The Instigator
loveu157
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
LibertarianWithAVoice
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

teaching creationism in schools

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 6 votes the winner is...
LibertarianWithAVoice
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,423 times Debate No: 31930
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

loveu157

Con

I have heard a lot of news recently about teaching creationism in schools. I don't agree with this idea.

There is scientific proof of evolution and still over 40% of people believe in creationism.

my opponent should be someone who believes in creationism and is willing to discuss their views with me. I would love to hear them.

(first post)
LibertarianWithAVoice

Pro

To begin with I would like to state I agree with a hybrid of different ideas. I do believe in the base of creationism though.
My first argument is for the "Proof" of Evolution. Although there is strong evidence and several test that correlate with the theory, that's all we can truly claim evolution is. Unless we could relive everything or talk to god himself, we can never "prove" or disprove the theory. So on that bases we cannot decide what should be taught as a standard.
Debate Round No. 1
loveu157

Con

Although there is not conclusive proof we can touch about evolution there is so much more proof about evolution then there is creationism. Creationism states the the world was created in six days and on the 7th day god took a rest. that dose not seem possible. Also the bible says the order of how things were created witch through scientific proof is shown to be false. Right now the argument for creationism is the belief in a book written so long ago and is surrounded with mystery. there is eveindence to prove that the bible was written by more then 1 author and that they lived over 100 years apart. Your evidence is non scientific in this argument so you have no possible way of proving creationism. Evolution can be proven through discoveries such as fossils and with other scientific data but the bible can not.
LibertarianWithAVoice

Pro

You just brought down a huge piece of your argument. "Creationism states the world was created in six days and on the 7th day god took a rest. That dose not seem possible" it does not SEEM possible? That is hardly enough evidence to disprove a theory. And your claim on the bible being old, that in its self means it has knowledge of a period with very little record. The several authors just means it has several different perspective and correlated conclusions. Do you not think Mendel's research was scrutinized and changed, redone and re concluded. It is even suggested that his research was falsified by his aids. Is it not possible that the bible is an oversimplified altered record of the true happenings. There is as much speculation of the bible as there is with science. And please stop throwing the term proof around. I could get a specific result on a test 100,000,000,000,000 times over, but all it takes is the 100,000,000,000,001th result to be negative to prove a theory false. So a theory should be taught no matter how much "Proof" there is opposed to another.
Debate Round No. 2
loveu157

Con

I like your arguments. The reason why it does not SEEM possible is because science PROVES otherwise. Science states that the earth is still begin created. I also touched apon the order the bible says things were created. It says that humans were created the same time as everything else. That impossible because of many different findings such as history. History shows us dates of happenings. Hominids were discovered. These were the first humans. These Hominids were not able to build a tower to the heavens nor build a giant ark. Also if Noahs ark is real then how did he get all the animals in the world on this ark. These animals were all over the world and could not all survive in one common environment. Also That would be a pretty big ark. You talked about how the multiple writers shows multiple interpretations. Did the writers have solid evidence. Some of the interpretations on the torah say that studying in tents means going to study torah. That would be hard because the torah hasn't been written yet. But those interpreters did the same thing as the original writers they thought what made the most sense to them. Ignoring logic and science completely. So until you have actual evidence of creationism and the bible being completely real we will teach what has scientific evidence. (evolution)
LibertarianWithAVoice

Pro

Evolution has strong evidence but as I have stated before it hasn't been proved. Even the biological clock ( which I have a lot of respect for, and I have written many a Thesis papers on ) is not 100%. For you who are not familiar with the biological clock, it is a device that takes the DNA of two creatures and predicts when they last shared a relative. The problem is it only uses patterns previously seen and predicts the information. If predictions proved a theory the Earth would be flat and the center of the universe. All the evidence we have so far for evolution is a chronological puzzle of fossils, DNA, patters, and estimates. I'm not saying it's not true but it only seems fair to teach children all theories and let them make informed decisions. This can lead to people trying to prove their ideas and many societal advances. Christians were some of the first to challenge the idea of a flat earth, Evolutionist have made many biological discoveries, Mayans made the most accurate calendar to date because priest told them to. Diverse cultures are what fuel growth.
Debate Round No. 3
loveu157

Con

I do agree with the idea of learning about many different ideas in school. But I do not agree with teaching non possible or not true ideas in schools. Creationism has been proven wrong on many levels and although evolution has not been proven 100%, there is enough possibility and proof to it existing that it should be taught about in schools. You don't want the future of the world learning untrue things. When there is new evidence about something different it should be taught in schools. But until then teach about what has scientific proof and evidence.

(This was a great discussion Thanks for debating with me)
LibertarianWithAVoice

Pro

Saying creationism is non-possible is irresponsible. I do agree the idea has flaws, and yes there is evidence to the contrary but there is no rock solid evidence against it. I don't think an idea should be condemned just because it is has a few things going against it. Evolution was denied validity because its heresy. People said it was impossible and untrue. If evolutionist said ," oh wait they're right. This idea is non-possible.", we wouldn't be having this conversation. Should we really decide validity on the topic of creationism? That seems oppressive and morally wrong. I agree with not forcing someone to believe in an idea but at least let them make a decision for themselves. Maybe they will go on to prove that idea true, and even if they don't at least they were able to live a life the way they choose.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by LibertarianWithAVoice 3 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
My position would have been different if it had said "Teaching creationism in science classes" for sure.
Posted by Mojokingbee 3 years ago
Mojokingbee
Started an account to post this question to PRO. I am unsure if this was CON'S actual view or not, but the recent news stories that CON refered to in his challenge have largely been based on teaching creationism in the SCIENCE classrooms. I agree with some of PRO's comments that having creationism taught in school isnt a bad thing, if it is in a theology class or a study of religious history, but would PRO's arguments have differed if the challenge was "Teaching creationism in science classes"? In my reading of this debate, it seems that CON's arguments hold more weight if this was the topic.

Apologies if I have done anything improper, as I just found this site today and have yet to browse the guidelines.
Posted by loveu157 3 years ago
loveu157
I agree it was a good debate.
Posted by LibertarianWithAVoice 3 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
To the voters I thought We both had very good arguments. I believe we both did really well.
Posted by loveu157 3 years ago
loveu157
sorry for my bad english. I have dyslexia.
Posted by DoubtingDave 3 years ago
DoubtingDave
Hey pro wanna debate me on this?
Posted by loveu157 3 years ago
loveu157
so i can hear their views
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Why do you want only someone who believes in it?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
loveu157LibertarianWithAVoiceTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: "There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view I hold dear." - Daniel Dennett
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
loveu157LibertarianWithAVoiceTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a very close debate. I really thought the arguments were tied, but I noticed more grammar mistakes with Con. Pro just gets the grammar point.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 3 years ago
tmar19652
loveu157LibertarianWithAVoiceTied
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: Counter qopel vb
Vote Placed by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
loveu157LibertarianWithAVoiceTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought Con had very good arguments. I believe Con did really well
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
loveu157LibertarianWithAVoiceTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar to Pro because of Con's lack of punctuation. Arguments were very poor on both sides.
Vote Placed by yuiru 3 years ago
yuiru
loveu157LibertarianWithAVoiceTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate made me cringe so much. I was going to just tie arguments because they were both very unconvincing and uncompelling. Both sides were stating inaccuracies and making unwarranted claims. Pro wins this one significantly. Both sides made invalid and unsound arguments. Here Pro wins again by making these argument significantly more. Both sides went off topic into irrelevant things. Con wins here. 1 to 2. Pro wins in unconvincing me. What ultimately got me was Pro's relativistic ideas that we shouldn't decide the validity of creationism and that it hasn't been disproven so we should just teach it in schools. Utterly pathetic.