The Instigator
guesswho
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dalzuga
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution is not an established scientific fact. Period.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 7/17/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,834 times Debate No: 12564
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

guesswho

Pro

Introduction:
The debate over whether evolution or creationism is true has been waged for a very long time to say the least. Frankly, this website is home to too many of them.

Unfortunately, due to how debates are structured, we always assume that one side has to be right and we forget our other options. When it comes to evolution vs creationism, the truth is that neither side has enough evidence to back up their claims.

We all know God cannot scientifically be proven. Well evolution cannot be scientifically proven either.

Definitions:

Evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Please note the words "new species"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Scientific fact: An objective and verifiable observation

http://en.wikipedia.org...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolved: Evolution is not an established scientific fact.

I only have one argument for this debate, but I believe it is stronger than all the arguments in support of evolution put together.

1. The study of Evolution is outside of Empirical Science.
For a natural occurrence to be considered a scientific fact, it must first fit all the requirements of experimental science (aka empirical science) simply because only through scientific experimentation can anything be proven to be factual.

The first requirement of experimental science is that a natural occurrence must be observable. For example, we can all observe the occurrences of earthquakes. Evolution, on the other hand, happens far to slowly to meet this requirement. Many living species remain unchanged for tens of thousands of years or millions of years, which is well beyond the life time of human observers. The well-known evolutionist Paul Ehrlich says the theory of evolution "cannot be refuted by any possible observations" and thus is "outside of empirical science."

The second requirement of experimental science is that a natural occurrence must be repeatable. For example, the rotation of the Earth around the Sun is a repeatable natural occurrence. What about Evolution? According to the evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky, even when evolutionary changes do occur, they are by nature "unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible."

The third and last requirement of experimental science is that a natural occurrence must be testable. For example, gravity can be tested by dropping an apple. With respect to evolution, Dobzhansky tells us that the "applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted."

To summarize: evolution cannot be a fact because it does not fit into the study of empirical science, which is the science responsible for determining facts.

http://mall.turnpike.net...
dalzuga

Con

i accepted this debate too quickly. i shouldve looked at it before accepting it. i concede
Debate Round No. 1
guesswho

Pro

LOL... yeah that would have been smart. Please vote Pro.
dalzuga

Con

dalzuga forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
guesswho

Pro

This is an unfortunate end to an issue so packed with controversy :(
dalzuga

Con

dalzuga forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by guesswho 7 years ago
guesswho
Cerebral, seeing that you are so certain of my defeat if Con hadn't conceded, would you like to formally debate this issue with me?
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
On sorry, did not realise that con conceded. Proper gentlemanly conduct prohbits me from further elaboration on that!
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Pro, your definition of evolution means that Con is pretty much assured victory.

You should have stated your resolution as being something like, "It is not a scientifcally established fact that evolution is the sole reason for the current life forms on earth".

Unfortunately speciation has been observed.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
No.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Kinesis did you just say Evolution is a fact because the scientific community supports it?

You just did didn't you?
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Pro fails. Con fails more.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
'Nobody with a clue claims that it's fact. It's a working theory BASED on facts that has not been refuted'

Not true. The fact and theory of evolution are two separate things. The fact of evolution is merely the fact of its existence, accepted by the entire scientific community bar a few kooks or religious types who deny specific parts of it. The theory of evolution is composed of various explanations that explain how it works.

Evolution IS a fact - and a theory.
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
"To summarize: evolution cannot be a fact because it does not fit into the study of empirical science, which is the science responsible for determining facts."

Considering you are religious, that sort of epistemological empiricism is a recipe for failure.
Posted by belle 7 years ago
belle
IOW- under your definition its not a fact because your definition includes natural selection, which is the theory part.
Posted by belle 7 years ago
belle
evolution is an observed fact. natural selection is a theory meant to explain the observations.
No votes have been placed for this debate.