azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

how can science account for the reproduction that would be necessary for one species to evolve into another, such as egg laying birds and reptiles into live birth mammals?Quite easily actually, say a reptile was born with a mutation that allowed to to keep eggs within it's body until they are ready to hatch. This mutation will increase the chances of the eggs hatching and the offspring will also have the mutation causing that line of reptiles to be more successful in surviving so over a long period of time eggshells won't form anymore causing live birth.And I just wasted time on debating one of those people who make 1 argument and leave didn't I.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

I appreciate the intelligent response which explains how a species can theoretically adapt, or evolve it's reproduction. I apologize for wasting your time, but that does not explain how such a species would evolve into a totally different species. Correct me if I'm wrong but are their birds and lizards that give live birth? Has science documented such a dramatic evolution wihtin a species? I guess for me the jump from adapting to evolving into a completely different species is just not something I accept any longer. Why do people who profess to be well educated require such a condescending tone? The therory of evolution may have strong supporters, but certainly does not have the same evidence as gravity.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

A great example of drastic evolution within a species is the "tame fox" experiment carried out in Siberia: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/03/domesticated_foxes_in_siberia_an_experiment_in_peril_.html These foxes changed coat color, developed curly tails, and produced less adrenaline than their counterparts who had been bred for aggression. In fact, dogs are able to "evolve" within 3-4 generations, and with dedicated and long-term breeding, profound changes in the dogs physiology can occur.Given a long enough period of time, and assuming such breeding occurred, it is not hard to see how dinosaurs would evolve into smaller creatures, requiring smaller amounts of food and using less energy to cover greater distances, such as birds.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

I apologize for wasting your time,You haven't really wasted my time since it seems you are not one of those 1 post then leave people.Correct me if I'm wrong but are their birds and lizards that give live birth?No but there are mammals that lay eggs.Has science documented such a dramatic evolution wihtin a species?I think they have done it with bacteria evolution is fairly difficult to study in a lab.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

I don't have a religious agenda for questioning the theory of evolution as it relates to one organism evolving into another. I just don't see how given limitless time, such different species can evolve rather than somehow otherwise come into existence. I think about human reproduction and anatomy as remarkable in the contrast between the internal and external, and I wonder how such reproduction could take place in transition over time? I'm more prone to believe it had to be the result of some sort of spontaneous event, very specific. I completely accept the evolution and adaption of living creature, it's the jump to something totally different that has me at odds. I can't offer a plausable explanation in my defense, only my doubts on evolution.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

You can't. Like all scientific theories, you can never fully prove it as you can not remove all external variables from the study.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Evolution has no answer for the origin of life. Spontaneous generation - the only way the theory of evolution could get off the ground, by taking the supernatural being out of the equation-has been disproved 120 years ago."There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. ''That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100) Evolutionists are guilty of believing in MAGIC! What does a mixture of chemicals transforming into life sound like to you?! (spontaneous generation) If you can believe in evolution in its full true sense, then you are more delusional than you believe Christians to be. God's creative energy was manifested through the ''big bang'' evolution in the sense scientists are speaking of is clearly false..
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

I CHALLENGE ANY OF YOU SILLY SHEEP TO CHALLENGE THE INFORMATION PRESTENTED HERE IF YOU CAN!http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

''Evolutionists assume evolution is true, then write endlessly about when and where it happened, rates and lineages, etc. But if macroevolution is physically impossible in the real world, and it is, then all the rest is fantasy. There are only two possibilities. Either every part of every living thing arose by random chance, or an intelligence designed them. It is now clear that the theory of evolution's only mechanism for building new parts and creatures, mutation-natural selection, is totally, utterly, pathetically inadequate. In spite of overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong, many are not ready to throw in the towel. They desperately hope that some natural process will be found that causes things to fall together into organized complexity. These are people of great faith.'' http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

of course it is proven. You guys never play Pokemon?You evolutionists just spout a bunch of hot air, and its been a long time you ape breeds responded to any of my arguments...
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Theory is theory i suppose. However, the idea is really hard to deny.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Evolution and Creation have one thing in common, they can't be proven and both are matters of faith alone.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Evidently not otherwise I guess we would be calling it the "Law of Evolution". Though I happen to whole heartedly believe in evolution, there is still a lot science needs to find.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Evolution is still a theory but it could be proven to be true sometime in the future.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

would you marry an ape if not whyyou said we came from apesso why are not any apes evolving today
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

It isn't that we evolved from modern apes. It's that we share a common ancestor. That wouldn't make interspersed marrying acceptable.As for contemporary evolution, it's a process that takes a long time. If you want I can show you many species going through adaptations that, in time, may very well lead to a new species.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

I think "proved" is too strong of a word. We have a theory. We see evidence in the fossil record which appears to support it. Personally that's good enough for me. If new observations come later which changes what we know about it then I'm still open to change. Frankly I think that's far more persuasive than claiming a book thousands of years ago already gave us the only possible answer.I know it's odd that I'm in this column yet I support evolutionary theory but that's simply being intellectually honest about it.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.Thus, in the long term, there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe.Ultimately, when all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded, all molecules will move randomly, and the entire universe will be cold and without order. To put it simply: In the real world, the long-term overall flow is downhill, not uphill. All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run.Read more at: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html Read more at: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ElA0--JNg
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdqYPjA9VxA
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

It has not. They are finding things in "dinosaur bones" that mean the bones cannot possibly be old, so either the dinosaur bones aren't dinosaur bones, or... dinosaurs didn't die off all that long ago.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdqYPjA9VxA
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Nope. The Cambrian Explosion is not helpful to Darwinian Theory in any way, shape, or form.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Nope. There is a reason the fossil record doesn't show any signs of the billions of intermediaries it would take to get from one molecule to human beings or any other complex creature for that matter.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

David Berlinsky goes through the problems with Darwinian Theory-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ElA0--JNg
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

nope, just how gravity wasn't.it's still just a theory.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

Yeah, next time you drop a brick and it floats, call me.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

i guess you don't get the point i was making...
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

What point exactly were you trying to make?
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

that just because you can't prove something exists doesn't mean it isn't true. this is done with things like evolution and gravity. we use common sense...
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

But evolution has been proven. Remember, evolution is simply the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. It's an observed fact. It has been scientifically proven.What is up for debate is the process by which it occurs, which is natural selection. Although, there is more than enough evidence and observation in favour of natural selection for it to be beyond doubt.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Actually, I would add the debate is also whether the observance of changes in traits leads us to the conclusion that information is created through some natural mechanism. We know all traits are just code on our DNA. The debate is, where does new information come from? Have we observed nature to create new DNA code?
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

This is a common misunderstanding of DNA. No new 'information' is created in the way that I think you're asking. DNA is made up of sugar, phosphate and a mixture of four bases, which are adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine. Information within the DNA is represented by the mixture of these four bases. Changing the order of these bases within the DNA incodes new information; which is exactly what happens when there is a mutation within the DNA. The order of the bases change, and the information contained within the DNA is different to the original. Viola.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

In a space ship orbiting earth it will floatIf it is dropped into a bath of mercury, it will float.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

If man evolved from apes, then why is there still apes? To evolve is to change and the ape didn't. Evolution, only an atheist's delusion. Things evolve, but evolving doesn't prove evolution. Just that over time creatures adjust to their surroundings. The one thing that has remained the same for thousands of years is that women still want Neanderthal man. Despite the gain of knowledge, time didn't even change this. Why didn't the mind of a woman change? The bad boy still desired. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Evolution has no better answer than creation.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

"If man evolved from apes, then why is there still apes?"Your argument is written in Neanderthal. Please learn English before you try to debate science. "If you master the language you can do anything."
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

If man evolved from apes, then why is there still apes?Wow it's hard to believe you have ever written an argument that idiotic.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

That is exactly what I always thought. Who are they to 'believe' in a theory? How can you believe in 'theory'? Religion is a set of doctrines, which one either has faith in or not. Evolution, however, was only the theory thought up by a man so stupid he got kicked out of the seminary. Some will chastise me for calling evolution a 'religion', however, it is my opinion (debate IS the name of the game) that evolution is more faith than fact.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

IT HAS NOT, AND FUTHERMORE WILL NOT, BE PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY, BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE!NOR HAS CREATION BEEN PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY, WHAT IT REALLY ALL BOILS DOWN TO IS THAT WE ARE ALL FINITE HUMAN BEINGS AND THEY BOTH RELY ON FAITH TO BELIEVE IN, A FAITH IN ONE OR THE OTHER AND ALL SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE AFTER ALL MAN'S OPINIONS SET OUT TO BE PROVEN BY MAN, AND IN MANY CASES MAN HAS COME TO A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION,SATISFYING OTHER MEN, BUT IF MAN'S FINITE INTELLIGENCE COULD EVEN HALF FATHOM WHAT THERE IS TO KNOW AND WHAT IS THUS KNOWN EVEN THE MOST CELEBRATED SCIENTIST WOULD HANG HIS HUMBLE HEAD IN KINDERGARTEN SHAME AND AWE. FACT IS THOSE SET OUT TO PROVE EVOLUTION WOULD LIKE TO PROVE IT AND WORK HARD TO DO SO, DISCOUNTING ANY ARGUMENTS AGAINT ,AND VICEA VERSA,LEAVING ONLY THE FACT TRUE AND PROVABLE THAT MAN MUST HAVE FAITH TO BELIEVE IN THE UNPROVABLE AND THAT EVEN SO-CALLED PROOF OF THE PROVABLE CAN PROVE ,FROM ANOTHER SCIENTIST OR PERSPECTIVE TO BE PROVED WRONG! WE ARE ALL SMALL CREATURES WITH LIMITED KNOWLEDGE DOING THE BEST WE CAN WITH WHAT WE ARE GIVEN AND THOSE WHO THINK THEY HAVE IT ALL FIGURED OUT AND LAUGH AT THOSE WITH DIFFERING VIEWS, ARE THOSE WHO ARE THE SADDEST AND MOST DECIEVED.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Days 1, 2, and 3 are before the creation of time. See Genesis 1 - Day 3 there was plant growth fyi - day 3 is without photosynthesis - The Bible specifies this. And 1st plants without vascular were growing without photosynthesis. Which is interesting because an ancient writer who lived by the rising of the sun understood water and sun for harvest. So why would he have oddly placed plant growth on day 3, and put appearance of the sun and seasons on day 4 ?.The Bible does mention large beasts. And also drawings have been found and etched rock with dinosaurs on them, how could the sketches visibly show physical characteristics of dinosaurs? Job 40 15“Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you;He eats grass like an ox.16 “Behold now, his strength in his loinsAnd his power in the muscles of his belly.17 “He bends his tail like a cedar;The sinews of his thighs are knit together.18 “His bones are tubes of bronze;His limbs are like bars of iron.19 “He is the first of the ways of God;Let his maker bring near his sword.20 “Surely the mountains bring him food,And all the beasts of the field play there.21 “Under the lotus plants he lies down,In the covert of the reeds and the marsh.22 “The lotus plants cover him with shade;The willows of the brook surround him.23 “If a river rages, he is not alarmed;He is confident, though the Jordan rushes to his mouth.24 “Can anyone capture him when he is on watch,With barbs can anyone pierce his nose?Isaiah 27:1In that day the Lord will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, With His fierce and great and mighty sword, Even Leviathan the twisted serpent; And He will kill the dragon who lives in the sea.Isaiah 51:9Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; Awake as in the days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it not You who cut Rahab in pieces, Who pierced the dragon?
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

I have not seen any animal turning into another recently to be honest...And I'd rather prefer not to think of myself as coming from an ape. Not too regal you see.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

In the strict sense of the word 'proof', it has not been proven. There is a wealth of evidence to support it but this evidence is not sufficient to be a proof. In a strict sense no scientific idea can be proven. All scientific facts have at some base level axioms - statements that are either accepted or rejected but not provable. It has been proven in the sense that there is no other competing scientific theory that has any scientific merit. The evidence points to evolution being the reason for the diversity of life on Earth.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

I think the problem we're going to have here is how to define what is fact and what is theory. Fact is observational. Theory is how to explain your observations. In this sense, evolution is proven (observed, documented and a fact) and natural selection is the theory (how we explain our observations of evolution).
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

Correct. Evolution is a fact and natural selection is a theory put forward by Charles Darwin. Not only is natural selection screamingly obvious, but it has an ocean of evidence supporting it so much so in fact, that most new discoveries in biology only make sense in its light.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

You're a little mixed up in your terminology here."In the strict sense of the word 'proof', it has not been proven."Incorrect. Hypotheses in science are proven when the scientific body as a whole reaches consensus. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that evolution is proven. There is no stricter sense than that in science. Wide consensus + much other subsequent science based on it = proof."All scientific facts have at some base level axioms - statements that are either accepted or rejected but not provable."You're confusing math with science here. Mathematical theorems are based on axioms. Science is based on repeated observations of the real world, experiment, consensus, etc.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

If we're talking science-speak, it is called the "Theory" of evolution still, not the "Law", so NO, it hasn't been proven. There are a huge number of theories that everyone pretty much agrees are true, but in the rules of science haven't (or can't) be proven.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

That's wrong. You can only give the title "proof" to a mathmatical formula. A theory is the highest scientific title that something can be given. Don't try to use semantics to prove your argument; evolution is fact.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

That's wrong. You can only give the title "proof" to a mathmatical formula.I just looked up proof in "The Merriam-Webster Dictionary" ©1997 and it didn't say anything about a 'mathematical formula'.I believe in evolution but it is impossible to ever prove it now. Eventually we will be able to document the evolutionary processes of current species but until then it's a theory.The key phrase in the theory of evolution is, "...over many generations..." it's barely been many generations since it was even proposed. As an example...Einstein said light could bend. The majority of physicist in the world showed calculation after calculation explaining exactly why light could, would and should bend but until the proper instruments were invented and the proper situation occured it couldn't be proven. We now know it's a fact.All the lab work, DNA results and field studies mean nothing until the process, taking 'many generations' is documented.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Ignore this one; I meant to oppose, not favour.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

You're right. I actually meant law, but by the time I'd realised my mistake I couldn't edit it.And in regards to your "over many generations" argument. It's over the generations of the thing evolving; not our generations. Some organisms can evolve thousands and thousands of times in the space of a day, so that argument is wrong.It's been observed and documented over the many generations of the organisms for which it has occured.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

I agree that generations apply to the species. I've been reading some of your examples from earlier posts.I'm not enough of a scientist to be able to discern the subtleties pointed out in plants for instance. Is it truly a new species if it's a hybrid? The thing I do know is that there is still enough disagreement amongst scientist that the smoking gun hasn't been found. It could be a matter of promotion/ignorance but if the smoking gun had been found Nat. Geo. would have had blazing headlines. The Smithsonian, Scientific American any number of mainstream publications would be clamoring for definitive proof.Think about it. Big headlines for life on Mars. Lucy. Hype sells and evolution is one of the biggest mysteries in science. The article, from you, "Observed Instances of Speciation" doesn't come right out and say evolution has been proved. The scientist, Joseph Boxhorn, who wrote the article begins with all kinds of caveats.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

Again, we hit walls of diction, but it's a great debate and I'm on your side (evolutionists). I want to see the blood and guts of what constitutes "proof", however, and I find that blind faith goes in multiple directions. In other words: I've seen evangelists of science as blinded as their christian counterparts. Loops/fractals in math, nature, logic, and many other scientific methods give me the idea that 2 opposing viewpoints can be equally true, just as a segment of light can be seen as a particle or a wave, depending on the method. Quirky? yes. Contradictory? yes. Tell me what 0/infinity could mean, and my answer is: Both. Thinkaboutit.