The Instigator
SnowyOxygen
Pro (for)
Tied
4 Points
The Contender
LubricantSanta
Con (against)
Tied
4 Points

Evolution should be taught in all schools, contrary to creation.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 904 times Debate No: 62019
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

SnowyOxygen

Pro

I will be arguing the point that evolution and related scientific theories and/or facts (age of the earth and universe for example) should be taught in schools, contrary to creation which should be excluded completely.

Round 1 - Rules and acceptance (Do not post an argument in this round)
Round 2 - Opening argument
Round 3 - Rebuttals / arguments
Round 4 - Rebuttals / arguments
Round 5 - Conclusion and/or rebuttals.
LubricantSanta

Con

Swiggity Swacceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
SnowyOxygen

Pro

Firstly I would like to accept my opponent for accepting the debate, I look forward to it.

I strongly believe that evolution and every scientific fact or theory that has large amounts of evidence backing it up (the age of the earth for example) should be taught worldwide in schools. I also strongly believe that the creation theory should be excluded. Let me start with my "anti-creation" arguments.
Creation states a large number of what creationists call "facts", but what I call myths. According to creationists; the earth is 6000 years old, evolution is a lie and God made everything, and various other silly superstitions.
The earth is 6000 years old? As Richard Dawkins, a famous "celebrity" atheist said, "The difference between 6,000 years and 4.6 billion years it"s equivalent to believing the distance from New York to San Francisco is 7.8 yards. That"s the scale of the disagreement.". As you can see, it's completely ridiculous. You only have to look at a tree to find that not only it survived the flood for a year, but apparently was here before God created the earth!
And Noah's flood? Kill everything because God was too incompetent to create humans that wouldn't fight each other? 8 unskilled people building the biggest wooden boat of all time that could comfortably accommodate thousands of prey and predators alike? Should we really be teaching these easily de-bunked myths that contradict simple science?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now for evolution. Evolution is a well established theory with mountains of hard evidence backing it up. DNA being similar, fossils, you can actually see bacteria evolving due to their short life span. Or lizards for example, which scientists have found to evolve in 50 years on an island.
As you can see in the link posted below, scientists have stated that our DNA has a 2% difference in chimpanzees. Surely God isn't just placing these evidences for evolution to make it more difficult for creationists to back him up?

http://evolutionarymodel.com...
http://www.nytimes.com...

Evolution explains and answers questions rationally about where we came from, and where all animals came from. While creation answers nothing, it is an ignorant shrug of the shoulders that solves nothing and raises greater questions than it tries to answer. It would be silly to feed lies to children about the earth, while there are competent answers to these questions that creationists seem to constantly remain ignorant of.
LubricantSanta

Con

My opponent makes several fatal flaws in this debate. Firstly, the pro states that evolution should be taught "contrary" to creationism. A big complaint by atheists about religion is that people try to shove it down other people's throats. Teaching children that there is no God for certain is just intolerant as teaching them that there is a God for certain. The con contends that both should be taught.

Secondly, my opponent has this EXTREMELY incorrect view that the only form of creationism is Christianity. This is just totally ignorant. The fact that my opponent doesn't even seem AWARE that other religions exist is evidence that students should be introduced to both evolution and creationism. Ignorance of other cultures is what causes much conflict, just like this debate.

Thirdly, my opponent assumes that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. This is incorrect as well. True Darwinian evolution does not say that creationism is wrong. Evolution is how creatures evolve over time, not how they began. In fact, the idea of using evolution to explain the origin of life breaks a basic scientific principle: life cannot come from nothing. Of course, my opponent has the highly arrogant view that because he chooses not to believe in any sort of God, then science has no place in scientific explanations. The pro side is so dead-set against religion that they can rationalize anything to denounce it, even science, which is hypothetically the basis for their doubts about religion.

My opponent's inability to accept anything he is told he can't understand also leads him to make a plethora of assumptions. Firstly, the bible doesn't state the world is 6,000 years old ANYWHERE. This is a number PEOPLE have ESTIMATED based on the bible, not something it states or even implies. Even if it did, this is a debate about teaching creationism, not shoving Christianity into people's faces. Further more, my opponent just accepting the age of the earth he is told shows this as well. He chooses to believe the Earth is billions of years old despite most forms of geological dating being proven unreliable and/or inaccurate.

I think you can now see that my opponent has no real quandary with teaching creationism at all. He is clearly just wary of Christianity being the norm and has chosen to debate that. There is absolutely no reason to vote pro in this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
SnowyOxygen

Pro

You seem to have misunderstood. What I said was not "We should be taught that there is no god." but "We should be taught what we know and not creationist myths that have their proof based on a book". I've never said "there is no god", and would not wish to dictate this statement to anyone; but I would say "the existence of god is extremely improbable", and such improbabilities are silly to believe in. As for the Christianity, I never said that it was the sole form of creationism; I was just using an example. If you wish I could be more general: creation states that the universe and everything included was created by an all-powerful being. And that this all powerful being answers the question of "where do we come from?", when in reality it does not. In fact, it raises an even larger question than it tries to answer "Who designed the designer?". As Dawkins explains in his book The God Delusion, a being which is capable of creating the universe must be more complex than the universe itself and also must have an origin.

You do have a point, there are creationists who would accept the idea of evolution and the age of the earth. For me and I'm sure quite a few scientists and sceptics, what denounces the creationism theory is not evolution. It's the argument I presented in the last paragraph. It's the Boeing 747 gambit turned around. And evolutionists do not say that life came from nothing. Evolution started as soon as a chemical reaction was able to produce the first self-replicating molecules. As for the start of the entire universe, I am quite content with saying "I don't know.".

You also seem to be under the assumption that I am closed-minded and spoon-fed information, which is ironic and false. Science is evidence based, and if a scientist was to be proven wrong, he would gladly accept given enough hard evidence. Whereas the typical creationist would dismiss the proof and / or logic given to him which could easily debunk his theories. Easily de-bunkable and unhelpful theories and this attitude should of course not be taught in a classroom.

Actually, according to Moses; adam's creation is absolute: 4004 BC. Which puts us at a tiny bit over 6000 years. And again, the Christian account of creationism is an example chosen for it's huge influence on the world, especially considering the amount of Christians and creationists in the world's superpower. You also seem to be making the assumption again that I'm being spoon fed this information. Do you really think that I was simply told "Here's the date, no arguing, accept it." like creation tells us? No. I was told about radiometric and geological dating which are proven to be accurate within a error radius of a few millions years or so. I analyzed the data I was taught, and weighed mountains of evidence for science on one side, and an abscence of evidence on the other side. I'm sure you can guess which one won that. Your last statement simply confused me, of course I'm against all accounts of creationism, be they Christian or not.

Finally, let me talk where I live, which is France. France is a completely secular society. Be you catholic, protestant, jew or atheist, no one will care for what religion you are. Furthermore, theology to my knowledge is not taught anywhere in France as a non-optional course. In fact, visible religious symbols are banned from being worn in French schools. And 45% (largest percentage) of French citizens are Christian, mostly catholic. This in my view is how schools worldwide should be.
LubricantSanta

Con

Alright let's begin posting some holes. My opponent states that the age of the earth in the bible is absolute, but gives no actual quote to prove this.

Next, as far as radiometric dating goes, it's inaccurate. If my opponent did his research, he would know this.
http://www.cs.unc.edu... methods in general are inaccurate (copy and past all of that into the url, spaces included)

To sum up this argument, radiometric and other geological dating assume the Earth never changes in any sort of way. Any RATIONAL person should be able to identify this as ridiculous.

Now let's go onto the whole "creationism has no basis". My opponent sites the bible as just a book with no actual basis. I have two responses to this.

1. Many non-biblical sources, some of which we use for many other historical accounts recant biblical events.
http://christianity.stackexchange.com...

From this you can read about many non-biblical historians who we rely on for much other information performing miracles or "sorcery" as some sources describe it. My opponent claims he is not spoon-fed information, and yet he denounces sources who we rely on to describe other aspects of history. Again, his arrogance is just shocking. I can't believe he could actually just lump all religion together and say "they have no evidence" when things like this exist.

My second argument is that believing things don't have evidence does not make them false. I Take the holocaust for example.
http://www.nbcnews.com...

According tot his study, approximately one third of adults who are aware of the holocaust don't believe it happened. Now here's where you get to see the true side of my opponent. He'll say "Anyone who doesn't believe the holocaust is an idiot because there's evidence of it". Then he'll say that my sources of Christ performing miracles are invalid for no apparent reason, and won't even question what other historical events he shouldn't believe based on his lack of belief in those sources. That's just how anti-creationist logic works. They state that there's no evidence for any sort of creationism (and usually the only religion they've even studied - no mater how clearly uninformed they are, as we've seen in this debate - is Christianity. I guarantee you my opponent has done little to no research on any religions, and only rejects them because of this societal stigma where we only accept what people tell us are fact and we can't believe what those people say are fiction. I've given ACTUAL evidence that supports Jesus Christ performing miracles, whereas my opponent has even admitted that evolution cannot be cited as a source for life. And he's also admitted that we have no definitive idea what created the Universe - again, his rejection of creationism only stems from his inability to accept things which seem impossible in his eyes - an arrogance which I suppose is understandable, but should not be accepted nonetheless. With that, I believe you can see creationism should be taught in schools - not because it is necessarily accurate, but because students have a right to be informed about whatever they might choose to believe. Many theories about the origin of the universe have literally NO evidence, and yet atheists choose to believe them because they're "scientific" theories. And I respect their right to study and believe those theories. I only ask that the voters allow students those rights as well.
Debate Round No. 3
SnowyOxygen

Pro

Various creationists over the years, including James Ussher (4004 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC), Gerhard Hasel (4178 BC), and Isaac Newton (~4000 BC), and most creationists of today accept an age within a few centuries of 6000 years ago. If you want you can have a look at a creationist's site: http://creation.com...
Radiometric dating is innacurate? Apart from an obvious creationist's attack on radiometric dating, what valid sources do you have for that? And what sources do you have for your bible's theories? Historian's writing? Books? Well in that case; according to the Discworld series there is a flat disc world (as the name suggests) being held on the shoulders of four elephants which are standing on a giant turtle. And according to Harry Potter... well I think you see my point.
But, back to radiometric dating. Radiometric dating has been around since 1907 (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Do you honestly think that scientists have been using Radiometric dating for over a century while it apparently being inaccurate? Of course not. Furthermore, one of the first radiometric dating methods, Uranium-Lead dating, is one of the oldest and most refined methods. It has an innacuracy rating of only 0.1-1%. To somehow be as innacurate as the gap between 6000 and 4.5 billion years you would need an innacuracy rate of 99.99913%, just a hairs width of 0.1-1%.
Actually, it does not assume that the earth never changes, scientists find rocks that are extremely old; for example Zircon crystals (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Or the uranium-lead dating process which uses the half life of uranium; thanks to which we can accurately (within 0.1-1%) calculate the age of the earth (simply look up uranium-lead dating).

You then state that because there are accounts for creationism, then it is credible. Well there are countless texts for countless different religions. On what basis are they not credible? Why are they any more credible than the texts you are using? Surely they can't all be credible religions because they have a bunch of text backing them up? Just because several people say something doesn't at all make it true.

Your holocaust argument is to be blunt, simply stupid. There is photographical and film evidence of the holocaust, whereas there is beyond a lack of evidence for Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, Jesus, the creation of the earth, the flood ect. Furthermore, I don't see the point in repeating that I've used the example of christianity. As not only have I explained why I used it, but also gave an argument that debunks any kind of creationism; the boeing 747 gambit turned around. You seem to be resorting to repeating the same things you said in your last argument, and being insulting by insinuating that I've not done any research. I have not been insulting and have had a reasonable conduct for the entirety of the debate, I suggest you try and do the same.

"I've given actual evidence that supports Jesus Christ". Oh really? Where is it? I'm guessing you are referring to your argument about texts and historians confirming his miracles. This argument is so over-used I wonder why you're the one saying I've done no research. Evolution is not in any sense a source of life, again; why are you saying I've not done my research? Evolution takes off once the first life takes place; once the chemical reaction producing the first self-replicating molecule takes place.
You also misunderstand what I said. I said "I am quite content with saying that I don't know". I've never said that the existence of a god is impossible. I've said that it is very improbable.

As for your last statement, I'm unfortunately going to have to resort to being a bit insulting. Your statement about scientific theories for the origin of the universe probably stems from complete ignorance. Scientists do not know the origin of the universe and are working towards it. The arrogance lies with he who says he does know and presents no tangible evidence to the table. The creation theory is simply unhelpful and has no point in a classroom as a silly and often harmful theory.
LubricantSanta

Con

Okay, I'm going to make this short, because my opponent's blatant ignorance is infuriating. As I pointed out, the historian accounts of Christ are sources we use to account for MUCH of history. He's basically saying history textbooks before the invention of the camera have no merit. And here's where he says "those are qualified sources" because he's quite frankly a moron who refused to accept anything his mind refused to comprehend.

And he didn't understand the holocaust argument either. A THIRD of adults don't' believe in the holocaust. Therefore, because people believe there is not valid evidence, according to him, we should never learn about it. And this is where he says that because the holocaust has evidence, we should learn about it. What about Washington crossing the Delaware? The sources we have of that also say they saw green men in the forest. So I suppose we should become the history channel and start teaching how Aliens altered the history of earth? My opponent clearly has this idea that he's this deep thinker who sees past all the creationist "ignorance", and yet he refuses to acknowledge legitimate historical sources which also account for other historical events we learn about.

Radiometric dating: So I gave not only evidence, but legitimate reason as to why radiometric dating cannot be trusted as accurate. My opponent gave no response to either besides saying that because my sources believe in creationism, they didn't know what they were talking about. Honestly, his inability be rational in this debate is appalling.

Aside from all of this, I win this debate because by saying we should not teach Creationism, my opponent is creating an atmosphere of discrimination. I'm not saying that "x religion should be a core class", I'm just saying students should have the opportunity to learn about the religions of the world. Not only does trying to eliminate these from school create discrimination, it creates ignorance. My opponent has demonstrated this by assuming anything associated with Christianity automatically loses its credibility.
Debate Round No. 4
SnowyOxygen

Pro

Well you're a charming one. I'm afraid this is a debate if you didn't know, I advise you to take a level of respect for your oponnent when debating. Strangely enough you seemed to have blindly ignored my last attempt to warn you, and have even managed to take it to a new level.

"He's basically saying history textbooks before the invention of the camera have no merit.". I never said anything of the sort. The historical accounts of christ have little to no credibilty on what they preach and were written over a millenia ago, where-as the holocaust happened fairly recently with mountains of hard evidence supporting it. The holocaust is a fact, whereas creation is a silly theory that could be easily contradicted.
These people who claim to not believe in the holocaust sound quite familiar. They sound like the sort of people who have faith, or belief without reason or evidence.
What about Washington crossing the Delaware with green men in the forest? I've tried to do a little bit of research on this as you failed to give any sources but I've failed to find any mention of green men. Now, either you're giving a false example or it's lost on the internet. But honestly, if you give me one piece of hard evidence for whichever god you believe in, I will willingly convert to it. But unfortunately, you have provided no evidence towards your claims
The difference between your historical sources and for example, the historical sources that claim that the ancient egyptians existed is this:
  1. They are much more credible. Granted, not all of it is credible. But we have no reason to not believe that there were numerous egyptian emperors who commanded the construction of the pyramids; there is simply too much evidence. And yet there is no evidence and contradictions to the claim that the earth is 6000 years old, that there was a flood, and that god created everything.
  2. There are contradictions to what the bible preaches. It's not only a lack of evidence that debunks creation, it's countless contradictions. A teenager could easily contradict the earth being 6000 years old. But anyone would find it very difficult if not impossible and pointless to try and contradict the construction of the pyramids by the ancient egyptians.

Actually, you have given little evidence supporting your claim that radiometric dating is as innacurate as 99.99913%, and I have contradicted your argument on this. I wont repeat the full argument but let me say: For what reason would scientists continue using radiometric dating if it was 99.99913% accurate?

If by discrimination you mean excluding ignorant and false theories that do little to help the society or science in any way, then sure. But it's not; it's a state of neutrality. If they want to learn about these harmful theories and superstitions outside of a public school, then go ahead; but I ask that they be excluded from classrooms so that our society may advance without silly superstitions blocking the way. Although unrelated to the debate; I would personally prefer a word without religion.

Again; he who claims something with no supporting evidence is showing a grand feat of ignorance and certainly arrogance, contrary to several religious apologists who say the same of atheists and non-believers. And as for your last phrase, I'm afraid you've either missed a large part of my arguments about using christianity as an example, or there are more profound causes for you ignoring them

LubricantSanta

Con

Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of my opponent just randomly shunning historical facts, so I'll make this short. If you want to see all of the other arguments made in this round, scroll back up.

http://christianity.stackexchange.com...
I have already given this link talking about independent, often non-christian historians who lived during the time of Christ depicting miracles, or "sorcery" to cite one word used to describe it. Because my opponent CHOOSES to not believe in Christ, he disregards these sources. But again, if we choose not to believe numerous first-hand accounts of events, why believe in anything before the camera was invented? I've provided more first-hand accounts of Christ performing miracles than my opponent has studied of any other event - he just chooses to believe what he accepts is possible without this kind of scrutiny.

And this goes right along with my argument that we should not pick and choose what we teach students in schools - if there's historical data, we should teach it. Therefore both evolution and creationism should both be taught, especially because the two ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, a point which my opponent fails to see

For the George Washington argument, you apparently didn't look very hard.
http://www.ushistory.org...
There, a reputable source which has won numerous awards for providing reliable history.

Again, if you want to view more arguments which were either misinterpreted or forgotten, scroll up.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LubricantSanta 2 years ago
LubricantSanta
And I also stated that that whole "6,000 years" thing is something people gleaned from the bible - not something that's absolute or that Christians necessarily believe. But yet again, you heard it, and it supports your opinion, so you ignore every other piece of information that other people present to you. I wish you could just SEE that's your doing this - that would make me happy.
Posted by SnowyOxygen 2 years ago
SnowyOxygen
That is the percentage value of inaccuracy that you would need to get anywhere near 6000 years. Just do some simple maths. I really can't be bothered to argue with you any-more as you've just lost it, I hardly understand what you're saying and I doubt you do either.
Posted by LubricantSanta 2 years ago
LubricantSanta
For that matter, I don't know where you're even getting that number from. It seems to me you just say "oh, this guy has P.H.D. Everything he does is perfect. I know it seems like things that are happening now are always the most correct, but if you actually bothered to look into the information rather than the sources who give you information, you'd see most of what we know about the world and the universe is just guesswork and circular reasoning. Maybe someday you'll see that.
Posted by SnowyOxygen 2 years ago
SnowyOxygen
Oh so they're just fking around with a method that is 99.99913% inaccurate? If it was that innacurate they wouldn't be using it, they would find another method instead of wasting their time. Your argument is just silly.
Posted by LubricantSanta 2 years ago
LubricantSanta
That point of view is just so flawed, and it embodies what's wrong with this generation. We assume that what we know is absolute. But if history has taught us anything, it's that we're regularly learning most of what we think we know about the world is wrong. The argument that scientists wouldn't use it if it were wrong is just so wrong.
Posted by SnowyOxygen 2 years ago
SnowyOxygen
No, my argument is that scientists wouldn't have been using it for so long if it's inaccurate, completely different.
Posted by LubricantSanta 2 years ago
LubricantSanta
So, your argument is "because it's been around so long, it must be accurate". By your own admission, Christianity is what you should believe. How could it be around so long if it's flawed? Oh, and I suppose that the Earth is the center of the universe because that was believe for so long. Good logic m8. Much better than mine, which gave actual reason as to why radiometric dating was flawed.
Posted by SnowyOxygen 2 years ago
SnowyOxygen
Actually I did, you said radiometric dating is flawed. But I said: "Radiometric dating has been around since 1907 (http://en.wikipedia.org......). Do you honestly think that scientists have been using Radiometric dating for over a century while it apparently being inaccurate? Of course not. Furthermore, one of the first radiometric dating methods, Uranium-Lead dating, is one of the oldest and most refined methods. It has an innacuracy rating of only 0.1-1%. To somehow be as innacurate as the gap between 6000 and 4.5 billion years you would need an innacuracy rate of 99.99913%, just a hairs width of 0.1-1%."
And I didn't only say that argument was stupid, I said why it was stupid. To be honest you just seem to be trying to hide my previous arguments.
Posted by LubricantSanta 2 years ago
LubricantSanta
No, no you didn't. I gave reasoning and evidence for why radiometric dating is flawed. You just said "no it isn't". I gave historical first-hand accounts of christ performing miracles and said "oh well those aren't valid". You also disregarded one argument simply by saying "it's dumb". I refuse to be respectful if you won't actually think about the arguments. It's clear to me the whole point of this debate was you feeling like you wanted to bash religion.
Posted by SnowyOxygen 2 years ago
SnowyOxygen
LubricantSanta, I read through each one of your arguments and debunked them. I've still received no evidence for anything creation preaches, and gave evidence and logic for radiometric dating. And: Even if the opponent is being completely ignorant and insulting you must remain respectable during the debate. Otherwise it turns into a school-ground argument.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
SnowyOxygenLubricantSantaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: While Pro presents a handful of arguments for why Evolution is scientifically backed and should be taught in schools more than creationism, con got completely caught up in pro's inadvertent bashing of christianity and blew most of his arguments on the religious aspect of this issue, and turned the debate into a giant pissing contest over religion. Arguments to the pro since he made his case for evolution whereas con failed to make his case for creationism, conduct to the pro as well since con showed egregious conduct in the debate.
Vote Placed by frozen_eclipse 2 years ago
frozen_eclipse
SnowyOxygenLubricantSantaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro clearly conceded to discrimiation, Pro made this debate about christianity when con did a marvelously smart thing by pointing out that christianity is only one of many forms of creationist theory. As pro said, we dont know how everything started so who are we to say whats true or not? In my opinion there is no use arguing over it. It is also unethical to discriminate between religions in a school setting. You either teach as many as you can or none at all...but thats another debate. Con won because he proved both sides to have valid points, and that knowledge should not be restricted but that one should be given the two tools and decide which to work with.