Is evolution a good theory? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is evolution a good theory?
in Religion

By calebsicacalebsica 79 Pts
Creation and Evolution, which is a long debate that has been happening since Charles Darwin lived and wrote his book origin of species, are both religious because you need to believe. According to the Pew Research center survey, approximately 60% of Americans, unfortunately, believe in either theistic evolution or scientific evolution. What is evolution? The evolution theory is that 14 billion years ago there was a big bang. Around 4.6 billion years ago the earth formed a hard-rocky crust then it rained on the rocks for millions of years making soup and the soup came alive 3 billion years ago and evolved in everything we have today. I believe that the earth is only around 6,000 years old. What Charles Darwin observed was variation in kinds, which is called microevolution.  
(2 In the Evolution theory there needs six stages. First there is Cosmic Evolution, which is the origin of time, space and matter. They try to explain that through the Big Bang. Next is chemical Evolution. They exclaim that the big bang produced helium and hydrogen. How do we have all the other elements?  There is fusion in stars that create the elements but they have a chicken and an egg problem, the elements create the stars and the stars produces the elements. Which came first? That is a gigantic chicken and egg problem. Next, there is planetary and stellar evolution. We have never seen a star form or a planet. Next is organic evolution which is the origin of life. Life cannot come from non-life. People, which have tried, have been unsuccessful. One DNA molecule is more complicated than anything we can imagine or create. Next is Macro Evolution, which is one kind changing to another kind. Next is microevolution, I do not approve the term because it is just variations within kinds. The first five are religious the last one is science. When a mother dog has a litter, she might attain big dog or little dog but they will always give birth to a dog. While evolution believes in the beginning dirt, creation believes in the beginning God. Of the six stages, five are definitely religious.  
Some evidences that the evolutionist put up are fossils, embryology, vestigial structures, similar DNA, poor design. I will not be able to explore everything but I will touch on a few important points. Fossils do not count as Evidence. You can’t prove that the fossil produced any offspring with mutations. Even if Fossils did count as evidence, they have not found any intermediate stages. Embryology has been proven wrong years ago. I am amazed why some evolutionist still bring it up. They tell us that the human embryo has gills similar to a fish. Those little flaps of skin later develop into bones in the ear and glands in the throat. They never have anything to do with breathing! Vestigial structures, which is brought up a lot, has lots of information. Some of the common vestigial structures brought up is that the whale has a vestigial pelvis. 6That is not true. The whale's pelvis is used in mating. Another one is the human tailbone is another one. The human tailbone is not vestigial because it is an anchor point for nine muscles. Similar DNA proves more of a common powerful designer than a common ancestor. Even with the similarities there still so many differences that it proves more of a common designer that a common ancestor. They also try to communicate that we are poor designed. They talk about the eye and how it is poorly designed. They tell us that our blood vessels are in front of our eyes and that having the blood vessels behind the Renata the blood vessels in front of our eyes a out the last defense to from uv light. One more thing, mutation are a loss of information not a gain of information. There is much more to this debate . In this short paper, I did not even touch on the big bang. In conclusion, I realize that evolution has no evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. Live Poll

    is evolution a good theory?

    7 votes
    1. yes
      57.14%
    2. no
      42.86%



Debra AI Prediction

Against
Predicted To Win
56%
Likely
44%
Unlikely

Details +


For:

100% (8 Points)


Against:

0% (0 Points)



Votes: 1


Voting Format: Formal Voting

Rounds: 1

Time Per Round: 48 Hours Per Round


Voting Period: 48 Hours


Round 1

Voting


Arguments



  • Round 1 | Position: For
    See Above for my Argument!
    Thanks

  • Round 1 | Position: For
    AlofRIAlofRI 152 Pts
    It's the only legitimate theory we have, that I know of. Creation is a belief, not a legitimate theory. One can theorize about the creation belief, but, the belief has no provable facts to  even suggest a "theory".
    Zombieguy1987Plaffelvohfen
  • Round 1 | Position: Against
    MayCaesarMayCaesar 1449 Pts
    There is a lot of misconceptions in your thread. I have to think that you did not do much of a research on the subject and, instead, listened to a few people and took only ideas from them that align with your hypothesis. Let me go one by one through your major points:

    1. First of all, the Evolution Theory has nothing to do with the Big Bang. The Evolution Theory merely tries to explain how living species evolve over large periods of time. It deals with the timeline of existing living organisms on Earth and is irrelevant before that timeline. The Evolution Theory also does not deal with abiogenesis (appearance of life), it only deals with the following question: given life already exists, how does it evolve from then?

    2. Chemical evolution in the Universe is my professional specialisation as of now, so I believe I can give some insight here. According to the currently dominant theories, the primal matter, the one formed shortly after the Big Bang, only contained Hydrogen and Helium with trace amounts of Lithium. These elements formed clouds that then collapsed due to gravity into dense knots, which became stars, that started producing heavier elements. It is believed that the very first stars were, mostly, very heavy, as Hydrogen and Helium could not cool down enough for light stars (below, say, a few Solar masses) to be formed in large numbers: the kinetic energy of the atoms was too big for the gravitation to win over it.
    There is no chicken and egg problem here. With time, more and more heavier elements were formed from lighter elements via nuclear fusion. We understand how it all happened pretty well, although we do not know all the details well. For example, how the heaviest elements predominantly formed is still not known, and with some of the lighter elements, such as Carbon, there are quantitative discrepancies between our theories and observations. Nonetheless, for the most part, our theories agree with the observations pretty well.

    3. We have seen star formation first-hand with our telescopes. We have never seen the entirety of the process for a single star, that is true, but the timeline of that process is too big for us to be able to record: stars can take millions years to form.
    We have observed star formation at various stages, however, and we have a pretty decent understanding of how this process occurs in general. It is a pretty simple theoretical physics, really. There is little doubt in our ability to describe that process accurately. It is much harder to build numerical simulations of the process with the precision sufficient to trace the formation of all the essential elements: the processor time required is simply too big for the modern computers to handle it, so we have to implement certain simplifications - that obviously affect the accuracy of the results.

    4. "Life cannot come from non-life" is an unfounded statement. Both life and non-life features the same set of atoms and molecules. There is no reason for atoms to not be able to align in a certain way that leads to creation of life. The probability of this is low at a given small time period, yes - but our planet has had billions years for the product of chance to be realised.

    5. Everything counts as evidence. You claim that "fossils do not count as evidence", but fossils are just as much a part of this world as you or me are. Dismissing them simply because they prove you wrong is anti-scientific.

    6. Embryology has not been "proven wrong" by anyone. I am not sure where you are getting these ideas.

    It seems that your beliefs are based solely on what the Bible says, and have no scientific foundation behind them. You claimed that the Earth is around 6000 years old - what evidence do you have of that? You only have one claim made in a book written over 2,000 years ago. There are books that claim that we have all been created by the Lizardfolk, but that is hardly an evidence; that is just a fantasy of some deluded minds. How about you provide some evidence for your claim, for a change? What indicates that the Earth did not exist, say, 7000 years ago? Do you have anything scientific to show for your claim, or is it just a "belief", as you said? Sorry, but science does not deal with beliefs. Science deals with evidence and its implications, and there is not a single piece of evidence existing that contradicts Earth having existed for billions years. There is a lot of evidence contradicting it having existed for only 6000 years, however.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Round 1 | Position: Against
    ethang5ethang5 89 Pts
    >"Life cannot come from non-life" is an unfounded statement. Both life and non-life features the same set of atoms and molecules. There is no reason for atoms to not be able to align in a certain way that leads to creation of life. 

    Why do you assume that atoms aligned in a certain way creates life? Do you have any supporting evidence that this is true?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch