The Instigator
SPYDIR
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Mantizah
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is Evolution scientific fact, or is it just a theory?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
SPYDIR
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 764 times Debate No: 52087
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

SPYDIR

Pro

I I would like to take this opening statement to say some things about what I believe, and why I would ever make the claim that evolution is not scientific fact.
First off, what I believe: I believe that God created the world in six literal days, the earth is a young earth, dating six thousand years, Man sinned, and God sent his son to die on the cross for our sins, and that all of scripture is true, and accurate.
In this debate, I would like for there to be no straw man arguments, and no red herring arguments. I would like to stick to the issue at hand. I will do my best to respect my opponent's opinion, will hear him out, and will not dismiss what he or she says, but will do my best to answer them.
I believe my reasoning behind evolution not being scientific fact is basically, the scientific method. Now, the scientific method says that in order to be scientific, it has to be observable, testable, and repeatable. It is obviously not testable, and it is not repeatable, so this debate will be over observable evidence for evolution. One of the reasons I want to do this is because Ray Comfort made a video titled "Evolution vs. God." In this video, he asked for one piece of observable evidence for evolution. He couldn"t get an answer, thus leading him to believe that evolution is not scientific.
https://www.youtube.com...

I can"t wait to get started, and hope that my opponent enjoys it as much as I do.
Mantizah

Con

Well, I guess I'll start out with a bit of what seems to me to be fairly valid proof of evolution. Let's go! A288;A342;W11;A342;A289;

- Ages of fossils and remains- With the technology we have today, or even just by looking at how far down fossils are buried, we can tell their age, and from this it is clear that not all livings where ever alive at the same time. They constantly died out and where replaced by new forms of life. Has god been constantly killing off species and replacing them with new ones? That seems kind of pointless.

-Natural selection- To a fair extent, traits are passed down from parent to child. Everyone knows that. If redheads could only have children, there would eventually only be redheads left. We would have "evolved" into a redheaded species. Let's say then it was only people with big feet that could marry, and after that, people with small ears, and so on. Eventually, we would have nearly turned into a different species.

-Putting it together- To conclude, I'm sure you've heard of ancient human-like apes such as Homo Erectus. You couldn't really call it human, but it was almost there, just like Homo Cepranensis, which lived a bit earlier on, was almost the same as Homo Erectus. If you lined a few of their skeletons up and took a picture, you would be taking a picture of the evolutionary process that almost without a doubt led to your very existence.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 1
SPYDIR

Pro

great job! I am glad to know that there is someone my age that is interested in debating this crisis, I should say. Or we could call it a clash of worldviews, to be a little more correct. Anyways, I will begin by saying, you did a great job showing observable evidence.
To start off, I would like to make clear the difference between macro, and micro evolution. Macro Evolution is the changing between kinds, like the dog kind and the cat kind, which is known as Evolution (capital E)

Micro evolution (small e) is What I believe in, is called adaptation, such as the finches passing on new traits to their offspring.

It is invalid to use micro evolution as proof for macro evolution.

With this in mind, let us examine your arguments.

"Natural selection- To a fair extent, traits are passed down from parent to child. Everyone knows that. If redheads could only have children, there would eventually only be redheads left. We would have "evolved" into a redheaded species. Let's say then it was only people with big feet that could marry, and after that, people with small ears, and so on. Eventually, we would have nearly turned into a different species."

now, is this macro or micro evolution? Notice the word SPECIES. this means changes within kinds, If redheads could only have children, there would eventually only be redheads left. this is very valid to say, but the redheads are still human, they haven't changed.

We can see microevolution or adaptation with dogs as well, we can start with say, a husky, and breed and keep the selection we want, until we get a new breed of dog, thus making a new species, not a new kind.

as for early man, I found pictures of them, I did not cite them, for that would have taken my millions of years, Jk. (that was in no way meant to be personal)

I reaserched them, and found that they were very surprising, they appear to look either, like modern humans or like monkeys. Why is this? maybe that is because they were either monkeys, or humans! I know this isn't the best anwser, so I will bring it up again in my closing.

I would also like you to clarify, being that I am not an expert on the subject, exactly how we would be able to determine the ages of rocks! is it radiometric dating, or is it just looking at the rock formations.

again, I thank you, this is my first debate and I am enjoying the ability to think through problems.
Mantizah

Con

Yeah, this is my first debate too :) It's great to so easily find someone willing to have this sort of deep conversation.

So anyway, let's start with your main argument, the one about the difference between macro and micro evolution. I see it kind of like micro and macro biology. We as a whole are studied under the field of macro-biology, but we are made up of nothing more than a collection of tiny cells. Many small things make something larger, and in the great time span that is the history of life, there is certainly space for micro-evolution to get really, really big. Nothing as random as evolution runs in circles forever. It had to break into something drastic eventually.

As for fossil dating, I'm nowhere near even being competent on the subject. The source I cited on carbon dating looks to be valid though, and the theory very much based in science. Simply the way more ancient fossils are layered by age is frequent enough to be reliable too.

Maybe our supposed ancestors do look either more like monkeys or more like humans, but there only could have been one generation in the exact centre between the two. Everyone else would lean to one pole or another. But with Radiocarbon dating, we can put them into an order of existence, and it is very clear that, through a long chain of smaller changes, they turn from mere monkeys into us.

...Oh, and whether or not to capitalize the E in Evolution is a whole other debate, but that one's not nearly as fun, so I won't bother with it :)
Debate Round No. 2
SPYDIR

Pro

I would like to remind you that we are looking for observable evidence.
"we are made up of nothing more than a collection of tiny cells. Many small things make something larger, and in the great time span that is the history of life, there is certainly space for micro-evolution to get really, really big. Nothing as random as evolution runs in circles forever. It had to break into something drastic eventually. "

I understand that is what you believe, but there is no way to prove that.

lets try an analogy, pretend we were to take a computer, and write a novel, then we took random strings of letters and strung them all together. What are the chances of getting our novel we just wrote? pretty slim huh? now you can say that it would take millions of years to complete this, but really? the chances are close to impossible. The same is with DNA, there are four letters that resemble the "code" to get the DNA to evolve, is quite slim, and any other combination would result in death. killing the original chemicals, erasing us off the planet.

I would also like to cite the second law of thermodynamics, which I hope you are familiar with. This law states that anything organised tends to become disorganised over time. Instead of an increase in information, we find that if things were to evolve, there would be a decrease in information, which is the opposite of the theory of evolution. We find evedince with this as well. There was a scientist I heard about who took flies and kept going through generations of new flies. After a while, he noticed an albino fly! Didn't the fly gain information? nope, when there is an albino animal, or human, it LOSES information. It is unable to create melanin in the skin, thus losing color. If you find any evidence that points to a change in kinds, or if I have missed any information on this, please let me know.

I have a question, If we are nothing more then molecules, then that would mean we are a random chance combination of chemicals, right? can you give some observable evidence for that, the early stages of evolution.

I understand that the evidence for early man wasn't the best, so I will try to restate it at the end.

I will now devote most of my attention to radiometric dating. Radiometric dating takes the decay rate of parent atoms into daughter atoms. Now, what could be the problem with this? first of all, they are making an assumption that the decay rate stays the same. And second, and this one blows my mind, is a mountain named St. Helen's. Now, this mountain erupted around twenty years ago, killing enormous amounts of wildlife, and laying down multiple rock layers known as strata. Well, a scientist, (I couldn't find his name) took these rock layers to be radiometric dated, they came back millions of years old. Now, does this make sense? of course not, this is just one of the reasons why radiometric dating is inaccurate.

I would like to return as well to whether or not Evolution can, and I am restating this, can be "scientifically proven" I just realized this and am sorry for stating this wrong. I still have not seen observable evidence of whether there is a change in kinds in difference to species.

thank you and I can't wait for your response.
Mantizah

Con

Wow. O_o You're tough. Since your doubts of the theory are based in christianity, try thinking of it this way.

I'm somewhat of the christian persuasion myself, but I think of the theory of the creation as more of a symbolic thing. I don't think christianity would have been as widely accepted in the past, and thus not have been able to build up its great legacy, if it had taught that people had evolved from apes. The people of the day where just too proud to accept a theory like that. Enter the creationist theory. Much better! Who would get a sore ego thinking that their species was hand crafted by an all powerful god?

But that still doesn't mean the creation had to be a straight up lie. Take this quote from 2 Peter 3:8:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (2 Peter 3:8)

Google defines a day as, along with the more obvious definitions, "a particular period of the past; an era." What if the days described are, rather than 24 hour days, historical days, heavenly days? Maybe I can't hook you up with that heavenly security footage (or whatever it is you want from this debate), but the simple fact is that there's no reason NOT to think evolution exists. You might not exist. You could be a computer. But of course you're not. All the evidence that you're human lays before me in the way your responses are thought out, and even just the fact you can respond correctly. Should I still think of you as a computer just because I cannot see you?

That aside, your genetics arguments are somewhat beyond my ability to argue against, but with the carbon dating, This site here refutes that St. Helens argument pretty well: http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...

While carbon dating may not be completely accurate, it's certainly not random, as it turns up proper looking results time and time again.
Debate Round No. 3
SPYDIR

Pro

I will begin by reminding you that this is our final round, tie up any lose ends, and restate anything your opponent hasn"t answered.

I still hold fast to the fact that Evolution (capital E) doesn"t have any observable, valid proof, therefore, we can conclude that it isn"t scientifically proven.

I have taken great measures to disprove radiometric dating for one reason: without it, evolution falls apart! they need radiometric dating to prove that their fossils are millions of years old! I have done this by pointing out the significance of Mt. Saint Helen's, and showing that they are assuming that the decay rate is constant.

I have pointed out the matter vs. information problem, which states that matter, no matter how many times it is reproduced, cannot produce information. If I was to type the word information into a blank document in Google drive, then copy it, and paste it into infinity, would it ever turn into one of Shakespeare's plays? nope. So, is natural selection valid? not according to the second law of thermodynamics! Why, WHY! would science break it"s own laws? such as the law of genetics, which states that life can only come from life. And what about the second law of thermodynamics? would science break that law as well? That is called a self-contradiction, and is invalid, according to logic.

I have said multiple times that I would finish the Neanderthal problem, but my brain is so fried, I ask your permission to not bring it up.

You brought up 2 Peter 3:8. As my youth pastor would say, context, context, context. You are right in saying that to God, a day is a thousand years. This has nothing to do with the creation week. I advise you to read the creation account, and you will find references to day, and evening, and morning. As well as the Greek word for day, which, when used in Genesis, refers to a literal, 24 hour day! I asked for no straw man arguments, but I will let it slide, being that you will let mine slide. A great explanation for the day-age theory, as we call it, would be that a thousand years is as one day, is explaining that God is eternal, therefore, he exists outside of time, being that he created time. To him, he knows the past, present and the future! This is my understanding of the text, but I will do more research on this topic. If you have any further questions, please ask them to me, I am pretty well grounded in scripture, and would like to debate the authority of it if you like.

One last thought, if you look at the radiometric dating results, for anything, we find there are no dates greater than, and I am not 100% sure if this is correct, 64 million years?

Thank you, and I hope we can debate another time.

Oh! and btw, I only use the capital E as a reference point, not that it has anything to do otherwise.
Mantizah

Con

Cool. Cool. Alright. Well, genesis was originally written in Hebrew, which shares most of the same meanings for the word day with english. Besides that, I think you've got me beat in terms of general knowledge on the subject.

I would just like to say that I think proof has come of evolution time and time again, and I apologize for not being skilled enough in the subject to "prove" it. I concede.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SPYDIR 3 years ago
SPYDIR
Anwsering MCAC, It all depends on your definition of evolution. If you are talking about a change in species, then I will believe, for we have observable evidence, but if you try to say that it is proof for a change in kinds, then I disagree.
Posted by philly1 3 years ago
philly1
I've never understood why people try to quote the second law of thermodynamics in relation to something not about thermodynamics. It means, heat doesn't travel to a hotter area for no reason, hence thermo and dynamics. Using it in context for evolution is like using the color of an apple to argue why penguins can't fly.
Posted by SPYDIR 3 years ago
SPYDIR
i personaly thank my opponet, he did a great job, I personaly, had doubts at times that I would pull through, but I based all I knew on God and trusted him. I think there is a lot more that could be said, and I furthered my abilities in debate.
Posted by MCAC 3 years ago
MCAC
SPYDIR- jw why cant micro be used as proof of evo?
Posted by Brainii 3 years ago
Brainii
Good. This is a nice, polite debate. I'm tired, a lot of the time, when people don't behave civilly. I commend you both.
Posted by SPYDIR 3 years ago
SPYDIR
I would like to say that you had me going for a while there, I just thought through it, and actually, this entire debate, I didn't use one source. NOT ONE!!!! MY BRAIN IS FRIED!!!!!!!!!!

thanks so much.
Posted by SPYDIR 3 years ago
SPYDIR
funny.
Posted by Mantizah 3 years ago
Mantizah
Go Mantizah!

That's right, I have friends too!!
Posted by phantom14450 3 years ago
phantom14450
go spyder!
Posted by SPYDIR 3 years ago
SPYDIR
Oh heads up, I can't debate next week starting monday because I am away that week. sorry, we have to finish it this week.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Benshapiro 3 years ago
Benshapiro
SPYDIRMantizahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession (although conduct was excellent on both sides.)
Vote Placed by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
SPYDIRMantizahTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had several spelling errors, but I will not take off points for two minor mistakes in grammar. Both contestants made valid arguments but did not go as deep as they could have. (I have debated this subject several times). The biological definition of "evolution" can be found on this website: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Evolution This means that micro-evolution is still evolution, which Pro fails to acknowledge. Good job to both of you for your first debate, and welcome to Debate.org :) A piece of advice: use more sources to back your arguments.