The Instigator
LoveRichardDawkins
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
theobjectiveconservative
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Creationism should be banned from science classes

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...
LoveRichardDawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,278 times Debate No: 117333
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (1)

 

LoveRichardDawkins

Pro

Teaching creationism is in school science classes is only ever the indoctrination of children. Our children have the right to understand that some people have different points of view (however stupid). However, They also have the right to be taught what's true in school. Science is the study of the natural world and therefore natural and factually correct information is the only information that should be taught. Religious education classes are where creationism should be taught. Students should be given the right to learn about what some people think and why they think that but they must not be taught creationism as if there is any scientific support for it or as if it is a legitimate explanation of origins.

Creationism quite frankly is totally ridiculous and wrong. No serious scientists in any large number support the idea. Those who do are practising bad science. This is because in order to practise science properly one has to start by looking at the evidence and then make a conclusion about that evidence. However, Creationists start from a world view of "I already know the answers- God did it" and then they look for evidence for their claim while disregarding any contrary evidence. Therefore, Teaching creationism in school is not only teaching children nonsense but also teaching them bad science since they are not taught the proper scientific method or world view.

Finally, Creationism should be banned from school science classes because it puts ridiculous theories like young-earth on the same platform as evolution. It thus makes the sides seem equal when they're not. Ken Ham is not equal in scientific credibility to Bill Nye. This thus delegitimises true science and presents a misconception to children that there is actually a debate about this in science - which is a downright lie.

Creationism is nonsense. But some people believe it -fair enough. Teach kids what some people think. But (if you'll pardon the pun) for God's sake keep it out of the science class!
theobjectiveconservative

Con

Creationism should never be banned from science class, Furthermore, It is a crime that creationism is so rejected in our society. Creationism should not just be mentioned as a silly idea that some people believe. The fact is that the earth was created, There is no other explanation. The odds of any facet of this earth creating itself or existing by chance, In scientific terms, Is beyond the realm of scientific possibility. The exact odds are somewhere along the lines of 4x10^300. The fact is, Evolution is nowhere near fact. Which is why, Even after hundreds of years of searching, They have yet to find a transitional fossil.

The idea that no serious scientists back this idea is also ridiculous, In fact there are several. Michael Behe, Scott Minnich, And Ralph Seelke to name a few. Most scientists that have accepted and backed the ID theory have been hushed and immediately discredited, Which is why you likely haven't heard of many of them. Not unlike Mary Schweitzer, Who happened upon proof that the earth could be no more than 6, 000-8, 000 years old. Soft tissue found in fossils that were supposed to be 70 million years old. (she was soon after fired hmmmm. . . )

Finally creationism even to those who don't believe it, Is no more ridiculous than an entire beautiful earth making itself impossibly by accident. In your response, Kindly enlighten all those reading with some of the facts that prove evolution definitively. For the time being, I will stop at this, It's a shame that today's generation is getting this garbage shoved down their throats. I would venture to say that 90% couldn't even tell you why they believe the THEORY (not fact) of evolution. THAT is the definition of indoctrination.
Debate Round No. 1
LoveRichardDawkins

Pro

Well, Well, Well. . .

Silly me for thinking that my opponent would make this debate about the ethos of education or tolerance of the beliefs of others. Upon setting up this debate I muttered to myself: "Surely nobody could deny evolution and defend young-earth creationism".

How wrong I was.

I never even dreamt that in a few hours time I would be defending reason and science against a tidal wave of nonsensical, Naive nonsense. But here we are. So, To business - why is creationism bullsh**?

Putting aside the truly remarkable mathematic reasoning of my opponent, His opening rant is so oozing with flippant, Fallacious flops of logic that I fear I may not have the time nor energy to destroy them all.

We are told from the offset that the earth was created and there is no other reason. Just the earth or the universe as well? I am assuming that you believe the moon exists right? That is about the laziest and most unscientific argument I've ever heard. That because it seems hard for you to comprehend a natural explanation for the creation of earth or living organisms then therefore it must be god. It is called the fallacy of ignorance. Whether you believe that god created the universe or not doesn't matter. Creationism is more than just a belief that the universe was created. Creationism in the religious sense (which is what we are discussing) is the view that God created all the living organisms that we see today and life did not arise by natural processes. My opponent even advocates that this happened only thousands of years ago and not 4. 543 billion years ago as 99% of scientists believe.

My opponent seems to claim that it is really unlikely that the earth's facets such as life were created naturally. I have no idea where is ridiculous number for it came from but I do math at school and believe me when you are doing probability the numbers need to be lower than 1. Your number is not a probability. It's just a big number which makes literally no mathematical sense in this context. Aside from the math malfunction, Natural explanations for the facets of the earth are literally the opposite of chance. Because a natural explanation literally means a 100% chance of something occurring. E. G. There is a 100% chance that if I drop a ball from a height it will hit the ground. Evolution is literally a combination of billions and billions of these small natural occurrences which have a 100% chance of happening in the conditions they are in. Such as there is a 100% chance that a certain intensity of UV radiation will cause this base pairing to duplicate and there is then a 100% chance of that gene being more advantageous in a certain environment. Therefore, Natural explanations are literally the opposite of happening by chance and to claim that god created everything on earth is quite frankly a lazy and ignorant get-out for explaining something that seems complicated.

My opponent then hilariously cited the pseudo-scientific likes of Michael Behe, Scott Minnich and Ralph Seelke. All of whom have been roundly rejected by the scientific community for being bad scientists who espouse religiously motivated nonsense. They are famously the proponents of Irreducible complexity - an argument which has been so massively debunked it is not even worth explaining how awful it is. So here is an article by respected American biologist Ken Miller:

http://www. Millerandlevine. Com/km/evol/design2/article. Html

There is a reason why ID proponents get discredited - ID is so dumb. It has been so unbelievably trampled on by the overwhelming evidence otherwise that any scientist which backs it is just in denial.

And then it got even better. . . My opponent misrepresented the findings of Mary Schweitzer (who is not a young-earth creationist). Her discovery of soft tissue does not at all suggest that dinosaurs died out only a short time ago. If so, My opponent literally implies that they believe that dinosaurs coexisted with humans. WTF.

This scientific paper explains how her findings can be explained and that the tissues are not evidence of young fossils but actually and I quote: " unlikely to be preserved dinosaurian tissues but the product of common bacterial activities. "

https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC2483347/

My opponent then ended their short and remarkable post-truth rant with an assertion that the beauty of the earth means that it must have been created. Really? This is so silly. Just because something is beautiful that doesn't mean it can't have been naturally formed. A beautiful valley can be formed by river erosion and not god.

I kindly accept my opponent's invitation to prove evolution. My opponent seems to claim that evolution is only a theory.
I ask them: have they ever heard of gradational theory? In science the term theory is used to explain that something is an accepted fact and not that scientists actually aren't sure. That's a misunderstanding of scientific convention.

So, My opponent wants transition fossils. We are always sold this myth that there aren't any. Let's start with homo erectus, Homo habilis, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Homo rhodesiensis. . . The list goes on. And that's just human evolution. There are so many transition fossils:

https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=o92x6AvxCFg

Furthermore, Having decoded the human genome, The genetic information completely backs up Darwinian evolution. It portrays a perfect family tree of life which reveals the shared ancestry of all organisms.

https://eveloce. Scienceblog. Com/16/dna-proves-evoution/

Evolution is also contingent on an old earth (certainly not 6000 years). It requires billions of years. And, Quite conveniently, The earth is billions of years old. I'm not just talking about one dating method here. I'm talking about hundreds (literally) of dating methods and guess what? They all point in the same direction - 4. 543 billion years. Potassium to argon, Carbon, Uranium to lead, Meteorite, Cosmic rays, Ice cores, Cooling rates. . . They all point in the same direction.

Are you seriously arguing that experts in geology, Using multiple different dating methods, Making hundreds of measurements, Spending years designing perfect experiments in order to mitigate other variables are lying?

https://geomaps. Wr. Usgs. Gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth. Html

So, We know that the earth is old. We know that our DNA models Darwinian evolution, We know that there are millions of intermediate fossils which reveal our evolution from species to species, We also observe evolution with our own eyes:

https://www. Sciencedaily. Com/releases/2008/04/080417112433. Htm

Now, Is that enough facts for you?

I would like to ask you for a few facts. Find me a single fact or scientific study which proves young-earth creationism. Explain to me how humans coexisted with dinosaurs. Explain to me which creation story you have picked. Please pick from the list below:

https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

Dear audience, Evolution is true. But creationism is scientifically illiterate. I have no problem with people of faith. Most American christians don't believe in young earth creationism anyway and the Pope says evolution is a fact. People have the right to believe what they want. And children have the right to know about people's different beliefs. But creationism is not science and to allow it in the science class is brainwashing and lying to them.
theobjectiveconservative

Con

Apologies on my end for my mistake. What I meant, Was 1 in 4x10^300. This statistic comes from a study done in 1970 by Sir Frederick Hoyle, An evolutionist. He researched the odds of the spontaneous generation of the simplest known free-living life form on earth - a bacterium. He determined that the probability of such an event is one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power. Hoyle stated: "the likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand zeros after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution, He said. Mathematicians tell us if an event has a probability which is less likely than one chance in 10 to just the 50th power, Then that event is mathematically impossible. If you read his next response I would bet that he will dream up a reason to "put aside" my "mathematic reasoning", Yet still complain that there is no proof.

Apologies as well for saying that the earth was created, A comment that destroyed the rest of my argument (I guess). Yes, The universe was created, The fact that anyone could believe that the universe created itself by accident is ridiculous. For all of human history, Almost every civilization we have record of, Has accepted and followed some form of theism. Until, That is, The age of reason, Where the idea that humans were like gods. Which is why we are faced with this THEORY of evolution.

You say that evolution is a combination of billions of sure things happening, But answer this, Lets say that this gene has a 100% chance of duplicating and advancing. Where did it come from? Did you leave that part out, Or did you not think that it was relevant? See, The problem is, That you assert that just because my answer to this question is simple, It could not possibly correct. In contrast, You must attack my credibility, To distract the readers from the clear flaws in this THEORY of evolution. The flaws that keep this THEORY from being anywhere near a fact.

Have you ever read or studied the works of any of these scientists, Or did you just discredit them immediately because a bunch of government-backed scientists said so? This is another huge issue, You would have our audience believe that because the government funds scientific research, They are right. What? Quote fro my opponent "we do have rock solid evidence. Otherwise why would governments fund national museums teaching evolution. Just ask any scientific institution like a reputable university whether they think evolution is a fact. " Wow. Are we still talking about the U. S Government, The same Government that got itself into $20 Trillion in debt? The same one that spent 146 million to upgrade federal employee's flights to business class. Who paid 120 million in retirement and disability to dead federal employees. So if the government spends money on it it has to be true right? Wrong. Yea, Great, Ask government funded schools on the record if they think evolution is correct. The government has an agenda, And those who disagree, Or fight it are discredited and silenced. Not because they have been proven wrong but because they are outnumbered, And people don't want to hear anything that will upset them or change the way they want to think.

I also never said that Mary Schweitzer was a young-earth scientist, But I did imply that dinosaurs co-existed with humans.
Her accidental discovery proved that we did.

If you believe that God created the earth, You also believe that he put everything in place to natural events such as a river erosion. Also the word theory is not used to describe a fact, The word fact is used to describe a fact. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, Especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. There is the definition of a theory.

Lets talk about some fossils. Homo erectus, Which is referred to as the most primitive human species. As the name implies, Homo erectus means "man who walks upright. " Here is the problem, There is no difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and Homo erectus.

The primary reason for evolutionists' defining Homo erectus as "primitive" is the cranial capacity of its skull, Which is smaller than the average modern man, And its thick eyebrow projections. However, There are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erecus, And other races have protruding eyebrows. It is a commonly agreed-upon fact that differences in cranial capacity do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organization of the brain, Rather than on its volume.

Australopithecus cannot be counted an ancestor of man has been accepted by evolutionists. The famous French popular scientific magazine Science et Vie made the subject the cover of its May 1999 issue. Under the headline "Adieu Lucy"-Lucy being the most important fossil example of the species Australopithecus afarensis-the magazine reported that apes of the species Australopithecus would have to be removed from the human family tree.

Here is the misconception about probably the most important of them all. The term Homo rudolfensis is the name given to a few fossil fragments unearthed in 1972. The species supposedly represented by this fossil was designated Homo rudolfensis because these fossil fragments were found in the vicinity of Lake Rudolf in Kenya. Most paleoanthropologists accept that these fossils do not belong to a distinct species, But that the creature called Homo rudolfensis is in fact indistinguishable from Homo habilis.

Richard Leakey, Who unearthed the fossils, Presented the skull designated KNM-ER 1470, Which he said was 2. 8 million years old, As the greatest discovery in the history of anthropology. According to Leakey, This creature, Which had a small cranial capacity like that of Australopithecus together with a face similar to that of present-day humans, Was the missing link between Australopithecus and humans. Yet, After a short while, It was realized that the human-like face of the KNM-ER 1470 skull, Which frequently appeared on the covers of scientific journals and popular science magazines, Was the result of the incorrect assembly of the skull fragments, Which may have been deliberate. Professor Tim Bromage, Who conducts studies on human facial anatomy, Brought this to light by the help of computer simulations in 1992. There is no family tree of man.

https://www. Darwinismrefuted. Com/origin_of_man_04. Html

The earth is no more than 8, 000 years old, I can't definitively prove that, The same as you can't prove that it's billions of years old. However, The findings of Mary Schweitzer prove at the very least that there is a huge flaw in at least one of their most reliable dating methods. The preferred method of dating dinosaur fossils is with the radiometric dating method. And the result of this accepted method dates dinosaur fossils to around 68 million years old.

However: Consider the C-14 decay rate. Its half-life (t1/2) is only 5, 730 years"that is, Every 5, 730 years, Half of it decays away. The theoretical limit for C-14 dating is 100, 000 years using AMS, But for practical purposes it is 45, 000 to 55, 000 years. If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, There should not be one atom of C-14 left in them. Yet there certainly was.

https://physics. Stackexchange. Com/questions/154588/is-it-a-problem-with-radiometric-dating-that-carbon-14-is-found-in-materials-dat

Dear audience, Evolution is absolutely false. I know you don't read the bible but not all who call themselves christians, Accurately represent God's word. The Pope is proof that Catholicism is completely false, Because, Though he claims to be infallible, Contradicts many of the bible's core principles. If you take anything away from reading this, The most important thing is this. Evolutionists, Are absurd to say that creationism is silly and is confusing and harmful to children, When they shove this THEORY down their throats and pretend that it's a fact. Again, It's maddening to read you complain about brainwashing children when that's exactly whats been happening since the government started regulating this garbage in schools
Debate Round No. 2
LoveRichardDawkins

Pro

My opponent is the reason why the purge of creationist pseudo-science from the science class is utterly non-negotiable. My opponent's argument switches from one moment of age-old philosophical assertions to another moment of outdated fringe pseudo-science.

I will respond coherently to both my opponent's massive misconceptions about evolution and their slap-dash attempt in finding unscrupulous creationist garbage to create some kind of patchwork ID argument. But before I do that I want to point out that I left my opponent some questions too. To be honest, I am frankly sick and tired of hearing, Every single time an evolution vs creationism debate is held, All that happens is that the creationist tries to simply poke holes in evolution. Every single time its the evolutionist who is expected to "defend" the "theory". This is not about evolution. It's about the lie of creationism. My opponent has tried as hard as they can to make this all about evolution and hide the unbelievable stupidity of creationism. I'm not accepting that. If they want to attack evolution then I will attack creationism.

Where is a single scientific study which shows evidence for young-earth creationism? Where is the evidence that the earth is less than 8000 years old? Where in genesis are dinosaurs mentioned? Why do we find trees which are older than you think the earth is? I hope that my opponent doesn't just ignore this like previously.

Then 1st ridiculous misconception that my opponent has is that they claim that "everything can't have been created by chance" Evolution says nothing of the kind. Natural selection is literally the opposite of chance. Gene mutations are random but the filter of genetic variation is literally the opposite. The mistake made by people who don't understand evolution is that they think that if anything appears to have speciated then it needs intelligence. NO it does not. Natural selection speciates organisms without intelligence because it's NATURAL intelligence. Then my opponent argued that even if we could accept that genes evolve where did they come from? Once again, It evolved; DNA evolved from RNA; natural processes can form DNA. All your doing is making blind and stupid assertions which can be explained by science; you choose to ignore those explanations because the problem seems to complicated to be explained naturally.

It's very telling when my opponent has to dig around the web so much to find anything to support their crazy position that they pull out a 48 year old study from a highly controversial astronomer (not biologist). Firstly, The origin of life is not the same as evolution. Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis. It merely states that organisms have genetic changes over time. To quote the New Scientist: "The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747, " astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe told a court in Arkansas in 1981, According a report in New Scientist (21 January 1982, P 140). His colleague Fred Hoyle made the tornado version of this claim famous " proving that even very clever people can utterly misunderstand evolution.

A somewhat better analogy would be starting with a million junkyards, Painstakingly testing the wreckage left in each one after the tornado to find the most flight worthy, Making a million exact copies of that junkyard, Unleashing another million tornadoes, Running another series of exhaustive tests, And so on, Until you produce some kind of machine " no matter how crude and un-Boeing-747-like " capable of flying at least a few yards. "

As a matter of fact abiogenesis has not been disproved and many scientists believe in it. Science is unsure and is working on it. Just because we don't know that doesn't mean we won't know. But this does not disprove evolution merely adds to the abiogenesis debate.

Next it turns out that my opponent is also a conspiracy theorist. Do you honestly believe that 99% of the scientific community has conspired to lie to the public along with the government that evolution is a fact? These discredited scientists have been discredited for a reason - they are wrong. What would the government's incentive to lie to use be anyway? Mike Pence is a known evolution sceptic and the Republican party is filled with creationists. Your claim of deliberate marginalisation of scientists just doesn't stand up. The theory that they have been discredited because their theories have been proven to be nonsense is a much more realistic one.

I am amazed that you seriously believe that her finding of soft tissue proves coexistence with dinosaurs. 1 finding? My opponent seems to have no grasp of what is scientific proof. 1 finding is nothing. And you even ignored my original response.
I gave you a recent study which explains her findings. It says that the soft-tissue was formed by modern bacterial processes and wasn't actually dinosaur tissue. Furthermore, Considering how many hundreds of ancient cave paintings we find around the world isn't it surprising that we don't see any pictures of dinosaurs anywhere, Despite the fact that you claim we coexisted?

To clarify: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, Based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Have you ever heard of gravitational theory or quantum theory? Since in your weird world of talking snakes and vegetarian dinosaurs, A scientific theory is equivalent to an ordinary theory, Then you should also be a gravity sceptic. (Maybe the government is faking gravity with a giant magnet beneath our feet! )

Homo Erectus has been proven to be a different species, Otherwise it would be called Homo Sapiens. Yes some people may look slightly more like different species but some leopards look like jaguars and some men may look like women or vice versa. That doesn't mean that men and women are the same nor does it mean that leopards are jaguars. Experts in palaeontology study this for a living and they conclude that Homo Erectus as a species is so morphologically different to Homo sapiens the they count as a different species. But that's not all. You then went on to claim that because 19 years ago a scientific magazine said Australopithecus must be removed from the family tree that means Australopithecus is not evidence of a transition fossil.

That is a complete lie. Are you copying a pasting this from Answers in Genesis by any chance? Australopithecus was removed from the Homo group of the Hominid family tree. That still makes it a Hominid species and it is still an ancient related species. The Smithsonian published a diagram of the Hominid family tree which shows Australopithecus as an ancient cousin with whom we share a common ancestor. "Australopithecus played a significant part in human evolution, The genus Homo being derived from Australopithecus at some time after three million years ago. In addition, They were the first hominids to possess certain genes, Known as the duplicated SRGAP2, Which increased the length and ability of neurons in the brain. One of the australopith species evolved into the genus Homo in Africa around two million years ago (e. G. Homo habilis), And eventually modern humans. "

http://humanorigins. Si. Edu/evidence/human-family-tree

The fact is that you have failed to provide any actual evidence other than quotes which hasn't been debunked or revised and that's why scientists remain convinced that Australopithecus is the ancestor of the Homo genus and proof of evolution. I want to see you find a scientific study with empirical evidence which disproves evolution.

I am still waiting for you to disprove Homo Habilis, Neanderthals, Ardipithecus, Homo heidelbergensis. . . The list goes on. Maybe because https://quantumpranx. Wordpress. Com/the-struggles-of-darwin/ ran out of content on the other ones?

Did you care to watch the Richard Dawkins video on the evolution of Cetaceans? There is some great transition fossil evidence.

Your'e right. You certainly can't prove the earth is no more than 8000 years old. But I can prove its 4. 5 billion years old. Yes, I know that Carbon dating is not always perfectly accurate. But that's why scientists don't just use carbon dating. I gave you a long list of lots of dating methods. Please try to disprove them all if you are going to say that. The fact is that creationists can't go beyond Carbon dating.

This site explains how I can prove the age of the earth is 4. 5 billion years old: https://geomaps. Wr. Usgs. Gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth. Html

Audience, My opponent blows a lot of smoke and hot air but none of what they have provided is scientific evidence. All they have done has attempted to poke holes at evolution and then claimed that that is proof of creationism. Remember, This is a person who believes we walked with dinosaurs. They want people like them to teach that in science classes. Would you want your children to be taught such things as scientifically true. 32doni32nido32 was absolutely right when they said that in the USA we separate church and state. This is the reason why. This is the indoctrination of children. Evolution is a fact not a theory. Science backs it up entirely. Creationism is still nonsense and has been for a while. I agree with asta too. We should be careful not to send contradicting messages to kids. That's why we need to teach about creationism separately to evolution in a religious knowledge class or a bible study class. But we must not teach kids lies and this is what my opponent has provided.

Vote for Truth. Vote for Pro.

On a side note to my opponent: if you were born in Saudi Arabia what religion would you be?
theobjectiveconservative

Con

I am showing real evidence and his is fake. Wow, I can do it too. Literally all you've done is say that every piece of evidence that I bring to light is fake and someone out there has proved it wrong. Clever. Would you mind proving even half of the things that come out of your mouth? Your references to science are almost always vague, And abstract.

If I'm being honest I really did not have to try very hard to find a hole in this theory of evolution, And I won't have to try very hard to defend his feeble attempt to discredit God's word, And the truth of creation. OK, Let's start at the top: Evidence for young-earth creationism. After the findings of Mary Schweitzer, We continue to dig up fossils and find soft tissue, Soft tissue with c-14. Proving that the earth can be no more than 8, 000 years old. Common bacterial activity? Have you ever heard of the grand canyon? Layers and layers of rock that were laid so quickly that single cell organisms are separated by hundreds of feet of rock. What about the works of Hoyle that I cited? Oh, Sorry, I forgot, This can't possibly be true because it's old, And he isn't a biologist, Looks like he killed that argument. OK. The Evidence that the earth is less than 8, 000 years old is cited above, Besides that I believe the bible, Which by the way, Even under intense scrutiny has yet to be proven false historically.
Job 40:15"19-15"Look now at the behemoth, Which I made along with you;

He eats grass like an ox.

16See now, His strength is in his hips,

And his power is in his stomach muscles.

17He moves his tail like a cedar;

The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.

18His bones are like beams of bronze,

His ribs like bars of iron.

19He is the first of the mways of God;

Only He who made him can bring near His sword.

In Genesis God created every living creature on the earth. Genesis 1:25 New
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, The livestock according to their kinds, And all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
You don't find trees older than 8, 000 years old, But please attempt to enlighten me. I never ignored any of these questions.

According to my opponent, Not only did natural intelligence evolve, But it evolved from RNA which can be formed by natural processes. Which still fails to answer where it comes from, Natural processes form DNA in our time. I'm asking you how could these processes have been the same before everything evolved? Even then, Where did THEY come from? How were the circumstances in place to create DNA when there was nothing?

Let me raise you a much more accurate analogy. A tornado appeared from nothing, Ran through nothing, And in no time, There was a Boeing 747. I can only imagine why you followed this analogy so far.

Also, Please cite your proof that I plagiarized anything, As you have accused me multiple times now. Thanks.

It's not a conspiracy theory, It's an observation that the government obviously has an agenda. I won't follow out because it doesn't have a whole lot to do with this debate, And you have already done such a terrific job debunking it. Clearly a vice president and a few people in the republican party are enough to obliterate that argument.

I believe that these findings that I have cited do indeed prove young-earth. The findings on those bones were much more substantial than alleged "bacterial activity". I believe that this statement was released as a cover up of the findings that Schweitzer stumbled upon. Yes, It would be unbelievable if there were no ancient pictures of dinosaurs, But there are several. Https://www. Genesispark. Com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient

Has Homo Erectus been proven to be a different species? Or is your proof just the fact that it's not called Homo Sapiens? Let me know, Because that's pretty pathetic.

In conclusion, All of my opponents "facts" and arguments are recycled evolutionist nonsense. His rebuttals are almost as pathetic at his attacks on creationism. I hope that all who read this pay close attention to his evasion of evidence. Evolution has spoiled the minds of many young Americans, Children who have grown up rejecting responsibility, Convinced that humans are the most intelligent and powerful beings in existence. So no, Evolution should not be taught as fact when it is not. Creationism on the other hand has been responsible for generations of modest, Hard working people. Realize finally, That at the very least, Creationism should not be thrown to the side so quickly when people like my opponent hold up this THEORY and pretend that its a fact.
Debate Round No. 3
LoveRichardDawkins

Pro

In this debate, My opponent has pursued one line of argument - to attack evolution. On the other hand, I have provided the audience with multiple convincing arguments such as the falsehood of creationism, The secular nature of the US constitution, The separation of church and state, The education of a correct scientific world view and the false intellectual equivalence of scientific fact and religious myth. The reality is that instead of defending the teaching of creationism in schools, My opponent took the bait and confined his position to trying to poke holes in evolution.

He has failed dramatically.

According to Pew research centre 97% of scientists view evolution as a scientific fact - quite a hefty majority. Neither me nor my opponent is a qualified scientist. In my closing, I will provide evidence for evolution but on a side note, I want to point out that neither of us are qualified to actually evaluate scientific evidence since we aren"t experts in that field of knowledge. It"s like two non-doctors debating what medical condition a patient has - utterly unreliable. In a law court, Judges who aren"t experts in the matter at hand judge based on the balance of expert opinion. That"s why scientists are brought in to give evidence in hearings concerning stuff like climate change. And the balance of expert opinion lies heavily on my side and not the other. On that basis, This debate is over before it"s even begun because anyone who knows anything about biology tells us that evolution is an undeniable fact.

In this debate I have provide concrete scientific evidence such as transition fossils from the Richard Dawkins foundation, Radiometric dating from the US government"s national parks geotimeline, Observable examples of evolution from Science Daily, Genetic evidence from renowned biologist Ken Miller, A refutal of your phony soft-tissue nonsense from the National Centre for Biochemistry and the human family tree from the Smithsonian national museum. Is that enough facts for you?

Then what did my opponent respond with? Refuted pseudo-scientific articles from discredit fringe scientists written decades ago. In other words, A joke of a response. It"s the MOST pathetic evidence I"ve seen in response to my up-to-date scientific studies and physical evidence from credited and renowned scientists backed by the vast majority of the scientific community.

My opponent also plagiarised a whole paragraph from the following website:
https://quantumpranx. Wordpress. Com/the-struggles-of-darwin/

Once again, The supposed "soft tissue" has been explained as the result of "common bacterial processes" and not actual dinosaur tissue. So, Your"e just wrong. Don"t even try to continue with it. It"s literally been completely debunked by more recent biology. And even if it wasn"t that one snippet of evidence couldn"t explain away the thousands of radiometric, Ice-core, Meteorological and tectonic studies which all independently put the age of the earth at 4. 5 billion years. Then my opponent hilariously uses the grand canyon claiming that it is evidence of a young earth. He claimed that single-celled organisms being separated by hundreds of layers of rock is evidence of those layer being played quickly. This is completely wrong. Why? For most of the timeline of life, Organisms have been single-celled. Single-celled organisms have existed for billions of years and thus it is no surprise that there are single-celled organisms separated by millions of years of rock in the grand canyon. It is not evidence that it was laid quickly merely that life has existed for a very long time.

My opponent then tries to use the bible - the nutter's last resort. The bible is a great work of literature and a great source of moral philosophy but it is NOT a source of scientific knowledge.

A 9000 year old tree:
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Old_Tjikko

As for the creation of DNA. I don't know. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life merely the nature of the natural world and how it came to be. There are multiple natural explanations for the origin of life. Plus, The materials needed to form DNA (which evolved) can be found naturally on earth. We have sufficient natural deposits of phosphates, Nitrates, Carbon, Water etc.

The analogy of the 747 is false. I'll provide a better analogy. Imagine a tornado racing through millions and millions of metal yards and then one of them forming a 747. That's how it works.

The scientific community considers homo erectus to be an extinct species of hominid. And even if it was a sub-species, That still doesn't devalue all the other fossils which I previously mentioned. Oh and by the way, You still haven't debunked every single ancient species of human so keep going.

https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Homo_erectus

In conclusion, My opponent's cherry-picked creationist articles from discredited scientists from decades ago define why creationism must be kept out of science classes. I ask my opponent: find me a single scientific study or experiment which proves creationism instead of creationist articles. My evidence is from credited sources and includes scientific studies based on real findings from the laboratory or the field.

Here are some live experiments proving evolution:
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolutionhttps://www
https://www. Sciencedaily. Com/releases/2008/04/080417112433. Him

Creationism is a dangerous lie and doesn't have a shred of evidence for it whatsoever. Whereas evolution has 97% of support for it alongside an ocean of undeniable facts. You don't have to believe in talking snakes, Magic fruit, Vegetarian crocodiles, 900 year-old humans and making people out of mud to believe in god. There is just as much evidence for the tooth fairy as there is for young-earth creation. Yet we wouldn't teach about the tooth-fairy or the easter bunny in science class would we?

Vote for reason, Science and truth. Evolution is a fact - creation - a lie.
Vote Pro
theobjectiveconservative

Con

In this debate, My opponent has made made many flippant, And ill informed stabs at me, And creationism. Most of his "convincing" arguments are vague, And obscure references to "science". I'll say this again, There is no way that we could have rationally debated the original topic. This is because your entire premise rested on creationism being a myth. It is not, It should be taught in schools right along with evolution. Creationism is the reality of the earth we live in today but is never treated as such. I will also say this again, Please pay attention this time, To disprove evolution is to prove creationism, Either the earth happened by accident, Or it didn't. Which is to say that if it did not evolve, Then it was created.

This statement about expert opinion is also total nonsense, Very few people, If any, On this site are "experts", Yet we debate. All that is really being said here is that google has more results for whatever he searches for. If you read his arguments, Very little is him debating, And the parts where he does, Are filled with assumptions and jabs at my intelligence simply because I believe that the earth was created. Professional evolutionists side with evolution, Imagine that, Give me a second to overcome that brutal slice of logic. Anyone who read these arguments closely will notice that whenever I give him evidence from experts, They are "psuedo-scientists". Again, This is horrible structure as far as debating goes, Or the word I find most fitting is vague.

I have proved that your transition fossils were pathetic and there is no family tree. I have also shown that these dating methods used by scientists are highly faulty, And altogether unreliable. These "facts" are as pathetic as your THEORY of evolution.

I did not plagiarize a paragraph from the website that he provided, I referenced a completely different website which I cited under said paragraph.

I understand that scientists have tried to cover up Mary Schweitzers findings, Because those alone destroy the theory of evolution. However, Scientists also extracted DNA from those fossils, DNA does not last millions of years. Also, Contrary to your belief, It does not create itself. Many of these fossils that are supposedly 70 millions years old are barely mineralized if at all. Also, Before I move forward, Let me educate you on how to debate. When an intelligent person debates they put proof behind their statements which you have rarely done. You should be talking about things like, What is the proof that these findings where the result of common bacterial process? Or, How have these ideas been debunked by more recent biology? I don't know if you know this, But the fact that your sources are more recent in no way proves my evidence to be false that's faulty logic.

Also contrary to what you have stated over and over, There is quite a bit of scientific evidence that backs creationism. What about Lazarus bacteria a bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old? Or the fact that there is very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world? Or the fact that experiments performed by "experts" show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, Oil, Coal, And opals all form quickly, Indicating that it does not need millions of years to develop. What about the fact that the amount of salt in the world's oldest lake contradicts its supposed age and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah's Flood, Which is consistent with a young age of the earth.

You literally asked me to find a verse about dinosaurs in the bible so I obliged, Nice try. The bible has yet to be proved historically wrong, So it remains more of a fact than your theory of evolution. Contrary to evolution the bible explains how the earth began not simply how it is today. Which brings us back to the question that no evolutionist can answer, Where did the very first thing that evolved come from? Where did it start? These simple questions expose how truly ridiculous this theory is. Evolutionists can't even tell you how their theory begins, How can you still claim that it is a fact? DON'T IGNORE THIS, WHERE DID PHOSPHATES, NITRATES, CARBON, OR WATER COM FROM THEN? WERE DID THE THINGS NECESSARY TO EVOLVE THESE THINGS COME FROM?

I don't need to disprove every transition fossil on the "family tree" to expose what a ridiculous structure it truly is, All it is, Is a collection of different species of animals that are lined up in a way that makes one seem more complicated than the other.

This tooth fairy analogy is a testimony to how weak my opponents structure really is, Great comparison, At least in the story of the easter bunny, We are told were it came from.

Creationism belongs in schools, To be taught as fact, The earth did not happen, It was created. Despite my opponents desperate and vague attempts to make the bible seem silly and nonsensical, The fact remains that even to one with an objective perspective of this situation, Creationism is far more likely.
Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by theobjectiveconservative 3 years ago
theobjectiveconservative
If the world didn't happen by accident, Then it was created. Name some alternative answers. My biggest problem with your arguments is your general, And at times vague references to scientific proof or evidence.
I never said that you were attacking christians, And I also made it clear that there is much difference in the beliefs of myself and the Pope, As there are between mine and yours. So I can't understand why you continue to bring up Catholicism and the beliefs of those who follow it as though it proves me wrong. Evolution is not a fact, And it never will be. Evolution delegitimises itself by being such a ridiculous theory to start, It certainly doesn't help that all you're really doing is waving your hands in the air and screaming science. I had no choice but to bring evolution into it, How can we debate about creationism being banned in schools if we don't both agree that evolution is a myth?
Posted by LoveRichardDawkins 3 years ago
LoveRichardDawkins
That"s a massive philosophical assumption that makes no sense. ID isn"t the only alternative to evolution. And I"m not attacking Christians I"m attacking creationism. They are different things. Most Christians aren"t creationist and most bishops and the pope believ in theistic evolution. But that doesn"t matter because there are no alternatives to evolution because evolution is a fact. Plus this debate is about creationism. You brought evolution into it. So how about you start answering for the ridiculous claims of creationism instead of doing a terrible and unscientific job of delegitimising a universally accepted fact?
Posted by theobjectiveconservative 3 years ago
theobjectiveconservative
I attack evolution because you have tried to make it seem as though evolution is a fact, And creationism should never be mentioned in the same sentence. By attacking evolution the goal is to show that evolution is just as stupid and whimsical as you say christianity is. Also to disprove evolution is to prove ID, Because if it didn't happen accidentally, Then some higher being must have created it.
Posted by theobjectiveconservative 3 years ago
theobjectiveconservative
Been busy, Sorry it took so long
Posted by Debater2018 3 years ago
Debater2018
Naturalistic Evolution is a theory. . . . . Not science. More accurately, It is a Philosophy. Stop spouting that it is true science and that I'D is fake science.

If you really want to know what Facist and Communistic propaganda looks and sounds like, Just type in Creationism or ID. One has to pass through a bunch of that secular garbage before a true site can be found. Is it any wonder why we have the kind of big business and Government mindset today that scoffs at truth and peddles 'alternative facts' in it's place. Our shorelines are being submerged more each year while they claim Environmentalists are appealing to ignorance when stating it has to do with Global
Warming.

If theobjectiveconservative does not follow up in this DEBATE, I definitely will challenge you to debate on this issue.
Posted by LoveRichardDawkins 3 years ago
LoveRichardDawkins
No it doesn't. It sends a message to kids that this is what some people believe but this is what is scientifically true.

But even if the messages are contradicting (which they aren't) so what? It would stimulate a discussion which might aid understanding or promote debate.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
But that would send contradicting messages to kids.
Posted by LoveRichardDawkins 3 years ago
LoveRichardDawkins
That is a scientifically illiterate fallacy. Yes we do have absolutely rock solid evidence for evolution. It is an irrefutable scientific fact and to not believe in it having seen the evidence is denial. Creationism is an allegorical metaphor for a religious message but is scientifically false. That"s why evolution is for the science class and creationism for the religious knowledge class.
Posted by Debater2018 3 years ago
Debater2018
No we don't have 'rock-sold. Evidence that Naturalistic nor Theistic evolution are true. Both Evolution and Creationism should be offered in schools since they both fall into the Realm of Philosophy
Posted by LoveRichardDawkins 3 years ago
LoveRichardDawkins
I agree but we do have rock solid evidence. Otherwise why would governments fund national museums teaching evolution. Just ask any scientific institution like a reputable university whether they think evolution is a fact. When expert professors in biology tell me evolution is a fact I believe evolution is a fact.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Anonymous 3 years ago
LoveRichardDawkinstheobjectiveconservativeTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made reasoned arguments and provided many good sources. Con reused the same arguments which pro rebutted well. Conduct is a tie - they both made stabs at each other Spelling and grammar was fine throughout - tie. Pro made more convincing arguments and didn't insist on using the same ones (the dinosaur tissue and "missing links") over again. Point to pro

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.