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

Evolution vs Creation

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
aarish 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: 8/6/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 280 times Debate No: 94489
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




You said that Darwin's theory is not proven scientifically. You are wrong. Evolution is a scientific fact. It's a scientific theory which is supported by plenty of evidences. We have fossil record, DNA evidence,etc. A scientific theory is that which is supported by plenty of evidences. It's just like theory of gravity.


First of all I am assuming that you don"t involve yourself in science often. Unfortunately you are wrong. I am a creationist. But that doesn"t matter at all right now. Even to the standards of an educated evolutionist you are wrong. First of all a "Scientific Theory" not backed up by plenty of evidence. That"s why they call it a theory. Easy as that. But let"s get deeper. According to the scientific method, a theory becomes fact when you can measure, repeat, and observe. Seeing that you can do none of those things to creation or evolution, they are both theories. In your second sentence you state that not only is evolution a fact, but it"s a theory. That is impossible. You cannot be both. If the evolution is backed by the fossil record, and DNA, give me an example. You can literally post an entire essay here, use the space. I"m not using the space because your entire paragraph was erroneous. You need to rethink your argument thesis. Stop ranting, and get to the beef.
Debate Round No. 1


Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Scientist themselves say that evolution is both a fact and a theory. Just open this link and read it.


First of all you are using "Wikipedia" as a source. That is probably the worst possible thing to do. Do you realize that anyone who signed up for a free account can change anything they want on any paper on the website? Stephen Gould describes facts as, "He describes fact in science as meaning data,"

Here is the definition of a scientific fact used by the ever untrustworthy Wikipedia, "Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means)." Which in fact contradicts the idea that evolution is fact. You can"t measure evolution, you can"t repeat it, and you can"t see it.

Here is a scientific definition of a theory by a trusted website,, "contemplation or speculation."

Here is the sites definition for scientific fact, "any observation that has been REPEATEDLY CONFIRMED and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted."
In this definition you see that a fact must be repeatable, and observable. You can"t pull your information from Wikipedia. In college, if we put Wikipedia as a source for one of our papers, we would get in trouble. Wikipedia is probably the most untrusted sight to glean information from. It has obviously done its work on you.

Anyways there is your argument in a nutshell. You are the instigator, but you have brought no evidence to the table. To simply say that Wikipedia says so, does not mean it is so. I want evidence. As the instigator it is you job to present me with evidence, as I defend the fact that both origin theories are in fact theory.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by mmichaen 1 month ago
Spacebarman you have voiced your opinion but it holds some fallacies within because yes the amount of people whom are convinced into creationists are high they all hold the same problems with evolution which are broad brush dissolutions that try to "disprove" evolution.

If a man wakes up every day and punches a mountain forever one day he will wake up and his tunnel will be finished.
Your first point that all our systems are a massive interconnected web and if one organ were to fail/change to the point of becoming useless we would die sounds logical. Until you see the fact that its not as though over one generation we suddenly developed a 4 chambered heart it took millions of years of small changes each allowing the species to better survive until we got to the point where we now control our environment. So using your web analogy lets put aa spiders web in a tunnel and a breeze blows down it now the web won't stay the sam but will slowly change (evolve) until a completely new web is made this happens millions of times over millions of years and we can see (more or less) the world progress to what we have today.
Now entropy everything "breaks down" sure let's accept this and we still see that evolution can still work. we start with a long list in an original micro organism and then as time progresses that list changes 'breaks down' creating another list this list survives better than the last so reproduces more and then in that reproduction more changes happen as the list breaks down from the original. this pattern repeats and repeats until we have many many lists each coding for different organisms and structures. this is evolution.
Posted by Spacebarman97 1 month ago
The veracity of evolution is debated, in fact heavily. Believe it or not, the number of creationists is bigger than you want to think. Whether ID means aliens made us, and we arrived via direct panspermia, or we were created by God, people are beginning to reject evolution.

There is a mountain that evolution cannot climb. That mountain is interdependency. More and more organs we once considered vestigial are now discovered useful. Like the tailbone was once considered an evolutionary left over, and unnecessary. We find out it is actually an important attachment points for tendons. But our body is interdependent. This means that every system requires every system for sustainence creating a mutual spider web of dependencies. Systems like the circulatory system require the immune system to guard, the digestive system or fuel, skeletal smystem for structure, and protection, integumentary system also for protection ect...

The problem is that things evolve at different rates. And our body is evolving, maybe our digestive system evolves a little late, our species starves. Or our skeletal system is late, and we become a blob, and extremely susceptible to predators. Whatever it is, you must be completely evolved at the same time for sustainence, which is a bunch of malarkey. The same argument can be made with mutual relationships, and to some extent parasitic relationships.

Another mountain is entropy. Everything breaks down including the gene pool. It is not theory, but scientific fact that DNA breaks down, we loose information. But for us to come from a simple cell organism would require gain in information. Where did that come from!? You see that right there contradicts scientific fact . I can go on and on about the stupidity of evolution, and how it is false. I think evolutionists can be smart. After all it's just one theory. I have met evolutionist who are very intelligent. But that doesn't make the theory of evolution true.
Posted by missmedic 1 month ago
Creationism is not the best explanation and offers no knowledge. Our most successful explanations also tend to be consistent with our background knowledge. If your new theory requires that we throw out everything we know about gravity and light and animals and humans, then that"s probably not the right theory. Consistency with background knowledge is important for a best explanation. All fields of science, (except pseudo science) and every aspect of life and physical sciences supports and corroborates the theory of evolution.
Geology-- deep time and paleontology
Physics -- origins of universe
Biology -- all of the life sciences show evidence and support for the theory of evolution, but moreover do not make logical sense without this unifying theory.
There is no question about evolution's existence, but there is some academic debate about how evolution works mechanistically. Casual observers often mistake this for 'debating evolution' erroneously.
Posted by Freakoutimaninja235 1 month ago
Also, @missmedic
The second definition you provided for "theory" is the one that evolution fits. The first definition is like learning something- you learn the "theory" side, and then you apply it in "practise". This can come under subjects like music and art etc.
in science, a theory is, as you said yourself, a proposed explanation, in contrast to well-established propositions.
I'll have you know that some of the world's top biologists, including one behind the project that is working on using gene drivers to get rid of the Zika virus, are creationists.
I myself, having learned both creationism and evolution, am a creationist.
Here is some food for thought.
Natural selection and microevolution- proven, observable, reproduced under simulated conditions, and thus established fact.
Macro-evolution: neither observable nor proven, a theory accepted mostly by people who do not understand nor follow actual science. I had to learn it in order to pass a scholarship exam this year. It is full of flaws and honestly ridiculous.
Also, you'll find that most people who are evolutionists were brought up to be, or they were brought up in creationism that is blind belief and not supported by fact, which is where most people hate on creationism. There is in fact much evidence to support it, but many people do not know this evidence and teach it only as religion based.
Which is fine in a way, because it's true, but not so good when a non-Christian wants to know why, right?
Posted by Freakoutimaninja235 1 month ago
I'm astonished that a person who believes themselves qualified to debate evolution would first say "Evolution is a scientific fact" and then follow it up with "Evolution is a scientific theory..."
This contradicts itself.
Posted by Spacebarman97 2 months ago
Number one, this is not your debate.
I chose to use the particular definition of theory because it was the one associated with science. If you look it will give you an example under the definition listed in

Yes creationism is based on belief, and it doesn't establish facts. But theory doesn't either. Theory is an educated supposition made about facts. Evolution, or creation will never be proven. You can't do it. No mater how probably one is over the other, It is not repeatable, observable, or measurable. This means it must remain theory.

I should not have to debate the meaning of a theory. If you guys want to weigh in in the science area, or debate here, you must be educated. and your not. A good scientist knows the difference between a theory and a fact (or law).

And ofryinstr is somebody I just debated, and he's upset that he didn't do well.
Posted by missmedic 2 months ago
Creationism is based on belief, beliefs and faiths do not establish "truths" or facts. It does not matter how many people believe or for how many centuries they have believed it. It does not matter how reverent or important people think of them, if it does not agree with evidence, then it simply cannot have any validity to the outside world.
Posted by missmedic 2 months ago
Typical Christian bias and ignorance. Theory; as defined by
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
Coming in at number 6 the Christian definition of theory; 6. contemplation or speculation.
Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.
Scientific Theory; noun
1. a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
the scientific theory of evolution.
Posted by ofryinstr 2 months ago
COn is so right- Evolution is proven
This debate has 0 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.