Evolution

CON: "While I may actually be right and tomorrow scientist discover that hey,evolution is flawed it isn't possible,then everyone would(well most everyone)think I'm right."It is not about who's right or wrong, It is about if the theory of evolution is updated to replace its flawed data or not. Before the claim the theory of evolution is flawed, then CON will need to list down Evolution's flawed findings as an example. Besides, the burden of proof rests on CON's shoulder.CON: "When people talk about the theory of evolution they may treat it as a hard fact." Con implied that the fact is viewed as an absolute and the theory is based on the fact, which is not true. Theory of the evolution is not based on fact but scientific fact. Considering the different definition between of "Fact" and "Scientific Fact": ----------------------------Full Definition of fact1: a thing done: asa obsolete : featb : crime c archaic : action2archaic : performance, doing3: the quality of being actual : actuality 4a : something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence 5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality----------------------------------------------------------------------scientific factnounany observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refutedExamplesThe structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.------------------------------------Copy and Pasted from source: http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.dictionary.com...After reading the definitions of fact and scientific fact and then you will see that scientific fact is not an absolute, because scientific fact will be updated if it was refuted by new advancements of data in the future. More to add, the word of "fact" necessarily don't mean absolute. CON: "There's theories out there that Darwin himself was crazy. He in fact dropped out of Med school and had waited for more than 20 year's before he even started publishing his theory of evolution. But just like evolution,him being crazy is just a theory..." Darwin's mental health is irrelevant to the basics of theory because theory operates on the scientific method. In other words, you'll need to making an observation, a question, a hypothesis, and then experiment to acquire the data for analysis so you can come to the conclusion based on your data findings. Scientific method is what define the science, not crazy.Source: http://www.schoolofdragons.com...CON: "According to scientist(Atheist and Christian alike) Information can only be produced by intelligence. Think of it like your computer. A computer doesn't "understand" anything. All it see's is 1 and 0's and it recognizes it. But we the people understand it. But DNA is by far the most compact way to store information in a store/retrieval system. A pin head size of DNA can contain more than 500 PETABYTES! Yes,that much in the size of a pinhead. Yet Atheist and evolutionist(same thing) seem to think some stupid how some idiotic way all this information randomly got here. Did I mention those 500 petabytes worth of information can keep everything you need to build a brain AND and body and more? AND it's self replicating."The link Con provided is not the reliable source because it didn't address the data findings to confirm the possibility of intelligence design. Intelligence Design is a pseudoscience. Intelligence Design aside, the foundation of evolution was driven by the traits of life like survival instinct, sex reproduction and biological needs. DNA is responsible for the evolution because the observations of natural selection showed the changes of DNA will affect the gene pool in generations later. In other words, natural selection is an example of evolution.Source: http://public.wsu.edu...