today in the fact that some of our organs are removed as they are no longer necessary for survival. Through these things I hope that people can see that Evolution is a truth as by its definition it is in the world.
You also said that this goes against the scientific theory though I was merely showing how to me, evolution is something real and physical by the way I used "truth" in context. By the context I used, it shows I was thinking that evolution was truthfully and REALISTICALLY seen in society and NOT that it requires no further explanation. To me evolution, as it seems to me can be proven with realistically and factual means. I also by the way I said: "no further explanation," showed I was talking about my opinion on the IDEA of evolution.
The scientific method is merely saying how when you discover something to be true or factual that it brings up more questions. These questions are what you are saying "I said" require no more research, which is false. I was talking about evolution (the main "first" question), and how because I take it as true, these questions have sprung up and do require more research done to further prove the existence of evolution and the ancestry we have with other species.
In conclusion my first argument was not saying that evolution should be framed up and nothing else has to be done to it, but rather saying itself has been proven as true and that the questions that it brings up can still be answered for further research
Here is the main issue with what you posted originally. Have you ever heard of "Ordinary Language Philosophy"? Basically, it states that people in very esoteric fields of study, who use their own unique vernacular, often forget to make clear their definitions of words for people who are not in their fields. "Truth" in law has a different meaning than it does in other fields. "Theory" to the general population typically means a hypothesis unproven, whereas in hard sciences it means something quite the opposite; it means something backed by considerable evidence.
So when you throw words like "Truth" around it becomes problematic.
You have totally failed to give an adequate definition of truth. In fact, you failed to address my very point on this. You missed it more than you failed to proof read, actually.
Further more, "science observing something" is perhaps your definition of what truth is, but I challenge you to find in any dictionary, encyclopedia, or philosophy book a congruent definition. And we can have a WHOLE OTHER DEBATE about what is the definition of "truth", but that will get very long and very exhaustive. Again, see the above citation on "Ordinary Language Philosophy" for a better articulation of that. I must also stress to you, as advice going forward, to DEFINE your key terms when starting a debate so that EVERYONE IS ONE THE SAME page and can know what you mean.
WHAT YOU SAID
"By the context I used, it shows I was thinking that evolution was truthfully and REALISTICALLY seen in society and NOT that it requires no further explanation."
So what are you really saying? That evolution is a term used by scientists to reference observable data? WOW DUDE! What a discovery you made!
But that is NOT what you said. You said that Evolution is a "TRUTH" (and you failed to define truth in your original post, which I attacked), and that it "REQUIRES NO FURTHER EXPLANATION" (see next point on how science is constantly changing its theories).
Here is a quote from you: "...and NOT that it requires no further explanation." So wait, you did NOT say, "it requires no further explanation"? Because you did, but in that sentence you are saying that you DID NOT SAY THAT.
You are either confused, or you are a victim of not proof-reading before your publish.
So you've contradicted yourself in your rebuttal. But I applaud you for sticking to your guns, at least attempting to, and debating for the sake of debating. Even though you're making yourself look foolish with backtracking.
However, I am STILL debating what you originally posted. And I've already won by your definition in your opening post. Because I got you to change what you said. You originally said that it "Requires no further explanation" and as the above two quotes from YOU show, you have retracted that statement.
WHAT YOU SAID
"The scientific method is merely saying how when you discover something to be true or factual that it brings up more questions."
So I want you to carefully read you wrote, and what I wrote, in context. I was talking about SCIENTIFIC THEORIES in Round 1...and you then you bring up a definition (your own definition I might add) about the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. THEORIES and METHODS are DIFFERENT THINGS. BE CONSISTENT.
Not quite the definition of the scientific method by the way.
Here is how the OXFORD ENGLISH DICITIONARY defines "The Scientific Method": "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
So the Scientific Method gives us results that REFORM our ideas and our INTERPRETATION of data.
At one point in time, everyone that the Solar System was EARTH CENTRIC, now we know its HELIOCENTRIC. How? We got new data. We got...
You also do not define clearly what you mean by "Evolution" by means of which branch of science you are talking about.
Biology, Chemistry, Paleontology, Botany, Genetics, Physics, all handle the term "evolution" differently. This also goes into my original point about "Ordinary Language".
You also seem very hung up on the way I used truth and how it can confuse others. I think you need to interpret that I merely used "truth" to say that it is real. There is no further explanation in the terms that I misused the word truth fir maybe if you read the rest of my argument you could understand how "truth" was not used in a biological or scientific stance but rather on the real and actual definition that normal people can understand it to be TRUE.
Also if you have any inkling on how to debate you should note that you should of not accepted my challenge, rather have supported my claim for you seem to be with evolution and also seem to be attacking my ways of speaking rather than attacking the points I make. You are very un-scientific in the fact you say evolution is different in all sciences. I think you should read up on the fact that evolution in biology, botany, genetics, and other sciences is accepted as the diversifying of species over time and through DNA changes and mutations.
Also "no further explanation" is not representing that we should stop changing our idea on evolution. I can say God requires no further explanation to exist yet still change my opinion on the topic if new data is seen. The earth was once thought to be flat and that was true for them. Later we discovered it to be round and spherical, does that make it false in there time? Yes, but with the information they had at the time without any other points to show it was spherical, the argument was held to be true by the limited knowledge they had.
In conclusion, you are bent in your ways of arguing and seem to be more attacking me and supporting the claim which I was hoping someone AGAINST evolution would take.
Let's turn to the Oxford English Dictionary shall we?
"An argument about a particular subject, especially one in which many people are involved"
Not the word "argue" and notice the lack of the word "share". If you wanted to just share your views, you should have kept to the forums and not posted this on the debate platform, where we are going to pick and choose a winner based on their ability to argue and present.
And yes, I am going to attack your improper ways of speaking. If you speak improperly, we cannot know for sure what you are saying or you will say something you do not mean. Thus, your whole argument is undermined by your own improper use of language. How else are we to know what you are trying to convey? Telepathy? It is your responsibility to clearly form your speech and therefore arguments, and your opponents job to argue with what you put forth.
"You also seem hung up on the way I used truth and how it can confuse users...."
Yes I am. I said that in my very first post in this debate. That was what I said my whole debate was about in fact: how you use the word "truth" and your claim that it "requires no further explanation", which you responded to by clumsily backtracking. And your response to my demonstration of your backtracking (e.g. you claiming that you DID NOT say "requires no further explanation" in R2) is that I am overly aggressive.
No I am not being aggressive, I am sticking to my original points in R1.
" I think you should read up on the fact that evolution in biology, botany, genetics, and other sciences is accepted as the diversifying of species over time and through DNA changes and mutations."
I did read up on that, in fact I provided a source listing out the differences of the term "evolution" in different fields. And whether or not the term is exactly the same in each discipline of science is mute, when each of those fields will examine, retract, and expand upon the THEORY (not truth) of Evolution based on NEW EVIDENCE and NEW EXPLANATIONS.
"The earth was once thought to be flat and that was true for them. Later we discovered it to be round and spherical, does that make it false in there time? Yes, but with the information they had at the time without any other points to show it was spherical, the argument was held to be true by the limited knowledge they had."
Your proving my point. Look, I do not know how to spell this out to you any more clearly.
If something requires NO FURTHER EXPLANATION it means that everything that can be said, or needs to be said, has been said. THINGS IN SCIENCE are constantly getting new explanations via new data and new experiments. I could not take what you originally said any other way.
You said Evolution is a TRUTH that requires no further explanation. MY whole argument has been taking that statement apart and making you eat your words, which is what is happening.
You have yet to give a definition of "truth" outside of your own whimsical and clumsy definition, and you cannot stand by the "needs no further explanation" consistently. R2 you said you did not say it, and now you are saying it means that science dictates getting new information all of the time, and somehow that goes along with "needs no further explanation".
I have set out to do what I said I would. Make you eat your words about "truth" and "further explanations". You don't cite anything. You backtrack and contradict. And your counter argument is along the lines of, "don't pick on me for not using language well!".
And no one could take your original evolution "Argument" because you phrased it so so poorly. All you're really saying (well, trying to say really) is that Evolution is a thing scientists talk about and collect data for. OK? Evolution is not a monolith. Not all scientists agree on the details or even the general concepts. Be more specific in your proposed argument next time.
The quality or state of being true
Being within state of actual state of affairs
Maybe use common sense before blindly debating what you perceive is wrong. Truth at the most basic definition, which would allow you to deduce the statement quickly, was used to show how evolution is an actual state that is concurrent with modern day and is in our ecosystem and was involved with life on Earth.
"You have yet to give a definition of "truth" outside of your own whimsical and clumsy definition, and you cannot stand by the "needs no further explanation" consistently. R2 you said you did not say it, and now you are saying it means that science dictates getting new information all of the time, and somehow that goes along with 'needs no further explanation'."
No, I have given a definition to truth in R2 as I stated it was: the state of being true, as also said in the webster dictionary. Although I have used definitions pertaining to the debate you seem to enjoy bringing up my incompetence in the field of this, which is completely hypocritical and maybe if you were confused, you should given definitions rather than just saying I'm wrong.
"If something requires NO FURTHER EXPLANATION it means that everything that can be said, or needs to be said, has been said. THINGS IN SCIENCE are constantly getting new explanations via new data and new experiments. I could not take what you originally said any other way."
Maybe you misread my evidence provided in R2 but when I say "No further explanation" I say it is REAL and it is something that happened which is provided through context in the first round when I said that the topic of evolution is real. Thats why its a theory like gravity, this is something that is real, you can say gravity requires no further explanation, which maybe you can understand, its real. I think scientifically and therefore am open for further discoveries but evolution did happen.
To further nail down what I was saying and get this thought to you: I said NO FURTHER EXPLANATION because we have enough evidence to prove evolution happened, its done, its real and its in our world today.
"Some claim evolution is just a theory. As if it were merely an opinion. The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact. Evolution really happened. Accepting our kinship with all life on Earth is not only solid science. In my view, it"s also a soaring spiritual experience." - Neil de Grasse Tyson (astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium)
Citing your sources, clarifying key words in your thesis statement, proof reading, and not contradicting yourself are essentials for debating.
This is the first time you've used any kind of citation, and it is the last round. You should be ashamed. And please stop taking your anger out on me, when you are really just frustrated at yourself. Stop making lame excuses like, 'oh you shouldn't attack my improper language use', and just make sure you use things correctly going forward.
Now...to refute you.
"Maybe use common sense before blindly debating what you perceive is wrong. Truth at the most basic definition, which would allow you to deduce the statement quickly, was used to show how evolution is an actual state that is concurrent with modern day and is in our ecosystem and was involved with life on Earth."
Listen, I already said that I am not an opponent of Evolution, I was an opponent of what you said in your opening statement. What you said in your opening statement made you look stupid, and this statement also makes me think you are in NO WAY someone to go to for an explanation on what Evolution is, is not, and the details therein.
Maybe use precise language and proof-read and people won't be confused? But hey, color me crazy, I guess I am asking a lot there.
Seriously dude, you completely contradict yourself in R2, it cannot be interpreted differently.
"...you seem to enjoy bringing up my incompetence in the field of this, which is completely hypocritical and maybe if you were confused, you should given definitions rather than just saying I'm wrong."
I did give definitions, and sources, and asked multiple times for definitions from you that weren't just made up on the spot. It took you four rounds to do that.
And yes, I enjoy brining up your incompetence, it was the whole basis of my argument. Thank you for realizing that and confirming that you are incompetent.
"To further nail down what I was saying and get this thought to you: I said NO FURTHER EXPLANATION because we have enough evidence to prove evolution happened, its done, its real and its in our world today."
Oh really? Then why did you even start this debate?
Inherently, you just defeated your own thesis statement. If Evolution requires NO FURTHER EXPLANATION because, as you say, it is true, proven, and "in our world today" (whatever the hell that means...was Evolution not in our world a 1000 years ago?), but you were looking for someone to debate with and thus PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION. Because there are many people who disagree not only on Evolution as a valid scientific concept, but on the finer details therein!
THUS REQUIRING MORE EXPLANATION
Furthermore, science is not the end all be all for verifying truths in this world. Science can tell you what the chemical properties of ink and paper are, but science cannot tell you the true meaning of a beautiful novel. Science can tell you the composition and objective provable facts of the paintings in the Sistine Chapel, but science cannot even begin to answer why people all over the world find it so breath takingly beautiful.
Science needs to work with other disciplines and other skills to reach people and be effective.
So, again, just take your time and actually think about what you are saying. And ask yourself, "Am I an expert on Evolution? Or am I believing the words of a bunch of people I never met regarding and intensely complicated subject that I really know little about outside of what others tell me?"
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.