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.
The Big Bang, another scientific theory touted as fact looks to be another flat Earther.
I wonder when Scientists and Global warming alarmists will ever admit they have no clue. They laugh at any theories pertaining to Creationism but constantly grasp onto any theory that better fits into their pre ordained beliefs.
This new theory actually completely destroys Christianity/creationism. It also only destroys a small portion of the Big Bang. It is more like people who think the Earth is a perfect round ball, not like people who think the Earth is flat.
Yes, I agree, the notion of a seven day creation is quite unusual and rather far fetched. This is what the common held description of Genesis presents the adherents of my religion. I believe God created matter and had a more naturalistic creation. I have no evidence to support my beliefs sadly.
My religion isn't evidence based. It's faith based. Blessed are those who haven't seen but believe. I believe what in my religion because to me God has proved himself in my life and in my community's life.
This actually gives more support to those who believe God is the universe itself. I believe that's just Pantheism, but maybe not. It doesn't destroy Christianity, but it does disrupt the perceived view of creation in Genesis. All Genesis says is God created the Heavens and The Earth. I don't think Genesis covers anything else on creation in relation to planetary constructs.
I was mainly referring to all of the Christians who use the idea that the universe had to have a starting point to prove God exists. I agree that Christianity isn't completely destroyed.
Understandable, and forgive me for the base assumption. I realized that you were talking about the notion of universal creation by God after I posted. I'm glad we agree on something here. I take you as the more "aggressive Atheist" if that term makes sense.
The view of God in Pantheism pretty much is just a metaphor for the Universe. As metaphors aren't something you actually believe to be real, are just a way of describing something Pantheists do not properly believe in Gods. Therefore Pantheism really is no kind of "theism" at all.
I disagree. I understand it being used metaphorically, but there are religions out there that qualify as Pantheistic in nature because they everything in the immanent universe is God. Some religions believe that the universe itself is just a god. This would make Pantheism a near opposite of Atheism as Atheism, in simplest terms, is the notion of no god (s) or deities of sorts. That contrasts with Pantheism.
You are still correct though. Do not count yourself out. Pantheism is also seen as a mere philosophical concept, and by that your point remains valid. We are both correct here.
"I wonder when Scientists and Global warming alarmists will ever admit they have no clue."
Probably never, because it's wrong. They don't have 'no clue.' They in fact have an overwhelming number of clues, each of which may call into question or lend credit to one theory or another.
Your claim is like stating that someone playing the game clue has no clue just because they haven't yet correctly deduced the identity of the murderer- and you're wrong, because they know that it was done in the Conservatory with the candlestick, and that it was neither Professor Plum nor Colonel Mustard.
Sure thing. The Christian faith and creation hypothesis accuse Colonel Mustard of killing Professor Plum in the Kitchen with the Knife, even though Professor Plum is clearly alive, Miss Scarlett is clearly the victim, and there is a gaping gunshot wound on her forehead.
Because Miss Scarlett betrayed Professor Plum in an unrelated incident, and God raised Professor Plum back from the dead.
Admit they have no clue? I'm fairly certain that the scientists who investigate these types of things have a good clue about the composition of the universe.
The math rules out the singularity we always assumed preceded the Big Bang, not actually the BB itself. Reporters have had a hard time telling the difference, but astrophysicists have not. Read what they say about it, don't go by quippy little newsbites.
Its not that they have no clue at all, it is that they preach their theory as fact when decade after decade their theories are proven wrong. How bout admitting you have no proof of anything and stop preaching it as fact.
I DON'T PREACH ANY THEORY AS FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I want all side's views put forth instead only one side's. You want to preach evolution, then you must preach creationism as well.
I DON'T PREACH ANY THEORY AS FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're right; you don't. But not because of honesty, but rather because nothing you've presented as fact has endured the rigors to be classified as a theory. You preach hypotheses and even less credible information as fact
I want all side's views put forth instead only one side's.
I see where this is going, I like this. Good idea.
You want to preach evolution, then you must preach creationism as well.
I presume you're referring to schools and the scientific community?
I'll make you a hypothetical deal, pretending for a moment that I have the clout to make it happen. You want schools to teach creationism and the scientific community to present creationism as an alternative theory that is equally credible to evolution, right?
I could agree with that, but I'll need a concession from your side. That child indoctrination program, you guys call it 'Sunday School,' I believe? Currently, an exclusively creationist angle is presented in this program. In the interest of both sides being presented, I will need 'Sunday School' programs revised to present creationism and evolution as equally credible possibilities.
Is this satisfactory? If so, believe it or not you have my support in this- if only this. I'd be willing to put some real effort into putting it forth. Think about it, here's your chance to convert a "low end voter!" (Please ignore the fact that the highest position I've cast a Democrat vote for was a city council).
Do you people have a clue of your double standards? You want concessions from science classes to not say things you don't like, but you refuse to stop preaching evolution as fact rather than theory. Those kids are a captive audience and must not be indoctrinated with theories from the Left. Every theory they have come up with is usually dis proven with time. STOP TEACHING IT AS IF IT IS FACT!
As always, you misunderstand what a theory is. I'll explain it again.
First, you have basic guesses. These are shots in the dark, more or less. Not particularly useful for any form of argument, but sometimes useful in the world of research when there are insufficient clues to even draw hypotheses.
Next, you have hypotheses. These are essentially educated guesses. Hypotheses are formed when there is some information available, but nothing conclusive yet. They are similarly not particularly useful for most forms of argument, with the sole exception being cases where an immediate decision must be made and there is no time for further investigation. These are key to science, however, as they essentially define the parameters to be tested, allowing other variables to either be eliminated or controlled for as best as possible. If a hypotheses is sufficiently close to reality, then predictions can be made using it as a premise with relative accuracy; this is what most experimentation sets out to test. A controlled experiment is not the only way to partially confirm a hypothesis, either. A hypothesis regarding the way sediment is deposited in flooding based on geological information could be tested by taking samples from a location and checking to see how well it matches up to what was predicted based on the hypothesis. Any instance, really, where new information becomes available that is consistent with what is predicted by the hypothesis can support it. Case in point: The advent of spectroscopy allowed confirmation of some hypotheses regarding the nature of stars, while calling others into question.
Beyond hypotheses are theories. These are hypotheses that have thus far consistently yielded accurate predictions, and have as yet not revealed any major logical flaws. Almost all scientific knowledge is theory, because of this. Teaching theory as fact is not inaccurate because of that; theory represents fact as best as we know it now. Despite your claims, it is also extremely rare for theory to ever be proved flat-out wrong. With some frequency, theory is found to be inaccurate; generally due to a lack of precision, or the discovery of a previously unknown variable. Newtonian Physics, for example, can be said to be "wrong" in the sense that they do not precisely describe how matter behaves with perfect precision. But the predictions made by newtonian physics are so close at the scales we typically work with that the impact of the inaccuracy is negligible. Obviously, you are including inaccuracies as being equivalent to being flatout wrong- if that were the case, you need to turn that judgemental gaze on your own Bible.
Arguably, 'above' theory are those things classified as scientific law. Don't be fooled by that, because these are still theories. Don't be fooled by that either, because theory doesn't mean what you think it does; see above. Scientific Laws are special in that they not only consistently make accurate predictions wherever they are tested, but that they have been used as a basic premise for multiple other theorys that have also consistently made accurate predictions. If they are inaccurate, it is at a scale that we cannot yet measure, and are not inaccurate enough to compromise the ability of those sub-theories to make accurate predictions.
You have a problem with schools teaching theory as fact, and you want to pose the highly-questionable creationist hypothesis as equals? They're inequal any way you slice it, in favor of the theory of evolution. But like I said, I'd be willing to let that slide- if you're willing to indoctrinate children equally into your creationist hypothesis and the theory of evolution in Sunday School, and let them choose for themselves. You're not seriously objecting to practicing what you preach, are you?
No, they want to keep things that are not science out of science classes. That makes perfect sense. You want kids indoctrinated in your religion by the government, which is ironic, consider you claim that it is the left that wants big government.
Science is not a "theory from the left". The theories you are angry about are acknowledged by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
You are all about "anti-liberal" political correctness.
Any theory of the origin of life is science. You show your bigotry against any notion of creationism being mentioned in science class. It is an important theory to the majority of Americans.
Except creationism is not a theory, it is a religious concept. It is important that, since this a science class, theories are taught, not hypothesis. I do not think you understand what a scientific theory is.
And keeping religion out of a science class is not bigotry. I think public school curriculum should include a contemporary religion class, that teaches religious concepts of Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism in a non-biased way. That would be the appropriate time for creationism.
Gravity is a theory? Do you deny that gravity is a fact? Creationism doesn't have to be taught along side evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory which has it's place in science class. Creationism a religious idea that is not based off of factual evidence or empirical data, so it has no place along side other scientific subjects. If you want to learn about creationism, take a philosophy or theology class when you got college, because that is where it belongs, not in the biology lab.
Another bigoted fool heard from. You Liberal's re the biggest hypocrites alive. You talk about diversity and compassion towards all diverse people and you fools constantly insult and make fun of people of faith. You make me sick and you are on ignore.
Well, any fool by now would understand I don't want to talk to Liberals such as yourself. How many ways do I have to say it? You are beyond help! Quit stalking me unless you truly want to show your screwed up character. I have never met a Liberal who could respect another's wishes.
You are on a website where people track the waterfall. If you do not wish to talk to people with differing opinions, why post on this website? Even the other Conservatives on this site disagree with you.
Of course gravity is not a theory and should be in science. Its a shame their are so many fools who call biology a theory when it comes to our normal sexual orientations. People on the Left are so indoctrinated to political correctness, they deny the science of biology. Sick! When it comes to biology, those on the left should call themselves the Flat Earth sexual orientaters.
Gravity is in fact a theory that strongly suggests that there is a universal attractive force between all matter. Your view on gravity is colored by the fact that it is a mature theory and that other theories are already in place to cover the "exceptions."
Without all of those theories, if somebody tried to tell you that there was such a universal attractive force, you would consider that absurd. Firstly, If you drop a rock and a piece of paper of either the same size or the same weight, they will fall at different rates. You might also note that two stones placed next to each other do not move towards each other, suggesting a universal "down" force rather than a universal "to matter" force. Some objects may not appear to fall at all, such as clouds, or balloons. Further, some objects will sink in water, and others will float on the top. As such, your acceptance of the theory of gravity also includes at least a basic understanding of the theories of aerodynamics and buoyancy.
You never established 'liberals' as ignoring the science of biology, simply made an unbacked claim that they did that seems to fly in the face of reality. If you'd care to elaborate on that, I'll feel free to respond to that.
If you don't want to bother, I totally understand. Your inability to respond to my post beyond objecting to the fact that I failed to respond to a point that you failed to make is quite telling.
I guess I just take it for granted that you have the intellect to get the point in my argument. I still believe you get the point but you simply do not want to address the point made. I have found that Liberals refuse to address points they can not defend. They then attack the poster as stupid or not explaining themselves clearly.
Are you telling me you did not get the point where Liberal's ignore the science of Biology because they ignore the natural normal sexual orientation between a man and a woman. They push Homosexuality as yet one more normal natural orientation even though it flies in the face of Biology.
I guess I just take it for granted that you have the intellect to get the point in my argument. I still believe you get the point but you simply do not want to address the point made. I have found that Liberals refuse to address points they can not defend. They then attack the poster as stupid or not explaining themselves clearl
I can understand that, and it would normally be a pretty good assumption to make if you were an effective debater. The problem is that your own deficiencies and tendencies have a tendency to obscure what you're getting at. Because of your tendency to waffle and hurl insults, to edit prior posts that haven't yet been voted on, and to claim you meant one thing when you clearly meant another, it's important to have you clarify your statements. In this case, it was important to understand exactly what you meant, not because I haven't guessed it, but to prevent you from claiming you were talking about something else entirely when I responded.
Are you telling me you did not get the point where Liberal's ignore the science of Biology because they ignore the natural normal sexual orientation between a man and a woman. They push Homosexuality as yet one more normal natural orientation even though it flies in the face of Biology.
So your point was exactly what I thought it was, thank you for clarifying.
Presenting homosexuality as a natural occurrence is not opposed to biology; it is in fact in accordance with biology, as nature reflects the entire gamut of homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, you name it. Biology essentially predicts that there will be a minority of homosexual and bisexual individuals within the population of any sexually reproducing species. It is entirely natural, from that. And even if it is a minority orientation in most populations, the fact that the phenomenon exists in more or less all species known to reproduce sexually suggests that it is a normal byproduct of sexually reproducing species.
Believe it or not, there are even documented cases in the wild of homosexual pair-bonded animals raising adopted young; this is most commonly seen in birds.
Reproduction is not the sole function of sex among most primates. In several species, including humans and bonobo chimpanzees, it can serve as a part of conflict resolution. In any species that pair-bonds, the hormonal responses to sex are important in solidifying that bond.
As such, Portraying homosexuality as normal and natural does not fly in the face of biology, but is wholly supported by it. You just fail to understand biology. Which isn't really a surprise, given that you don't even understand the platform of the party you're espousing, nor do you understand the religion you're promoting.
The science of Biology does none of the things you suggest. Biology teaches how our bodies are designed and was never meant to talk about weird things people do outside the norm. There is absolutely no doubt that Liberals have been twisting and changing our sciences to fit their new age anything goes world. They never spoke of the lunacy of the different sexual orientations back when science stuck to science and not PC garbage.
Biologists have observed homosexuality in nature. You have been shown this multiple times, but you ignore science when it does not fit your political agenda.
The science of Biology does none of the things you suggest.
All that I suggest, and more beyond that.
Biology teaches how our bodies are designed and was never meant to talk about weird things people do outside the norm.
"Biology" teaches nothing. Biology is one of the disciplines of natural science concerned with the study of life in all of its aspects. Human anatomy is only a subdiscipline of a subdiscipline of biology.
Even if homosexuality was outside the norm (it's not. It's a normal, predictable occurence that can be observed within all sexually reproducing species), your assertion that biology is not concerned with things 'outside the norm' is ridiculous. "Abnormal" phenomena are of particular concern to all forms of science.
There is absolutely no doubt that Liberals have been twisting and changing our sciences to fit their new age anything goes world.
Oh, sure. There is no doubt that some liberals have been twisting sciences to fit their agenda. There is no doubt that some conservatives and moderates have been doing so as well. Fortunately, scientists exist across the entire political spectrum and do a reasonable job of keeping one another in check for the most part. The issue is rarely with the data, so much as with the conclusions drawn from them. Even so, homosexuality is far too common in too many species to call it unnatural or abnormal, no matter how well one massages the data. Only an uninformed, prejudiced viewpoint could believe otherwise.
They never spoke of the lunacy of the different sexual orientations back when science stuck to science and not PC garbage.
You mean they never investigated sexual orientations back when science (such as it was) answered to the church and certain things weren't worth considering beyond what the bible said.
Like I said, Liberals ignore fact based science and must push their theories of weird sex calling it normal. That is laughable and an attack on true science.
More like conservatives ignore fact based science and push their dogma calling homosexuality abnormal. There are even species that are exclusively homosexual.
Gravity most certainly IS a theory, but should indeed be taught in a science class.
"Biology" is a field, not a theory, and you have denied facts presented to you by biologists. That is denying the science of biology, and has nothing to do with political correctness.