The Instigator
Soldier_4Christ
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
hielispace
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is evolution true AND should it be taxpayer funded in public schools (excluding all other views)?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Soldier_4Christ
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,411 times Debate No: 82874
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (62)
Votes (1)

 

Soldier_4Christ

Con

My opponent's burden of proof is to show that evolution is true and should continue to be taxpayer funded (public school textbooks). I will present a case that it never happened at all or at least poke enough holes into it that it wouldn't pass in a court of law style environment (reasonable doubt). Use your turns as you wish but obviously irrelevant materials are discarded. Keep the voting honest. Either evolution has a strong enough case to be considered true and taxpayer worthy, or it does not, according to the materials presented.

PS- Just to be clear, showing what some people call "micro-evolution" is not what we're looking for. Evolution as it is taught IN IT'S ENTIRETY. e.g. Big Bang or alternate theory which would make it even possible, all the way to everything coming from a single-cell organism. One kind of animal becoming another, not "species", KINDS (animals that are similar enough to procreate), etc. Also when I say taxpayer funded it is not valid to say we should include other teachings too. I basically mean should things stay exactly the way they are. Evolution is taxpayer funded and anything related to creation is not even mentioned or considered. I will argue that we should either remove evolution altogether or creation should also be considered and taught. Not from a specific religious theology but just a generic sense of the word Creator and the scientific evidence there is for the intelligent design stance.

Use round 1 to accept. Round 2 is your opening argument. Rounds 3-4 are presenting more evidence and rebuttals. Round 5 is for closing statements.
hielispace

Pro

I accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Soldier_4Christ

Con

If you ask yourself, what does the big bang (or alternate theory) have to do with evolution? Well, this is a purely SCIENTIFIC debate (and may the winner be the one who makes more sense using SCIENCE). In order to speak of something scientifically and be taken seriously you must have some kind of idea/proof of how something is even possible. Spontaneous generation was refuted in 1859. Anybody with some sense knows nothing just pops up out of nowhere. In fact, if this were the actual nature of things, it would destroy our reality as we know it. How can you make predictions in a reality where things can just pop into existence from nothing? Or random uncaused explosions happen...

Take a moment to ponder this... How amazed would you be to witness any one thing come into existence? You can choose the item or creature that you like. Can you tell me with a straight face that you wouldn't be flabbergasted? You would be shocked! Now imagine the WHOLE UNIVERSE, not just one little thing but in it's entirety... I hear people speak of these things as if it were good science. I'm actually just waiting for anything that resembles science and not pure speculation at this point. To say you believe something could happen means little when science says it is not possible. Why should we trade in ACTUAL science such as established laws, math, and logic for this nontheistic belief system or religion of sorts? It seems more feasible to think that it had a cause of some sort. Here are a few reasons (scientific laws) why we should reject these theories:
1. The law of conservation of matter "Matter can be neither created nor be destroyed"
2. The law of conservation of energy "Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed"
3. Second law of thermodynamics (things wear down, they don't improve on their own)
4. The law of angular momentum "the angular momentum of a system remains constant unless acted on by an external torque" (This is relevant because if it was one big explosion we would expect to see everything spinning in the same direction. They don't.)

As if it weren't enough to have to defy all 4 of these basic, important, solid LAWS... it gets better. Did you know that the odds of everything happening just right like we have and enjoy presently (to be life permitting even) are 1 in 10 to the 60th. Which is this insane number:
(1 in 1 Novemdecillion) 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000
Guess what though? That only takes into account gravity! There are obviously many more variables to take into account, such as (if big bang) expansion rate (1 in 1 Noventrigintillion, 10 to the 120th!), or the real whopper, mass and energy evenly distributed to a precision of 1 in 10 billion to the 123rd, an incomprehensible number! By the way, this is way more than the total number of atoms (10 to the 79th) believed to exist in the whole universe even! So if it was a lottery... even if you had 1 ticket for every single atom that exists in the entire universe, it would still be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to win! It's safe to say that math DOES NOT agree with these wild theories. Is it not reasonable to say that already at this point? https://www.youtube.com...

OK, so far the big bang has not fared well with established scientific laws or mathematics. What about logic? The 3 laws of logic are as follows:
1. The law of identity: P is P.
2. The law of noncontradiction: P is not non-P.
3. The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P.

OK. Now we shall plug in "state of nothingness" in the place of P.
1. A state of nothingness is a state of nothingness.
2. A state of nothingness is not a non-state of nothingness.
3. Either it is a state of nothingness or is not.

Are you starting to see how making these assumptions and speculations is to throw out all knowledge as we know it? If it was presented to you in a nutshell you would rightfully discard it as foolishness. Nothing exploded, and here we are...
This is something presented as the truth and the best option to the kids in public schools. They don't technically say it is for sure but it is implied that smart people believe this, therefore, it must be pretty good. Some teachers just outright teach it as if it were some kind of established fact (of course, to do so is strongly recommended in the teaching manuals).
Why should we have to pay for this pseudo-science to be pushed on our kids?

This is vital to consider when you are speaking of a matter that has one other (actually) viable explanation: intelligent design. Either an intelligent entity outside of space and time created us or nothing became something, exploded in a very precise (huge understatement) way, formed all the necessary compounds, until it became life, all uncaused and from nothing...

For most people this is enough evidence, however, there will always be those who reject the truth for an impossible scenario because of the implications of said truth.

God bless.
hielispace

Pro

hielispace forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Soldier_4Christ

Con

Soldier_4Christ forfeited this round.
hielispace

Pro

hielispace forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Soldier_4Christ

Con

Looks like I'm the only one who has asserted anything. Until we can know that the naturalistic view of origins is correct we should also be adding alternative theories, such as intelligent design into the public school system.

Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils. Here we are 150 years later and all we have are a handful of highly disputable examples. Some even discovered to be fraudulent. We should be swimming in the evidence if that's really how things happened. It makes you wonder, where is all the empirical data?
hielispace

Pro

hielispace forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Soldier_4Christ

Con

Well... not a single thing was asserted or refuted by my opponent. Easy vote... God bless.
hielispace

Pro

hielispace forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
62 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
Here's one for you.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Soldier_4Christ 1 year ago
Soldier_4Christ
NothingSpecial99: I didn't expect it to be this back and forth, just tryin to help the dude out.

Briannj17: If you really wanna debate it we can, but it's a losing battle on your part. I'm trying to give you a plethora of reasons to just consider yourself just plain Christian if nothing else. Or you can be stubborn and continue in an organization that has unsound doctrine and false prophets. The choice is yours but you should know not to trust a supposed prophet who doesn't line up with scripture.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
"false prophets aren't in the Bible though" what does this have to do with anything? False prophets are mentioned in the Bible. However it is my personal beleif that Elen G White was a prophet of God.http://www.whiteestate.org...

As for the sabbath, I don't give a hoot in hell if you go to church or not. But the sabbath day is the day you should go to church on. According to scripture anyways. Have a look on how the sabbath changed.
http://www.sabbathtruth.com...
Posted by NothingSpecial99 1 year ago
NothingSpecial99
Why are you two arguing here of all places?
Posted by Soldier_4Christ 1 year ago
Soldier_4Christ
"She has as much a place to us as any prophet from the Bible."
False prophets aren't in the Bible though.

"Jesus went to the church on sabbath."
So if I don't observe the Sabbath then what? I'm not Jewish and you guys don't either like I already said. Going to church IS NOT keeping the Sabbath...
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
Jesus went to the church on sabbath. Luke 4:16. We should follow his example.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
He is wrong. Every seventh day adventist I know knows never to put Elen White near your Bible. She has as much a place to us as any prophet from the Bible. Here, since I listened to your person listen to mine. His name is Doug Batchelor and he will tell you what the seventh day adventist church believes.
https://youtu.be...
Posted by Soldier_4Christ 1 year ago
Soldier_4Christ
Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com...

It doesn't get any easier to understand, straight from the official website you cited.
Posted by Soldier_4Christ 1 year ago
Soldier_4Christ
Going to church a certain day isn't observing the Sabbath...
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
Funny how I didn't see that here.
https://www.adventist.org...

So if there hidden beliefs they must be really hidden. We worship on the Sabbath because that is the Lords day. the one he said to set apart from the others as a day to worship the creator.

Now you tell me if any one of these beliefs is not based on the bible. Then get back to me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NothingSpecial99 1 year ago
NothingSpecial99
Soldier_4ChristhielispaceTied
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: Forfeit