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

Evolution is a religion

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
rbhutoria has forfeited round #2.
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: 9/21/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 578 times Debate No: 95535
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Hi I'm Thiest and I believe that evolution and science is an oymoron because science by definition is a study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. and since evolution does none of those things I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

By evolution I am talking about:
Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the "big bang"
Chemical evolution: all elements "evolved" from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another

with the exception of micro evolution which happens.



I will be arguing that Darwin's theory of evolution is in fact a science - not a religion - and is fundamentally rooted in empricism (observation) and experimentation. I will also be highlighting the distinct differences between faith in religions and science in evolution. Looking forward to your arguments.

Onward with the debate!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank rbhutoria for accepting this debate.
The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.

The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits.

A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists.

Darwin's complete quote can be found here
Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables.

New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.

If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.

If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color.
This round has not been posted yet.
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
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Swisstelligence 2 years ago
Clearly pro is not all too literate when it comes to evolution. Too bad con forfeited - this should have been an easy win IMO :P
Posted by kylet357 2 years ago
I was at first going to put a comment here rebutting some of the stuff that the Pro has said in his most recent argument, just to find that he ripped it all off from an anti-Evolution/anti-Science blog. You didn't even quote it to show that it came from somewhere else. Either way, I'm still going to rebut your asinine points.

First off, Darwin never said that. I can't even find a non-creationist/anti-evolution source saying that Darwin ever said that. Secondly, evolution doesn't say that you can get a cat from a dog. Why would a lineage of canines evolve into something that already exists? That's not how evolution works. Also, as great of a man as Darwin was for science I would never trust any quote of his regarding DNA or genetics, much less yours which you don't even cite any work of Darwin's that it could have came from (it's definitely not from Origin, as DNA was discovered 10 years after first publication). Darwin was wrong about many things when it came to genetics, and his theory would only be updated once Gregor Mendel's work was included to make it more accurate.

To say that a new species has never been developed by science is either a lie or ignorance of the truth. We've done countless experiments showing speciation in the lab and have documented other speciation events as well.

Also, you seem to be confusing Natural Selection with adaptation, which Natural Selection may drive. No, humans in colder conditions would not be furry, as humans had already lost their large amounts of body hair by then (not to mention they had clothes, so fur would be redundant).

You seem to think that Melanin somehow works like a reflective surface but, no surprise here, you're wrong. Melanin dissipates UV radiation. If you live in a place that's cold and dark, like Europe, you don't really need that trait do you? You'd rather have a skin more susceptible to UV radiation so you can keep warm.

TL:DR- Pro knows nothing that he's talking about and rips his info fr
Posted by barrelcactus 2 years ago
I will be voting for the Contender. Instigator, evolution has been proven. The Galapagos Islands, DNA, and Fossil records prove that evolution is true. You will have no facts to support your argument. Why are you arguing something that is very clear cut. It's black and white, their are no "gray areas".
Posted by Zaephou 2 years ago
I do not see why pro is making this argument again, since he did it already, and he lost:
This debate has 6 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.