The Instigator
ViceRegent
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ppkmnp
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Lack of Credentials amoung Evolutionists

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 316 times Debate No: 85476
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

ViceRegent

Pro

Have you noticed the most vocal supporters of evolution on this sight have no credentials in science whatsoever and know even less about the philosophy of science?
ppkmnp

Con

Have you noticed that most supporters of creationism aren't religious figures and don't have a degree of religious teaching. They also don't know much about their holy book, they just gotta pick that cherry.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Pro

Anecdotally, I have met few evolutionists here (or on Facebook) that know anything about science beyond what they learned in the government indoctrination facilities otherwise known as public schools., which is nothing substantive. Indeed, I would suggest that being limited to what the government school teaches makes you less than ignorant, for they overwhelming believe that arrogance is a fine substitute for knowledge.
ppkmnp

Con

Although that might be correct with some schools and people, just because people don't want to do huge research and try to become biologists doesn't mean that they can't revere evolution as a fact. I would suggest that being limited in what theories to teach is making people ignorant, but bringing in non-backed hypotheses like creation and teaching it as an equal "theory" is a poor idea and would not be beneficial for the classroom environment. I suggest that we only teach evidence based theories and we should not teach non-backed hypotheses as a plausible reasoning; however, we should say that creationism is a thing and that is not backed by science, but you can believe it if you want to.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Pro

Well, Con has conceded the debate. I win.

But prove your claim that creationism is a thing not backed by science. But first tell us if you are credentialed?
ppkmnp

Con

ppkmnp forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Only one ignorant of science would say something is scientific fact because scientists say it is. Thanks for helping me make my point.

And science is not philosophical? Actually, science is a particular application of inductive reason, which is very much a philosophical concern. So, as we can see, nothing being a credentialed philosopher has its downside too.

Twist the Bible? Yep, not a theologian either. LOL

Enough said.
Posted by Skywalker900 1 year ago
Skywalker900
One more thing, creationism is not backed by science. You might find one article surrounded my many, many more that disprove it by doing a simple google search. Science has disproved creationism by the facts that dinosaurs existed, carbon dating, Pangea existed, and the fact that they have been able to calculate how old the universe is which contradicts the creationist idea that the world is 6,000 years old. I also enjoyed how you only responded to me with a two sentence post, and then a one sentence post that was made, probably only to make me seem like I don't know what I'm talking about. It's simple seventh grade science.
Posted by Skywalker900 1 year ago
Skywalker900
I do not have any scientific credentials, but clearly, you do not either.it is scientific fact, because scientists say it is a fact. It's that easy. Look at this website, and maybe you will understand.
https://www.quora.com...
Also, science isn't philosophical, so get over it. Genesis was originally meant to be taught, preached, and read like it was a poem. It was done so by the original Jews. If you are going to twist the Bibles original meanings, then you can go ahead and do so, but that doesn't make it true.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
And I wonder if he has any scientific credentials?
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Scientific fact? Wow, that is an interesting claim. Tell us what is a "scientific fact" and how do you know it versus as "scientific fiction"?

I bet he is going to respond with question begging examples instead of anything remotely philosophical.
Posted by Skywalker900 1 year ago
Skywalker900
The instigator shows a clear lack of knowledge in both the public school system, and his own religious text. If he did his research then he would know that biblical literal-ism is actually quite the modern thing. Things like Genesis were preached as if they were poems, not like they were scientific fact. Back when they wrote the Bible, I greatly doubt that they understood evolution like we do now. The only reason why evolution isn't taught as scientific fact in schools today is because of the community of literallist Christians holding them back. I consider myself a Christian, but a scientific Christian. Remember, the Bible was a text written by people about God, not a text written by God about people. If you accept this, then you will understand why there are inconsistencies in the Bible when it comes to conflicting passages and mistranslated words.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
Creation IS backed by science you knob. AHAHAH. just attempt to do so, and if you understand scientific Method, you'll prove Creation in such a timely manner, you wouldn't have finished reading genesis yet had you chose to read it instead of doing the Math.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
COns round 2 debate was to actually Glorify PROS statement: That the evolutionists here are underqualified bigots.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
Con is a moron. Anyone who has a relationship with God is a religious figure. And he isn't defending or arguing his side fo the debate.

He also did a grand job of noting how atheists pick-and-cheery scripture.

Debate me CON, I bet you don't have 1, not ONE, valid example of a flaw in any scripture ever written.

I'mma beat you stupid with this excessive amount of insolence I found strapped to your arse.
No votes have been placed for this debate.