Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

9
22
True Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:31
Arguments:19
Total Votes:37
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True (8)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (11)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(39791) pic



Scientists have been wrong before, they could be wrong about evolution.

Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat
and up to like 50 years ago

scientists thought the atom was the smallest thing

until they split it open and a whole mess of crap came out?

Now,

are you telling me that you are so unbelieveably arrogant

that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that

scientists could be wrong about evolution?

 

True

Side Score: 9
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXr2kF0zEgI
Side: True

I could be wrong about absolutely anything, asides from the fact I exist in some form or another. What's your point?

Side: True
1 point

It's true, they could be wrong.

Doesn't necessarily mean that there's a good chance. The evidence for evolution is strong.

but it was also strong for eugenics at one point. And blood-letting and alchemy. And global cooling.

but most likely if evolution is shown to be nothing but a sham, it's likely to NOT be replaced with age old theistic ideas. It's more likely to be replaced with something much more impressive than evolution. The Theory of Evolution has been evolving (right?), so it is likely that some stuff today will be shown to be wrong, but replaced with better explanations with stronger evidence.

Side: True
1 point

You are right they definatley could be wrong! that's why it is a theory!! But hey we could all be wrong!

Side: True
Assface(406) Disputed
1 point

That's not what "theory" means, scientifically.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
modorichie(152) Disputed
1 point

Please, Please check the definition of what "scientists" means when they say THEORY, it is not the same as conjecture.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
3 points

There is a chance they are wrong, however, there are no better theories.

Obviously creationists would like to have a say, but they use nothing more than insane examples and insulting sarcasm to defend their mythology.

It is proven in a rather brutal lab experiment, that even if you cut the tails off of 50 generations of mice, their genetic code persists, meaning that even after 50 generations of having their tail cut off, they still have a tail, as outlined in their genetic code.

Willful change over time also seems unrealistic, the idea that a creature can change it's genetic code over its life time, however, some plants CAN respond to predators or the environment and it's seeds can be genetically modified within itself to be better prepared against the threats the parent plant had. However, this may be a feature that evolved through classic evolution, and may not be the cause of NEW mutations, which appear to only take light radiation to develop a small change in the genetic code.

How life started appears to be revealed with the Urey-Miller experiment, so there is no reason to think that anything besides evolution is needed. If new evidence comes up, it will surely change, but I don't think that will happen. Evolution appears to be the way that life diversified from a common ancestor. It means all life is family, and if you respect nature, hopefully it will respect you.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

You bring up a good point that I have always wondered about.

all life is family

Animals have cells. Plants have cells. The makeup of animals cells are similar to the makeup of plant cells. Science says that plants, like animals, evolve. Where is the common ancestor of animals AND plants? The probability that life evolved from inanimate atoms is staggering. If plants and animals do not have one common ancestor, then that means that the probability that (NOT one BUT) TWO entirely different life forms evolved from inanimate atoms is even more staggering.

Does it make sense that some higher life form had this "cell" concept/paradigm and decided to build living things from that starting point? And cells are NOT the smallest building blocks. The parts of the atom(as far as we currently know) are the smallest building blocks.

I don't know. I think that scientist are incredibly arrogant to claim they know for sure ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2 points

The probability that life evolved from inanimate atoms is staggering. If plants and animals do not have one common ancestor, then that means that the probability that (NOT one BUT) TWO entirely different life forms evolved from inanimate atoms is even more staggering.

You say that the probability of life evolving from inanimate atoms is staggering. Perhaps this is true. But one only needs to look at the sheer number of planets in one galaxy, and extrapolate that into the billions/trillions of galaxies in the universe. The chances of life originating on one planet actually become pretty high at this point.

Supporting Evidence: Planet in our galaxy (blog.chron.com)
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
-1 points

Evolution is a scientific fact!! I am offended you would question scientists!! You have a disregard for the truth! When someone disregards the truth, they insult me! They insult me because my entire life is built around evolution! My entire life is built around evolution because I don't want to believe in a God! HOW DARE YOU?!!??!

How dare you question evolution?! It is completely logical! We have no empirical proof that it actually happened but we can prove it by conceptual thinking. But don't get confused with conceptual thinking because it can't prove God because God cannot be proven empirically!

If you can't tell... I'm being sarcastic.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
4 points

Hate the message.

Love the sarcasm.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

I gave you an up vote for your sarcasm. ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
modorichie(152) Disputed
1 point

Physical Evidence

Evidence

Evidence,

Even if other facts where discovered it would simply be a modification of the theory.

No other theory fits the facts, it is beyond resonable doubt.

If that's good enoiugh for the Judiciary system, it's good enough for me.

Side: True