The Instigator
Anonymous
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
50 Points

Intelligent Design should be taught alongside evolution as an equally valid idea.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,501 times Debate No: 3193
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (18)
Votes (20)

 

Anonymous

Pro

Let me start by clearly stating that I am trying to show that intelligent design is just as likely (if not much more likely) from a scientific viewpoint as the theory of randomness...err, I'm sorry, the theory of evolution.

You will notice that I said intelligent design, not Christianity or any specific religion, although studying writings such as the Bible, the Quran and etc. would prevent alot of the ignorance we see in many people when it comes to the many different texts regarded as scripture. If you gave your youth a more open-minded and honest view of our existence, rather than stripping us of our very ability to be objective by attempting to pass off half-truths and assumptions as fact, then we would not have so much reason to believe that the generation before us can't be trusted.

First let me say this; so many people argue over evolution, well evolution is a fact....BUT, to stretch it as far as many have requires the total absence of true, unbiased research, and a willful abandonment of logical thought process. It is almost funny to me the way in which some people view "natural selection". I'm not questioning the existence of natural selection, simply the way in which it is interpreted. Nature is choosing the good, and discarding the bad, but this happens by chance? It seems to me not only to be an equally valid thought that natural selection is part of a design, but that this would be the more logical assumption.

So where should I go from there? I myself love to learn. I watch the science channel, the history channel, and all their contemporaries. It is interesting sometimes to see when they try to compete with each other, playing similar specials or documentaries about the same subjects, but with sometimes drastically different outlooks. It is especially enveloping to watch the science channel when they discuss physics and our universe. As I have watched it more and more and really studied some of this stuff, (astrophysics, quantum theory, cosmology, astronomy, these are alot of my interests), I begin to think that either alot of these scientists who are "at the forefront of the greatest era science has ever known" either are seriously making alot of assumptions in trying to fill the gaps of human pride and political correctness, or they are on some hardcore LSD.

Heres an example of what I mean: Radiometric dating methods are based on isotope decay rates. The scientist compares the current amount of radioactive whatever to its half life and does some really complicated chemical stuff and some weird kind of math, and voila! we have a 30 million year old femur bone from a homoerection or whatever animal I'm gonna make up today. This scientist, however, is ignoring 2 things. Firstly, the half life is only a theory that we arrived at by reverse math. There is no data to suggest that the radioactive element ever was at it's half life, let alone it's full life, (if you will). They only assume so because they already assume the universe to be hundreds of billions of years old. Even so, it also leaves us to wonder why certain radioactive isotopes are even still in existence. If the universe were as old as the evolutionist's theories often required, then many or all of these isotopes would have long since decayed into their "decay product". This is not taken into consideration, because the observer doesn't want to consider it.

Another example is the black hole. We honestly have no way of knowing what a black hole is. From the limited data that we have, we assume that it is some sort of inescapable vacuum. But we don't teach that as a theory, we teach it as a fact. the truth is, there is not enough data to rule out the possibility that a black hole doesn't affect all matter, or matter at all. It could affect only light, distorting light until, from our perspective, it seems that everything near the hole is bing sucked into one spot. To be fair, we also have no way of knowing if it is a stargate to a parallel universe, or possibly a portal that heavenly beings use to traverse the dimensions. My point isn't that we don't know, my point is that we act like we do.

So there is a select portion of my argument why our current science curriculums are not fair, not unbiased, and much of what is taught is not fact, but rather peoples own assumptions and opinions being passed off as truth, while so many say that that intelligent design should not be taught for these very same reasons. Now I will show you why intelligent design is not just equally valid, it is more logical. I will try to make as much sense as possible in the hopes that I caught you on a good, open-minded day.

P.S.- Notice that I did not really touch on old earth/young earth. I think that is it's own topic and deserves an entirely separate debate.

"Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[1][2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word."
- (Taken from wikipedia) ... so what if I observe God's power?

Science is observation. Sometimes observations can be misleading, and sometimes they can put your name in the history books. The thing is though, that while 90 percent of the world disagrees on who or what God is, 90 percent of us still acknowledge that he/she/it IS there. It doesn't take much observation to know that our tiny little planet has a perfect harmony to it; to look at our universe, and realize that all this could not have come from nothing. The biggest problem facing advocates of the big bang is what banged and why. I wont get into quantum theory unless you make me, but the fact is that many physicists are staring God in the face while desperately trying to reshape him into something else. You look around at all mankind has built. If I were a young archaeologist seeing the great pyramids for the first time, I would be in awe of their splendour, and immediately try to appreciate the labor that must have been put into them. But lets say I were to come up with another idea, the idea that maybe they weren't built, maybe they were natural formations. You would look at me like I were stupid, and this is a comparatively much likelier possibility then what evolutionists and bang advocates are saying.

Now on to a better example. Right now, we are using computers to talk to each other, something that even our close ancestors probably never dreamed of. My computer was made by Dell. If dell had not made this computer, it would not exist. If I were to throw a hand grenade into a dell factory, it would not result in a fully functional computer. I could do it a thousand more times, not a chance of accidentally getting a computer out of the mess.

Or take a dead frog outside and leave it in the sun for a million years. Here you have everything needed for life, but not in a million years would the decomposed frog molecules spawn new life. And yet, the evolutionist says that life somehow came from non-life. The creationist is looking at the facts, for instance that there is more information in one strand of human DNA than in any one (sometimes 2) volumes of the Encarta encyclopedia. A computer is not nearly as complex as we are, so if it is stupid to assume that one could come from absolutely no intelligent designer, then why should I assume different about life or our universe? A creationist is drawing the logical conclusion that something as magnificent and complex as life, or our universe for that matter, can only be the result of a design by something far greater than ourselves. The evolutionist is saying that the less logical idea is the more scientific one, while the person who believes the big bang is simply ignoring the truth before them.

I have reached my word limit.
Tatarize

Con

Creationism, dressed in a cheap skirt, is still creationism.

Evolution by natural selection is the mechanism for evolution proposed by Charles Darwin. The fact that evolution happened was known well before his landmark book. We had methods for dating fossils and we consistently found that the further back we looked the more simple the life forms. Taxonomists, starting with Linnaeus, noted life forms could easily be classified by their related characteristics. These are some of the facts of evolution. There exists in the fossil record a progression of lifeforms from the more simple to the more complex. These lifeforms are easily classed with other similar life forms, humans with humans, primates, mammals, vertebrates, animals, each with different and more general traits in common. Darwin's insight explains this remarkable well and manages to latch together these seemingly disparate facts into the field of modern biology.

There are far fewer organisms of any species alive than could be alive. Given the growth rates of crickets for example, if every hatching was successful and lead to further hatchings, then in a matter of years the planet's biomass would completely crickets. The same is true of grass, grasshoppers, fish, chimps, humans, and even bacteria. Every species is kept in check by a number of natural forces: ability to find food, ability to find mate, avoiding being eaten, success of offspring. It must also be that within a given species some "monstrosity" (as Darwin called mutations), might give one of the organisms within the species a slight edge, which, over time would propagate throughout the species until every species had that edge. Likewise any mutation which resulted in a lesser adapted organism would be quickly shuffled off. This is the driving force of evolution. Beneficial mutations become more frequent help organisms exploit their niches and non-beneficial mutations do not.

There are not good mutations and bad mutations, there are mutations which help an organism exploit its niche and there are mutations which do not help in this regard. For example, there's a mutation on one of the cell receptors of in humans which prevents HIV from infecting the body due to a mutation of the CCR-5 gene. This mutation isn't helpful in general. However, in the presence of HIV populations it is rising in frequency as those with mutated CCR-5 genes die less to HIV and as a result have more children. Likewise one can note the gene for sickle-cell anemia is bad and can result in death, whereas a single sickle-cell gene can give a person a resistance to malaria. When a population is exposed to malaria we find that the sickle-cell frequency goes up, when not being exposed to malaria the results go down.

This theory requires gradual steps to build on one another. One adaptation for seeing better than previously possible is followed by another adaptation for seeing better. A patch of light sensitive cells is not a very effective means of gathering information (which may help the organism finding food or escaping predators), however if that patch is slightly depressed inward the some slight understanding of direction will result (you can tell the direction of the light). Likewise, the deeper the pit and smaller the hole the better the visual information is going to be. If you formed a mucus covering or something able to refract light over the hole it would focus the light slightly and help improve the information given. If the covering hardens increasing the refraction and becomes more ovoid it would improve as a lens. One after another small steps, each beneficial to it's possessor can build a complex eye. However, one should note that there's no planning, no foresight, no design. If one step is beneficial it will increase in frequency. An increase in the number and bunching of the photosensitive cells at the back of the eye improves the visual data sent to the brain, and additionally blood flow and additional nerves improve this further. Any improvement in occupying the niche over those other individuals in the fight for survival is preserved.

It should come as no shock to anybody with an understanding of evolution that the mammalian eye is built poorly. These nerves and blood vessels which service photosensitive cells in the eye are in front them. This would be like placing all the wiring for a camera in front of the lens (it reduces the data otherwise possible with a better design). If you wanted to conclude a designer from this data you would need to conclude an inept one rather than an intelligent one.

Which brings us to the topic at hand. Should "Intelligent Design be taught along side evolution as an equally valid idea"? No. Because, Intelligent Design is not an equally valid idea. Intelligent Design is not a valid idea at all. Evolution has paid its scientific dues. It explains a good deal about the world around us and the origins and complexities of life. Whereas intelligent design is nothing more than a silly insinuation that 'maybe intelligence crafted whatever it is'. There's no scientific understanding here! There's no shining light of understanding! There is a thinly veiled attempt to shout "God did it" in such a way as to not be smacked around by the courts.

Please, give me one independent positive fact about intelligent design. What is one of the predictions the theory makes? Give me a specific claim about ID. Not some half-hearted poorly understood claim about evolution but a concrete fact about ID which *COULD* be taught in schools. For the sake of argument, you may assume evolution doesn't even exist as a theory. What does ID say? That's the question. -- In short, NOTHING!

----

* Your understanding of the underlying physics and math of radiometric dating is rather abysmal. Understanding the physics of decay allows one to accurately predict the chance of a particle decay in a given time period. Due to the fact that there are massive numbers of particles in a sample we can calculate, from this randomness, a very orderly and precise amount of decay. We then compare the ratio of broken-down atoms to the still radioactive atoms to see how many half-lives the sample has experienced and extrapolate multiply that by the time for one half life and you have the age of the sample.

To put it in different terms, let's say I have a large number of pennies: every day I flip active pennies and all of those which land on heads are kept "active" and those which land on tails are placed into the deactive bin. Now if 12.51% of the pennies I have are currently "active" how many days have I been doing this for? -- This is the exact problem posed by and solved by radiometric dating.

According to the recent NASA WMAP survey (which checks the CMBR and does not radiometric date) the universe is 13.73 billion years old (give or take 120 million years).

* Prior to matter being sucked into a black hole it's typically ripped apart as it spirals into the void. This is called the accretion disc. You are wrongly equating an entire blackhole with the event horizon. Long before the point of no return there's a lot of "you're getting really screwed" points.

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

* Far less than 90% of the world population is monotheistic and that's a fallacy of numbers anyhow. Also, what does this have to do with *this* debate? *smirk*

* Cosmologically nothing needed trigger the inflation of the big bang. There's nothing suggesting cause and effect apply to such phenomena (it doesn't apply at the quantum level for example).

* My mother is a fan of old time sci-fi and easily did dream of a computer (a staple of sci-fi at the time). Therefore, my closest ancestors did dream of a computer.

* You do not understand information theory.

* You do not understand developmental biology.

* I've seen somebody claim a mountain was man-made. Your analogy thusly fails.
Debate Round No. 1
Anonymous

Pro

First of all, Radiometric dating methods are very inaccurate past about 10, thousand years, and for many reasons, a few of the bigger ones I stated in my opening argument. As for the fossil record in general, it, like most "evidences" for evolution can be interpreted in many ways. Scientists first denied the Bible's claim that there must have been a flood, then they discovered that there undoubtedly was one, but it must have been 65 million years ago. Why? Because if they say it happened 6 thousand years ago, their faces would turn even redder. These same scientists, however, ignore the very effects that this flood would have had upon our geological and fossil records.

Let me pause to say that what I am trying to show you is that Evolution is just as much based on assumptions and personal beliefs as is creationism, and that our schools are biased by favoring one as science that should be taught as if we are certain, and the other as specualation which has no place even being offered as an alternative, when both are technically speculation.

"There exists in the fossil record a progression of lifeforms from the more simple to the more complex. These lifeforms are easily classed with other similar life forms, humans with humans, primates, mammals, vertebrates, animals, each with different and more general traits in common"

This entire statement is an assumption. There is a large variety of life-forms, we line them up shortest to tallest, and presumed oldest to youngest and say "see...evolution" Then there are alot of problems with old earth theory, and the time gaps needed for evolution to work, if it could work at all, but I think OldEarth/Young Earth is it's own debate, and not necessary to make my point here. Although, to be totally fair and objective, I would also say that if we could prove our earth were 65 million years old, this only would mean that Genesis 1 is a myth. This does not mean there is no creator, in fact, there is still the question of what happened 65million years ago to start us?

Look at the odds really. Physics tells us that the universe is not infinite. There was nothing, then there all of a sudden became something, and all of that something became alot more something, and somewhere in that something, just by chance, a little rock found a perfect orbit around a perfectly sized star, and on that little rock came to be the perfect conditions for life to come from...non-life? Even if you say they came from outer space, the point is life had to begin somewhere, and is it more logical to assume that it was totally random, or that something specific caused it.

Do some reading in biology. You are a perfect system of systems that all work together. Without a doubt, the human body is a work of art. The heavens are a work of art. The fact that we appreciate art is something that leaves you to wonder, "why do we feel?" We dont need feelings to survive. We dont need love, or an appreciation for art and music. We evolved this characteristics? Is it possible...arguably, is it likely? I think not...

"Every species is kept in check by a number of natural forces: ability to find food, ability to find mate, avoiding being eaten, success of offspring. It must also be that within a given species some "monstrosity" (as Darwin called mutations), might give one of the organisms within the species a slight edge, which, over time would propagate throughout the species until every species had that edge. "

Wow...sounds like a design to me. I am not questioning natural selection, just the way in which it is applied. Haven't you read my opening argument at all, or just the heading?

Let me skip to the point. You are looking at evidence, drawing your own opinions about the evidence, and then saying "my opinions are right to me, so they are right and yours are wrong so lets go with mine and yours needs to stay as far away as possible". Why should a Christian have to go to a private school to be a Christian? That is not equality or tolerance, neither is it to say that the boy scouts should change their pledge, or that we should remove God's name from the dollar bill. The fact is, 90 percent of the world acknowledges the probable existance of a creator, so why should the 10 percent who are opposed to this idea be treated special? WHy do we teach things in school that are not proven facts, and then whenever the books are proven wrong, "It's science correcting its'self". The people who thought the world was flat were wrong, and yet the Old Testament refers to the world as a sphere, not as flat or square . People thought the earth was the center of the universe, and a Christian proved them wrong.

"Evolution has paid it's scientific views"

Lol...no, evilution is just widely accepted in the scientific community. I am sure they are sincire, just sincirely arrogant and wrong. Amd let me say this one more time...even if evolution is proven to be absolutely true, this only means that life is even more complex than we thought and it is even less likely that we are an accident, but rather we are all part of a design. My statement was that creationism should be taught as an equally valid idea, and all you said was "nu uh, no its not" and stated some of your beliefs as an evolutionist. This does not prove anything, nor does it give any good reason why creationism should not be taught right alongside evolution...other than the fact that evolution and atheism go hand in hand, whether you admit it or not.
Tatarize

Con

* Radiometric dating is accurate for billions of years. It depends on the half life of the atoms in question. Carbon-14 dating works for about 50,000 years, but others work far longer.

Let's look at a specific example, Uranium Lead decay. The ratio of Uranium-235 to Uranium-238 (.72%) is well known and when you hear about uranium enrichment they are talking about getting a higher ratio of U-235 than U-238 as the 235 has the added property of allowing a chain reaction of nuclear fission. Now, why is this ratio important? Because Uranium decays into lead. U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207 so we can look at the ratio of Pb-207 and Pb-206 calculating from the half-life that this was a standard bit of uranium and calculate how much of it decayed. Calculating from the half-life we can tell how long this bit of Uranium has been decaying for.

There are plenty of different types of radiometric dating, Ar-Ar, He-He, I-Xe, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, K-Ar, C-C, Re-Os, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, U-Pb, U-Pb-He, U-Th, U-U... to name a few. Typically when we date something we use several different types of dating.

Actually a number of geologists were pretty steadfast to the flood story some of the greats finally gave it up when the evidence against it became too great. There was no great flood 65 million years ago. There was a massive extinction event triggered by an impact in the Yucatan, at the PT boundary.

The dating of that impact and size of it, and the world record of species which existed in many and varied ways prior to said impact are all very sound. Non-avian Dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago.

No. A massive flood would have a massive number of changes easily visible in the geologic record. The reason they are discounted is there's no evidence for it.

You have failed to show me some number of assumptions, there are vast number of good scientific data exactly explaining your objections. There's a great foundation for geology, physics, and other science (you haven't touched on evolution yet) and nothing for creationism.

Evolution isn't speculation.

>> "This entire statement is an assumption. There is a large variety of life-forms, we line them up shortest to tallest, and presumed oldest to youngest and say "see...evolution"

Categorically no. Which is more similar a rabbit to a cat or a rabbit to a lizard? Well we see that they are all about the same size, but fundamentally the cat and rabbit have hair whereas the lizard has scales. Which is more similar a rabbit to a cat or a cat to dog? They all have fur so that isn't a notable difference, but if you look at the bone structure and the teeth you'll note that the cat and the dog are the most similar even if the sizes vary. There are certain traits which are a constant across vast groups of animals. For example, placental mammals give live birth, whereas marsupials do not. Why is it that Australia is populated by marsupial mammals while Africa and Europe was populated by placental mammals?

Well, the super-continent of Pangaea broke up up into Laurasia and Gondwanaland during the Triassic about 200 million years ago. With Laurasia consisting of North America, Europe and Asia. Gondwanaland consisting of South America, Africa, Australia, Antarctica, and oddly India. Well due to this geographic isolation the mammals continue to along separate courses, Gondwanaland broke freeing up Africa and India to crash back into Europe. Antarctica, Australia and South America went their separate ways during the Triassic about 135 million years ago.

This split the mammals into two groups one became the modern marsupials (pouched mammals) and another became the placental mammals (like us). So we find that Australia and South America have marsupials along with some later invaders after South America ran into North America. Though, Australia's native wildlife like Kangaroos, Wombats, etc are marsupials.

Now what about Antarctica? Should it have marsupials? Well, it does... or rather did. Most everything is extinct now, but when you look at the fossils in Antarctica has they are definitively marsupial mammals. And, often similar to those found in South America and Australia for the time.

You might think that this is just a fluke that all primates are similar to each other and all chiroptera are similar, and all lagomorphs. Clearly these groups were made up just to put similar organisms in them. However, this same concept bears itself out in the DNA of all life on the planet. All of the great apes for example have a broken gene which would and does synthesize vitamin C in other mammals (this is why your dog never eats citrus and never gets scurvy, unlike humans or chimps or any of the great apes). We have every other gene needed to synthesize the acid however we lack one and it's broken in exactly the same way throughout the great apes. All cats for example have a broken TAS1 gene which allows all other animals to taste sweet things. And all mammals have the nerves and blood for the ganglia of the eye in front of the incoming light; squid don't. Squid eyes are assembled properly. We can see that they need not have evolved from the same common ancestor as the mammalian eye, or at the very least broke off prior to the beneficial mutation which lead to mammalian eyes being put together backwards.

The mammals as a group date back well before the K-T boundary. About 105 million years ago the Afrothera group (includes elephants and aardvarks) broke off from the Laurasiathera, Euarchontoglires, and Xenarthra groups (all placentals).

Physics tells us plenty of things, and the Big bang theory doesn't say there was nothing, there just might have been nothing. In fact, there might still be nothing as everything seems to add up to nothing when you do the math. Certain energies and negative energies all seem to cancel each other out.

I assure you, I know plenty of biology, and I am not a perfect system. My ulner nerve runs on the outside of my humerus, my appendix does nothing except occasionally kill people, my lower back is built for an animal that would walk on all four dooming me to back trouble (like most humans) later in life, my knees are poorly constructed and my left has had a number of issues, my hip has a good chance of starting to slip as I age and might need to be replaced with a prosthetic, my jaw is too small for my wisdom teeth and they are often removed rather than coming in sideways or being infected or problematic in one way or another. -- In fact, there's not too much intelligent design in most of this... although every last feature makes perfect sense under the light of evolution.

>>"We dont need love, or an appreciation for art and music."

Actually as I mentioned before, traits which lead to mate selection as well as offspring benefits are both evolutionary selected for... love, art, and music all accomplish these.

>>Wow...sounds like a design to me.

You believe that things get eaten is a design? Or that babies are born deformed? That wasps lay eggs inside the body of living caterpillars to be eaten alive? That animals get sick and die? -- These are all consequences of numbers and keep the struggle for survival going and preventing all species from overrunning the planet. What would this look like if it weren't designed? If everything was just running wild eating other organisms, breeding, etc?

I asked you to give me one independent positive fact about intelligent design. What is one of the predictions the theory makes? Give me a specific claim about ID, a concrete fact about ID which *COULD* be taught in schools. -- You failed. How could we even teach ID if there's nothing to teach? We are suppose to overturn all of science as opinion and teach religion... because you don't understand science?
Debate Round No. 2
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Barcs 7 years ago
Barcs
There is nothing wrong with teaching the theory of intelligent design, however, it should be taught in a religion class, not a science class. Evolution is science and most creationist claims are not even close to science.
Posted by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
I agree. And... I wish I could submit just those words.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
The topic of whether Intelligent Design should be taught in schools along side evolution is a rather easy one to debate. First Intelligent Design is just creationism and creationism is not only illegal to teach but completely inane. Contending whether ID is even science is a much more important point and subsumes the debate. If ID is complete crap and has nothing one could possibly teach, then it certainly should not be taught.

Nobody actually believes ID isn't creationism.

Further, as he had the burden of proof it's pretty clear that he didn't make a case worth making.
Posted by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
What I found interesting in this debate is that the topic here is, "*Intelligent Design* should be taught alongside evolution in school as an equally valid idea." And yet it doesn't take long at all before Pro says, "My statement was that *creationism* should be taught as an equally valid idea, and all you said was "nu uh, no its not" and stated some of your beliefs as an evolutionist."

The big problem with ID is that it's Creationism trying to claim a scientific base just as Con stated right off the bat in saying that, "Creationism, dressed in a cheap skirt, is still creationism."

Lol and then SolaGratia weighs in by saying he's had quite a similar debate with the topic finally specifying Creationism...

My point is, the two are supposed to be different and that's the whole reason the debate over if ID should be taught in school or not even exists so passionately today -- and yet the supporters of one or the other fail to make any distinction between the two?

Intelligent Design means Creationism with more syllables, so at least Pro did prove one thing, Con.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
You suggested that I could have done better. Where? What did I do poorly?
Posted by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
Not really an accusation. The more prominant argument in the debate was proving Evolution wrong. You could have argued more why it should not be taught. But it seems most debates with you end up being about "Evolution pwns". Honestly, if you have a problem with it, too bad. You still won, it's not like magically 9 people are going to rise from the dead and suddenly vote against you, forcing you to lose.
Posted by sarsin 9 years ago
sarsin
The difference is no one is asking science to teach what is going to happen in 2090 in school with no evidence.
Posted by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
Did Science knows all? Could they explain all? Why are we here? Can you name what futures wait for your child? Who will be the next president by 2090? Can science give a concrete answers to those questions?
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
I had a perfectly acceptable argument against the topic. It should not be taught as an equally valid idea because it is not an equally valid idea. I repeatedly pointed out that ID didn't have anything behind it and wasn't science and that there was nothing to teach. Further, the burden of proof would be on him to go against the status quo and beyond failing miserably... I also established my side aptly enough.

Did I misinterpret something specific or is that just a general accusation?
Posted by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
To me, none of you won. None of you proved why your side was correct (why ID should/shouldn't be TAUGHT alongside evolution as an equally valid idea). This turned into "is evolution right or wrong" debate. Clearly, both of you misinterpreted the point, with PRO getting caught in his own topic, and Tartarize misinterpreting it.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
AnonymousTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Barcs 7 years ago
Barcs
AnonymousTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Xie-Xijivuli 8 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
AnonymousTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 9 years ago
TheSkeptic
AnonymousTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
AnonymousTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
AnonymousTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
AnonymousTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
AnonymousTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by meells 9 years ago
meells
AnonymousTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
AnonymousTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30