The Instigator
John135086
Con (against)
The Contender
Wolfram
Pro (for)

Evolution

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
John135086 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 275 times Debate No: 94784
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

John135086

Con

Hello,I'm here to debate that Evolution is flawed. Not in the sense that evolution took a wrong turn and crap happened,but in the sense that the entire idea of evolution IS flawed. Now while I myself am Christian and whoever accepts this will probably be a atheist,I'm not here to debate the existence of God. While you may use God in your argument,please keep it to a minimum. Also,I don't think this would have to be necessary,but please,no trolls. Only accept this if you are serious. In addition,first round will be acceptance,after that do it however you want,but we will not set in stone any specific way for this. Lastly,I would like a experienced debater to accept. This is my third account as I have cancelled the other two,and I myself am experienced debater.

Thank You!
Wolfram

Pro

Challenge accepted, John135086 (CON). I am a former Atheist and a Christian, although religious belief is not related to the subject of evolution. Since CON hasn't set up the conditions of debate, so I'll take the initiative:

We'll debate the theory of evolution on the grounds of "flaw".
1. The definition of flaw:
transitive verb
: to make flaws in : mar
intransitive verb
: to become defective

I will argue against CON that the theory of evolution may be flawed, but it is ever-updating theory according to the data findings discovered by scientists in the future. In other words, the theory of evolution cannot be remaining flawed and must be updated. I assert that the theory of evolution is accurate according to data findings.

If the conditions are acceptable for Pro, then we'll start by having PRO will have to summarize why the theory of evolution is flawed.

Links:
1. The definition of flaw: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
John135086

Con

I noticed when he gave the definition that he made it sound like the idea of evolution if it is itself IS flawed,then it cannot remain flawed. While I may actually be right and tomorrow scientist discover that hey,evolution is flawed it isn't possible,then everyone would(well most everyone)think I'm right. But in A Million Years or a Thousand or a Hundred or a Billion they may discover once again Evolution is possible and then they would Look back say that We tomorrow were wrong while we though we were right. So while there may be no sure way of knowing,I'm Confident Evolution IS flawed,and I'm arguing that in the sense that right now,and at least right now until they come up with some hard proof that it ISN'T,that it is flawed. While this has very little to do with the debate,I don't know my opponent. From his every word he said He seems like a nice person,but he may use what I just talked about and try to use it and shut put everyone of my arguments. If this was his initial plan and he(you) would like to argue with me about it,sure. But for now I'm gonna post.

My argument for this is really simple and short. Most of my beginning arguments aren't,but think of this argument as a foundation,it laying down the way for a bigger and more complicated argument.

When people talk about the theory of evolution they may treat it as a hard fact. When you read that true statement,you may of skipped a word. Theory. The. And some others. But the Theory of Evolution is just that:a Theory. After all this time scientist still haven't been able to prove it's true. If evolution was true,then we'd evolve at basically everything. Including reading. But of course that hardly and argument so let's move on.

There's theories out there that Darwin himself was crazy. He in fact dropped out of Med school and had waited for more than 20 year's before he even started publishing his theory of evolution. But just like evolution,him being crazy is just a theory...

Here's my main argument(mainly):

Life is too complicated to be here on it's own. When you see a watch,you assume there's a watchmaker because watches are too complicated to be here on it's own. Same thing with people.

According to scientist(Atheist and Christian alike) Information can only be produced by intelligence. Think of it like your computer. A computer doesn't "understand" anything. All it see's is 1 and 0's and it recognizes it. But we the people understand it. But DNA is by far the most compact way to store information in a store/retrieval system. A pin head size of DNA can contain more than 500 PETABYTES! Yes,that much in the size of a pinhead. Yet Atheist and evolutionist(same thing) seem to think some stupid how some idiotic way all this information randomly got here. Did I mention those 500 petabytes worth of information can keep everything you need to build a brain AND and body and more? AND it's self replicating.

While I would JUST LOVE to go on and on and on,It'll be too much and I would like to hear my opponents argument. Besides,I got better thing's to do than site here and type and research and give myself a headache for your entertainment..ok my entertainment too cause it's actually a little fun. But nevermind all that,I'm getting off track. I'm done,and I'll await my opponents response.

http://www.epm.org...
Wolfram

Pro

CON: "While I may actually be right and tomorrow scientist discover that hey,evolution is flawed it isn't possible,then everyone would(well most everyone)think I'm right."

It is not about who's right or wrong, It is about if the theory of evolution is updated to replace its flawed data or not. Before the claim the theory of evolution is flawed, then CON will need to list down Evolution's flawed findings as an example. Besides, the burden of proof rests on CON's shoulder.

CON: "When people talk about the theory of evolution they may treat it as a hard fact."

Con implied that the fact is viewed as an absolute and the theory is based on the fact, which is not true. Theory of the evolution is not based on fact but scientific fact. Considering the different definition between of "Fact" and "Scientific Fact":

----------------------------
Full Definition of fact
1
: a thing done: as
a obsolete : feat
b : crime
c archaic : action
2
archaic : performance, doing
3
: the quality of being actual : actuality
4
a : something that has actual existence
b : an actual occurrence
5
: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
scientific fact
noun
any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted

Examples
The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.
------------------------------------
Copy and Pasted from source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.dictionary.com...

After reading the definitions of fact and scientific fact and then you will see that scientific fact is not an absolute, because scientific fact will be updated if it was refuted by new advancements of data in the future. More to add, the word of "fact" necessarily don't mean absolute.


CON: "There's theories out there that Darwin himself was crazy. He in fact dropped out of Med school and had waited for more than 20 year's before he even started publishing his theory of evolution. But just like evolution,him being crazy is just a theory..."

Darwin's mental health is irrelevant to the basics of theory because theory operates on the scientific method. In other words, you'll need to making an observation, a question, a hypothesis, and then experiment to acquire the data for analysis so you can come to the conclusion based on your data findings. Scientific method is what define the science, not crazy.
Source: http://www.schoolofdragons.com...

CON: "According to scientist(Atheist and Christian alike) Information can only be produced by intelligence. Think of it like your computer. A computer doesn't "understand" anything. All it see's is 1 and 0's and it recognizes it. But we the people understand it. But DNA is by far the most compact way to store information in a store/retrieval system. A pin head size of DNA can contain more than 500 PETABYTES! Yes,that much in the size of a pinhead. Yet Atheist and evolutionist(same thing) seem to think some stupid how some idiotic way all this information randomly got here. Did I mention those 500 petabytes worth of information can keep everything you need to build a brain AND and body and more? AND it's self replicating."

The link Con provided is not the reliable source because it didn't address the data findings to confirm the possibility of intelligence design. Intelligence Design is a pseudoscience. Intelligence Design aside, the foundation of evolution was driven by the traits of life like survival instinct, sex reproduction and biological needs. DNA is responsible for the evolution because the observations of natural selection showed the changes of DNA will affect the gene pool in generations later. In other words, natural selection is an example of evolution.

Source: http://public.wsu.edu...
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
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Wolfram 3 months ago
Wolfram
Gentlemen and ladies, the debate have been forfeited by John. Please cast your votes with your thoughts about our debate. This is my first debate, so please be analytic with me. It would be helpful for my debate skills.

Thank you for your time.
Posted by Wolfram 3 months ago
Wolfram
No sarcasm intended, John.
Posted by John135086 3 months ago
John135086
Not sure if that was sarcasm...but your welcome
Posted by Wolfram 3 months ago
Wolfram
@John135086

"While I would JUST LOVE to go on and on and on,It'll be too much and I would like to hear my opponents argument. Besides,I got better thing's to do than site here and type and research and give myself a headache for your entertainment..ok my entertainment too cause it's actually a little fun. But nevermind all that,I'm getting off track. I'm done,and I'll await my opponents response."

Understood, John. Thanks for your time.
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
evolution of evolution, evolving.
Posted by John135086 3 months ago
John135086
Thanks,confused by that. I'll get start this tomorrow,I'm really tired and have a headache
Posted by Wolfram 3 months ago
Wolfram
I've made the mistake in my first round, so I'll recorrect my mistakes here:

*If the conditions are acceptable for Con, then we'll start by having Con will have to summarize why the theory of evolution is flawed.
Posted by SM29 3 months ago
SM29
How narrowly is "evolution" to be construed? Are we discussing only the works of Darwin or is it a more general concept of an evolving habitat as determined by factors other than God? I'll accept the challenge on the basis of defending the latter but not the former.
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.