#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.
|
SIMPLE MOM REFUTES EVOLUTION AND TRAINING HER CHILDREN UPRIGHT
| Add New Argument |
|
-1
points
0
points
there is no evidence for it but they are pushing (the moral relavists are pushing it down the childrens throat for the purpose of brainwashing them luckly a good creation video can undo the brainwashing) why was evolution not believed 300 years ago cause there is no evidence for it today. 1
point
Actually, there is a ton of evidence for evolution. Scientists don't just blindly support ridiculous theories the same way that creationists do. They test their theories. How have you tested your theory? By praying? Putting all of your faith in a thousand year old book? If anyone has been brainwashed, it's you! Evolution wasn't believed 300 years ago, but then someone came up with the theory and then as technology increased, scientists began testing the theory and now it is widely accepted. People used to believe the world was flat and then someone came up with the theory that it is round, then we found proof that his theory was correct. Technology has led to many discoveries, you're just too closed minded to accept them. 1
point
1
point
Examining something only gives qualitative evidence that can be interpreted through a lens of your choosing, influencing the conclusions you draw from the evidence. Genetics proves very little in the way of evolution. I'm not a scientist but I HAVE researched it. There's no solid evidence, merely conjecture- no matter how highly praised. I used to believe in Evolution, but even then I knew it was only conjecture based on the observation of evidence, NOT hard proof. The ONLY accurate way to "test" evolution, is to witness it occur. Too bad we won't know in our lifetime. 1
point
No, but cancer has been observed through progressive observation with clear and quantitative evidence. Cancer is also not claimed to be adequately understood (or it would be cured). Evolution has, contrary to many claims, NOT been observed in its number one claimed ally- the fossil record. 2
points
Just pointing out that the cancer analogy is somewhat flawed. Cancer and the tumor would not be analogous to evolution, but rather to the species created by evolution. We can observe healthy regions of the body prior to tumors developing (initial or earlier state), we can identify them when they form, and track them as they enlarge. We cannot directly observe the initial or earlier state of a species predecessors; we only have the fossil record to go from there, and only in extremely rare cases is there any kind of preserved genetic material for genetic comparison; in most cases we only have the physical form of the earlier animal to compare to later ones- and even then, we've been VERY wrong on more than one occasion (Remember the Brontosaurus?) We don't fully understand the way that cancer develops because we haven't been able to directly observe it forming in humans; we simply have numerous theories that correlate with observations. Evolution is similar in that regard. We know that next to no modern species appear in the fossil record, and we know that very few animals found as fossils exist in a recognizable form in the modern world. But the fossil record is far from complete as well; fossils do not form under all conditions, after all. Even so, from the data we have, evolution is a reasonable conclusion to draw, and I personally believe that evolution has occurred. But even if it fits the observations, we have yet to actually observe speciation. While there is a lot of strong data supporting evolution, the fossil record may yet discredit it as new data is uncovered. On the other hand, we may yet directly observe speciation in an experiment, say one where a colony of bacteria is split and subjected to different and varying conditions. Just pointing out that the cancer analogy is somewhat flawed. Uh, pretty much all analogies are flawed at least a little. We can observe healthy regions of the body prior to tumors developing (initial or earlier state), we can identify them when they form, and track them as they enlarge. We cannot directly observe the initial or earlier state of a species predecessors; Ok, so if we go from all healthy tissue, then we see non healthy tissue we can draw conclusions, but if we see fossils changing over time until they morph into what we have today, we can't draw conclusions? We don't fully understand the way that cancer develops because we haven't been able to directly observe it forming in humans; Not true. Seeing it actually form would be just as worthless. If I see a basketball player shoot a ball into a net did I actually see what it took to get that ball in the net? No. We don't know how cancer develops because we haven't had enough time to observe people before and after they get cancer. On the other hand, we may yet directly observe speciation in an experiment, say one where a colony of bacteria is split and subjected to different and varying conditions. Even if we did, he can use another excuse and it won't matter. 1
point
We don't see fossils changing over time. We see different fossils that date to different time periods (and some would even question the dating methods!) that have different but similar forms, but that's not the same thing. I didn't mean to suggest that simply seeing tumors form would be meaningful in and of itself. But monitoring the conditions under which they form would certainly go a long way towards narrowing the theories we currently hold regarding how it forms. If we are able to directly observe speciation, I would argue it certainly would matter. Not to everyone; some people are going to believe what they believe regardless. But a lot of those who are on the fence would be swayed by such news, I'd expect. Findings like that would also mean more funding for that sort of research, which is always a good thing and can come with tangible benefits. We don't see fossils changing over time. We see different fossils that date to different time periods (and some would even question the dating methods!) that have different but similar forms, but that's not the same thing. Really? You interpreted my statement as the actual fossil changing? Come on man that was just a ridiculous interpretation. We have fossils of the pre ape/pre humans. We have the fossils of the pre ape, and the fossils of the pre humans. We have fossils that show evolution between those and today's bones. Dating method or not, those are hard to explain without evolution. I didn't mean to suggest that simply seeing tumors form would be meaningful in and of itself. But monitoring the conditions under which they form would certainly go a long way towards narrowing the theories we currently hold regarding how it forms. If you don't know how it forms, you can't make an informed decision on what it takes to determine how it is formed. Maybe that won't go a long way to narrowing theories. If we are able to directly observe speciation Wait, what? Speciation has been demonstrated. That isn't the problem. Speciation is micro evolution, and that has been directly observed. What hasn't been directly observed is something like a fish becoming a mammal. We don't have the ability to observe macro evolution that takes millions of years. Well, I am not really willing to wait around that long to see it personally. 1
point
My point isn't to argue against evolution, mind you- you're preaching to the choir in that regard (which is a delicious metaphor given the subject matter). It is to point out that there are gaps in the knowledge, and that in the eyes of skeptic those gaps are widened. We have fossils from various times that show a similar form and strongly suggest common ancestry and evolution, but they do not in and of themselves constitute evidence. Tie that in with the fact that the skeptics question the very dating methods used, and you may have similar fossils but no proof (in their eyes) of any kind of sequential development. I'm going to have to flatout disagree with you regarding the formation of tumors. We aren't completely in the dark as to how they form; we have numerous conditions that are strongly correlated with the formation of tumors. Controlling the conditions that we are already aware of, and maybe testing some others that we suspect, while directly observing the specimen can certainly help. That's pretty much what most experimentation IS- making an educated guess based on observations and available data and controlling the conditions to verify it. I'm dubious of claims that speciation has actually been demonstrated and observed. I've heard claims in that regard, but the ones that I've investigated personally all seem to be making big stretches with the definition of species. If you can point me in the direction of some source material that demonstrates it I would love to read it- which isn't to say I'm demanding a source to back up your claims (we're on the same side here!) but rather that I genuinely would like to read about it. Fish becoming mammals over millions of years is one thing, but many simple organisms reproduce orders of magnitude more quickly than more complex ones; I'd image that with properly selected organisms, FUNDING, and carefully controlled conditions, we could at least design an experiment that can narrow the expected timespan down to a few decades. I'm sure there are numerous biologists and geneticists that would love to make something like that their lives work, if only funding were available for it. We have fossils from various times that show a similar form and strongly suggest common ancestry and evolution, but they do not in and of themselves constitute evidence. Um, they do though. Creation says those shouldn't even exist at all. Tie that in with the fact that the skeptics question the very dating methods used, and you may have similar fossils but no proof (in their eyes) of any kind of sequential development. Skeptics like to say that the rules of biology can't be applied to the past. Some skeptics can't be helped. I'm going to have to flatout disagree with you regarding the formation of tumors. You are wrong, you are agreeing with me. We aren't completely in the dark as to how they form That was my point. we have numerous conditions that are strongly correlated with the formation of tumors. All without actually seeing the first cancer cell come into existence. I'm dubious of claims that speciation has actually been demonstrated and observed. We have observed lizards that changed enough that they can no longer mate. That's speciation. I'd image that with properly selected organisms, FUNDING, and carefully controlled conditions, we could at least design an experiment that can narrow the expected timespan down to a few decades. I can imagine it not working out. Anything with a very quick reproduction rate will have a low change rate. Something with high complexity that could be changed would need a lot of change to be a different kind of thing. I'm sure there are numerous biologists and geneticists that would love to make something like that their lives work, if only funding were available for it. Proving evolution? Curing cancer is probably a higher goal. 1
point
Specific religions may have an issue with fossils, but not the concept of creation itself. Not everyone has beliefs that conform to any particular major religion. You're right that some skeptics may be helped, but your example is a bit of a different animal than questioning the accuracy of dating methods. I should probably have specified that I flatout disagree with you that observing the formation of tumors has no value. But you're a smart guy; you know that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causality. This is why carefully controlled conditions and observation are valuable in that regard. Certainly, I'd expect some of those things that correlate with cancer to prove not to be causes themselves, but rather effects of something else entirely that way be a cause for both. There are plenty of examples of animals that are incapable of mating but still the same species. Consider, for example, a Great Dane and a chihuahua. They're genetically compatible, and can be crossbred via artificial insemination, but successful natural mating between the two simply isn't happening. Two separate populations of the same species may remain compatible but cease mating due to drift in pheromones. You may be going for sufficient genetic change here, but without a link I can't say- I'd really like some info or a link to the study you're referencing, as I said. A quick reproduction rate does not imply a low change rate. It is in fact the opposite if they are exposed to conditions that are expected to aid in inducing random mutations and that apply some form of pressure to the species. A small mutation in overall simpler genetic material is by comparison much larger than the same mutation in more complex genetic material. Additionally, one of the things that would be very valuable to observe is increasing complexity in a species; that would be difficult to observe in a more complex life form. Curing cancer may be a higher goal, but that doesn't mean that it is necessary or even preferred to focus the entire community of biologists and geneticists on it; the two goals are not mutually exclusive. And of course, adding more personnel to a project is only a net gain to a certain extent- eventually adding more staff will simply bog the system down. Scientists tend to be very opinionated as well as very difficult to sway in their opinions, and the more you add the more we see experimentation slip and arguing increase. And there is more value to such an experiment than simply proving evolution; being able to directly observe it has value, particularly for better understanding of the relationship between genetics, epigenetics, and evolution itself. A successful experiment as a proof of concept could also lead to very great things... Specific religions may have an issue with fossils, but not the concept of creation itself. Not everyone has beliefs that conform to any particular major religion. If God created everything that is alive today it doesn't make sense for the fossil record to have bones that don't look like the creatures living today. That's what I was saying. You're right that some skeptics may be helped, but your example is a bit of a different animal than questioning the accuracy of dating methods. He wasn't questioning dating methods, he said he didn't personally witness one type of creature becoming a different type of creature. I should probably have specified that I flatout disagree with you that observing the formation of tumors has no value. But you're a smart guy; you know that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causality. This is why carefully controlled conditions and observation are valuable in that regard. Certainly, I'd expect some of those things that correlate with cancer to prove not to be causes themselves, but rather effects of something else entirely that way be a cause for both. What I am saying is that we don't need to see cancer forming. We can check before and after and it is enough. I don't know about you, but if we actually saw a cancer cell as it began, I would have no idea how it happened and would want to repeat the experiment again to see it happen over and over. So, I feel like just seeing it be created isn't that great. There are plenty of examples of animals that are incapable of mating but still the same species. Consider, for example, a Great Dane and a chihuahua. They're genetically compatible, and can be crossbred via artificial insemination, but successful natural mating between the two simply isn't happening. Two separate populations of the same species may remain compatible but cease mating due to drift in pheromones. You may be going for sufficient genetic change here, but without a link I can't say- I'd really like some info or a link to the study you're referencing, as I said. If you can artificially inseminate and get viable offspring then you are talking about something different. I am talking about lizards that have changed so much that when they do mate viable offspring is impossible. A quick reproduction rate does not imply a low change rate. It is in fact the opposite if they are exposed to conditions that are expected to aid in inducing random mutations and that apply some form of pressure to the species. A small mutation in overall simpler genetic material is by comparison much larger than the same mutation in more complex genetic material. Additionally, one of the things that would be very valuable to observe is increasing complexity in a species; that would be difficult to observe in a more complex life form. Change is not the criteria. Changing into a different type is. There are lots of changes going on, but in order for a single cell organism to become a multiple cell organism would require a very large complexity change. I wasn't trying to make a blanket statement about quick reproduction. There is no guaranteed path to directly observing macro evolution. Macro evolution is only questioned by people who probably won't even be swayed by directly observing macro evolution. I don't think anyone would set out to directly see macro evolution as the target of their experiment. 1
point
1
point
You can see the growth of the cells from point A to B. You cannot see, in the fossil record, evidence that lifeform A became lifeform B. With the tumor, we know it's just ONE tumor. Not the decendants ofan older tumor. On that note, tumors are an example of how mutation in nature rarely becomes something advantageous. Wow, so you see someone who used to have no tumors, then they come in with one tumor and you automatically know for sure that this is the only tumor they ever had and the body never possibly stopped one tumor and this one replaced it. Dang, you are good. On that note, tumors are an example of how mutation in nature rarely becomes something advantageous. So, over the course of billions of years the rare can happen and an advantageous mutation can occur. 1
point
Your assertion implies that a member of a species has an advantageous mutation ,which increases its likelihood to breed. Okay so far. But then its offspring (which may or may not carry the mutated gene, does the same until the mutation becomes the dominant norm of the species. Furthermore, this must keep happening until different bands of the species become different species, albiet with a common ancestor. You further assert that this same excessive rarity happens to a great majority of Earth's life. Even with millions of years, that's a long shot. 1
point
1
point
Nope, big bang does have evidence that backs it up, look up scientific articles on it, its way too complicated for me to post on here though. Creationism has no back up whatsoever except for assumption. There are certain conditions in which things can come from nothing, according to modern day scientific research, the extent of it however we do not know (yet) It's not so much that the Big Bang happened that confuses me, it's what came before the Big Bang. Think about there being nothing... then out of nowhere boom! A fucking explosion that creates planets, which eventually creates life. Is that not some crazy shit? Creationism is just as far fetched as the theory that something came from nothing. Sorry, he is right. A theory requires evidence. It for sure is not a theory because it hasn't been described at all. You need to have more than just a story from an ancient text to actually consider it possible. It isn't that it is far fetched, it is that it hasn't gone through actual processing. No, that's what leads to the stupid statement "Evolution is just a theory." If we start saying that non scientific things are theories we have a huge problem. But, either way, creationism shouldn't be considered a theory either way. There are tons of creation ideas. They at least need a basic agreement before we can even consider it a non scientific theory. I think if we start saying that non-scientific things are scientific theories, then we have a problem. You know that I'm not a creationist, but I do think that it deserves the right to be called a theory. It isn't until a theory is confirmed that it becomes a fact, right? So, why not accept that one theory has more scientific evidence while the other is more abstract? Until one is confirmed, they're all just speculations. I think if we start saying that non-scientific things are scientific theories, then we have a problem. If we have a concept of non scientific theories and they don't need to have any structure or agreement, then start just calling them theories, then start saying they are just as good as scientific theories it leads to people starting to dismiss scientific theories for ridiculous reasons. You know that I'm not a creationist Yep, and I don't think you are trying to destroy the idea of theory either. but I do think that it deserves the right to be called a theory. It doesn't only because there isn't an actual agreement on what creation means. Evolution actually has a description of the processes involved with going from less complex organisms and becoming what we have today. The only real consensus on creation is that God did it. Since it is so vague, it really should only be considered a concept and not a theory. It isn't until a theory is confirmed that it becomes a fact, right? No, science doesn't really confirm facts. An idea is proposed, it is tested, it is reviewed, then the idea is formulated into the overall theory. The theory is revised all the time. The scientific community accepts the theory as the best explanation until it is refuted. Okay, a concept... I can agree to that. I do believe you have kind of a biased interpretation of the word theory though. My way of seeing it is that a scientific theory would have scientific evidence, which tends to be more believable... but an abstract theory, such as creationism, would have abstract evidence (miracles, "divine" intervention, etc.) and of course their religious books. The word theory is not a modern term and derives from an age in which most theories were abstract. 1
point
Lets say I heard a crash coming from my attic while my friend was over, we both go up there to investigate what caused the noise, we both observe that a pile of storage boxes fell over and most likely caused the crashing sound. But we both have different ideas of what caused it to fall over. I look and observe that the order of the boxes were stacked before was not right and that a window is open behind it on a windy day. I come up with the idea that the larger ones were stacked on top of bottom ones and that the inbalance of the stacked order plus the wind from the open window must have knocked it over. I can test this hypothesis and if it holds up it becomes "the unbalanced box theory", this can represent evolution. However, my friend assumes that it couldn't possibly be knocked over by itself, something must have deliberatley knocked it over. He comes up with the idea that an invisible monster knocked it over. This cannot be tested or observed, it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Much like the creationist hypothesis I think your response would have been more fitting a few arguments ago. You're looking at it through a materialistic perspective. To a creationist, their evidence is abstract. Their observation is of life itself, since they believe in miracles, divine intervention and so on. It's not so much a matter of what is a theory and what isn't. The fact of the matter is that the theory of evolution has more tangible and better observed evidence, where as the creationist theory is abstract as well as the evidence. Theory- rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice speculation: abstract thought or contemplation idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture The term theory was designed to fit multiple ways of thought and observation. 1
point
It doesn't matter if their view of the world is "abstract". Reality is reality, their is no "interpretation" of what is real or what is not. They have the right to believe in creationism but they cant go around acting as though their idea has the same amount of credibility as evolution which is backed up by a solid foundation of observation, evidence, and testing. If I throw a rock at your head and it hits your head, can you "interpret" that the rock didn't hit your head? No, you saw and felt the impact of the rock I threw at you. Thats reality. They have the right to believe in creationism but they cant go around acting as though their idea has the same amount of credibility as evolution which is backed up by a solid foundation of observation, evidence, and testing. But they do, don't they? I know you'd like for everyone to think of the world the same way that you do, but that isn't going to happen. 1
point
Its an important issue, how a person views reality determines how they act, how they act affects the rest of world, which includes me and you. For example, climate change is a scary issue, but if you honestly believe that there is another life after this, then your not very motivated to change it, however if your like me and are pretty sure that there is no life after this, you'l probably want to do something about it. There cannot be somewhat of a God, there is either A God (or gods, godess, gods, etc.) or there isnt. And if you are as smart as I think you are, you are most likley leaning toward the latter, the refutation of religion and the spread of secularism will benefit society. Lol what are we even debating about? I thought we were arguing on whether or not creationism is a theory. Yeah, it would be nice if everyone wasn't so religious... but it would also be nice if everyone wasn't so closed-minded. That's fucking stupid. Okay, we found proof that the world is older than 6000 years, well there goes the Young-Earth argument... or maybe not, because people still believe in it! Evidence that should have changed the World is bullshit in the eyes of firm believers. How do you expect to change the mind of somebody who refuses to listen? Scientists, when studying this topic, make discoveries in layers. On the issue of God, there will always be an extra layer that they can't explain. They can offer their professional opinions, but that's about it. You cannot discount something that you cannot prove, but you also cannot confirm something that you cannot prove. 1
point
I know, but if we leave this alone, they'll spread it to their children, who spread it to other people, and so on. Its not so much about convincing believers as it is combating them from spreading this BS. We debate as to show other people interested in the truth to look for themselves and observe how the world works according to logic and science, not dogmatic superstition. Do you want more Jerry Falwels, Pat robertsons, and Billy Grahams in the world? Id prefer to see more Stephen Hawkins, Carl Sagans, and Neil Degrass Tysons. I know, but if we leave this alone, they'll spread it to their children, who spread it to other people, and so on. Sounds like a disease lol. Its not so much about convincing believers as it is combating them from spreading this BS. How do you propose we go about doing that? Get rid of the right to freedom of religion? 1
point
Maybe if the government didn't give churches tax exemptions, then people would stop building them. Then a lot of the churches might decide that they don't like not having that special treatment that allows them to abuse the system. Preying on people's weaknesses might not feel so rewarding anymore... which may then lead to, I don't know... you get the idea. Educating people would have little effect unless they're willing to question their beliefs, which most of them aren't. 1
point
Come on man, it's a theory. It may seem kind of far fetched, but it's still a theory. Just like the Big Bang, which, by the way... I think sounds ridiculous... and I'm not even religious. Theory- A scientific theory is based on careful examination of facts. It is much different from the non-scientific use of the word. From-http://www.livescience.com/ The earth is clearly 4.5 billion years old. You do realize that Creationism applies to all religions, right? The whack job belief that the world is only 6000 years old is called "Young-Earth Creationism". Yeah, the earth is billions of years old... that doesn't totally discount a creationist theory... by the way, your definition helps me. I wasn't using the term in a scientific sense. 1
point
You do realize that Creationism applies to all religions, right? The whack job belief that the world is only 6000 years old is called "Young-Earth Creationism". Assumed you meant the people ONLY who assume the word יוֹם (Yom) means a literal 24 hour day. I have heard agnostic/atheist other religions say there is no evidence for a global flood, they are right and according to the bible they are right too. Genesis 2:10-2:14 contradicts it if there was major damage to the rivers and the oceans as in Genesis 2:10-2:14 it talks about the location of the Garden of Eden 2 of the rivers still exist meaning the flood must of been local and not of cause major geological changes as young earth creationist claim. Genesis 2:10-14 King James Version (KJV) 10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. Wait... do you think that I'm religious? I'm not. I'm an Agnostic. Almost all of the religions agree that there was a Great Flood that transformed the face of the Earth. Which backs up my argument on the other debate. Keep in mind, that I am not saying it is fact. Also, I'm not talking about Young Earth Creationism, just general creationism. 1
point
-1
points
1
point
I think this mother is taking a very unique and positive approach to the whole thing. She's not feeding her children information without discussing it, answering questions, reasoning, etc. It's good to see -- because without parents like that, Christianity would die out completely before the return of Jesus. 1
point
1
point
1
point
0
points
|
