The Instigator
donkey
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Les_Rong
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The Theory of Evolution is correct

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: 7/29/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 365 times Debate No: 94227
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

donkey

Con

Name one thing the TOE has proven scientifically.

If you can't, and you can't, the TOE is a fraud. Evolution cant even tell what the first life form was and how it originated.

The best explanation of the diversity of life can be summed up in 3 words; "God did it."

It is explained very simply in the first chapter of Genesis.
Les_Rong

Pro

Thank you, I look forward to reviewing the science with you.

Your opening argument, unfortunately, reveals a lack of familiarity with science, which makes me wonder if you know what the actual Theory of Evolution (ToE) says.

First, science does not engage in proof. Proof is for mathematics and whiskey. So ToE, like the Theory of Gravity or Atomic Theory, proves nothing. It explains a large class of phenomena, based on evidence, not proof. Science is about evidence, not proof. When something is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, science accepts it as correct. That is exactly where we are with ToE. Because the evidence overwhelmingly supports ToE, modern Biology accepts is as correct. As to what it explains, it explains the diversity of life on earth...which is quite a lot, if you think about it. That is why is the foundational theory of modern biology.

Second, to say "God did it," is not an explanation at all. Science is not about who, it's about how. ToE, like all of science, makes no claims about God one way or the other. So let's agree, for the purpose of this debate, that God did it--specifically, your God. Your God, the God of the Bible, created all life on earth. We agree on that. The question ToE addresses is: how? How did God create this diversity of life?

Science, specifically, ToE, says that He did so by setting up a system in which new species emerge from existing species by descent with modification, plus natural selection. Simply, when one group of organisms is separated from the larger group, over time, as the group changes, it eventually becomes so different from the original group that the two could no longer breed together. At that point, biology recognizes them as two separate species. That is the basic way we get new species, and is the core of ToE. Do you agree or disagree that this happens?

If not, what is your explanation for how God created all the different species on earth?

Also, do you accept that the scientific method is the best method we have for learning the truth about the natural world? In other words, do you attack science itself, or are you claiming that science works, but your science is better than the mainstream, consensus view of modern Biology?
Debate Round No. 1
donkey

Con

Thank you, I look forward to reviewing the science with you.

Good.

>>Your opening argument, unfortunately, reveals a lack of familiarity with science, which makes me wonder if you know what the actual Theory of Evolution (ToE) says.<<

It is amusing that every time I challenge an evolutionist , they ALWAYS say I don't understand science. IMO, those who accept the TOE as science do not understand science, especially genetics. The make such foolish and condensing statement simply for one reason---I disagree with them.

If you can offer just one thing in the TOE that has been proven scientifically, I will accept your statement. Now be specific, what don't I understand about science and what make you think someone you have never talked to does not understand the theory? It was taught it in high school and in collage. Again you jugement comes down to on point--I disagree with what you believe.

>>First, science does not engage in proof. <<

Of course it does. To think they are not engaged in proving/disapproving ideas would make science a waste of time.

>>Proof is for mathematics and whiskey.<<

Amusing but innaccurate.

So ToE, like the Theory of Gravity or Atomic Theory, proves nothing. <<

You are halfright. Teh TOE proves nothing because it is not science based. While all of the truths about gravity may not be know, if you drop a rock i t will always fall down because of gravity. That PROVES at least one thing about the the LAWS of gravity. When a theory becomes proven, it is then called a law. That is why evolution is still in the theory category.

>>It explains a large class of phenomena, based on evidence, not proof. Science is about evidence, not proof.<<

No, science is abut gathering evidence to prove/disprove a theory.

>> When something is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, science accepts it as correct. That is exactly where we are with ToE. Because the evidence overwhelmingly supports ToE, modern Biology accepts is as correct. <<

That statement shows a lack of understanding of even basic genetics, and there is no evidence that supports evolution.

>>As to what it explains, it explains the diversity of life on earth...<<

How? Wha evidence can you offer that is true that explains diversity?

>>which is quite a lot, if you think about it.<<

If there is so much evidence how about mentioning one of two you consider the best.

>> That is why is the foundational theory of modern biology.<<

The ToE is not the foundation of biology. Biology is real science whose efforts have proved many things. Evolution is not even pseudo-science.

>>Second, to say "God did it," is not an explanation at all.<<

Let's leave God out of this discussion and stilk to science.

>> Science is not about who, it's about how.<<

Agreed.

ToE, like all of science, makes no claims about God one way or the other. So let's agree, for the purpose of this debate, that God did it--specifically, your God. Your God, the God of the Bible, created all life on earth. We agree on that. The question ToE addresses is: how? How did God create this diversity of life?<<

Stick to science. Ijhave not mentioned God and will not.

Science, specifically, ToE, says that He did so by setting up a system in which new species emerge from existing species by descent with modification, plus natural selection. <<

Neither science or the ToE says God is responsible for diversity.

>>Simply, when one group of organisms is separated from the larger group, over time, as the group changes, it eventually becomes so different from the original group that the two could no longer breed together. At that point, biology recognizes them as two separate species. That is the basic way we get new species, and is the core of ToE. Do you agree or disagree that this happens?<<

OK, now explain how a group of organism separates from a larger group and becomes separate and distinct species. Wht is the mecanism that causes this?

>>If not, what is your explanation for how God created all the different species on earth?<

According the the Bible God spoke the universe and all it contains into being. What is your explanation as to how all the matter in the universe and life came into being?

>>Also, do you accept that the scientific method is the best method we have for learning the truth about the natural world? In other words, do you attack science itself, or are you claiming that science works, but your science is better than the mainstream, consensus view of modern Biology?<<

I have a higher view of science than you do. I accept that science has proven many things that help man survive and live better. Modern Biology says diversity is not possible. Biology rightly teaches that all characteristics are a result of the gene pool of the parents. No offspring can acquire a characteristic for which neither parent had the gene for.

If the evolution guess as to the first life form is correct, and it is not, that singe cell had not bones, no need for bones and no gene for bones. Therefore, biology says that cell cannot be the cause of all the diversity of life we see today.

I know that strictly speaking evolution is not about first life, but it originally was and still should be. One of the first theories about how life began said it started in the primordial ooze. Of course the never say how that ooze originated.

I am looking forward for your example of something the TOE has proved scientifically.
Les_Rong

Pro

:It is amusing that every time I challenge an evolutionist , they ALWAYS say I don't understand science.

Then my advice to you is to learn more about science, in particular, the theory you are trying to debate. The reason people say that you don't understand science is that you betray your ignorance by, for example, asking for proof, or using a term like "evolutionist." I am not an evolutionist, because ToE is not a philosophy. It is a scientific theory. You either accept science or you reject it. I accept it.

: IMO, those who accept the TOE as science do not understand science, especially genetics.

Those we accept ToE as science are the world's biologists, and I suspect they know everything about genetics that we have figured out so far.

:If you can offer just one thing in the TOE that has been proven scientifically, I will accept your statement

There is no such thing as proven scientifically. As I explained to you, science is not about proof; it's about evidence, and I will be happy to provide this evidence to you.

:>>First, science does not engage in proof. <<

:Of course it does

No. Proof is absolute, like math or formal logic. Science is empirical, and nothing is ever proven. (Although things can be disproven.)

:While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,...there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory, [wiki]

:Unfortunately, there are many ... misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called "scientific proofs." Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

:Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

https://www.psychologytoday.com...

:Scientists should be wary of using the term "proof". Science does not "prove" things. Science can and does provide evidence in favor of, or against, a particular idea. In science, proofs are possible only in the highly abstract world of mathematics.

:What should scientists say instead of "proof"?
Scientists should use the term "evidence" instead of the word "proof". When we test our hypotheses, we obtain evidence that supports or rejects the hypotheses. We do not "prove" our hypotheses.

http://oregonstate.edu...

So we are not looking for proof. Rather, we are going to examine the evidence.

>When a theory becomes proven, it is then called a law.

Again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge about science.
:some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena
National Academies of Science.

:Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
National Center for Science Education.

:The ToE is not the foundation of biology. Biology is real science whose efforts have proved many things. Evolution is not even pseudo-science.

:Like... other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.
National Academies of Science Engineering Medicine
http://www.nas.edu...

:Evolution is the foundation of biology
http://www.who.int...

:A central organizing concept in biology is that life changes and develops through evolution, and that all life-forms known have a common origin. The theory of evolution postulates that all organisms on the Earth, both living and extinct, have descended from a common ancestor or an ancestral gene pool. This last universal common ancestor of all organisms is believed to have appeared about 3.5 billion years ago.[21] Biologists generally regard the universality and ubiquity of the genetic code as definitive evidence in favor of the theory of universal common descent for all bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes
[wiki]

:Let's leave God out of this discussion and stilk to science.

I agree. Let's agree to leave God out of this debate.

:Stick to science. Ijhave not mentioned God and will not.

I'm sorry, my mistake. I thought when you said
:The best explanation of the diversity of life can be summed up in 3 words; "God did it."

that you were mentioning God. But I'm glad to see you will not be doing so again...or will you?

:OK, now explain how a group of organism separates from a larger group and becomes separate and distinct species. Wht is the mecanism that causes this?

Great question! There are many such events, such as a flood that changes the course of a river, leaving one group isolated on a far bank, or a drought that separates one lake into two. Even a storm that blows a few birds off course--anything that isolates some members of a species from the rest.

:According the the Bible God spoke the universe and all it contains into being.

I thought you weren't going to mention God. OK, so your hypothesis is a kind of Magical Poofing? That one second there is an empy plain, and then suddenly, out of nowhere, two elephants appear out of thin air? Is that your position?

:What is your explanation as to how all the matter in the universe and life came into being?

Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with ToE, which, as I said, explains only the diversity of life on earth. Btw, if you want people to stop accusing you of being ignorant of science, this is the kind of question to eliminate. Biology is one science; cosmology quite another.

:Modern Biology says diversity is not possible.

That's so interesting. Could you provide a source for this strong claim?
And would you be so kind as to answer my question? In your view, does the scientific method work? Is it an effective way to learn about the natural world?

:If the evolution guess as to the first life form is correct,

There is no such guess. ToE is not about the first life form; it's about everything after that.

So, the core of ToE is that new species emerge from existing species, as has been observed in the field and the lab. Do you take issue with this part of ToE?

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
donkey

Con

>>Then my advice to you is to learn more about science, in particular, the theory you are trying to debate. The reason people say that you don't understand science is that you betray your ignorance by, for example, asking for proof, or using a term like "evolutionist." I am not an evolutionist, because ToE is not a philosophy. It is a scientific theory. You either accept science or you reject it. I accept it.<<

If you believe evolution is based on science, it is you who does not understand science. I accept real science, that is why I reject the theory o evolution. Whne they is change to"laws of evolution," get back to me.
IMO, those who accept the TOE as science do not understand science, especially genetics.

Those we accept ToE as science are the world's biologists, and I suspect they know everything about genetics that we have figured out so far.

If it was real scince all biologist would accept it as they do other theories that have been proven

:If you can offer just one thing in the TOE that has been proven scientifically, I will accept your statement

There is no such thing as proven scientifically. As I explained to you, science is not about proof; it's about evidence, and I will be happy to provide this evidence to you.<<

Of course there is. It has been scientifically proven that there is more than one blood type. real science can tell you what your type and they can tell you which type will kill you if you have a transfusion. Real science has proved that all known life forms have DNA. They don't award Nobel prizes for guess work. Check them out, they all proved something remamrkable.

>>No. Proof is absolute, like math or formal logic. Science is empirical, and nothing is ever proven. (Although things can be disproven.)<

I just proved that statement wrong. -:)

:While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,...there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory, [wiki]

Teh thins I just mention make you and Karl wrong, unless there is only one blood type.

>>:Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.<<

There is more evidence that there is more than one blood type than there is for proofs in logic. Our logic will differ about evolution. You believe evolution is logical, I believe it is not. Only science can settle the differences and it must do this by proving/disproving what we believe.

>>:What should scientists say instead of "proof"?
Scientists should use the term "evidence" instead of the word "proof". When we test our hypotheses, we obtain evidence that supports or rejects the hypotheses. We do not "prove" our hypotheses.<<

When there is indisputable evidence for, something it has been proven. My example of more than one blood type should convince anyone with an open mind. That is a no-brainer. To say it it has not been proven is illogical. Can you falsify it?

>>Again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge about science.<<

No, I demonstrate a disagreement with you.

>>some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them.<<

Even if they discover 100ew blood types it will not change that there is more than one. Thatg is a proven tuth that science can never change.

>> The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation.<<

Hunches and speculation are not science.

Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena. National Academies of Science.<<

TGhere predicdtion cannot be verified scientifically. They remain hunches and sspecujlation.

>>:Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
National Center for Science Education.<<

Something that is well substantiated by facts has been proven.

:The ToE is not the foundation of biology. Biology is real science whose efforts have proved many things. Evolution is not even pseudo-science.

>>:Like... other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.
National Academies of Science Engineering Medicine<<

Wonderful. Name one, just one, that has been proven.

:Evolution is the foundation of biology

:A central organizing concept in biology is that life changes and develops through evolution, and that all life-forms known have a common origin. <<

That is the foundation of the ToE, not of biology.

>>The theory of evolution postulates that all organisms on the Earth, both living and extinct, have descended from a common ancestor or an ancestral gene pool. This last universal common ancestor of all organisms is believed to have appeared about 3.5 billion years ago.[21] Biologists generally regard the universality and ubiquity of the genetic code as definitive evidence in favor of the theory of universal common descent for all bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes
[wiki]<<

When they can tell us what the first life form was and it source, get back to me. Until they can you are just whistleing in the dark

:Let's leave God out of this discussion and stilk to science.

>>I'm sorry, my mistake. I thought when you said
:The best explanation of the diversity of life can be summed up in 3 words; "God did it."<<

I'm sorry I did bring God into this discussion. I am going to give myself 50 lashes with a wet noodle.

>>that you were mentioning God. But I'm glad to see you will not be doing so again...or will you?<<

I will try but I can't guarantee it.

:OK, now explain how a group of organism separates from a larger group and becomes separate and distinct species. What is the mechanism that causes this?

>>Great question! There are many such events, such as a flood that changes the course of a river, leaving one group isolated on a far bank, or a drought that separates one lake into two. Even a storm that blows a few birds off course--anything that isolates some members of a species from the rest.<<

Let's get real. The events you mention do not operate on scientific principles. Also species being separated does not mean they can mate and produce offspring. Biology does not all such a thing. If there are not some of their own "kind" available, they become extinct.
Les_Rong

Pro

:If you believe evolution is based on science, it is you who does not understand science

Me and the actual scientists doing the actual science. I repeat: ToE is the mainstream, consensus, foundational theory of modern Biology. You cannot accept science and reject ToE, unless you assert that you know more about Biology than all the Biologists in the world, and that the overwhelming evidence supports your hypothesis of Magical Poofing. If that is your hypothesis?

:I accept real science

What is "real science" and how is it different from the actual science done by actual scientists?

If you use the scientific method (which is what makes something science) you end up with ToE.

: I reject the theory o evolution. Whne they is change to"laws of evolution," get back to me.

Scientific theories don't become laws. That's not a thing. As I explained and demonstrated with neutral, scientific sources, in science, A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.[wiki]

:If it was real scince all biologist would accept it as they do other theories that have been proven

As with any other scientific theory, there are always a couple of outliers, but basically yes, virtually all Biologists accept this theory.

:The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and other [wiki] That is why
:The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution. the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent.

To my knowledge there is no scientific support for your Magical Poofing hypothesis.

To use your example of "blood type" as something "scientifically proven." " real science can tell you what your type and they can tell you which type will kill you if you have a transfusion." There always remains a small possibility that your test was contaminated, and two different tests could yield different results. That is because science is empirical and inductive, unlike math and formal logic. That's just how science works, and the fact that you cannot grasp this basic scientific concept is just one example of your ignorance and stubbornness on the subject.

:Hunches and speculation are not science.

Correct. And ToE is neither. It is a well established, mainstream, consensus scientific theory. Which is nothing like a hunch or speculation.

:That is the foundation of the ToE, not of biology.

Your opinion differs from that of actual Biologists.

>When they can tell us what the first life form was and it source

Again, if you don't want to be accused of ignorance, don't confuse abiogenesis with evolution. Two different subjects. As I already explained, ToE explains only the diversity of life on earth, not its initial origin.

:Let's get real. The events you mention do not operate on scientific principles.

What? Everything in the natural world operates on scientific principles. Drought, earthquakes, storms...all common events here on Earth.

Now, back to the science. ToE says that new species emerge from existing species by descent with modification plus natural selection. Do you agree, or do I need to provide scientific sources to support this claim? If you agree, I will move on.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.