Evolution of man from lower species should be accepted as fact by now

May 9, 2015, 11:00 pm

Agree36 Disagree12

75%
25%

The debate "Evolution of man from lower species should be accepted as fact by now" was started by jonatron5 on May 9, 2015, 11:00 pm. 36 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 12 people are on the disagree side. That might be enough to see the common perception. It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.

PsychDave posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
toughgamerjerry posted 4 arguments, debunked26 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.

jonatron5, PsychDave, I_Voyager, ibrahim, Violet, sphericdrake, Sosocratese, DarkAngelAnarchist, egzon135, v_d, Seraphim, sighnomore99, rionagh99, Benzdick, username_gracie, shinywhale, transfanboy, skyfrancois_97, irishstraw, Pamelamccubbins, soullesschicken, AstroSpace, pajrc1234 and 13 visitors agree.
Fungo, AnkGanu, toughgamerjerry, debunked26 and 8 visitors disagree.

what a joke. false

4 years, 6 months ago

I understand, I am sorry for the tone of some of my comments as well. I think we both got a little too heated.

You are right, we will probably never know 100% for sure but, as with gravity, I believe we will gradually get closer until we can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt (to borrow a phrase). I think it comes down to margin for error. Supporters of evolution feel that there is enough evidence to be reasonably confident in it. Detractors feel that there is insufficient evidence to support it.

4 years, 6 months ago

I have learned most of what I know from an audio series called "Jonathan Park". Johnathan, who is the main character, is the son of a paleontologist named Kendall. It is a very long audio series that I have been listening to for years but the creators of it get real life information to educate both kids and adults alike in, starting in volume 5, a debate between a teem of creationist against a teen of evolutionist. In that they give many facts about the dating of volcano rocks and signs of a worldwide flood. But it is not only teaching about Creation in this volume, they also teach some of the evolutionist views on geographical information.

I also want to apologize because I was accusing you of not know what you were talking about.

I also use the app on my phone and the best way for me to put links on is to pull them up on my laptop and copy the url onto the chat.

Back to the actual topic, the statement is that evolution should be accepted as a fact. But there is absolutely no way that we can prove 100% what really happened until the "afterlife" and by then nobody else can know. For all we know we could both be wrong, but we can look at the facts around us and believe what we see as what makes the most sense to us. For one belief to be for everyone, you would have to force people to believe what they don't see can be possible. And that is in most cases not possible.

For a few minutes there I had forgotten that I got this app to have fun debating not debating unethical arguments. You are very good at debating and I respect your decision.

4 years, 6 months ago

That is one of the advantages science has over religious dogma, as we learn more, we cam create better explanations for the world around us. Until the theory of evolution, we had the evidence, but didn't know what it showed. Gravity existed before it was "discovered", Newton just found a better way to quantitatively describe it.

I apologize if I was unclear. I don't expect you to discover evidence contrary to your belief, I meant to present it to you and, if you were interested you could look at it. I am using the app on my phone, and periodically it crashes if I move between windows, making copying links a challenge. That is why I named the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, assuming you would be able to find its website. I am sorry if my expectation that you would be willing to do some basic research into the topic leads you to think I am uneducated. I don't tend to be able to list resources off the top of my head because typically I am researching them rather than making them up, but in the future I will try to avoid assuming you do the same.

I am not saying that if we didn't see it, it didn't happen, I am pointing out the flaw in your asking for the missing link. You are using an argument that, each time it is answered, is simply asked again. "Where is the missing link between these two points?" When a point between those two is found, you simply move the boundaries to ask for the link between the new point and one of the end points. Eventually either there will be an infinite set of data (which is impossible) or we will hit a generation where there is no fossil record. That doesn't mean nothing died, or even that there are no fossils from that period, but the Earth is a big place to look for a specific skeleton.

Before you disparage science, perhaps you should explain how you know more than the people who have dedicated their lives to studying those "rocks. " What scientists have proven that a flood could alter the age of rocks? Could you provide a name, or the study, or anything that would allow verification that such a thing actually exists?

4 years, 6 months ago

I never said that no fossils were found before Darwin came up with the idea of evolution. I said that there was no evidence of evolution until after Darwin gave the idea of evolution.

The burden of proof is on you. Your telling me to find evidence against what I'm trying to prove. If you don't give me at least the link to any evidence then I see you as uneducated in your own belief. If you were educated then you could give me some right off the top of your head. But as we all can see that didn't happen.

You illustration that if we didn't see it did it happen disproves yourself. Christians have the Bible to prove our belief. What do evolutionist have? some rocks that decay over time that Christian scientist have been able to prove happened by a world wide flood.

creationproof.com/id24.html

I can get more if you ask

Finally, you are right that the full Bible has not been around for eternity. but that's because that the events in the new testament didn't happen until about 2000 years ago. Although the old testament has been around much much longer than the new and has predictions that came true. Why? Because it was written by God. God told people like Moses, David, Solomon and many other to write it and He told them what to write. And there is geographical evidence that this is true too.

www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

Again I can get more if you ask.

4 years, 6 months ago

To start with, what in my statement about fossil records led you to make the claim the the evidence I have mentioned has never been discovered? Google is your friend in this case as you could do a quick search and learn about a wealth of information and evidence supporting evolution. The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History has a great deal of information about the subject, including a human family tree that lets you see information about the various ancestors of modern humanity.

Also, to make sure I understand you properly, you are claiming that no fossils were discovered before Darwin came up with the theory of evolution.

Next, you prove my point that, no matter how many pieces of evidence are presented, you will always point to a spot between them and say that there is no proof one leads to the next. Arguing this is rather pointless because you have already demonstrated that you have disregarded reason and science in favor of being obstinate.

Finally, the Bible has obviously not been around since the beginning of time. The New Testament is at most around 2000 years old. Beyond that, it was not written as events occurred, or even shortly after them. The Bible was written years after events by people who were not present. Moses is attributed with writing the first five books sometime around 1400 BC. That is obviously not all time since Moses was not there for creation.

4 years, 6 months ago

You would still think that if we evolved over millions of years that we would have found at least one piece of evidence but we have not found ANY evidence. And where did this idea originate? One man thought it up and then all of a sudden there is evidence to prove it but never before. Whereas things like the Bible have been around since the beginning of time and were documented from actual events in history that things outside the Bible have proven to happen. And how do you know that those "evolved" animals were really evolved animals and not just an animal that is extinct now? That is just an idea because neither of us can prove either side. List for me please some of those "evolved" fossils that you list. Oh and for your illustration that you gave, there is more than just pictures to prove that you existed. people can prove that you existed just like the Bible. We may not have every picture of Bible times but God had people document what happened.

4 years, 6 months ago

You are essentially asking for the missing link, which keeps being asked no matter how many times it has been answered. We do see half evolved fossils. Fossil records show gradual changes over a long time. Yes, there are steps in between that we do not have fossils for, but not every thing that dies leaves a fossil, meaning we can never have every step from single cell to your parents.

For an analogy to what you are asking, I want you to imagine someone asked you to prove you grew up rather than springing into the world fully formed. That should be simple. You show them pictures of you as an infant, a small child, a teenager, a young adult, and finally a picture taken the day before. They then ask for proof in between the photos provided. Still not a problem, you can go through your family photos and find more pictures. Family vacations, birthday parties, graduations, and just random pictures that fill in the gaps. They look at these pictures and again say that this doesn't prove that one leads to the next, merely that each of these people existed at one time. At some point you will run out of pictures to provide and, unless you live in the Truman Show, you will not have documentation of every step. There will always be missing links in the photographic chain.

Fossils provide us with a snapshot of what a species looked like at a certain point. Some museums have lined up fossils to show the gradual change in structure over many generations. We will never have every step because that is impossible. What we do have is a series of snapshots that, when lined up, show how we, as well as other species, developed. We can also use genetics to see how we changed at the genetic level over time.

4 years, 6 months ago

How can you prove that man evolved from something else? Why haven't we seen any fossils of half evolved animals? What evidence you all you people who agree have. And if you have none then we cannot accept it as fact.

4 years, 6 months ago
Discuss "Evolution of man from lower species should be accepted as fact by now" religion science
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.