The Instigator
SteveEvans
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Sagey
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Should Creationism and Evolution be introduced in schools?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Sagey
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,632 times Debate No: 48359
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)

 

SteveEvans

Pro

Evolution - The philosophy that we originated as single-cellular organisms, overtime evolving into a human being.

Creationism - The philosophy that suggests that there was a god who created us.

Rules are simple. Don't plagiarize. That means that you can not copy someone else's work and claim it as your own. Otherwise, 7 points are automatically deducted from you. Don't think you can get away with doing so. I always copy/paste arguments on my search bar and search. Also, no ad hominem attacks. The automatic 7 point deduction applies for that too.

First round for acceptance only.
Sagey

Con

Firstly I'd like to thank Pro for initiating this debate topic!

I will be taking the challenge of stating that Creationism and Evolution should not be introduced into schools together, as Evolution by itself is already on the National Curriculum and it stands alone without any verifiable rational opposition.

I will also point out that the study of Evolution alone will grant the students entry level qualifications into higher learning institutions such as universities or a meaningful career in science, which is what science education is all about.

There is no need to introduce complications such as Creationism which cannot possibly assist the students achieve their objective of gaining a career in the sciences nor achieving a placement in a university.
In fact having Creationism on their accademic acreditations may be detrimental to university entry in some fields of science.
I will explain further in my argument.

Though I will first allow Pro the honor of presenting his arguments for introducing both Creationism and Evolution into schools.

Over to Pro!
Debate Round No. 1
SteveEvans

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate! :) And since you accepted this debate right off the bat (By that, I mean no clarifications), you must accept my definitions. They shall be used.

Now, before this, I am not advocating the biased teaching of both philosophies (And by biased, I mean that one philosophy, or both, is introduced in a manner that a child is persuaded to believe in it).

Presentation

Curriculum

Evolution and Creationism are two philosophies. If introduced to schools, it can keep the children brain active, thus enhancing education. They can also join in discussing the human origin. And from the activity of the brain, the child's intelligence can be useful in real-life situations.

Rebuttals

(Now, before this, my opponent provided a basis of his argument)

"I will be taking the challenge of stating that Creationism and Evolution should not be introduced into schools together, as Evolution by itself is already on the National Curriculum and it stands alone without any verifiable rational opposition."

So, you don't see how the 2 philosophies contradict each other? No, it's not so much of that. It's that either philosophies stand alone, or they are true altogether, having this God that created us as single-cellular organisms, meaning that we were originally that, making it so we naturally evolve overtime, along with our genes.

And if I may ask, how is this basis making it so the introduction of both philosophies to children is a terrible idea?

"I will also point out that the study of Evolution alone will grant the students entry level qualifications into higher learning institutions such as universities or a meaningful career in science, which is what science education is all about."

Indeed. These philosophies may seem to overtop a student's grade. However, so? Like said, it is going to keep the child's brain active, like thinking about it, or having an overwhelming interest on the topic that they decide to search on things that overtop their grade.

It may not seem to benefit much, like if you have no overall interest on this, it won't make a difference whenever you learn it, and when you grow up, it's going to be introduced to you and you will do the same things (Like searching to figure out) if you were younger. However, their education is enhanced, and they can be an example, like an adult, already. That intelligence can be useful in real-life situations as a child.

"There is no need to introduce complications such as Creationism which cannot possibly assist the students achieve their objective of gaining a career in the sciences nor achieving a placement in a university.
In fact having Creationism on their accademic acreditations may be detrimental to university entry in some fields of science."

Actually, it can; Like said, it keeps their mind active. They'll be available to, or open for, more topics. This way, they'll expand on their knowledge and their future application, which if accepted, you achieve a placement in a university, will be overall more acceptable.

I do not believe that both philosophies' introduction will be detrimental to entry. Reread previous paragraph.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
Sagey

Con

Thanks to Pro for his Argument:


Firstly: I will simply make a few rebuttals

>> I am not advocating the biased teaching of both philosophies (And by biased, I mean that one philosophy, or both, is introduced in a manner that a child is persuaded to believe in it).<<


Pro has me a little confused here as it appears that Pro is wanting a subject in school for comparative philosophies, in this case the philosophies of Evolution and Creationism as Pro states with next line:

>>Evolution and Creationism are two philosophies. If introduced to schools, it can keep the children brain active, thus enhancing education.<<

So it does appear that Pro is proposing a Comparative Philosophies Curriculum in public schools.

Though I must ask Pro, what does he intend to call this new Comparative Philosophy class??

Science classes for early learners don't teach Philosophy, so they cannot include Comparative Philosophy in science classes until until their mid teens where often the historical and social aspects of science are discussed.
Early learners in science are simply introduced into the basics of physics/mathematics, elements and basic biological knowledge.

Unless we return to Ancient Greece and consider all sciences as philosophy as did Socrates, Plato and to a lesser extent Aristotle.
Modern Science classes do not usually include Philosophy unless a student asks a question concerning the philosophy behind a certain line of reasoning.

Though Modern Science classes do teach Evolution as Fact, not a Philosophy.
Because Scientifically, Evolution is all Three, A Fact [#1], A Theory and A Philosophy [#2].

So it does appear that Pro wants to separate the Philosophical Aspect of "The Theory of Evolution" [#2] and compare it to the Philosophical Aspect of the Philosophical Aspect of "Theological Creationism".[#3]
Sounds like a very interesting and thought provoking class, so Pro is right in stating that it might stimulate the children's minds, but I disagree that the stimulation will really be a learning one.

Pro asks: "How is this basis making it so the introduction of both philosophies to children is a terrible idea?"

I don't think it is a terrible idea if it is in a separate 'Comparative Philosophies' class.
It certainly cannot be part of a Science class nor curriculum.
As again, science classes do not teach comparative philosophies, just the philosophies involved in producing Science. [#4]

>>These philosophies may seem to overtop a student's grade. However, so? Like said, it is going to keep the child's brain active, like thinking about it, or having an overwhelming interest on the topic that they decide to search on things that overtop their grade.<<

Fact: Children's brains are active, regardless of what their brains get fed, the biggest problem schools have with many children is how to give them enough information to keep their eager minds happy and science alone, without introduction of comparative philosophy classes can achieve that with the right teachers, adults predicting that teaching aberrant theological/philosophical concepts and ideas will stimulate learning is false, it will more likely confuse the children Pro is committing the old mistake of adults guessing what will interest or excite children, so often proved wrong, by children.

Giving them plenty of activities where they can experiment with scientific concepts and work as productive teams will do more to stimulate learning than giving them comparative philosophies and theologies. [#5]

Prospects for Creationists in science is not good, in the US, where almost 30% of the population has Creationists beliefs, less than 5% of scientists working in the Life Sciences have Creationist beliefs and Creationist beliefs. [#6]


Certain universities had become quite sensitive to employing lecturers versed in Creationism or with Creationist beliefs, such as Lehigh university which employed the instigator of the "Irreducible Complexity" argument that has been continually debunked in Michael Behe, where the university has to continually deny it has any connection with his concepts as it has given them bad press in the scientific fields. Their denial is on their website: [#7]


#1 : Evolution as Fact and Theory: Explanation: In science you cannot have a Theory without any Fact, because a Theory is an Explanation of the Fact(s).
Such as the Theory of Gravity, is the explanation of the Fact of Gravity.
In exactly the same way that "The Theory Of Evolution" is an explanation of the "Facts of Evolution". (yes there are more than one).

http://ncse.com...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.nas.edu...


#2 : Philosophy of Evolution
http://www.evphil.com...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

#3 : Creationism: Philosophy focused on God, thus it is really Theology, not Philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.the-scientist.com...


#4 : Philosophy Of Science
http://philosophy.wisc.edu...
http://undsci.berkeley.edu...


#5 : Helping Children Learn Science:
http://www.asasud.com...


#6 Prospects for Creationists in the Life Science Fields and Lehigh University's disclaimer and statement of support for Evolution.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com...

http://www.lehigh.edu...

It's now over to Pro to rebut my rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
SteveEvans

Pro

Rebuttals

First, let me clear something up:

">> I am not advocating the biased teaching of both philosophies (And by biased, I mean that one philosophy, or both, is introduced in a manner that a child is persuaded to believe in it).<<

Pro has me a little confused here as it appears that Pro is wanting a subject in school for comparative philosophies, in this case the philosophies of Evolution and Creationism as Pro states with next line:

>>Evolution and Creationism are two philosophies. If introduced to schools, it can keep the children brain active, thus enhancing education.<<

So it does appear that Pro is proposing a Comparative Philosophies Curriculum in public schools.
"

No. I am indeed proposing a Comparative Philosophies Curriculum in public schools. However, by that, I meant that even if both philosophies are introduced, they shouldn't be taught in a biased way. By that, I mean that it shouldn't be taught in a manner that persuades children (i.e. As if it was factual). The child should be given the opportunity to decide.

And to answer one of your questions..

"Though I must ask Pro, what does he intend to call this new Comparative Philosophy class??"

Philosophies class? Where you study about the Universe and experiment on your claims? It'll also be extra-curricular. It'll be optional.

Moving on to rebuttals...

"Science classes for early learners don't teach Philosophy, so they cannot include Comparative Philosophy in science classes until until their mid teens where often the historical and social aspects of science are discussed.
Early learners in science are simply introduced into the basics of physics/mathematics, elements and basic biological knowledge."

Yes, the philosophies should definitely be introduced and these extra-curricular, but optional, classes should be present in high schools! Maybe 8th grade. However, it'll keep the child's brain active, which is important[1]. By having these other new lessons, involving science, etc, taught, the child can expand on their knowledge to decide.

"Unless we return to Ancient Greece and consider all sciences as philosophy as did Socrates, Plato and to a lesser extent Aristotle.
Modern Science classes do not usually include Philosophy unless a student asks a question concerning the philosophy behind a certain line of reasoning."

Well, from having this extra-curricular, BUT OPTIONAL, philosophy class where you discuss, they'll only join and elect themselves if they are even interested.

"Though Modern Science classes do teach Evolution as Fact, not a Philosophy.
Because Scientifically, Evolution is all Three, A Fact [#1], A Theory and A Philosophy [#2]."

Yes. However, like said, I don't advocate that[2]. So, if they were just introduced, without any means of persuasion (Biased), the children should be given an opportunity to decide.

"So it does appear that Pro wants to separate the Philosophical Aspect of "The Theory of Evolution" [#2] and compare it to the Philosophical Aspect of the Philosophical Aspect of "Theological Creationism".[#3]
Sounds like a very interesting and thought provoking class, so Pro is right in stating that it might stimulate the children's minds, but I disagree that the stimulation will really be a learning one."

Not so much about comparing the two aspects, but rather studying history, science, etc, and seeing if the philosophies are suitable for being true and supporting either claims.

It'll definitely stimulate the child's minds, which will make them more openly available for more topics, or maybe even volunteering themselves to study it. They can expand on their knowledge and thus, can enhance the decisions they make.

"Pro asks: "How is this basis making it so the introduction of both philosophies to children is a terrible idea?"

I don't think it is a terrible idea if it is in a separate 'Comparative Philosophies' class.

It certainly cannot be part of a Science class nor curriculum.
As again, science classes do not teach comparative philosophies, just the philosophies involved in producing Science. [#4]"

Yes, I agree. It shouldn't be part of a Science class, but a seperate class.

">>These philosophies may seem to overtop a student's grade. However, so? Like said, it is going to keep the child's brain active, like thinking about it, or having an overwhelming interest on the topic that they decide to search on things that overtop their grade.<<

Fact: Children's brains are active, regardless of what their brains get fed, the biggest problem schools have with many children is how to give them enough information to keep their eager minds happy and science alone, without introduction of comparative philosophy classes can achieve that with the right teachers, adults predicting that teaching aberrant theological/philosophical concepts and ideas will stimulate learning is false, it will more likely confuse the children Pro is committing the old mistake of adults guessing what will interest or excite children, so often proved wrong, by children."

Yes, children's minds are active, but more knowledge, more activity. And even just this philosophy discussion can make the child's brain MUCH more active.

That's why I believe it should be extra-curricular, thus optional; Only those that are ACTUALLY interested in philosophy join the class to discuss.

And I am not guessing what'll interest/excite children, hence the fact that it should be optional. Children, though, are sometimes forced to attend school, even if they aren't interested. Wonders me why so much of my former classmates received low grades for every subject.

"Giving them plenty of activities where they can experiment with scientific concepts and work as productive teams will do more to stimulate learning than giving them comparative philosophies and theologies. [#5]"

No. I want the philosophy class to contain plenty of fun activities and experimenting on scientific concepts (i.e. Having proven that something can come into existence without a specific cause[3]), rather than just a full-on normal discussion.

"Prospects for Creationists in science is not good, in the US, where almost 30% of the population has Creationists beliefs, less than 5% of scientists working in the Life Sciences have Creationist beliefs and Creationist beliefs. [#6]"

So? That can help clear things up for the Creationists and maybe, just maybe, they can provide evidence, after critical testing, to support Creationism. Discussion, remember?

"Certain universities had become quite sensitive to employing lecturers versed in Creationism or with Creationist beliefs, such as Lehigh university which employed the instigator of the "Irreducible Complexity" argument that has been continually debunked in Michael Behe, where the university has to continually deny it has any connection with his concepts as it has given them bad press in the scientific fields. Their denial is on their website: [#7]"

So? If that's how intelligent you are, even without the introduction of the philosophy, they most likely won't be accepted. Also, they are only sensitive to accepting submitted applications from Creationists because their supposed evidence is usually terrible.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.

Sources

[1] http://www.toyourhealth.com...;(How it's important; Explanation)

[2] Revert back to me clearing something up for you and my message before my presentation in R2.

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Sagey

Con

Thanks Pro for finally clarifying which book you are reading and which page you are on.
Some things that I believe should have been defined within your opening argument.

So far this debate has been like walking into a book review half way through, without the instructor telling me which book they are reviewing and which chapter they are up to.

So finally I find that you are asking for an Extra Curricular activity for teaching both the Philosophy (not Facts) of Evolution along with the Philosophy/Theology of Creationism.

Though I still didn't get the title of this Extra Curricular activity?

We cannot possibly call the class "Philosophies Of Science" since Science does not pertain to Creationist philosophies, as science arose in spite of Creationist philosophies.
History Lessons: Creationism was never involved in scientific understanding, and Creationism almost died out completely from the world view until the late 19th Century when it made a comeback as a Tenet of the Seventh Day Adventist movement led by Ellen White.
The reason Creationism made a comeback was because of hallucinations Ellen White had due to her head injury when struck by a rock as a teen. In this hallucination she had an out of body experience where she toured with Jesus and God was another Character, thus polytheistic.

On the History of Evolutionary Philosophies, many wrongly state that Charles Darwin created Evolution, but they are indeed wrong, all Charles did was to connect concepts that were already in existence and collate them and relate them to his own experimental evidence that showed confirmation of those pre-existing concepts, which date way back to much earlier periods.
On could actually consider the incredible Leonardo da Vinci, (artist, engineer, biologist, palaeontologist, inventor) as the Great Grandfather of Evolutionary Philosophy.
Leonardo (a Christian) noticed how fossils were arranged in an ordered sequence and declared that the Book of Genesis was indeed wrong.
So every time you view Leonardo's "The Last Supper" or "Mona Lisa", remember, the artist as the Great Grandfather of Evolutionary Science.

As far as having Having Evolutionary Philosophy and Creationism Theology as any sort of combined information class, all we could possibly call it is:

“PUBLIC IDEAS ABOUT SCIENCE” class.

Though problems still exist for the Philosophy/Theology of Creationism in:
1: The defining of a Framework that will not deride Creation Theology and the Instructor training, because even the vast majority of Christian Science Teachers will not be presenting Creationist Philosophy in a good light.

2: Texts and references: The number of acceptable texts and references for Evolutionary Philosophy are numerous, the acceptable texts and references for Creation Theology is almost zero, since nobody has been able to present anything suitable as yet.

3: Who decides on the structure and texts to be used in such a class?

SUCH A CLASS WILL LIKELY BE DETRIMENTAL TO CREATIONISM

Why? Pro may ask.

Well, actually it's quite simple really, as to introduce Evolutionary philosophies that fit in with scientific knowledge and then have them learn theological concepts that do not fit in with scientific knowledge may allow students to make an informed, rational comparison, which would most likely have the average intelligent student consider the theology of Creationism as irrational.

Thus instead of having a US with over 30% believing in Creationism, after 20 years of this “Public Ideas About Science” course going, we may find only 5% to 10% of the population believing in Creationism, thanks to students making a rational informed comparison, because technically, the Theological Concepts of Creationism cannot be rationally painted as scientific and all students will become aware of this fact.

Ken Ham and Ray Comfort who currently make an easy living on the backs of Creationists will certainly not be happy with such an outcome that may means the rest of their families may actually have to find real work.

The above are a few things Pro might like to consider.
Though I think the last comment is a plus for the US, I don't think Children would have their minds exercised and improved by taking extra-curricular activities after a long day of curricular work and play where their minds have already been stimulated to a high degree.
I cannot possibly see any need for them to do extra activities.

Rebuttals:

Pro states: >> they shouldn't be taught in a biased way. <<

Bias may not be intentional, but if it is going to be about Science: Evolution pertains to Science where Creationism pertains to Theology, and intelligent students will easily see the difference, then inform the others (less intelligent) of the conflicts.
If you don't want bias, you will have to leave science completely out of the picture and just treat it as existing world-views.

Here Pro must remember: Evolution and Science developed in Spite of Creationism, and Creationism had no influences in the advancement of any field of Science, so essentially Science has never in it's entire history, had anything to do with Creationism.
It has only been since Ellen White's brain damage hallucination that Creationism has been trying to have something to do with Science where it never had any connection with it in the past.

Pro states: >>Yes, the philosophies should definitely be introduced and these extra-curricular, but optional, classes should be present in high schools! Maybe 8th grade. However, it'll keep the child's brain active, which is important. <<

Again I will impress that the children are more likely suffering information overload and over excitement, many young children's minds start shutting down after the morning session of important educational activity and in the afternoon sessions they absorb very little and simply want to go home or do physical activities.
Many schools now work this way where the first 20 minutes to an hour are the most educational periods (most absorption) where the afternoons have more play time activities mixed in.

To conduct such a course would definitely be more confusing than exciting for a child, since they are now being introduced to theologies that have never in the past had anything to do with science as now having something to do with Science.
It's confusing for adults, so it certainly would be confusing or even confounding for children.

I think the balance would be more Confusing and Confounding than Exciting for an already tired mind. Though such a class certainly cannot interfere with real curricular activities which are mostly held in the mornings.

Also on Pro's selection of Sources:
Source 1: is more about just general brain exercises such as memory games and co-ordination challenges, which are already part of normal school activities, no advancement could be made in Pro' proposal there, all educators are aware of the contents of that source and acting on it.

Source 2: we found inaccessible.

Source 3: Miller–Urey experiment, has nothing really to do with Creationism because Creationism has never had any input into it, nor really that much to do with Evolution, which does not concern itself with Origins Theories.
It is simply a Chemistry experiment where they are now very close to producing the first synthetic cellular life, using oil to form the first cellular walls, which is actually quite possible how the first cellular life formed.

Some related Sources:

All the children need to gain an idea of the concepts surraounding science and life, including Creationism is to visit this site or visit the Smithsonian. They could learn all they need about contributions to science from Creationism in several minutes, hardly the need for an entier class time.

http://humanorigins.si.edu...



On Leonardo da Vinci's connection to Evolutionary Philosophy
Here's an excerpt:
"It may seem unusual to include Leonardo da Vinci in a list of paleontologists and evolutionary
biologists. Leonardo was and is best known as an artist,
the creator of such masterpieces as the Mona Lisa, Madonna of the Rocks, and The Last Supper.
Yet Leonardo was far more than a great artist: he had one of the best scientific minds of his time.
He made painstaking observations and carried out research in fields ranging from architecture and
civil engineering to astronomy to anatomy and zoology to geography, geology and paleontology.
In the words of his biographer Giorgio Vasari:"

From:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...


Here is the Wikipedia reference for Creation Science note there is little in the way of scientific contributions by Creationism theology, well actually Nil!

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
SteveEvans

Pro

SteveEvans forfeited this round.
Sagey

Con

I could not really understan Pro forfeiting his argument in this debate.

I was certain he could have made a comeback at me on his reasons for wanting the Philosophies of Creationism alongside the philosophies of Evolution.

Though I did highlight the Evolution of Creationism which PZ Myers ( a well respected Biologist) also alludes to in this following video.

PZ on the Evolution of Creationism.



From PZ's description of Creationism, I'm certain students would be quite amused by learning the Evolution of Creationism in a class that discusses both Creationism and Evolution.


I'm certain this video would be a welcomed source for the class Pro proposed.
Especially how Intelligent Design, created by William Paley's arguments that were destroyed over 200 years ago. But, Intelligent Design Advocates and Creationists keep kicking the Old Dead Horse.
Even Charles Darwin destroyed William Paley's argument.

Thus I'm absolutely certain that conducting such a class would be detrimental to Creationism and possibly destroy it forever.


Since there would be no sources acceptable for such classes in support of Creationism.
Since all Creationist literature contains massive amounts of Pseudo-Scientific concepts that have been defeated continuously by scientists.

If Creationists really want such a class in Public Schools, it would very likely destroy their own credibility in the eyes of every student attending the class.

This may not be a deliberate denigration by the teacher holding the class, but it will not be good for the students to ask about where in science are the contributions of Creationism and find that there is none, since Creationism only started attacking science within the last century and prior to that had nothing to do with it.

If Pro really wants a class in school where Creationism Theology/Philosophy would be comfortable and not suffer serious derision on account of it's complete naivery of Science, then the Creationists would be better off offering a comparitive Theology class where it can be taught along side Christianity, which Creationism is really not a part of.
Since Jesus Christ had no doctrines on the Origins of the Universe, as such doctrines are all from Genesis 1 or the Old Testament that most Christians consider as simply Metaphorical and not meant to be taken Literally, which Creationists do to the Extreme.
Basically due to Ellen White's hallucinations.

So for my case, since I have no rebuttals to put forth.

I will state that Creationist Philosophy (properly termed Theology) cannot really be taught alongside Evolutionary Philosophy, since Evolutionary Philosophy is scientific, not Theological.
The two are worlds apart and cannot logically be tied together under a single Subject category.

Unless you make the class as a Comparative Philosophies Class, along with a myriad of other Philosophies, not just Evolutionary Philosophy, as to compare it to Evolution Philosophy will likely cause much denigration of Creationist Theology, and Ken Ham and Ray Comfort would not be happy with their primary source of income destroyed by a public school class.

Finally, adding another burden onto school children, by introducing another, extremely unimportant subject, would not really be a worthwhile exercise. Since the contributions to science and the affects on science (detrimental) by Creationist theology can be completely covered in a 10 minute exercise.
Thus no need for an entire class period, devoted to such an exercise.

I believe the only possible conclusion of all of this is:

NO! Creationism Should Not Be Introduced Into Schools, where Evolution already Exists in Science Classes as A Fact and A Theory, Even as a Philosophy Topic. Thus The Only Real Choice Is To Vote: CON.

My Thanks To Pro for Initiating This Debate!

Also My Thanks to All Those Who Read and Vote On This Debate!

Best of Luck Pro!!

:-D~


Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Though I forfeited all my first debates due to work and family commitments, I expected to be hit with conduct points awarded against me for that.
So sometimes a forfeit cannot be helped, though I did not return to DDO for over a month, so ppl knew I was away, if I came back straight after and posted, ppl would know it was just bad manners.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Yes Project; I usually award conduct points against those who Forfeit.
Because forfeiting is bad manners.
If you cannot construct a good argument, you shouldn't debate.
Though some just jump into debates to get their tally up so they can vote.
But, even then, forfeiting is bad manners.
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
SteveEvans@ What difference does it make, did you think you would win the debate my forfeiting? Even if Your arguments were be near perfect, it wouldn't make a difference because you forfeited and if you forfeit you suck, you should lose because your wasting peoples time and your arguments are weak.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Well, to win by a single vote bomb is not good, with a bit of luck somebody will vote bomb in opposition and even it up.
Though it appears that everybody except Projectid has avoided this debate entirely.
Technically a vote bomb should equate to 1 vote, not 7.
Maybe they can adjust DDO software to automatically reduce vote bombs to 1 vote.
Posted by SteveEvans 3 years ago
SteveEvans
I never demanded good grammar! Where the hell did you get that from? Your fradulent accusations. F*cking retarded. Also, how is my grammar poor? You should seriously read my arguments. Are you trying to make fradulent accusations because you just want Sagey to win? You're pathetic. F*ck off.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Massive votes coming in??
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Somehow I don't think Dakota would appreciate my Scientific Philosophy Classes.

They are pretty harsh on Creationism.
Because I've studied Creationism over 30 years and I know of how modern Creationism originated.

It all started as Ellen White's OBE Hallucination of seeing God create the world in six days.
This was as a result of a head injury that damaged part of her Temporal Lobe (god spot).
Her followers all believed in her vision of the six day Creation and it became the basic tenet of the Seventh Day Adventist movement.
George McCready Price: a member of Ellen White's fan club wrote the first Pseudo-Scientific books on Proof of the Genesis Flood or what is jokingly (by geologists) known as "Flood Geology".
George only did 1 year of mineralogy training before declaring himself a Geologist, so all his work is just Pseudo-Scientific Nonsense.
Yet, George's work still forms the basis of modern "Flood Geology" as they haven't learned much since George, they certainly have no gained evidence for it.

So essentially Creationism is still nothing more than Seventh Day Adventist Delusion from Ellen White's head injury based Hallucination.
It will never amount to anything more!
EVER!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
3: Pseudo-Science: Such as Assuming Preconceived Conclusions from little or no experimentation and basing on invalid, poorly derived and investigated Data.
Such examples of Pseudo-scientific Conclusions:
>Shells on tops of mountains as evidence for Noah's Flood.
>The Landslide created Pattern on Mt. Ararat is Noah's Ark.
>Irreducible Complexity by Michael Behe
>Morphonic (moronic) Resonance by Rupert Sheldrake (goose)
>The Slowing Down of Light argument.
>The Earth Is Flat
>The Earth is less than 10,000 years old nonsense.
etc...

People often cite Charles Darwin as the originator of Evolutionary concepts, but it goes way back before Darwin.
Even the famous Christian artist, engineer, philosopher, inventor: Leonardo da Vinci started attacking the Creation story of Genesis while studying fossils.
Essentially Leonardo da Vinci signified the start of Evolutionary concepts, Darwin had learned of these from some of his predecessors and just happen to be the man who put what he learned into words.

So next time you look at the Lords Supper painting by da Vinci, remember that the hand that painted that amazing work is also the great grandfather of Evolution.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
@ Dakota: I would create it as a separate class, as I would leave science class strictly as Science.
In Science we would only discuss Factual, Working Science or things that work and can be demonstrated to function.
I would discuss the philosophies surrounding science as a separate class.
Where we would discuss:
1: What Science and Scientific Analysis really means:
Like how all Theories in Science must have a Fact that the Theory explains and within each Theory there are sets of Laws which tied the Fact and the Theory (explanation) together and can link the Theory to other related Theories. Often the Fact is discovered first and the laws (consistent behaviors) that were observed surrounding the fact are analyzed and from this the Theory is derived.
From the Fact of Gravity, we have the Theory of Gravity, which is still unresolved since nobody has discovered what produces gravity, we just know it exists (obvious) and many of the properties (laws) surrounding it.
From the Fact of Evolution, we have the Theory of Evolution, which is more resolved than the Theory of Gravity. At least we know more about what produces evolutionary changes than we know about what produces Gravity.

2: What Scientific Fraud is: Such as when somebody changes the data to fit a predetermined Outcome, such as changing the data to make it appear that God did it.
This has always been a problem with Creationism, many creationists have been caught changing the words of scientists and data of scientific discoveries to make it appear that the outcome could have been from divine influence. Creationists are still committing such fraudulent practices, like taking the comments from Darwin's statement out of context to make it appear he thought he was wrong, or misquoting Richard Dawkins, Stephen J. Gould and Stephen Hawking.
These are all cases of committing deliberate Scientific Fraud.

3: To be Continued Next Post
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Getting children interested in learning was always a struggle, I would sit up all night making a project or fixing equipment so they would work and hopefully enthuse the children, but the moment I walked into class I could hear whispers like oh no not another boring demonstration.
So I changed tactics and would turn up with some of the equipment not performing, like a simple loose connection (only low voltage stuff of less than 6 volts, and state that I failed to get it working and if you children can get it working I'll give you an early break, so they were all into it, tossing ideas and some knowledge that even surprised me, ( some of them were actually listening intently to my previous talks) and asking me questions when they had difficulties, they usually got the project working with team effort, and they learned the concepts I had planned to instruct them on in my demonstration without me even having to do the demonstration. And most importantly, they had fun doing it.
It was sort of like, we can beat teacher at getting this working, yahoo, we did it, up yours teach!
:-D~
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
SteveEvansSageyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: First of all it amazes me to see someone introduce a debate and then run from it without anything said. So the Pro loses his conduct points, just as he stated. Conduct therefore goes to Sagey. The Pros grammar is poor as the Pro is setting up his argument demanding good grammar. As for convincing argument, without a doubt the Pro mangled his position between philosophy and science and truth. As for reliable sources sagey always kicks a**. Could have been a better debate if Pro would have debated honestly. NEVER FORFIET but if you do at least be a man about it, say face or just excuse yourself like a respectable person. If this was a live in person debate would you just walk away from the debate without saying anything? Computers make it easy to hide.