The Instigator
Sagey
Pro (for)
Winning
56 Points
The Contender
ben671176
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Fairness In Science Classes: No Intelligent Design. = No Pastafarianism

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 8 votes the winner is...
Sagey
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/5/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,331 times Debate No: 58580
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (131)
Votes (8)

 

Sagey

Pro

My Assertion and Thus My BOP is Concerning the current assertion made by Intelligent Design (Creationist) groups that the British move to ban teaching I.D./Creation alongside Evolution is Unfair.
This same argument is also being applied to U.S. states that are also moving to ban Creationism/I.D. from their state funded science classes.

My Contention and thus this debate statement Concludes:

That Banning Creation (I.D.) From Being Taught Alongside Evolution In Science Classes Is :EQUAL_TO: Banning Pastafarianism (Worshiping The Flying Spaghetti Monster) From Science Classes.

Essentially stating that both Creation (I.D.) and Pastafarianism have nothing to do with Science.

My opponent's Objective would be to argue that Creation/ I.D. is Scientific and thus have a place alongside Evolution in Science Classes, where Pastafarianism should not be taught as Science.

Essentially the Contender will be calling my Debate Title a False Analogy/Comparison Fallacy.

Format: No Acceptance Round, Con starts their Argument in their first round.
Second and Third Rounds will be For Rebuttals and Extended Arguments.

Best Of Luck To Anybody Who Is Willing To Take The Con Position:
ben671176

Con

Of course I.D. is scientific that's common knowledge. Do you want me to explain it to you? Really? Fine.

Not only is Evolution obsolete but it makes no since if you take away the whole adapting to one's environment and god.

Banning Pastafarianism would make since, since it should be taught in social studies on how people have rebelled against governments or just acted stupid.

Okay my reasoning on how Evolution is wrong left and right (without religion) is that

1. The earth took a long time to cool down so the time span between the earth's right temperature and the first life forms is about 400 billion years so not a lot of time for life forms to be made? Right? Since it should take like a billion years

2. Even with all of the carbon in the universe put on the earth the chance of a single protien being made is still about 10 with 60 zeroes after it. Making the Lottery a sure thing.

3. "A comet put life on earth!" Please look at number 2.

4. "Aliens put us on earth!" Please look at number 2. and you'll realize that would be a problem for them too. And you also said there is no god and never will be, but. . . aren't the aliens palying god?

I can keep on going buddy, on how evolution is wrong.

To me: every religion is right and every religion is wrong, so maybe Pastafarieanism is correct. My reasoning is:

1. Have you ever read any religios stories, myths, or legends and realize some of the stories are correct? If you want me to send an example just ask.

2. To me Religions are just like different versions o each other like back in history in Ancient Greece the Greek Mythology was different in every port and city since they were divided by tough seas and mountains. An example is who the real Queen of the gods? Maia or Hera? Was how the religion was divided, etc.
Debate Round No. 1
Sagey

Pro

Thank You Con for accepting to take part in this Debate!

Before Rebutting Con's Interesting Argument, I will Extend my own argument.


Firstly I will present a Video Source which is roughly 1 hour long, but I do not expect anybody to watch the entire video.
Instead I will present some of the major points from the Video here.



Essentially, Creationism or Intelligent Design, (whichever you want to name it, as they are both the same Superstition based Ideology) Bases It's Attacks On Evolution on Three Pillars.

These Three Pillars of Creationism/ID Are: Followed by the Debunking of each Pillar.

Pillar 1: Evolution In Crisis; or the claim that scientists are quarreling over Evidence Against Evolution.

This is totally False, because there is no Evidence found against Evolution so far and thus no quarrels between scientists and Absolutely No Crisis occurring in Evolution. In fact Evolution is more sound now than it has ever been in history. 95% of scientists worldwide consider it as the most proven theory on Earth.
There is not the slightest bit of evidence against it being argued by any genuine scientist at present.
All arguments against Evolution are religious based only. They are not scientific in any way.

Pillar 2: Incompatibility: That Evolution is Incompatible with Faith In God.
Which is also fallacious in that there are many Evolutionists who are also devoutly religious, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and many other religious views. They see no incompatibility.

Creationist literature teaches that a person must make a choice between God and Evolution and cannot possibly believe in both. This is a False Dichotomy Fallacy.

Pillar 3: Fairness: They state that it is not fair to only teach one side of a controversy in educating children.

This is the one I.D.ers and Creationists are trying at the moment in legislation around the U.S.
This is the Underlying Basis Of This Debate:

which is also fallacious. They try to use other real controversies like Global Warming, but everybody knows they have their guns aimed at Evolution. There is No Controversy in Evolution, Creation is not a Controversy to Evolution, so they have no Argument. It's the same as saying it is unfair not to teach Superman Comics as Science.

It's a False Assertion/Assumption Fallacy.

Rebuttal of Con's Argument:

Con States: “Of course I.D. is scientific that's common knowledge.”
Response: No it is not, it is only considered Common Knowledge to Creationists/I.D.ers to everybody with any knowledge of Science it is Pseudo-Scientific or Nonsense. Intelligent Design is a Superstition (Religious based Notion) , not Science.


Con States: “Not only is Evolution obsolete but it makes no since if you take away the whole adapting to one's environment and god.”
Response: Apart from that sentence not making any real sense, Evolution is the best explanation available so far, so it cannot be obsolete, to be obsolete it must be disproved, and so far, nobody on Earth has been able to disprove Evolution.

Con States: “Banning Pastafarianism would make since, since it should be taught in social studies on how people have rebelled against governments or just acted stupid.”
Response: Pastafarianism is a decoy, you could substitute it with Astrology or any other Superstition humans have, I’m simply calling Intelligent Design a Superstition, Not a Science.

Rebutting Con's Points:
Point 1. Earth is only 4.5 Billion years old, and the first life appeared in the form of Cyanobacteria, roughly 4 Billion years ago. The Cyanobacteria produced enough Oxygen in 2 Billion years for life to exist breathing air, without those Cyanobacteria, we would not exist, so it was not God that allowed humans to live and breath, but Cyanobacteria. We should all be thankful for the existence of Cyanobacteria, not God.
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

Point 2. The Chance of anybody living being born is less likely than 1 in all the atoms in the known universe, yet they are here. Chances of someone winning the lottery is 1 in 8 billion or more yet somebody wins it most weeks. Probability is very misleading and using probability in such a way is Fallacious.
Abiogenesis is actually highly likely, considering the early reduction atmosphere (lack of oxygen) and the nature of monomers (simple molecules) which have a natural affinity to forming polymers (more complex molecules).
Meteors have bee found to contain around 70 amino acids, which are very basic building blocks of life, and it has been shown by experiments colliding these as if hitting the Earth will produce more complex molecules and thus proteins can be formed this way. Which takes care of Con's Point 3 at the same time.
http://www.nasa.gov...

Point 4. Aliens would have the same debate on their planet, so aliens are not part of this argument.

The Rest of Con's argument is Non-Sequitur

Con can show me any faults with Evolution and I will gladly debunk them.
Scientists have been trying to Fault Evolution since it was conceived.

If Con can show a single fault in Evolution, Con deserves a Nobel Prize in Science.
Millions of scientists have tried and failed there.

Essentially, Creationism and Intelligent Design are Superstitions.

We cannot Teach Superstition as Science, as that is Irrational.

Teaching Creation concepts and any other Superstitions such as Astrology and Pastafarianism in Science is Irrational.

Leaving the only conclusion that Banning Creation from Science Classes has nothing to do with Fairness in Education.
It is the only truly Rational Step to take, to ensure only Scientific concepts are taught in Science Classes.

Over to you Con.

ben671176

Con

"Earth is only 4.5 Billion years old, and the first life appeared in the form of Cyanobacteria, roughly 4 Billion years ago. The Cyanobacteria produced enough Oxygen in 2 Billion years for life to exist breathing air, without those Cyanobacteria, we would not exist, so it was not God that allowed humans to live and breath, but Cyanobacteria. We should all be thankful for the existence of Cyanobacteria, not God."

Let me show some text made by a Athiest that turned into a Creationist. You just proved how I am correct by stating that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the first bactriums were made to produce life around four billion years ago. But you failed to rebuttal the moon since most believe a massive object hit the Earth 4.6 or 4.5 billion years ago so the earth is actually around under 5.0 billion years of age. Even the chance of producing one protien on the earth in 1 billion years if you had all the carbon in the universe put on the earth (which we never have) is still 10 with 60 zeros after it.
Yes there is 1 with 80 zeros after it which counts for all the atoms in the universe and you stated that "The Chance of anybody living being born is less likely than 1 in all the atoms in the known universe---" Though I want to give you some stats:
Every year 137 million babies are born and 59 billion people die. The world's population is growing at a rate of 9,100 people every hour.* Also the from one ejaculation from a male could double the population of the U.S.A. and Canada combined. (stats from copyright 1986.)

*Talk Nerdy To Me
Copyright 2013

^been^

"Meteors have bee found to contain around 70 amino acids, which are very basic building blocks of life, and it has been shown by experiments colliding these as if hitting the Earth will produce more complex molecules and thus proteins can be formed this way."

The biggest flaw in this theory is you just place the origin-of-life to someplace else. Even if where it cam from had the resources to produce basic organic structures you still have. . .
1. Atmoshere and temperature could kill life on the meteor or completely burn up the meteor.
2. Even if the amino acids got to earth, you still have the assembly issues like how did the amino acids and protiens yurn into matter?
3. Resources taken out of a quote from Stanley Miller, A Chemist looking for the origins of life, he sent the quote to Discover magazine: " 'Organics from outer space- - -that's garbage, it really is.' "
I agree with him! I mean the only way it could happen is with Aliens; but wait, how were they made then?
Debate Round No. 2
Sagey

Pro

Thank You Con for your Argument!

Rebuttals:


Con States: "Let me show some text made by a Atheist that turned into a Creationist. " That is Non-Sequitur.
Atheists turning Creationists have no bearing on Removing Superstition/Creation from the Science Class.


Con also claimed I did not rebut his arguments concerning Carbon, Moon, Aliens, etc...
I have no need to even look at those as they are all attacking Life origins which has nothing at all to do with Evolution.
They also have nothing to do with Creation not being Science.
Believing and citing Scientific information like Creation and Intelligent Design pretend to do without really understanding the information they cite is not really being Scientific.
Evolution has nothing to do with how life originated, it is only concerned with how already living organisms adapt and change over time.
Anything that changes over time is evolving, just as languages have evolved over time.
There are many Evolutions, Cosmological Evolution, Geological Evolution, etc....
Though we have mainly been dealing with Biological Evolution.

The science that does deal with Origins Of Life is Abiogenesis, so it is a different argument.

Being Scientific deals with what methods are employed to analyse the Evidence and how Conclusions are made.
Creation and Intelligent Designer are unscientific for Two Reasons.
1: Science Uses Inductive Reasoning for arriving at a Conclusion, Creation uses Deductive Assertion.
2: Science must be able to predict outcomes using scientific reasoning, Creation has a Magician/Designer/God that destroys such predictability.

The Whole Position of The Debate and Thus My Burden Of Proof is that Removing Creation From The Science Classes Is No Different To Removing Other Superstitions From The Science Classes, in this title I used Pastafarianism, though I could have also used Astrology, Iridology, Palmistry, TeaLeafOlogy and Tarot Card Reading.

Basically it is saying that Creationism as a Methodology, is not Scientific.
People becoming Creationist is not a measure of the Scientific Nature nor Methods of Creationism/Intelligent Design.

Con States: "

Comparison In Methodology Between Science And Creationism.

Premise: Complexity In An Organ, for example the Human Eye.

Science: Scientific Analysis.
Premise 1: Human eye is a complex structures.
Premise 2: Other species have similar, but successively reduced Complexity in their Eyes.
Premise 3: Early examples of eyes show possible succession of eye development from epidermal layer tissues.
Conclusion: It is probable that he human eye developed via successive modifications.

Creation: Creation Analysis.
Primary Premise: All Complex Things Were Designed/Created By God.
Secondary Premise: Yes the human eye is a complex machine, high CSI, as remove any of it's components and it will not function as an eye.
Conclusion: The human eye is a definitely a product of God's/Intelligent Design.

Essentially Creationism/Intelligent Design now rates everything on a Complexity rating.
They apply 2 pre-Conceptions, Rules to everything.

Video 1: The first video covers the differences in Creation and Science better than I can here:



In case you did not watch the Video, these are the primary differences between Scientific and Creation Methods:

Scientific Method(SM): Scientist: "Here are the Evidence/Facts, what Conclusions can we derive from them:

Creation Method (CM): Creationist(Holding Scripture): "Here is the Conclusion, what Facts/Evidence can we find to fit this Conclusion."

CM alone is enough reason to boot Creationism out of Science classes forever.

Video 2 Is a comparison between Creationist and Scientific Theories from the viewpoint of a Christian presenter.
#t=39


So essentially much of Con's arguments so far have been Non-Sequitur.
What Con really needs to demonstrate is:
1: That Creation is a genuine scientific Subject and that it deserves to be included in the science classes.
Note: Just because people (including a handful of Scientists) believe in it, does not make it a viable concept in science classes, as that is an Appeal To Popularity Fallacy.

2: That Creation is not just another Superstitious World View like Pastafarianism, Astrology and TeaLeafology, which really has something to offer Science Students.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Though one thing that is Impossible for Con to demonstrate, is that Creation is an Alternative Scientific Theory To Evolution.
For Starters: Creation is not even a Scientific Theory and in Science, only a Scientific Theory can be and alternative to any Scientific Theory.
Question for Con:
Why would any Science Class teach something that has never been demonstrated as being Scientific in it's methodology, such as Creationism, Astrology, Pastafarianism, or Palmistry?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Main Points In My Argument against having Creation in Science Classes:

Creationists Continually Argue that It Is Wrong To Teach Only One Side Of A Controversy.

The Big Question Becomes:
What Controversy Is Creation The Other Side Of????

Since over 98.5% of Scientists Firmly Believe In Evolution, There Are No Debates Nor Arguments Between Scientists Over Evolution, Public Media Attacks On Evolution Are Not Scientists Arguing Over Evolution, That Is Not How Scientists Attack A Theory, Those Attacks Are Just Propaganda, Science Takes No Notice Of Propaganda Attacks as That approach Is Extremely Unscientific.
Science is not a Trial-By-Media Process.

Since There Is Absolutely No Controversy In Science Concerning Evolution, There Is No Other Side To Take!

Since There Is No Controversy In Science For Creation To Take Part In, There Is No Reason For Creation To Even Be There!

Even If There Was A Controversy In Science, A Non-Scientific (not a scientific theory) Superstition Like Creation nor Pastafarianism, nor even Astrology Would Be Considered An Alternative Scientific Theory.

Basically Because No Superstitions Can Ever Be Presented As A Scientific Theory.

Creation Has Tried To Present Itself As An Alternative Scientific Theory For Over A Century Now and Failed even in Courts of Law: i.e. Dover Trial.

Final Contention Against Intelligent Design/Creation:

Creationists and Intelligent Design Evangelists are as dishonest as Drug Pushers!
every single public advocate of Intelligent Design or Creationism has been caught out deliberately lying To make themselves appear Right in interviews and debates.
Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, Eric Hovind, Duane Gish, Andrew Snelling, John Morris, Henry Morris,... and the list goes on.

The Reason they Must Lie is that the central tenets of Creationism are Themselves Fallacies.
In order to support Fallacies under rational Criticism, requires Telling Lies.
This is why most Christian Apologists have to Lie.

Video 3 & 4 are of a 2 part series by a Christian Student who points out the Stupid Dishonesty of Creationist Evangelicals. Science never exhibits such Dishonesty, if a scientist did, he would lose his job.
It seems Creationists get rewarded for Dishonesty That Sells Books and Nonsense.



Yet the majority of Christians dislike Creationist/Intelligent Design Advocates.

Video 5: The following videos are from a Christian, demonstrating how Creationist/Intelligent Design Evangelists make Christianity look Ugly and Stupid.



Which brings me to another reason why Creationism and any other Superstitions do not belong in Science Classes:
They are an Insult to the Intelligence of the students in the class, especially the Christians in those classes.

Further Sources:
Regarding the banning of creation from UK Science Classes.
http://www.iflscience.com...

Regarding creationist contrived, Science vs Creation controversy.
Truly there is no controversy, it is just a bunch of nutjobs wanting Superstition taught as Science.

http://ncse.com...

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

http://law2.umkc.edu...


Now Back to Con for a final Rebuttal of my Arguments!

Best of Luck M8!

Thanks again for taking up the debate!


ben671176

Con

When I meant an Atheist turning into a Christian is that he is a Journalist and he posted a book debunking Atheism. Read it, it's pretty good, send me a text debunking it all if you want too. It's "The Case For Faith by Lee Strobel, he get's info from both sides of the fence. Anyways it's much bigger than our debate since it has 398 pages.

Good Debate! much better than a debate I had with another Atheist; he just stated that 'why would you believe in a book made by some crazy guy in the Sahara Desert?' and of course I could've just told him about Genesis 16 and he would think the bible is even more crazy but yeah, I had fun, Thank you!
Debate Round No. 3
131 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
@ ben671176: I've invited Lee Strobel and even Ken Ham and Ray Comfort to debate me on my new debate.
If you want to fill in for Lee Strobel, you are welcome.
Though I doubt if any of them will take notice of Debate.org.

http://www.debate.org...

:-D~
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Here is another demolition of Lee Strobel's book "A Case For Christ".
Yep it gets demolished as a pile of utter Crap.

http://www.patheos.com...
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Even I can explain how Macroevolution works and working examples (evidence) of it.
It's actually quite simple.
Lee Strobel either knows nothing of this or he deliberately Lying to fool his audience into buying his books.
Such as Ken Ham practices daily.
My 12 year old Niece could pick all those lies Strobel told in that Video.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
http://atheism.about.com...

Here is a debunking (Proving Wrong) of Lee Strobel's Arguments against Evolution.
Demonstrating that everything Lee states in this argument is Complete Nonsense.

Lee is a total Loser/Nutjob.

Nothing he says can ever believed.

He is a divisive, arrogant LIAR.
He stated more lies in the ten minutes here than any atheist has ever done.
So he never was a knowledgeable Atheist, he knows Zip about Evolution.
Just another Creationist Liar, joining the ranks of other Creationist Liars like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort.
Lies, Lies Lies, is all Lee ever gives his Audiences.

Yes, everything Lee states in this video is an outrageous Lie!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Debunking is proving them Untrue.
They are the same thing, just using a single word instead of two.
By debunking, they have not only been proven as Untrue, they have been Slam Dunked (basketball terminology).
They have been proven Untrue and Fallacious at the same time.
That is what we mean by Debunked.
Posted by ben671176 3 years ago
ben671176
They've been debunked, but haven't been proven untrue.
Posted by brant.merrell 3 years ago
brant.merrell
This debate might have gone differently if Con had pointed out that Pastafarianism never massacred Jericho or fought the crusades or impoverished the masses, and is less likely to utilize the politics of fear and start a war on terror or a nuclear apocalypse . . .
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 3 years ago
The_Immortal_Emris
Pastafarianism isn't being foisted on children in schools the way creationsim is.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
If Lee was on DDO I would gladly do it.
Don't think he'd have a chance in Hell!
:-D~
His arguments would be like trying to digest Fallacy Soup!
Because I've witnessed all his arguments and they have all been debunked many times.
Posted by ben671176 3 years ago
ben671176
Why don't you debate Lee Strobel.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Sageyben671176
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con was trolling the debate and made no serious attempt to address any arguments presented by Pro. Its an easy win for Pro in the ends and deserved as Pro still presented arguments without getting angry at Cons insistence at just repeating things that had been rebutted. Well done Pro, I hope you can meet an opponent next time.
Vote Placed by Free_Th1nker 3 years ago
Free_Th1nker
Sageyben671176
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Hardly a serious debate.
Vote Placed by Siladheil 3 years ago
Siladheil
Sageyben671176
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: No contest.
Vote Placed by Saska 3 years ago
Saska
Sageyben671176
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a far more solid argument, backed by evidence. Con just picked and chose points to address and did a poor job at the ones he attempted to refute.
Vote Placed by SamStevens 3 years ago
SamStevens
Sageyben671176
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: In my opinion, Sagey had the better argument which was backed up with scientific evidence.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Sageyben671176
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con had many scientific errors and assumptions.
Vote Placed by NathanDuclos 3 years ago
NathanDuclos
Sageyben671176
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: It was hard to read the responses. . . as in font . . . However good for both of you for keeping it clean . :)
Vote Placed by neutral 3 years ago
neutral
Sageyben671176
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Creationism may be valid ... in a comparative religion class, but not as science. How science informs religious views is certainly a worthy educational effort, but the reality of science is that science must be free of biases - religious, pasta, and even atheist. It is the cold reality of facts and nothing else should matter. Anything outside that is not science. Pro makes that case far better, and demonstrates that religion, simply put, is not, nor ever intended to be, science. I say that as a devoutly religious person.