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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Religion breeds ignorance and impedes progress
The majority of people accept Evolution as fact as the evidence in support is overwhelming, I came across this interesting piece from the pew research center it makes for rather sad reading .....
Wow , going on the posts from the Christians that waded in the case is damning proving certainly on CD the naked hatred This group of so called Christians display to anyone who chooses a different path , anyone that was banned was banned for brute ignorance and a failure to debate the topic
Of all the major religious groups in the U.S., evangelical Protestants are among the most likely to reject evolution. According to the Center’s Religious Landscape Study, a solid majority (57%) of evangelicals say humans and other living things have always existed in their present form. (About half of Mormons and roughly three-quarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses also reject evolution.) These views are largely mirrored by the positions of large evangelical churches, as well as, in many cases, by majorities of their members. For instance, majorities of those who affiliate with the Southern Baptist Convention (58%) and the Seventh-day Adventist church (67%) reject the idea that human beings evolved over time. By contrast, much smaller minorities of mainline Protestants (30%), Catholics (29%), Jews (16%) and the religiously unaffiliated (15%) share this view.
If there's one thing I learned when I studied history it's that Christianity hindered medicinal development massively. This was because they were in power and they didn't like the necessary research methods. So we only got breakthroughs when people did it secretly. We could have had a cure for cancer by now. This was during the dark ages and then the time after that (cannot remember it's name at this time).
It is likely they will hinder evolution research until it eventually gets through to them that it's a thing. Of course they don't have the power they once had, which is good.
You're right they do not yield the same power as they once held even as a child the Catholic Church in my country had a say in absolutely everything and their power and influence affected everyone ; thankfully they are now like a toothless dog as the people no longer put up their nonsense .
The middle ages (duh), I remember now. Their reason being they didn't like people dissecting dead human bodies, which is why the first advances in medicine were wrong due to them being based around a pigs anatomy. This was performed by Galen, a Roman.
Atheists never started any hospitals nor schools. Why? Because atheists are ignorant and have to be told what to do, because their cranial brain functionality is impaired
What do you mean ' started ' ? Atheists are ignorant and have to be told what to do , really ? what a childish outburst and you think atheists are brain damaged ?
What's really hilarious is you come on site and spew your bile and call yourself Christian , you're a hypocrite and too cowardly to present a decent argument so go the same route as the other hate filled christians on this debate .
Sorry, but if the water is too hot, pour in some ice. Studies have shown that atheism is a mental illness. Nope, I said brain functionality impaired. Oh, so you think Chrisitan are supposed to accept yojr bike nonsense and you think that we should treat you like a child and just accept your rants and spewings.
Yeah, sorry, I forgot to make an unsubstantiated claim that the theory of evolution was a fact. Yeah, in fact, it is a theory but not even a scientific theory. The issue is your inability to debate evolution.
If you think you have learned this and studied evolution, thrn debate it without trying to insert some lame authority figures.
What an ignorant troll you are , Evolution is accepted by all as a fact except by your type of numbskull of which America seems to have a fair few , you say it's not even a scientific theory proving how idiotic you truly are , even Jesus would dislike you
Nearly everyone? So, you think the minority whites in Europe are everyone. No, I am talking about the Christian origin of schools and hospitals in the U.S. The fact that Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Vanderbilt, Cambridge, Notre Dame, BUT, Oral Roberts and over 1,000 universities were founded by religious institutions.
No one said it better than James Madison: "Religious bondage shackles the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."
Carl Sagan said: "It is better to grasp the Universe as it really is, than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Evolution is a fact of the Universe, to argue against it is delusion.
Why don't you ask people what they believe instead of telling them what you think they believe ?
It's amusing to think your worldview is informed by the 10 commandments which were dictated to Moses by a voice emanating from a whirlwind and you call atheists stupid 🤔
No, they believe that rocks and dirt suddenly had a conscious awareness and did not like be immovable so they consciously decided to spend billions of years evolving. Not their their sake, but so that the atheists might live today.
"Studies" are done by anyone that wants to do them. That "study" (I doubt there were more than one), was, I'm sure, done by one who had a "mental illness" that would have led him/her to that conclusion WITHOUT a "study". A "preexisting condition", if you will. I think you will find that few Atheists feel they are "suffering", .....unless they have some "God given illness". ....;-)
It does, in many cases. But only to those who don't value progress all that much. Beyond that...paying more attention to certain things "breeds" ignorance of other things. No one is immune from that.
Maybe it's not that they don't value progress but they just see progress in a different way , one can think of many examples both historically and recently as in stem cell research where religious thinking attempts to impede progress .
The majority of religions are regressive and divisive I've yet to hear any decent argument demonstrating how religions are progressive and inclusive .
A sizeable amount of the worlds population are Muslim and their particular set of Bronze Age beliefs has done tremendous damage in impeding Muslim scholars and enlightened individuals in Muslim dominated countries .
Not everyones version of progress is desireable to others. Not every evolutionary adaptation is guaranteed to improve our condition. Whose vision of progress should these "religious" people you think are so stupid buy into?
i didn't say it was but that's not addressing what I asked
Talking about different peoples versions of desireable progress is SO on point.
you seem to have an axe to grind , where did i state Christians were stupid ?
Do you, or do you not think that "being religious" is a mark of human stupidity? I dont want to misrepresent you. But I can show you what leads me to believe you do. I'd rather dig in to the subject of which ideas of progress ought to be rejected/adopted
I stated religions by nature are regressive and divisive so have you a counter or not ?
They have their own version of desireable progress, and dont find the others on offer more appealing.
I would appreciate if you didn't tell me what you think I said as opposed to making something up
If I misrepresent you, you may simply clarify. Do you think religious people as a class are less intelligent than non-religious people? If you answer yes, then I have not misrepresented you
No I do not , I'm married to a Christian and I've debated with some very well read Christians on CD and enjoyed it .
My one rule always in CD is if you throw a punch your going to get one back and unfortunately on CD there are fair amount of incredibly stupid Christians who never address any topic but instead sling mud ,I'm Unmerciful with these trolls as can be evidenced on this debate .
So feel free to post up your evidence for claiming I said religion is a mark of human stupidity and then show me where I said as a class they are less intelligent
Being regressive and ignorant are presented in your debate title as being caused by being religious. If thats not enough for me to make the assumption that you view being religious as a less intelligent choice...my bad
If I could have restrained myself we might have had an interesting discussion.
In fairness I posted up the topic with a yes /no section hoping for fruitful debate , I quote directly from the Pew research centre stats which to me were pretty shocking .
I'm sick and tired of people picking and looking for fights when all I want to do is debate fairly , it's a great pity , anyway I bear you no ill feelings .
Sad truth is that in order to get any response at all we have to frame our debates as attacks. You have to provoke an emotional response and hope for a transition to nuanced, well reasoned engagement which is the rare thing I presume we are both after.
It would be great to have real debate about meaningful
subjects with like minded people , I tried quora for a while as it has a fair proportion of very well read and competent debaters but it's gone terribly slow of late so I don't visit much .
Do you mean the evolutionary adaption of two ears to three, or two eyes to three, or arms to wings. Wait, that has never happened. No, you call God-given thinking evolution. You all are so desperate for evolution thst you call progress that has been fostered mostly by religious countries, your version of evolution.
Oh yeah, like atheism and homosexuality are inclusive and not divisiveness. Grown a better argument. Also, if you think that rejection of evolution theory is your basis, then present evolution facts or even tested and verified theories. It is not that religious people do not accept evolution, it is that religious people are intelligent enough to accept science since science is a religious discipline. Evolution theory rejects all scientific principles.
Progess? England, Italy, Spain, France, India, and the United States, all have religious basis and all have progressed. Like the US, we started as a Christian nation and formed a Christian constitution, and now we are the most powerful nation ever known. A Chrisitan majority. Perhaps, the ignorance lies in the atheist nations who keep peddling backwards.
Rome, in ITS day was as powerful as we are today, they controlled more of the world than WE ever have. The Mongol and Ottoman Empires were also powerful. None of them were Christian. WE, are only ONE of the countries in the world with the capability to destroy civilization. "Power" is a relative thing. Ignorance lies in the idea that ANY "god" will protect U.S. from ourselves!
OUR FOUNDING FATHERS made it "perfectly clear" (If I can be Trumpian about it), that WE WERE NOT, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. I hate to burst your bubble but, THAT is NOT an "alternate fact"! When we take the oath of office, MOST place their hand on the Bible and swear to "uphold the Constitution", we do NOT place our hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible! (THAT would be "peddling backwards"). Also, it would be JUST as legal to be sworn in ON the Constitution, as Teddy Roosevelt was, INSTEAD of the Bible.
The founding fathers did not exclude the word Christianity from the Constitution by mistake, they did not exclude the Christian God from it by mistake, they did it, as James Monroe stated: "...to keep, forever from these shores, the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." Obviously, they have only been partially successful in that endeavor. Christians are constantly trying to take over the country against the founders wishes.
It has always been religious countries that have advanced and progressed. Often atjjiests are ignorant because they do not wish to admit that their basic premise is flawed.
Italy is a Christian country, some 88 per cent of the population belonging to the Roman Catholic church, although only around a third of these regard themselves as 'active' in religious terms.
Did you notice Darwin ever said anything about the religion of it's home country or ever refer to the heading of the post as it applies to Italy ?
Identity Theft I believe is the Basis of Religion ignorance and impedeeding progress . People Take on The Roles, Identity and Persona of the Characters of The Bible. While Missing The point of the Manuscripts and What is MEANING in their Content.
Let's start with the readily apparent: Darwinian Evolution, being a scientific hypothesis, is incapable of being rationally regarded as irrefutable fact. It follows, then, that anyone believing it to be such holds an irrational belief, and either doesn't understand the scientific method or chooses to ignore it.
Further, the fundamental premise of this debate is flawed: it assumes that, because a good many religious persons reject Darwinian Evolution, that they also reject the entirety of science (thereby being ignorant and, apparently, impeding scientific progress), the implication being that rejecting a particular scientific hypothesis is equivalent to rejecting science as a whole. As one learns when being taught the basics of science, this is absurd; a scientific hypothesis can be rejected for a multitude of reasons (such as insufficient supporting data or significant data to the contrary), and in doing so, one makes no statement whatsoever about science as a whole; in other words, science is not doctrinal.
Even if the above were entirely false, the argument presented in the OP is fundamentally flawed: on top of the aforementioned issues, it implies that acceptance of Darwinian Evolution is the cornerstone of all science, a self-evident absurdity.
Unfortunately, pointing this all out yet again will, in all likelihood, prove ultimately fruitless. Assuming the original poster responds, I expect more of the same circular reasoning built on baseless assumptions.
Claiming biology to be entirely based on Darwinian Evolution is absurd. The only relevance the latter has to the former is an explanation of origin; it's not a prerequisite for anything relating to the actual study, particularly in regards to medicine, other than possibly history.
Even if some magical correlation does exist between Darwinian Evolution and medicine, it still doesn't imply causation; the two are not equivalent.
WHAT? No one some accept evolution, because your argument is nonsense. The study of biology and human biology have no connection to evolution, but evolution theorists have tried to use it as a crutch to stand on.
The are two parts to evolution: one things are evolving and two things started evolving 14 billion years ago. That means thst the theory is that non-biological matter evolved into biological matter, which is not biology. Also, with songularites, mcromechanism, black holes, and space time vs earth time, there is a huge hole in the theory of a 14 billion year evolution process.
You have it backwards. Evolution tries to use biology. They jse four legged animals, fish, birds, rats and try to find a common core. It is carbon, oxygen and the earth. We all belong to the earth dust family.
Evolution is not a hypothesis and who mentioned irrefutable fact ?
Here is a little piece from new scientist ,
Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
No , I never stated what you claim as in if one rejects Evolution one also rejects the entireity of science so why are you lying ?
The stats I posted are from PEW research center and demonstrate the ignorance I speak of .
Yet again more lies where did I say the acceptance of Darwinian Evolution is the cornerstone of science ?
Assuming I respond ?
That's funny considering our last encounter where you claimed that the scientific community refused to acknowledge or give a fair hearing to creationist rebuttals of Evolutionary theory ; I think you will find the circular reasoning will be entirely yours as deliberately lying to make your position seem justified has not worked either .
Feel free to post up,your usual counters from answers in genesis or have you a new source ?
What is funny is that you present evolution as a fact and what you believe, thrn you only post what others believe. You dance around fact and theory, and accept their defense as a fact. A fact is a fact, it does not morph into another thing because evolutionist wish to claim it. When we ask for science evidence and fact, we are not asking for the opinions and defenses of scientist's. We want the studies, the scientific process and the peer review.
Evolution is mythology and not even a hypothesis. You are unaware of the origin. Evlltuionmuputh was revitalised in the 19th century to combat the spread of religion. Odd. But, where did it come from? Greek mythology. The Big Bang theory was proposed as an alternative the Genesis creation, but Greek atheist GOAT herders. Then they introduced speciation which was already forumjjkated in Greek mythology, centaurs, menataurs, mermaids, etc.
I bet you think that Columbus arrived in America in 1492. He did not. So, do you know why they teach that lie. Learn why they teach you lies and you will begin to understand the evolution lie
What utter nonsense , you claim atheists are mentally ill , believers in Evolution are mentally ill , and homosexuality is a mental illness nothing you say can be taken seriously .
Posting opinions that you pulled from the internet somply amounts to you finding others of your atheist religion to support your opinion. The difference between us who went to college and you who did not, is that we learned to think.
Its substantiating evidence is circumstantial at best (seeing as the scale on which it allegedly takes place precludes observation), and has several fundamental flaws (my favorites being the lack of any evidence, despite our vast body of knowledge, of a species' ability to mutate into a dissimilar species and experiments attempting to substantiate Abiogenesis failing, particularly under theoretically optimal [and, quite frankly, generous] conditions). A scientific theory, which would be the next step up from a hypothesis, is a hypothesis substantiated by the bulk of current data. Seeing as current data is largely either indifferent to it or discredits it, one cannot rationally claim it to be a theory. It follows, then, that it's a hypothesis.
"and who mentioned irrefutable fact ?"
Perhaps I should have been more clear with my wording: any concept is inherently refutable; my meaning of the term "irrefutable" was "rationally irrefutable", which, while redundant (seeing as a fact is, by definition, an objectively verifiable piece of information [or sound logical extrapolation thereof]), would be somewhat more clear.
"Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty."
This alleged scientist's own statement contradicts their point; if facts and theories are two exclusive concepts (which I have no disagreement with), then how can Darwinian Evolution be both? It's rational suicide.
"Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world."
There most certainly is. For example, when I make the statement "the vast majority of the ocean is comprised of water", objective observation by numerous persons dictates that it is indeed an absolute certainty.
"The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world."
Mathematics and logic are themselves abstract concepts, and therefore capable of objectivity, but they can (and are) both soundly applied to reality as we know it. If a mathematical or logical proof is entirely unrelated to reality (as this alleged scientist appears to be claiming must be the case), it is meaningless and therefore irrelevant to science. And yet, such proofs are the very backbone of science. It follows, then, that mathematical and logical proofs are capable of directly correlating to reality, and since they are in fact objective, it follows then that objectivity can be applied to reality.
"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. "
Ah, I see. Here we hit the common issue of Darwinian Evolution vs Natural Selection (often referred to as "Macro- vs Micro-evolution", though I find the former to be much clearer). This argument is, depending on its usage, what is often referred to as a "bait and switch": it begins with a factual definition of a term, such as "Evolution is an observable phenomenon; animals have been seen adapting to their surroundings via mutation" (in this statement, "evolution" refers to the process of Natural Selection, which is an objectively verifiable phenomenon), and then abuses the equivocality of that term in an attempt to substantiate the concept expressed in the alternate meaning with the objectivity of the concept expressed in the original meaning, in this instance abusing the term "evolution"'s two meanings of "Natural Selection" (the observable phenomenon) and "Darwinian Evolution" (the unsubstantiated hypothesis). In short, the fact that these two concepts share the same name (though one is typically capitalized while the other isn't) does not make them equal in validity.
"Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry."
The only possible basis for this claim is historical evidence, in this case being the great taking of liberties regarding baseless assumptions with the fossil record.
"No , I never stated what you claim as in if one rejects Evolution one also rejects the entireity of science so why are you lying ?"
That's a necessary implication of your argument; your claim is that "religion breeds ignorance and impedes progress", clearly relating to science. Your only substantiation for this claim is that particular religious groups are particularly likely to reject Darwinian Evolution. Assuming you would also claim your supporting evidence to be directly related to your claim (which I'm sure you'll agree to), it follows that you're claiming a relationship between rejecting Darwinian Evolution and "breeding ignorance and impeding progress". My point was simply that that claim, which is necessarily implied in your argument, is absurd.
"The stats I posted are from PEW research center and demonstrate the ignorance I speak of ."
I don't particularly care about the statistics; as I pointed out, they bear no relevance to your central claim. Ironically, even now, you're coming ever closer to explicitly claiming a (nonexistent) relationship between rejecting Darwinian Evolution and rejecting science as a whole.
"That's funny considering our last encounter where you claimed that the scientific community refused to acknowledge or give a fair hearing to creationist rebuttals of Evolutionary theory ; I think you will find the circular reasoning will be entirely yours as deliberately lying to make your position seem justified has not worked either ."
I certainly would if you pointed it out in a rational manner, rather than simply repeating the same baseless claims and accusations over and over again.
"Feel free to post up,your usual counters from answers in genesis or have you a new source ?"
Your apparent obsession with my (admittedly lazy) use of that particular source is somewhat confusing; is that the only legitimate criticism you found of my statements, and are therefore clinging to it, or have you simply added it to your aforementioned list of baseless claims and accusations?
First I will attempt to correct your continued confusion then I will demonstrate how you contradict yourself and deliberately lie using your words is that fair ?
Again your misunderstanding of basic terms is very telling In science, a hypothesis and a theory differs in that a hypothesis is a conjecture based on empirical observation or theoretical derivation yet unproven or by any experimental work, and that a theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested by many researchers and supported by strong evidence. Evolution is a theory that has been repeatedly tested, supported by overwhelming evidence, and can be used to explain natural phenomenon very well.
A fact is something that is postulated to have occurred or to be correct. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means).
What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.
Here you are agreeing Evolution is not a hypothesis proving you're lying again to attempt to bolster your weak position ...... your words to Sean regarding the term hypothesis, proving you're a liar ,
Addendum: Previously, I'd only ever heard the term "scientific fact" applied to a theory, hence my stating it to be an oxymoron. I hadn't, until now, considered the results of observation and experimentation to fall under that term, thus validating it (in that context, at least).
So tell where have you or any of your fellow deniers demonstrated that the evidence supporting is wrong ?
Again just to repeat myself again as you seem to ignore what I stated regarding fact
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Regarding facts and theories your misunderstanding of how the two terms are used by scientists is telling as I said and explained countless times Evolution is both fact and theory .
Your confusion regarding facts and theories no matter how many times it's explained is worrying also your continued use of the term hypothesis after admitting that Evolution is not such is embarrassingly childish .
So now you state that great liberties have been taken with the fossil record and baseless assumptions made ?
Ok , post up your gripes and let me educate you further .
Ah I see that's the implication of my argument , whilst failing to acknowledge that I've stated to another poster on this thread that I'm married to a Christian and I've debated with some very intelligent and well read Christians , I'm demonstrating and have indeed proven that religions breed ignorance as in Evolution deniers you're a living breathing example of what I claim .
Also there are more religions than Christianity and one only has to look at religions like Islam and ask does it breed ignorance and impede progress as a religion ?
I know you don't care about stats or facts you've demonstrated that , funnily enough a fair proportion of American Christians are also climate change deniers , another demonstration of religion breeding ignorance .
Everything I've pointed out so far I've done so in a rational manner , I've backed all my claims up unlike you and my accusations about you lying I've proved by using your own words where you agree that Evolution is not a hypothesis; what astonishes me about you and a fair proportion of American Christians is how easily you lie to bolster your positions , you set your Christian standards fairly low .
So let's again demonstrate how easily you lie again in your own words in a previous encounter here you are ,
Regarding my question as to why they are not published in scientific peer -reviewed journals here is reason they use , remember this is YOUR SOURCE 👇
👉 Creationism, Science and Peer Review 👈
Published: 2 February 2008 (GMT+10)
We have often received feedback in the form of questions on the lines of, ‘If creation is scientific, then why don’t you publish in peer-reviewed secular journals?’ Andrew Kulikovsky answers this common question in detail. He points out the advantage of peer review but then documents its many shortcomings in practice, including rejecting top research while admitting fraud, as well as an all-too-common role in protecting the ruling paradigm. So it is folly for anticreationists to hide behind it instead of dealing with the arguments. This is why, to keep the advantages and overcome its drawbacks, creationists have started their own journals, e.g. CMI’s longstanding publication now titled Journal of Creation.👈
There it is the best case for creationists and from the opening statement the usual nonsense is spouted and the use of the word secular is rather peculiar when scientific is the norm .
So there is ' an advantage ' in being published but creationists are not because.... supporters of Evolution reject 'top research ' by creationists, indulge in fraud ,and support the ' ruling paradigm '
Researchers actually look forward to reviewing and analysing top research , if you're acussing others of fraud why not back up the cowardly claims made ?
The sly way the words secular and now paradigm are used is typical , by the misuse of the term paradigm the poster is saying that supporters of Evolution are merely going along with a societal norm .
Predictably creationists have there own ' creationist journal ' which no doubt you keep to yourselves in case rational people resort to fraud by not accepting your 'top research '
The only case creationists have is to label those who accept Evolution as being dishonest and fraudsters and that's the same little dance you're doing as you're also dishonest .
Your source was your only source you never nor cannot supply another , every claim I've made has been backed up I've proved you're a compulsive liar using your words you're dishonest and still spouting the same tired gibberish ad nauseum .
"First I will attempt to correct your continued confusion then I will demonstrate how you contradict yourself and deliberately lie using your words is that fair ?"
Not only am I a liar, apparently, but I'm also self-contradictory and confused? Great! If only you could provide any sort of substantiation for any of these accusations.
"Again your misunderstanding of basic terms is very telling In science, a hypothesis and a theory differs in that a hypothesis is a conjecture based on empirical observation or theoretical derivation yet unproven or by any experimental work, and that a theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested by many researchers and supported by strong evidence."
That's more or less what I stated. Your point?
"Evolution is a theory that has been repeatedly tested, supported by overwhelming evidence, and can be used to explain natural phenomenon very well."
Really? Care to provide any scientific experiment or observation that indicates genetic information is capable of indefinite alteration via mutation? Because I certainly haven't seen any.
"A fact is something that is postulated to have occurred or to be correct."
That's absurd; that definition implies facts are subjective.
"The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means)."
Yet again, almost exactly what I've stated. What's your point?
"Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence."
You're the one claiming the existence of this apparently vast body of data supporting Darwinian Evolution. It falls solely on you, making a positive claim and therefore having the burden of proof, to present this evidence.
"Here you are agreeing Evolution is not a hypothesis"
Really? In the quote you later add (the one I assume you're referring to here), I explicitly state that the term "scientific fact" is not intrinsically an oxymoron when applied to specific facets of science: objective observation and experimentation. Not once did I ever state or imply that a hypothesis is rationally capable of being regarded as a "scientific fact". How, exactly, does this make me a liar?
"So tell where have you or any of your fellow deniers demonstrated that the evidence supporting is wrong ?"
I never said anything remotely like that. What I have said, however, is that direct, irrefutable evidence requiring or even implying the validity of Darwinian Evolution is nonexistent. Those two statements are not equivalent, therefore attributing the former to me is fallacious.
"Again just to repeat myself again as you seem to ignore what I stated regarding fact"
Again, just to repeat myself, as you seem to ignore that I rationally demonstrated your statement regarding fact to be incorrect: facts are most definitely absolute certainty.
"Regarding facts and theories your misunderstanding of how the two terms are used by scientists is telling as I said and explained countless times Evolution is both fact and theory ."
First of all, if I'm misunderstanding the terms in question (which you have no basis for, but I'm sure minor details like that are beneath bothering you), how can I possibly be dishonest about them, as you also claim?
Second, I've previously pointed out exactly why "Evolution" is not "both fact and theory" (to reiterate: "Evolution" can refer to both Darwinian Evolution and Natural selection [the former being a hypothesis, the latter a fact]; just because both have the same synonym doesn't mean both are equally valid, or even related [for example, the term "lead" can refer both to a soft metal and the action of managing a group of people, two entirely unrelated concepts]), and you have yet to refute my argument. How, exactly, do you expect to win with nothing but repetition?
"So now you state that great liberties have been taken with the fossil record and baseless assumptions made ?"
Seeing as said substantiation requires the largely baseless assumption that particular fossils are related, yes.
"Ah I see that's the implication of my argument , whilst failing to acknowledge that I've stated to another poster on this thread that I'm married to a Christian and I've debated with some very intelligent and well read Christians , I'm demonstrating and have indeed proven that religions breed ignorance as in Evolution deniers you're a living breathing example of what I claim ."
Really? You insist multiple times that "you is" is a valid second-person form of "to be", maintain that Darwinian Evolution is factual in blatant disregard of the scientific method, attempt to win debates by repeating the same baseless claims and accusations over and over, and yet you have the audacity to claim I'm the one breeding ignorance?
"Also there are more religions than Christianity and one only has to look at religions like Islam and ask does it breed ignorance and impede progress as a religion ?"
Because Islam is a barbaric, violence-based religion. Are you implying that because a particular religion "breeds ignorance and impedes progress", all religions do? If you're not implying this, then what relevance does this point have to the discussion? Redundant as this feels to point out, that reasoning falls under the fallacy of "hasty generalization".
"I know you don't care about stats or facts you've demonstrated that , funnily enough a fair proportion of American Christians are also climate change deniers , another demonstration of religion breeding ignorance ."
I'm not particularly interested in going into this matter at the moment, so I'll just point out that you have no basis for your implication that denial of Global Warming (or Climate Change, as it's now called) is equivalent to "breeding ignorance" and be done with it.
"Everything I've pointed out so far I've done so in a rational manner ,"
I'm having quite a hard time telling whether you're serious or not.
"I've backed all my claims up"
Such as?
"and my accusations about you lying I've proved by using your own words"
The one quote you provided failed to substantiate your accusation in the slightest, and even explicitly refuted it.
"So let's again demonstrate how easily you lie again in your own words in a previous encounter here you are ,"
Since when is a source considered "in one's own words"?
There's no point in explicitly refuting the rest of your statements; they're all vague, baseless accusations.
Once again, I'm questioning whether you legitimately believe what you're stating (in which case, given the blatant contradictions with reality [particularly in regards to claiming substantiation for all of your statements], it seems apparent you have a serious mental condition) or not (if so, what are you doing on a debate website?). Also once again, if you perpetuate your tirade of baseless claims and accusations, no rational discussion is possible, therefore I will discontinue this discussion. If, on the other hand, you're willing to be, at the very least, rational, I'd be happy to continue. Given our previous engagements, however, and your apparently fanatical fixation on your perceived moral and intellectual superiority, I doubt it.
Yes you have lied making you a liar , you are self contradictory as in your continued misuse of the terms , fact , theory , and hypothesis; this is your usual dance and I see you also used the very same tactic in your last debate and every other regarding Evolution I put this down to your obsessively pedantic nature .
Your first lie was exposed regarding your misuse of the term hypothesis and then your confusion was demonstrated by you admitting that Evolution was not a hypothesis.
This is your usual little dance and a pathetic tactic used by creationists to avoid accepting that evolution in FACT so let's have some facts regarding my claim ,
Here’s a brief summary of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution by natural selection:
Biochemistry is the study of the basic chemistry and processes that occur in cells. The biochemistry of all living things on Earth is incredibly similar, showing that all of Earth’s organisms share a common ancestry.
Comparative anatomy is the comparison of the structures of different living things. This figure compares the skeletons of humans, cats, whales, and bats, illustrating how similar they are even though these animals live unique lifestyles in very different environments. The best explanation for similarities like the ones among these skeletons is that the various species on Earth evolved from common ancestors.
Credit: Illustration by Kathryn Born, M.A Comparative anatomy of the bones in the front limbs of humans, cats, whales, and bats.
Biogeography, the study of living things around the globe, helps solidify Darwin’s theory of biological evolution. Basically, if evolution is real, you’d expect groups of organisms that are related to one another to be clustered near one another because related organisms come from the same common ancestor. On the other hand, if evolution isn’t real, there’s no reason for related groups of organisms to be found near one another. When biogeographers compare the distribution of organisms living today or those that lived in the past (from fossils), they find that species are distributed around Earth in a pattern that reflects their genetic relationships to one another.
Comparative embryology compares the embryos of different organisms. The embryos of many animals, from fish to humans, show similarities that suggest a common ancestor.
Molecular biology focuses on the structure and function of the molecules that make up cells. Molecular biologists have compared gene sequences among species, revealing similarities among even very different organisms.
Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life through fossil evidence. The fossil record (all the fossils ever found and the information gained from them) shows detailed evidence of the changes in living things through time.
Modern examples of biological evolution can be measured by studying the results of scientific experiments that measure evolutionary changes in the populations of organisms that are alive today. In fact, you need only look in the newspaper or hop online to see evidence of evolution in action in the form of the increase in the number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
* Radioisotope dating estimates the age of fossils and other rocks by examining the ratio of isotopes in rocks. Isotopes are different forms of the atoms that make up matter on Earth. Some isotopes, called radioactive isotopes, discard particles over time and change into other elements. Scientists know the rate at which this radioactive decay occurs, so they can take rocks and analyze the elements within them. Radioisotope dating indicates that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, which is plenty old enough to allow for the many changes in Earth’s species due to biological evolution.
You've already asked your question regarding alteration via mutation in your last debate so why are you asking again ?
Biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.
Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.
Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.
Regarding facts the definition I gave is accepted by rational beings you claiming the accepted definition is absurd demonstrates your continued confusion over the simplest of definitions i will attempt to explain it very simply for you yet again ,
In science , there is no such thing as ' irrefutable proof ' . Unlike religion , true science always accepts the possibility that some new evidence may appear that changes what we previously believed , if that happens , we change our understanding accordingly .
There is convincing evidence of human evolution that so far has not being undermined .
The mountains of evidence is further backed up in the case of microorganisms that can be seen in a matter of days .
It is the ONLY scientific explanation for life that has reached the standard of ACCEPTED theory .
Nothing else accounts for what we see , I've made a claim stating that there was a vast body of evidence in support , now I can provide links to various sites or recommend reading material , you might be better off starting at the basics as you seem totally unaware of the various excellent sites and resources that cover the topic in more detail even though I and other have given you various links to sites in the past .
You may want to start with the basics so for you I would recommend Evolution for dummies , if you find this primer a little ' tough ' give me a shout and I will talk you through it .
Now you can whinge , cry and resort to your usual pedantic nonsense your refusal to accept acknowledged facts leaves you firmly in the crackpots and cranks class .
Regarding the fossil record palaeontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.
I think you have been presented with enough facts to keep you occupied for a while and you have made a very strong argument in support of my debate topic as indeed your gross ignorance demonstrates .
Evolution is factual and is based on precise use of the scientific method something that seems to escape you and the crackpot crowd .
I've demonstrated by posting up what you detest as in facts to show percentages wise religions that deny evolution as fact , which demonstrates what percentage are ignorant as a denial of accept fact would be deemed ignorant in your case you wear your ignorance like a badge of honour.
Yes denial of climate change on your part was anticipated and again demonstrates an aversion to facts on your part so no surprise really .
So lets summarise you cannot tell the difference between simple terms , you deny facts , you ignore evidence and use as a source your creationist site who's founder is a young earth creationist and you have the audacity to claim you're rational .
It makes me wonder why people like you have not once had one peer reviewed paper published or taken seriously by any organisation of any repute so I will post another link to a real science journal which answers what they fairly call ,
Saying I have a serious mental condition is hilarious coming from a young earth creationist who firmly aligns himself with the mentally unstable John Morris who penned the ridiculous ' Homosexuality and evolution ' and has conducted 13 failed expeditions in search of Noah's ark .
My moral superiority is based on the fact that I do not have to resort to the tired and lame exercise of claiming you have a serious mental condition which is typical of the type of more unsavoury Christian hypocrite on CD , my intellectual superiority is demonstrated by knowing the difference between terms and studying the overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory and dismissing as nonsense the objections of a young earth creationist who's only source of comfort is the hilariously titled ' Institute for creation research '
You will of course not reply because my claims are factual , my accusations accurate and entirely rational , you off course will state the opposite as you do in every debate you're soundly defeated in and always use the self same ' get out of jail card '
I considered whether responding to this post of yours was worth the time; fortunately, I have nothing better to do, and I'm actually somewhat impressed you finally provided evidence. Let's begin, shall we?
"Your first lie was exposed regarding your misuse of the term hypothesis"
That being? How can you accuse me of misusing a term you've thus far refused to define?
"and then your confusion was demonstrated by you admitting that Evolution was not a hypothesis."
First of all, the quote you used explicitly contradicted your claim. After you used it, I again explicitly contradicted your claim, so how, exactly, have you proven your point?
Second, even if you were correct, isn't admitting to one's own self-contradiction admitting to having lied? As that's the case, why do you use this to accuse me of lying and my allegedly misusing the term "hypothesis" (which implies confusion)? Seems to me you yourself are confused in regards to your accusations.
"This is your usual little dance and a pathetic tactic used by creationists to avoid accepting that evolution in FACT so let's have some facts regarding my claim"
First of all, to reiterate, a scientific hypothesis (or derivatives thereof [theories and laws]) is incapable of being a rationally irrefutable fact. The closest it can come is being supported by the majority of facts derived from objective experimentation and observation.
Second, these "facts" are circumstantial at best. Let's go over each one:
1. Common Ancestry: Claiming this interesting phenomenon (that certain groups of animals and fossils assumed to be their direct ancestors have certain similar, apparently arbitrary traits) proves Darwinian Evolution falls under the fallacy of hasty generalization; it necessarily implies that, because certain animals have certain similar traits, they must also have other similar qualities (such as ancestry and conception). At best, this evidence is circumstantial, and even then has nothing to do with the actual hypothesis itself (it has no bearing on whether mutation is capable of indefinitely accruing, the fundamental contention regarding Darwinian Evolution).
2. Observed Change in Species: This argument is one of the more common ones, and essentially claims that, because Natural Selection (an observable phenomenon) takes place, Darwinian Evolution (an unsubstantiated hypothesis) must also take place (more commonly referred to as "Macro- vs micro-evolution," though I believe I've already pointed out my preference for the former, as it's far more clear). In short, this argument is meaningless: it relies solely on an abuse of ambiguity, and in no way substantiates the fundamental premise of Darwinian Evolution that mutation is indefinitely capable of accrual.
3. I'm not entirely sure what to say about this one... The only point it conceivably has is to tie into the first point, which I've already demonstrated the invalidity of.
"Comparative anatomy is the comparison of the structures of different living things. This figure compares the skeletons of humans, cats, whales, and bats, illustrating how similar they are even though these animals live unique lifestyles in very different environments."
Already pointed out the problem here.
"The best explanation for similarities like the ones among these skeletons is that the various species on Earth evolved from common ancestors. "
Or, and just hear me out for a second, those traits are simply pretty handy ones for creatures to have. That doesn't necessitate Darwinian Evolution.
"Biogeography, the study of living things around the globe, helps solidify Darwin’s theory of biological evolution. Basically, if evolution is real, you’d expect groups of organisms that are related to one another to be clustered near one another because related organisms come from the same common ancestor. On the other hand, if evolution isn’t real, there’s no reason for related groups of organisms to be found near one another. When biogeographers compare the distribution of organisms living today or those that lived in the past (from fossils), they find that species are distributed around Earth in a pattern that reflects their genetic relationships to one another."
Again, circumstantial evidence at best. This doesn't necessitate Darwinian Evolution, either; Natural Selection itself perfectly explains this (of course species in similar environments would select similar traits).
"Molecular biology focuses on the structure and function of the molecules that make up cells. Molecular biologists have compared gene sequences among species, revealing similarities among even very different organisms."
Once again, it's entirely reasonable to suggest that these similar patterns are simply an efficient means of structuring an organism. It proves nothing.
"Modern examples of biological evolution can be measured by studying the results of scientific experiments that measure evolutionary changes in the populations of organisms that are alive today. In fact, you need only look in the newspaper or hop online to see evidence of evolution in action in the form of the increase in the number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria."
This argument, once again, abuses the ambiguity of the term "evolution" to take an obvious fact (Natural Selection) and equate it to an unsubstantiated hypothesis (Darwinian Evolution).
"Radioisotope dating estimates the age of fossils and other rocks by examining the ratio of isotopes in rocks. Isotopes are different forms of the atoms that make up matter on Earth. Some isotopes, called radioactive isotopes, discard particles over time and change into other elements. Scientists know the rate at which this radioactive decay occurs, so they can take rocks and analyze the elements within them. Radioisotope dating indicates that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, which is plenty old enough to allow for the many changes in Earth’s species due to biological evolution."
"You've already asked your question regarding alteration via mutation in your last debate so why are you asking again ?"
To what question are you referring? You've demonstrated yourself capable of quoting, so why not do so when context is required?
"Regarding facts the definition I gave is accepted by rational beings you claiming the accepted definition is absurd demonstrates your continued confusion over the simplest of definitions i will attempt to explain it very simply for you yet again ,"
The quote you provided was thoroughly flawed, as I rationally pointed out. If you were to do the unthinkable and explicitly and rationally point out some flaw in my definition, I'd be more than happy to oblige.
"In science , there is no such thing as ' irrefutable proof ' . Unlike religion , true science always accepts the possibility that some new evidence may appear that changes what we previously believed , if that happens , we change our understanding accordingly ."
That depends heavily on what the object of the "proof" is. If said object is a scientific hypothesis (the relationship between the two being causation), certainly. If, on the other hand, the object is an observation, rather than an explanation (I.E. "The Sun, from our perspective, moves across the sky during the day" [a fact] vs "The Sun, from our perspective, moves across the sky during the day because the Earth rotates around it" [a hypothesis based on objective observation]), objectivity is definitely within reach.
"There is convincing evidence of human evolution that so far has not being undermined ."
"Convincing" is largely subjective. Someone who wants something to be true, for example, is likely to be more easily convinced by a given piece of evidence substantiating that thing. Perhaps a more useful term (though even less rational in this context) would be "rationally convincing".
"Nothing else accounts for what we see , I've made a claim stating that there was a vast body of evidence in support , now I can provide links to various sites or recommend reading material , you might be better off starting at the basics as you seem totally unaware of the various excellent sites and resources that cover the topic in more detail even though I and other have given you various links to sites in the past .
You may want to start with the basics so for you I would recommend Evolution for dummies , if you find this primer a little ' tough ' give me a shout and I will talk you through it ."
As I read your thoroughly condescending post, I can't help but amusingly recall your avid fixation on "you is" being a valid form of "to be". Not really an argument, just a musing.
Anyway, let's take a look at the site, shall we? Actually, after quickly scanning it, there doesn't appear to be any new information here. Never mind, then (I can only repeat the same arguments so many times rationally unchallenged before I tire of it).
"facts to show percentages wise religions that deny evolution as fact , which demonstrates what percentage are ignorant as a denial of accept fact would be deemed ignorant in your case you wear your ignorance like a badge of honour."
Is that so? Because I distinctly recall pointing out that science is not monolithic; rejecting a single hypothesis is not equivalent to rejecting science itself. Further, I have no memory of you ever explicitly challenging this point, yet you still repeat it? Oh, joy, more of this. And here I thought we were making progress.
"It makes me wonder why people like you have not once had one peer reviewed paper published"
That in particular may have something to do with the fact that I'm not legally an adult (though, as you're clearly demonstrating, that's not much of a high bar nowadays), much less a scientist with years of research under my belt.
Oh goody, another link; and this one even betrays its irrational nature in the title!
The only points I can find here that address arguments I've actually used are 7 (regarding Abiogenesis) and, possibly, 11 (regarding the limitations of Natural Selection). The former disregards the fact that life, which is claimed to be created by impartial, unguided forces under largely random conditions, has yet to be synthesized by an intelligent, extremely technical force (man) under theoretically optimal conditions. It simply doesn't add up. The latter, on the other hand, subscribes to the aforementioned folly of abusing equivocal words, and is therefore relatively unmentionable.
Interestingly enough, the claims this article produces, keeping to the same vein of yours, have absolutely no substantiation: it cites no references, instead simply possessing these bare, entirely unsubstantiated statements.
"Saying I have a serious mental condition"
Assuming you legitimately believe in the truthhood of your self-contradicting statements, anyway.
"coming from a young earth creationist"
Who said anything about being a Young Earth Creationist? No statement I've made has either stated or implied that personal belief.
"who firmly aligns himself with the mentally unstable John Morris"
On what basis? Casually using an article from that source due to its convenience (it was the first result that came up, and I didn't particularly care) is not equivalent to "firmly aligning" oneself with said source.
"My moral superiority is based on the fact that I do not have to resort to the tired and lame exercise of claiming you have a serious mental condition which is typical of the type of more unsavoury Christian hypocrite on CD"
Actually, I believe you've more than once accused me of being delusional, which is itself a medically significant psychological ailment, but do continue.
Another interesting detail is that I didn't use my casual suggestion of mental illness as an argument; I was merely pointing out that honestly believing in your demonstrably false (not to mention ludicrous) statements would indicate as much.
"my intellectual superiority is demonstrated by knowing the difference between terms"
And, you appear to be forgetting, absolutely refusing to explicitly define said terms?
Yet again reminding me of your "you is" tirade. To this day, I'm still quite amused by it.
"You will of course not reply because my claims are factual"
Whoops, too late. I really must apologize, though; my usual timely replies have been curbed as of recent due to my increasing workload (and, to an extent, my growing boredom with your ranting).
"my accusations accurate and entirely rational , you off course will state the opposite as you do in every debate you're soundly defeated in and always use the self same ' get out of jail card"
And you wonder why I question your mental integrity.
I considered when any of your posts are worth a reply but your pedantic nonsense over simple terms is quiet amusing to watch .
The term hypothesis has been explained to you ad nauseum and it's the way you start every thread on Evolution indeed you last debate on Evolution with Sean starts the same way and has you waiiing as you not surprisingly disagree with the meaning of accepted terms as used by scientists as opposed to young earth creationists.
A lot of what's you sate in your opening three statements is the usual bullshit that makes no sense at all
Evolution is fact 97 per cent of scientists are in agreement leaving you with the looney fringe , evangelical protestants( I bet you're one ) are particularly ignorant on such matters and it's continues with a sizeable amount including you in the climate change deniers camp .
"Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time," while only 61% of the public agrees, according to a new report (PDF, p. 37) from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Asked which comes closer to their view, "Humans and other living things have evolved over time" or "Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," 97% of scientists responding chose the former option, as opposed to only 2% choosing the latter option; 61% of the public responding chose the former option, as opposed to 31% choosing the latter option.
Those who chose the former option were also asked whether they preferred "Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection" or "A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today." Among scientists, 87% preferred the former option and 8% preferred the latter option; among the public, 32% preferred the former option and 22% preferred the latter option. Members of the public were also asked whether scientists generally agree that humans evolved over time; 60% said yes, 28% said no.
"Views on evolution vary substantially within the general public," the report observed (p. 38), "particularly by religion and attendance at religious services." For example, among white evangelical Protestants responding, a majority, 57%, agreed that humans existed in their present form since the beginning of time, and among those respondents attending religious services weekly or more often, a near-majority, 49%, agreed. In contrast, among the religiously unaffiliated responding, 60% agreed that humans evolved due to natural processes. Also correlated with acceptance of evolution were youth and education.
The questions about evolution were part of a larger project, conducted by the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, investigating the public's attitude toward science and comparing it to the attitude of scientists. The report relied on three surveys, two conducted by telephone among members of the general public in the United States in April, May, and June 2009, and one conducted on-line among members of the AAAS in May and June 2009. The broader significance of the project's results are summarized in the Pew Research Center's overview report, issued on July 9, 2009.
General
2009
National
The facts are circumstantial to only you and the 3 per cent of the looney fringe which still makes them...... facts .
Your one chapter piece on carbon dating is rather pathetic and void of implication.
Most of your rants have been addressed several times already and are boring to say the least , this typical pice of nonsense caught my eye .
....someone who wants something to be true for example is likely to be one easily convinced by a piece of evidence substantiating that thing .
Perhaps a more useful term ( through even les rational in this context ) would be "rationally convincing "
That's the whole crux of your argument in a nutshell scientists want Evolution to be true and are easily convinced by evidence substantiating that thing .
Scientists examine the mountains of available evidence and 97 per cent are convinced but according to pedantic young earther they only do so because they want it to be true .
In fact the truth of the matter is that this is the exact stance of you and the looney fringe you's examine the evidence and reject it because it doesn't fit your worldview so you try and shoehorn it into a narrative that fits your warped worldview, a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.
Here is an example of your cowardly two faced attitude in action in your last evolution debate , in this piece you cite the young earthers much loved site of pure bullshit as in the hilariously titled answers in genesis .....
"AnswersInGenesis? Clearly you have no solid understanding of science, whatsoever."
Ah, so because I use a source you disagree with (and I never said I agree with them, either, it's just evidence), I have no understanding of science? This coming from the person who used the term "scientific fact" with what I assume to be a straight face.
You were called and caught lying as in you post a site up to use as evidence and them say "I never said I agree with them " yet it's evidence ? You cowardly lying bag of shit .
Also doing your usual creationists dance over the accepted term scientific fact .
Every piece that's posted up to you by anyone regarding Evolution is dismissed by you as circumstantial best or flawed because that's all you have isn't it ?
If a piece of evidence were to contradict evolutionary theory the current theory would be dismissed and discarded , this has never happened whys that ?
Why do you not present your ' findings ' to the scientific community and make a name for yourself ?
The reason is because your a bullshitter who's too retarded to accept that Evolution is the best current explanation for a set of FACTS .
You say you're not an adult yet well yes that's a given as your childish dismissal of links , article and facts are like a typical schoolyard nerd who's constant companion and guide is the book of bullshit as in the bible ; I did assume you were mentally unstable a long while back as you constantly repeat the same tired gibberish in each rant of yours and your debates on Evolution with everyone start and end the same way .
I note with amusement a recent thrashing you took on Evolution and you were also called a squirming crawling worm and a pedant , how very apt and I agree ; you're also a coward who several times now has posted horseshit from a young earth creationist site as it was the most for 'convenience ' , you mean you had nothing and you're too cowardly to admit it's your only source a site who's founder is still looking for ..... Noah's Ark , proving how restarted you fully are .
Your refusal to acknowledge the accepted definition is said terms is part of your 'illness ' and it reminds me constantly of your ' hypothesis ' 'theory ' tirade .
To this day , I'm still constantly amused by it .
You have no integrity , you're a coward and you really are possibly the most boring person I've ever come across regards the printed word , I would imagine actually meeting you would put rational beings into an instantaneous slumber as you drone on about terms that you cannot understand
It is in fact a hypothesis at best. When you try to aplly the scientific method to it, it falls apart. A bone is 300 million years old, because someone said another bone found there was.
Mao and Stalin were atheists. They killed 100 million people. So that's how that works. Secularism took hold, and now the west gets a suicide bomber every couple of weeks.
Mao and Stalin never once said they were killing in the name of Atheism if you disagree post up statements where they claimed they were killing in the name of Atheism .
Atheists hold a position on one thing and that's a lack of belief in a god and nothing else no matter how hard theists try to assert the opposite .
Yes we now have suicide bombers every couple of weeks who by your own admission claim to be Muslim thus religious demonstrating the point that religion can breed ignorance and impede progress 👌
Thank you for proving my point by your example .....
Sorry, when did we last have a suicide bomber in America that was Muslim. If we look at suicide bombers in Muslim cojjntries then of course they are Muslim. We have had suicide killers in America, like Omar Mateen, and he was gay. Jim Jones was also gay and atheist and he led 1000s to suicide and he also gave some of his followers AIDS. Also, Muslims do not kill in the name of their God, they kill in the name of not being colonized by Americans and Europeans. Mao and Stalin rejected religion and killed people who kept following their religion, so yes they did kill in the name of atheism.
Atheism breeds ignorance and impeded progress. That's why the West is going down the tubes and being passed by other countries in education, technology, the family, and basic morality.
The argument presented is a lie in and of itself and contradicts itself. It says that Evangeical Protestants are the most likely to reject evolution, at 58%, but Jehovah Witness reject at 75% and Seven Day Adventist reject at 67%. Also, your premise is that evolution is a proven theory, when in fact it is based on Greek mythology and rejection of the scientific method.
I love how atheists claim that the theory of evolution is a fact , but then thry refuse to present any scientific facts that have been verfied, repeated and observed.
I love how Christians say god exists fact but then refuse to present any scientific facts that have been verified , repeated and observed .
Is your school system so bad over there no one is teaching Evolution ? If you cannot find any lower grade school to lend you a book on it I can give you a link to a site ?
So, presents those facts, based on observation, repeatability, testing and verification. What aspect of evolution are you holding on to? Let's focus on two: a 14 billion year evolution process from nonliving matter like cosmic rocks to humans. Also, please provide evidence of one direct evolution processing of one species to another.
Are you a liberal Democrat ?.......I bet you think that a homosexual orientation exists too, since they said that it did over 1,000 times. When you finish with the evolution evidence then you can lresent the science behind homosexual orientation.
You see, you follow a blind secular religion, and you do so blindly.
Oh shut up you troll , I've yet to come across a stupider individual than you on this site , I pity any decent American that has trash like you living nearby .
Oh shut up you troll , I've yet to come across a stupider individual than you on this site , I pity any decent American that has trash like you living nearby .
Religion in Italy is characterized by the predominance of Christianity and an increasing diversity of religious practices, beliefs and denominations. Most Christians in Italy adhere to the Catholic Church.
So are you saying the Christians that adhere to the Catholic Church there in Italy have a problem with evolution ?
Darwin you are from Italy so why are you so concerned with American religion ?
Religion in Italy is characterized by the predominance of Christianity and an increasing diversity of religious practices, beliefs and denominations. Most Christians in Italy adhere to the Catholic Church.
What you got to say now Darwin ? Are you misinformed about the religion of the home country you claim to be from ?
Religion in Italy is characterized by the predominance of Christianity and an increasing diversity of religious practices, beliefs and denominations. Most Christians in Italy adhere to the Catholic Church.
Are Italian Christians backward in their thinking when it comes to evolution ? Address if you can
Religion in Italy is characterized by the predominance of Christianity and an increasing diversity of religious practices, beliefs and denominations. Most Christians in Italy adhere to the Catholic Church.
Religion breeds ignorance and impedes progress so is that happening there in Italy ?
Come on Darwin time to explain your confused state or is it you are not from Italy ?
If Religion was based on - All Fact and Truth - Then it would still be used to Control others in order to maintain control of Power - and Step on People.
The angry hateful site bigot once again creates debates insulting Christians. You don't even live in America but here you are trying to judge American Christians.
You are no better than KKK member spewing their hatred towards Black people.
I never actually insulted Christians I posted up what is fact by the highly regarded Pew Center , also I'm not judging American christians I'm posting what you detest most which is facts .
You also demonstrate beautifully the mindset of the type of knuckle dragging hypocrite the article makes reference to .
It's a bit rich a numbskull like you calling others racist and bigots when you post your venom on site on a daily basis , if an original thought ever entered your poisinious cranium it would surely die of loneliness
You actually took facts and thrn lied about them. You claimed that Evangelical Protestants, which I am not, since there is no such thing as an Evangelical protestant or Pentecostal Protestant, are rhe mkst likely to reject evolution. You said that like evolution was supposed to be a fact thing. Also, the Pew Center cited Jehovah Witness and Seven Day Adventist as more likely.
It's funny you write this just to put a point on the Christian side yet don't actually put anything to disprove what's been said. Do you not know how to defend your religion?
By the way. Christianity is the same in all countries, you all follow the same book. However I have yet to believe you've actually read it with how you speak to people on here.
So you are saying that the people who spoke out against slavery were hypocrites?
You are going to compare people who speak out against inhumanity such as slavery and abortion, as being the same as Bigots judging Christians for believing their faith as written?
Do you have any idea how mindlessly stupid that is?
OF COURSE CHRISTIANS DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WHICH HAS NO BEGINNING, NO FIRST LIVING CELL, NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.
OF COURSE CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THEIR FAITH WHEN IT SAYS GOD CREATED MANKIND.
YOU BIGOTS ARE ACTUALLY SURPRISED BY THAT AND INSULT CHRISTIANS FOR THEIR OBVIOUS BELIEFS.
ARE YOU COMPLETE IDIOTS?
I don't respond to moronic words because they are moronic! I have better things to do.
If you believe what I said was moronic, why write out that feeble paragraph? It only proves what I said and I'm not sure you know the definition of the word bigot. You're likely just using it to sound smarter.
But I'll explain anyway since you like to blow things out of the water like a petulant child. You're a hypocrite because you are completely intolerant to my opinion on abortion and rather than debating me like an adult. You tried to make it look like I supported Nazis and Slavery, rather then giving facts on your side and supporting your position. If that's not intolorence then I don't know what is.
All I know is you're definitely a troll that hasn't even read the Bible, because you definitely haven't read or even follow the Bible past what has been taught in schools.
You can keep denying who and what you are your entire life, but deep down you will always know you are a hideously serlfish person who puts convienence in life over a Baby's life.
You refuse to admit that Pro slavery people made the exact same excuses as you use today concerning abortion.
You are an idiot to think I was trying to say you supported slavery. I said you are in denial of your inhumanity as were they!
They also said that Black people were less a human life than white people. Nazi's believed Jews were less human than Germans. Bigotry and selfish inhumanity go hand and hand.
So tell me, after explaining a thousand times to slave owners the facts of how slavery was wrong, would you keep spending time giving facts to explain the obvious to selfish inhuman morons who refuse to admit it?
THE FACTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN! EVEN DOCTORS TELL US THAT THESE BABIES ARE LIVING HUMAN BEINGS!
We have been debating abortion for 60 years and there is nothing more that coud be said. Nothing more to say than to keep letting selfish immoral people know how truly pathetic they are for supporting such inhumanity.
I will keep speaking out to the inhumanity of those who support abortion on demand with their vote and whose convienence supercede's a Slave's life.... I mean a Baby's life.
Would you have voted for a Slave owner for Government leaders knowing he would keep slavery legal?
Ha. That's all I needed to hear. Definitely no Christian here, just some troll pretending to be. You've obviously not read the Bible and need to study the use of capital letters again.
You also just proved your bigotry again so nice going :)
But Jesus never once spoke out against slavery and he came into daily contact with them , indeed Jesus talked about how one should deal with a disobedient slave ......., In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT).
As regards abortion the bible is in favour once god commands it so you're fine with abortion once god does it ?
Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?
Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.
Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.
Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.
You're a hypocrite you condem others while also condemning god and Jesus without out even being aware of it .
Incidentally you're incorrect yet again Intelligent Christians do in fact believe in Evolution as they agree the evidence in support proves the case , what my report is talking about is the ignorance of mainly evangelical American protestants who appear to be in a class of their own .
Try reading your bible sometime as you display zero knowledge of its contents .
To listen to bigots quote the Bible they despise is truly rich.
I wonder if slave owners cherry picked and twisted the word's of Lincoln when he spoke out against slavery?
Bigoted fools will always twist any written word to excuse their hatred. Maybe you missed it, servants could be considered employees today and guess what? If an employee does not do his duty, he will be fired!
But keep twisting the Bible to mean exactly what you want it to mean. That is what bigots do.
Of all the beautiful things Christ gave to this evil world.... compassion, love, forgiveness, etc. etc., what do the bigots speak to when quoting the New testament Christian faith?
Out of all the verses of love, they search and search for some verse that they twist to try and depict Jesus as a hateful supporter of slavery, in order to label Christians as bad people.
Real meaning ... you got schooled and you don't like it .
Lincoln spoke out but Jesus didn't whys that ?
Oh it's changed to servants now and not slaves , how convenient, yes , an employee will be fired but he won't be beaten as Jesus recommended or have his ear nailed to a gatepost as god recommends .
I'm telling you exactly what it says word for word in the book you've never read .
What makes you think a Christian should defend their religion? In fact, Christianity is quite different because it is an individual relationship. Funny, you atheists make this claim, but you all collectively and without fact to knowledge follow evolution.
The question is the factual basis of evolution, which you are clueless.
You beleive that humans evolved a 200 million year old Triassic rodentia, but you do not even know why.
You believe that the oldest four legged hiiman ancestor is the 500 million year old four legged worm.
You also believe that nonliving matter evolved into living matter.
You also beleive that evolve is going on now, but that it has stopped.
I do not believe that you have ever even read a science book. By the way, this debate is about evolution and not what is read in a Bible.
He's on a debate site. If he's not prepared to defend his opinions and beliefs then he shouldn't be on here. I would rather trust something that has some proof of it existing (like evolution) than a fairy tale in a fiction book that people have taken seriously.
Have you even read a science book? Those responses are classic of someone denying evolution.
Also with that last sentence you can tell that to the other guy. He started it by spouting crap that had nothing to do with the debate at hand.
