Thread: If...

...Evolution Is Fact Why Does It Get Debated? Some scientist don't agree with it, and if there was undisputed evidence of it the other scientist would look stupid for not believing it, and if its a fact why is up for debate? I mean God is not fact thats something up for debate but they(Evolutionist) say evolution is fact yet its still up for debate.
Okay another example: the Earth is round, thats fact, not up for debate. So there really isn't any evidence for evolution besides fossils or else it wouldn't be debated.
I'm guessing 95% of people answering this is atheist and you guys make jokes about creationist, you guys resort to name calling? You guys are so immature man.
Paul S Bullfighter, Here's your flaws.

1. Evidence can prove he did it.
2. Check Book..... Writes everything you buy/pay for.

"Sorry, but the Earth is completely flat. 100%."

(Walks away slowly, with a smile on my face..) Plz tell me you just tried to make a funny?

Theory and not fact!!
And I know evolutionist and atheist will say it's more fact than GOD!! And I say prove evolution by showing us that it is still happening and not a sample of gene mutation on an individual basis!!e

It gets 'debated' because those who believe that a supernatural being created the universe on a whim would have to admit that they might be WRONG about that if they admitted that evolution is a fact instead of a theory. For a long time people debated whether or not the earth or the sun was the center of the solar system, for the same reason. They felt that since humans were created by a god, that god would put them at the center of things. They did want to face the fact that earth is just a planet among other planets with no particular importance. This is the same. If they admit to evolution, the have to admit that it wasn't a god who created everything in 6 days a few thousand years ago. This idea threatens their belief system and therefore threatens their belief in an afterlife.

Because it defiles so many people's personal idols.

The Theory of Gravity is actually much more tenuous and incomplete than the Theory of Evolution, but you don't see groups dedicated to proving it's really Intelligent Falling, not gravity, at work.

Well, it's not very debatable. It's only unfavourable in the eyes of religionists.

In the reputable science world, it does not get debated anymore. It is thoroughly established. Only the ignorant creationists still attempt to refute it, through misrepresented science and propaganda. They debate it simply because it conflicts with their unsubstantiated beliefs.

And no fossils are not the only evidence, we would arguably have enough evidence for it without fossils. The biochemical similarities and variation in isolated species etc. is also comelling. Search 'evidence for evolution' on google, first couple links explain it better than me.

EDIT: Aww, did we hurt your feelings? Ah well, confront the evidence rather than being offended. Science is not biased, evolution was established based upon the existing evidence. Many of your christian brethren accept evolution.

It's really not up for debate.

Christians will debate it but their 'facts' are a bit skewed.

The debate, insofar as it exists is not whether evolution is happening, that is agreed, there are no credible scientists who do not believe in evolution, it is the mechanisms by which it occurs and the course it takes.
Like all scientific theories (and before you jump on the word theory, I would like to point out that general relativity, universal gravitation and quantum mechanics are also "theories") evolution is constantly being debated and improved as new knowledge is found, and since biology is a science in which many new discoveries are being made all the time, this informs our understanding of how species adapt to their environment.
Evolution is fact, it is happening, whether you want to believe it or not is really unimportant, truth is not subject to democracy, the universe is the way it is no matter what you personally think. The discussion in scientific circles is about how it happens.

I don't know why the faithful debate anything, really.

The biggest point to be made here is, there are almost NO legitimate scientists in the world who doubt the theory of evolution as a whole. Small aspects may be disputed, as is the case with most theories. You make it sound as if it's all up for grabs and some believe and some don't. There are always going to be exceptions to the rule, especially with something that threatens some people's very deeply imbedded ideas about religion and the nature of human beings. Electrical theory, for example doesn't threaten anyone's concept of themselves, so there's little motivation to attempt to deny it and find alternative belief systems. People tend to seek out answers they want to here.

********EDIT****************

"....So there really isn't any evidence for evolution besides fossils or else it wouldn't be debated...."

This is so utterly wrong that it's laughable. Today's entire school of Biology itself is dependent upon evolution to make sense. So many FACTS are interwoven within biology, genetics and archeology which work together to support one another that it's next to impossible for evolution NOT to be true. There are probably MILLIONS of interdisciplinary bits of evidence.

For example, are you aware that one's DNA contains much of it's ancestral genes? This is why vestigial organs and appendages can suddenly appear-- a human can be born with a tail for instance. Scientists even learned to wake up some of these old inactive genes. They've made chickens grow teeth from their reptilian ancestors. This gives us a window into a species past.



********EDIT****************

I'm NOT an atheist! I'm a Christian who understands that a Creator and Evolution are NOT mutually exclusive concepts! I get mad at atheists and Christians alike who insist they are. But I REALY get mad at Christians in this area because ALL the evidence is against them and their arguments are usually ridiculous giving the impression that believers in general are incapable of critical thinking.