CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Well you bring up an interesting ideas, things which are complicated and could have many an explanation.
How were humans created?
It is different according to your viewpoint. Scientific proof shows that Humans came from early life-forms. So that would be evolution. Some people think that is indisputable proof that there is no god. I think it doesn't prove anything in that field. After all how do you know that a god of some sort didn't guide our evolutionary path? You can't, simple as that.
On another note if humans were created by god, as in just poof without prior beings, what would that suggest? I think it would suggest that humans are a tool being used for some purpose, why else would you create something? (Entertainment is a purpose).
Why are we on this planet?
Old-World creationists, Panspermiaists, and Atheists agree that the world was around for a very long time. They seperate as too why we are here on this planet, Non-Panspermia Atheists think that we are only here due to chance. Which is a very rare thing to occur, so we are lucky to even exist. Old-World creationists think that God made this world just so that humans would eventually come about due to the attributes god gave to the world. In short we are here because we of the conditions of the earth eventually rising about to humanity.
As for New-World creationists and Panspermiaists, life-forms were placed here by a higher power, which were either humans or one day would become humans. In short we were put here with intent of us to be here.
Which is true is currently impossible to prove, so it differs on your viewpoint on what is correct.
Some people think that is indisputable proof that there is no god. I think it doesn't prove anything in that field. After all how do you know that a god of some sort didn't guide our evolutionary path? You can't, simple as that.
They claim it is proof that god is not necessary to explain life.
Why give an unverifiable claim equal footing as science? We can't prove that reality isn't a dream, should that have equal standing too?
Which is true is currently impossible to prove, so it differs on your viewpoint on what is correct.
The evidence says that we live on an ancient Earth, and naturally formed upon. There really is no dispute, just denialism.
Why give an unverifiable claim equal footing as science? We can't prove that reality isn't a dream, should that have equal standing too?
1.) To avoid getting into an internet argument with the more zealous on this site, it just ends in disaster with no change in belief. If you are light on the person they can cooperate and put up less resistance to something that they don't agree with. Eventually leading into someones change in beliefs.
2.)Yes, yes we should. However we should focus on things that will lead to a better life rather than indefinites, dream or not a dream doesn't matter and hasn't influenced our lives tremendousness. Just like the origin of the human species, it is great knowledge to have, but doesn't influence regular life all that much.
The evidence says that we live on an ancient Earth, and naturally formed upon. There really is no dispute, just denialism.
Anywhere there is argument (well founded or not) there is dispute. Denialism is reserved for those who don't want the implications of the truth in their reality.
1.) To avoid getting into an internet argument with the more zealous on this site, it just ends in disaster with no change in belief. If you are light on the person they can cooperate and put up less resistance to something that they don't agree with. Eventually leading into someones change in beliefs.
I'm not worried about changing beliefs. I learned a long time ago that it is impossible on these topics because one side is rational, capable of being swayed and the other just wants to believe because it feels good.
2.)Yes, yes we should. However we should focus on things that will lead to a better life rather than indefinites, dream or not a dream doesn't matter and hasn't influenced our lives tremendousness. Just like the origin of the human species, it is great knowledge to have, but doesn't influence regular life all that much.
That's not what this discussion is about, however. This discussion is about the veracity of claims.
Anywhere there is argument (well founded or not) there is dispute.
The facts of the matter are unambiguous and the dispute is between those who want to believe fantasy because it feels good and those who accept the facts. This is not a dispute in the sense of being meritorious or defensible.
Denialism is reserved for those who don't want the implications of the truth in their reality.
That's not what this discussion is about, however. This discussion is about the veracity of claims.
Accuracy and truth are subjective, it differs from person to person. Facts however...
The facts of the matter are unambiguous and the dispute is between those who want to believe fantasy because it feels good and those who accept the facts. This is not a dispute in the sense of being meritorious or defensible.
First, the facts we know are highly likely to be changed someday with better evidence. While it may be more accurate than whatever Creationists say, it most likely isn't the complete truth. However that is meaningless in the context of this debate. Second, I was just pointing out that there is a dispute.
Exactly my thought.
Apparently we only differ in the amount of force used in order to make a point.
Why give an unverifiable claim equal footing as science?
But it is being given equal footing. Evolution--fish to philosophers--is unverifiable. Even if it did happen, it won't happen the same way again, right? The only way to know it did happen is to go back in time and observe things. As this is impossible, the only other option would be to wait a few million years with great records and see if it's still happening.
As we haven't done that, either, we haven't proved anything. We've proved Natural Selection, we've proved that mutations can sometimes be beneficial, and we've proved that mutations have the ability to make some changes to animals. But we haven't observed any particles-to-people evolution, and we cannot do so. Thus, evolution is an unverifiable claim (albeit one agreed upon my most scientists). But evolution is given "equal footing as science".
-----
Science consists of observing, predicting, testing, observing, refining, predicting, testing, etc. That's how we got our current planetary motion equations, our taxonomy of life, our chemical information, and all that. But this cannot be applied to full-scale evolution. But, for the sake of argument, let's try:
observe--We see bones. They appear to come from animals no longer living today. It seems that there are transitional forms from some to others.
predict--We predict that further digging will produce more transitional fossils. We predict that life has evolved over vast amounts of time.
test--.......Oh....... yeah. Um..... Hmmmm. [tap finger on chin]. Anyway.....
observe-- et cetera.
Evolution is a historical science, based off of things we cannot replicate in lab scenarios. Sure, we can show that there might have been naturally-occurring organic stuff a few billion years ago, and that might have come together into something that possibly self-replicates, but we can't actually test that.
Of course it is. We track this progression through the fossil record, through the distribution of ERVS and their inheritance in species, through protein homology, body morphology, and many more subtle clues.
It's all there, and it paints an incontrovertible picture.
Even if it did happen, it won't happen the same way again, right? The only way to know it did happen is to go back in time and observe things. As this is impossible, the only other option would be to wait a few million years with great records and see if it's still happening.
Or run experiments in laboratories that test evolutionary mechanism, like Lenski's E. coli experiments, or the taming of Silver Foxes in a Russian facility. Or we can simply observe the evolution which we have carried out in the last nine thousand years. We turned a grass into corn, a weed into broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, kale, etc. We turned the mighty ox into the milk cow, the wolf into a chihuahua. We've made Polish and Silkies from wild Gallus.
As we haven't done that, either, we haven't proved anything.
The most damning evidence is the genomic evidence. Such as this article which I keep linking, but no one seems to care about:
We've proved Natural Selection, we've proved that mutations can sometimes be beneficial, and we've proved that mutations have the ability to make some changes to animals.
As mentioned earlier.
But we haven't observed any particles-to-people evolution, and we cannot do so.
You don't have to. Just as you don't need to see atoms to know that they exist. You use indirect evidence, like those ERVS I mentioned earlier.
Thus, evolution is an unverifiable claim (albeit one agreed upon my most scientists). But evolution is given "equal footing as science".
Evolution is on equal footing because it follows the methodology of science, and is revealed by the evidence.
observe--We see bones. They appear to come from animals no longer living today. It seems that there are transitional forms from some to others.
predict--We predict that further digging will produce more transitional fossils. We predict that life has evolved over vast amounts of time.
test--.......Oh....... yeah. Um..... Hmmmm. [tap finger on chin]. Anyway.....
observe-- et cetera.
How it actually works is:
Theory Paraphrased: "Evolution by natural selection posits that random mutations selected by environmental factors, along with divergent populations, which grow further apart as time progresses, leads to greater variation as each population continues to diverge into child populations. Heredity spreads these mutations from successful organisms into their children, thus ensuring a culling mechanism for negative mutations and thriftiness. Child populations will always retain the traits of their parents, even if deactivated. Competition for resources drives many of these species extinct, but enough survive overall that life itself survives and repeats the cycle."
Prediction: "Traits from extinct species should still exist in extant descendants."
Test: Comparative anatomy, protein homologues, similarity in genes, etc. confirm this prediction.
Prediction: "Fossils should show a marked transition from older to younger, and a progression from simple to complex."
Test: Transitional forms have been found of many lineages, from whales, to horses, to primates. The oldest fossils are the least complex, and they grow in complexity as the millions of years pass.
Evolution is a historical science, based off of things we cannot replicate in lab scenarios. Sure, we can show that there might have been naturally-occurring organic stuff a few billion years ago, and that might have come together into something that possibly self-replicates, but we can't actually test that.
We test it every time we find a fossil, every time we sequence a genome. If fossilised grass was found that was from the Silurian period, we'd be in pretty big trouble. Likewise if a human genome was sequenced and found to contain modern reptilian traits, it would contradict evolution.
Let's take the example of a car moving down a road without any other cars on that road. Is the car moving forward or is the car staying stationary and the road moving under it?
Let's take another example, if the tree falls in a woods with no one around does make a sound?
Let's take the example of a car moving down a road without any other cars on that road. Is the car moving forward or is the car staying stationary and the road moving under it?
Both are moving, because the Earth moves in space and the car moves upon the Earth.
Let's take another example, if the tree falls in a woods with no one around does make a sound?
Yes. No person hears it, however, so it isn't perceived.
God or evolution, did we evolve?
I'm sure you already know the answer: we evolved. God is an answer from ignorance.
Your authority is science and blindly do you follow it.
Science isn't an authority, it is a process. Try it some time and you won't find yourself quoting intelligent people in hopes that their authority rubs off onto you.
Somehow you, aveskde is a power greater than science or God. Science will never rule out any possibilities and yet you do. Nothing is 100% and yet you claim there is no God. How does one become smarter than the journals one reads?
"Faith is not contrary to reason, faith is reason grown courageous."
Sherwood Eddy
A coward is one that cannot stand on their own. I have researched all the information and state my faith upon the facts. Science hasn't explained the existence of mankind completely and without much debate. Facts are not presented only theories. Organized religion has many flaws as well. The reason my faith is not based upon theories or religions, but upon my own findings.
Somehow you, aveskde is a power greater than science or God. Science will never rule out any possibilities and yet you do. Nothing is 100% and yet you claim there is no God. How does one become smarter than the journals one reads?
There is no need for a god in this universe, there is no evidence of one, and at the very least one has never been made to manifest itself before us. I think that more than qualifies it as imaginary.
"Faith is not contrary to reason, faith is reason grown courageous."
Sherwood Eddy
Faith is belief in something in spite of lack of evidence or contrary evidence. It is the antithesis of reason.
A coward is one that cannot stand on their own. I have researched all the information and state my faith upon the facts. Science hasn't explained the existence of mankind completely and without much debate. Facts are not presented only theories. Organized religion has many flaws as well. The reason my faith is not based upon theories or religions, but upon my own findings.
Faith cannot have evidence, otherwise it is knowledge. Faith is defined to be that which has no evidence but is believed in regardless.
"Your authority is science and blindly do you follow it."
It appears that your authority is religion, and blindly do you follow it.
The primary difference is that while science regularly changes its assertions to fit the evidence, many religious people change the evidence to fit their assertions.
My authority is neither religion or science, I follow my heart.
"The primary difference is that while science regularly changes its assertions to fit the evidence, many religious people change the evidence to fit their assertions."
Taken directly from the atheist manifesto, I'd be proud to do no thinking on your own. All atheist deem themselves as the only ones capable of doing critical thinking, a myth. Atheist need to take a good hard look at the facts and not make them up to fit their religion.
"My authority is neither religion or science, I follow my heart."
Without some methodology to provide a basis for comparison, will you ever know if your heart leads you astray?
"Taken directly from the atheist manifesto, I'd be proud to do no thinking on your own."
Your wording is confusing. But assuming I understand your point, here is my response: Both atheists and theists may come to their conclusion based on personal experience or due to the words of others, or both. In this regard, there is no dichotomy between the two, simply different end conclusions.
"All atheist deem themselves as the only ones capable of doing critical thinking, a myth."
The only mythology you just identified can be found just prior to the last two words of your sentence.
"Atheist need to take a good hard look at the facts and not make them up to fit their religion."
A- most do. Hence explaining why many atheists came from and later rejected religious upbringings.
B- Saying atheism is religion is like saying vegetarians love a good steak.
My authority is neither religion or science, I follow my heart.
That is why you are so wrong half of the time.
Taken directly from the atheist manifesto, I'd be proud to do no thinking on your own. All atheist deem themselves as the only ones capable of doing critical thinking, a myth. Atheist need to take a good hard look at the facts and not make them up to fit their religion.
I'm here not argue about facts, but to argue about those things which are not facts.
Stupidity is arguing the sun set somewhere besides the west. Stupidity is arguing that night doesn't include darkness. Stupidity is arguing that fire will not burn you. I refute only those things that are refutable. If you insist on being stupid, go ahead.
To post this once, not an ounce of good it will do. Posting it twice, may register in the space between your ears.
I'm here not argue about facts, but to argue about those things which are not facts.
If that is your intent, why post on a debate about the origin of humans? This is a very scientific, factual topic.
Stupidity is arguing the sun set somewhere besides the west. Stupidity is arguing that night doesn't include darkness. Stupidity is arguing that fire will not burn you. I refute only those things that are refutable. If you insist on being stupid, go ahead.
Then you shouldn't be on this debate. Stupidity is arguing that an invisible magical being created man, and hid the evidence that he did so.
I'm here not argue about facts, but to argue about those things which are not facts.
Stupidity is arguing the sun set somewhere besides the west. Stupidity is arguing that night doesn't include darkness. Stupidity is arguing that fire will not burn you. I refute only those things that are refutable. If you insist on being stupid, go ahead.
Ignorance is stating something as fact that you cannot prove. I only state my belief. You say you have none, but preach on anyway.
Just because you do not know how it could be proven, does not mean it isn't provable. I also never claimed to have no beliefs. I said that atheism isn't a belief.
As I stated before, I have my beliefs and you have yours. Even if you refuse to admit them. What you claim doesn't change the fact that atheism is a belief.
As I stated before, I have my beliefs and you have yours. Even if you refuse to admit them. What you claim doesn't change the fact that atheism is a belief.
Do I believe in god? No. Therefore it is an absence of belief.
Richard Sternberg helped publish a peer-reviewed scientific paper that advocated Intelligent Design. As he really did go through the steps, and the peers really did review it, you can come up with two results:
1) Peer review isn't worth anything and is just a stupid formality
2) There really is evidence against evolution, and it just isn't published because bad things happen to those who publish contrary evidence.
Either way, evolution looses. They cite 'peer reviewed' as being sent from the gods of science, but if a paper passes that carries the supposedly non-existent evidence for God, then what? Either the system is broken, or the evidence was real.
Peer review isn't worth anything and is just a stupid formality
There really is evidence against evolution, and it just isn't published because bad things happen to those who publish contrary evidence.
If you truly examine the rise of modern science, you will discover that the most famous scientists in all of history are those who have overturned long-held beliefs.
Either way, evolution looses. They cite 'peer reviewed' as being sent from the gods of science,
Who is 'they'?
but if a paper passes that carries the supposedly non-existent evidence for God, then what? Either the system is broken, or the evidence was real.
Your primary complaint is that current scientific understanding contradicts your beliefs in the divine, although this is not the intention or purpose of scientific discoveries.
Science cannot either prove or disprove God. The existence of God is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. God is not made of any recognizable particles, he/it does not obey the laws of physics, nor can he be measured. All you can ever do, is presume he is the cause behind any recoded phenomena.
If you truly examine the rise of modern science, you will discover that the most famous scientists in all of history are those who have overturned long-held beliefs.
I do not dispute this.
Who is 'they'?
They is the scientific community.
Science cannot either prove or disprove God. The existence of God is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. God is not made of any recognizable particles, he/it does not obey the laws of physics, nor can he be measured. All you can ever do, is presume he is the cause behind any recoded phenomena.
Yes you did. You said bad things happen to scientists who publish contrary evidence. This simply isn't true. Scientists would jump at a chance to make a name for themselves by overturning a long-held conception.
Many thing about evolution have been challenged and overturned, but as a whole, the theory remains quite strong. If there was strong scientific evidence against evolutionary theory it would have been presented.
Or 3) Sternberger did not follow proper peer review protocol and instead published a paper without having it reviewed by anyone else, presumably with selfish motivation of having ID unfairly represented in an academic magazine.
"The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings..."
Or 3) Sternberger did not follow proper peer review protocol and instead published a paper without having it reviewed by anyone else, presumably with selfish motivation of having ID unfairly represented in an academic magazine.
Or, instead of reading what other people had to say about it, you could read what Sternberg himself said:
"The Meyer paper underwent a standard peer review process by three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions. The reviewers provided substantial criticism and feedback to Dr. Meyer, who then made significant changes to the paper in response. Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]."
All throughout history science has been unwilling to change. The Greeks killed a man who proposed the idea of irrational numbers (pi, at the time, was 22/7). Heliocentric theory suffered from intense (persecution? doesn't sound right, but I'll go with it) before it was accepted. Heavier-than-air flight was considered impossible and a dead-end area. Math showed that the acceleration required to get to 60 miles per hour would kill people.
And now, when contrary evidence comes to the light, people quickly condemn its validity, the equivalent of sticking fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALALALALALALA" so you don't hear it.
Then it is Sternberg's word verses the word of everyone else at the Proceedings magazine, and other critics. Sternberg has refused to cite the identities of the alleged peer reviewers, and while I do not think dishonesty is the only possible motive for that, it certainly does not help, as one of the criticisms leveled at him is that the paper contains information unlikely to be approved by actual scientists qualified in the relevant fields.
All throughout history science has been unwilling to change.
Some people may be unwilling to change, but modern science is not, and in fact it is changing all the time. The science of today is built on self-correction, and advocates adherence to truth over self-interest. Reputations are built on honesty, and destroyed by even a suggestion of fraudulence.
And now, when contrary evidence comes to the light, people quickly condemn its validity, the equivalent of sticking fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALALALALALALA" so you don't hear it.
Oddly enough, this is basically what I have seen you do with all the evidence against creationism since you joined, and indeed what creationists in general must do in order to preserve their beliefs.
If evidence is actually valid, no matter what that evidence appears to support or debunk, it will be embraced. Not by everyone, not immediately, but certainly not by no one. Science finds the truth in the end; just look at all of your examples, and evolution itself as well. They may have been opposed at first, even with violence, but eventually, the evidence led them to be accepted as valid.
You assume that 'contrary evidence' is dispatched because of an unwillingness to believe it, not because it is invalid. Creationist arguments are not ignored; much time has gone into detailed deconstructions of basically all of them.
it is Sternberger's word verses the word of everyone else at the Proceedings magazine, and other critics
If you felt that your journal would loose respectability, you would probably deny anything to do with the article. It would even help if the entire scientific community hated the article as well.
As for the article, it was based on the mathematics of probability. Ignoring that would be like ignoring all things logical. Math is the only universal truth in the universe.
Sternberger has refused to cite the identities of the alleged peer reviewers
If you can get into trouble for publishing a paper, you can get into trouble for reviewing it. Sternberg is not only protecting their identities, but their jobs.
"If you can get into trouble for publishing a paper, you can get into trouble for reviewing it."
Waitaminute! Didn't you just claim that Sternberg said this:
"Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]."
6 years have passed, the Council supposedly supports the decision, and still Sternberg is keeping them anonymous. Also, although Sternberg received criticism (not exactly unusual for a scientist, particularly one going against the grain), he didn't get in trouble. He had already resigned from the journal prior to the controversy, and is still happily doing research at the Smithsonian.
If you felt that your journal would loose respectability, you would probably deny anything to do with the article. It would even help if the entire scientific community hated the article as well.
You are essentially claiming that everyone at the magazine is involved in a conspiracy to silence Sternberg, without offering any evidence to this effect. Academic articles do not have to support popular theories; they merely have to be sound. You cannot simply dismiss everything contrary to the dissemination of creationist information as a cover-up scheme engineered by people who are afraid it might be true.
If I thought that conjecture concerning motivation was proper evidence, I would say that if you felt your credibility would be completely destroyed if you admitted to being the sole reviewer of a poorly constructed article, you would probably deny that you were the only reviewer, too.
As for the article, math or not, it has not met a favorable response in the scientific community, and numerous reviews have dismantled its supposed conclusions. Here is just one:
Meyer's paper appears to amount to nothing more than a standard defense of ID, composed largely of tired arguments from incredulity and misleading or false information. I am disappointed that someone who calls himself a scientist would resort to such measures.
As for the article, it was based on the mathematics of probability. Ignoring that would be like ignoring all things logical. Math is the only universal truth in the universe.
Which is very easy to construct into a strawman of evolution. This isn't a new revelation.
"Richard Sternberg helped publish a peer-reviewed scientific paper that advocated Intelligent Design. As he really did go through the steps, and the peers really did review it..."
He did not submit the paper to an associate editor. The journal's rules clearly prohibit that, and as Managing Editor, Sternberg would know this better than anybody. Sternberg was the peer review process. Violating the publishing standards without the consent of the journal's executive board (he did not even inform them) is not a normal step in the peer review process.
Due to the flagrant abuse of his position (which he had resigned from prior to the paper's publishing), the journal did not publish rebuttals. Rebuttals are a normal part of the peer review process.
Also, one severely improperly published paper out of the thousands that come out every year is hardly a sign of failure of the peer review process.
Edit: I am reading the article right now, and temporarily rescinding some prior claims I made until I finish or permanently removing them if I am wrong. I may have spoken hastily of improper research I made.
Richard Sternberg helped publish a peer-reviewed scientific paper that advocated Intelligent Design. As he really did go through the steps, and the peers really did review it, you can come up with two results:
1) Peer review isn't worth anything and is just a stupid formality
2) There really is evidence against evolution, and it just isn't published because bad things happen to those who publish contrary evidence.
Actually, neither are correct. Peer-review works to correct wrong research conclusions and refine our theory. Evolution has no evidence against it, but instead has a lobby against it, because it is a solid theory which contributes to the undermining of religious authority. Religious authorities want people to believe in creationism and magic, as it helps unite them in ignorance and superstition.
Either way, evolution looses. They cite 'peer reviewed' as being sent from the gods of science, but if a paper passes that carries the supposedly non-existent evidence for God, then what? Either the system is broken, or the evidence was real.
As it should be clear to you by now, there can be no evidence for god. The concept of evidence for god is incongruous because god is defined to be above natural law, and thus cannot be tested by scientific methodology.
Intelligent Design on the other hand is yet another attempt to hijack science and replace it with religion. Think of it as a lobby for the return to the dark ages.
