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.
Science doesn't fix every single problem. Some stuff in science has flaws in it like evolution. I could name the flaws in evoultion. Yes only the Islamic religion causes wars and terrorism
Yet. With time I'm sure it will continue to solve all our current problems. Of course, new problems will arise so there will always be problems though. It's just life.
Some stuff in science has flaws in it like evolution.
Evolution not agreeing with your religion, at least according to you, is not a flaw. And does any other part of Science have flaws? One example, that no one really agrees with, does not make a good argument.
Yes only the Islamic religion causes wars and terrorism
If you believe this then you should pay more attention in your history classes and learn something.
I know I have posted this up before, but I put it up again because no one seemed to reply.
The argument is about how our bodies are self evidence of Evolution:
Here's the reasons why...
We get Goose Bumps, just like other animals when we and they are cold, frightened, angry or in awe.
Also, Humans have structures in their genetic make-up that were once used to produce enzymes to process vitamin C (it is called L-gulonolactone oxidase). Most other animals have this functioning DNA but at some point in our history, a mutation disabled the gene - whilst leaving remnants as junk DNA. This junk DNA indicates a common ancestry with other species on Earth.
We are also have auriculares muscles in our ears that are used by animals to swivel and manipulate their ears in order to focus their hearing, but humans still have these muscles that we would of once used for the very same reason, but now our ear muscles are feeble, and can only do a wiggle.
We also have a Plantaris Muscle that other animals use by gripping objects with their feet- which is something you could see apes doing using their feet and hands. Humans have this muscle to, but it is so underdeveloped that they are often taken out by doctors for other uses for reconstructing other parts of the body. This muscle is now so unimportant, that Evolution has made 9% of people so far to be born without it.
Aand also, early humans used to eat a lot of plants and they needed to eat them quickly enough to gain a sufficient amount of nutrition every day, for this reason, we had evolved extra teeth (Wisdom Teeth) to do so. But as Evolution made it's selections, our diet had changed, rendering these teeth useless.
Humans also used to have a third eye lid and another set of nostrils, but now there are only remnants left within the eye and nose. Our second pair of nostrils receded back inside the nose and our third transparent eyelids went quite small and non-working.
And also, we have a particular bone in the lower part of the human body called the "Coccyx," and the Coccyx was in fact, a remnant of what was once a human tail. Over time, and with evolution, we lost the need for a tail and had begun walking on ground instead of swinging through trees. But humans haven't lost the need of a Coccyx, because we know use it to support structure for various muscles to support a person when sitting or leaning back.
And lastly, the appendix- it has no use to modern humans and is often removed when it becomes infected, but in the past, it was evolved when we needed it to help procese the cellulose in our once, leaf-rich diet.
And one more thing, our little toe will actually vanish in the future, for future humans, as it has almost no use. It's already being evolved out of us right now. >_>
So true. The wisdom teeth are already stopping. Not everyone gets them anymore. Even the hair on our bodies has lessened. We definitely evolved and as for religion, it started as a superstition that has never let up. They didn't understand why the earth shook, or the volcanoes erupted or the floods came. Our ancestors thought there were angry Gods and had to appease them. So started the sacrificing of babies and maidens and of course worshiping. Men learned how to control societies with religion and it hasn't stopped. Just look at the history of the world and what religion has done to it.
Some stuff in science has flaws in it like evolution. I could name the flaws in evoultion.
Go on then. Name them.
Yes only the Islamic religion causes wars and terrorism
If I was a Muslim that didn't already know how ignorant you were, I'd take that as slander. I know you don't know anything about history, but please do research before you open your mouth.
I take it you've never heard of the Crusades? Or the inquisitions? Or the destruction of Paganism? Or the Irish conflicts? Or the witch hunts?
First, there is the contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” Second is the problem in projecting “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Third is the unfortunate way in which the theory has been unscientifically abused for philosophical reasons.
First, there is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution.
Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
The fossil record might seem to support punctuated equilibrium, but again, there are major problems. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that a very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time.
While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting “survival of the fittest” cripple the organisms instead.
Despite what some claim, punctuated equilibrium is not a more refined version of gradualism. They have very different assumptions about the mechanisms behind evolution and the way those mechanisms behave. Neither is a satisfactory explanation for how life came to be as diverse and balanced as it is, and yet there are no other reasonable options for how evolution can operate.
The second flaw is the problem of extending “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called “microevolution.” Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.
Long-term evolution, though, requires “macroevolution,” which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.
Finally, there is the flawed application of evolution. This is not a flaw in the scientific theory, of course, but an error in the way the theory has been abused for non-scientific purposes. There are still many, many questions about biological life that evolution has not answered. And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been hijacked as an anti-religious mascot by those with an axe to grind against God.
Overall, there are many solidly scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution. These flaws may be resolved by science, or they may eventually kill the theory all together. We don’t know which one will happen, but we do know this: the theory of evolution is far from settled, and rational people can question it scientifically.
Wow. If you're going to plagiarize large chunks of text, the burden does not lie on me to find it. It lies on you to provide it. This is very basic stuff. Nevertheless, I shall rebut the argument anyway, as I need to correct some errors.
First, there is the contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.”
You really are copying out of your rectum aren't you? They're both gradualistic, the former being interrupted, the latter being strict. Of course, you would know the difference ;)
Second is the problem in projecting “microevolution” into “macroevolution.”
Oh jeez, creationist ontology fails again. As I said in the first argument, they are the same damn thing. Macroevolution is just lots of microevolution. Now unless you're willing to disprove microevolution, you must accept macroevolution.
Third is the unfortunate way in which the theory has been unscientifically abused for philosophical reasons.
Which is irrelevant to actually disproving evolution.
It's actually a relatively decent website, compared to many of the other Christian answer sites I've seen. But ultimately, I disagree with most of the answers they give.
Thanks, I couldn't be bothered to spend 30 seconds of my time. I should have known he'd just take one of the first results that wasn't Wikipedia.
I still don't think it's any better than most creationist sites. It just uses some clever words completely incorrectly, which of course is persuasive to those who don't understand what they mean.
It's sad that you still haven't learned your lesson on this.
Anyone who has read a few of your posts knows you're not yet capable of communicating this well. If someone wrote a response of similar quality, you wouldn't be able to offer a defense and you'd have wasted someone's time.
If you can't write your own responses, you don't really understand the issue.
Actually, it's not even a quality copy and paste job. The entire response is just awful creationist ontology, completely misconstruing what evolution is.
It's almost as bad as the "why are there monkeys?" rebuttal.
I'd dispute this copypasta if I thought there was a point, but you'll not counter, shame really. The only time I can get a response out of you is when I swear.
1. Islam is a part of Religion. (It has a large part in fact, and Islam is not the only religion that causes wars and terrorism [Yes, Christianity does it too] know your facts dude.)
2. Science will actually save the whole human race. You know spaceships and teleporters- that's what science can give us. Since our Sun is dying, and we will all die with it, technology will move us out of Earth through space travel, so we can populate other worlds.
3. Evolution has fact. We have wisdom teeth, remnants of third eyeballs and forth nostrils, tails and wasteful appendixes that came with Evolution- as said in the theory of "Stupid Design."
Science does not cause problems. It cannot, as by its very nature, science solves problems.
How one can consider knowledge to be generally harmful is beyond me. If the creator of this debate means the socio-political ramifications of scientific knowledge, that cannot be attributed to science itself.
Actually I was thinking the same and was going to post religion but I think the point the fellow was trying to make was stuff like weapons and nuclear bombs. I have not taken sides yet actually.
There's no denying that science will eventually save the human race from extinction though.
Because what can we do to survive when the sun dies?
Science is the only answer. Within a span of a few billion years, we would already have time to leave this planet- and leave this solar system, to populate other worlds, and science is gonna get us there.
Actually we would die before the sun: hint; red giant. Religion as well did save many innocent girls, because before the known religions, people used to do many barbaric things, including burying girls alive for being girls. That was just before religion, now you have extremism which is very different from what I said, in fact, to me religious extremism is using religion as an excuse for killing people. The Golden age also improved mankind with the teachings of a religion (as odd as it sounds to some people) many of the things you use now were created after Islam came into being and told people that it is important to educate yourself.
Actually we would die before the sun: hint; red giant.
I have no idea what the Red Giant is... is it a dying star that will kill us? Hmm... that is a fail for God and his creations...
But still, we have more than enough time to develop space travel before this "Red giant" kills us with a super nova or whatever.
I'll just quote a previous argument for some support:
Medicine.
Have you heard of the bubonic plague?
How about small pox?
The bubonic plague killed two thirds of the European population, and it is still around today. But thanks to science, that won't happen again. Same with small pox and all the other big viruses.
Also, it is a well known fact that the Sun won't be hanging around for all of eternity- it's gonna die in a billion years or so, and we humans are gonna suffer from it- as in, we are all gonna die and the human race will cease to exist.
But, there is hope.
With science, we can create and invent ways to cope with this. We could use space travel to populate other worlds, possibly find a way to keep the sun alive. Within a period of time of a billion years, the human race would of already achieved and advanced so much that we would be safe and well away when the sun finally dies. We would of mastered the galaxy- met other alien races. We could be on top of the universe with science.
That's the thing about science- it could actually save all of mankind from extinction.
Red giant is not a fail of god's creation, it is natural in star's death, I mean if you believe in doomsday (not 2012) the star exploding makes total sense, I am just saying. And yes of course religion can't help everyone every time, but it did however stop us from being barbarians. (this does not mean there are no barbaric religious people (extremists), but religion played an important part of the timeline which routes from the first homo sapiens to now. )
It's a fail because we are all gonna die from it, unless a God doesn't exist and this is a natural world that can kill us at anytime. But I see that is a No-No to you.
And religion influenced babarianism. They demanded stoning to people for many, many things. And also ritual sacrifice.
But face it, science will save the human race from extinction. Something religion will never do.
The bubonic plague is still around today, and it would of been able to kill many people. But now we have medicine.
I am not talking about religions that no one follows anymore like the Romans or Aztecs. As for stoning, nowadays, people are not doing according to the scripture, if they did then no one would be stoned for adultery. There were even some religions that ENDED child sacrifice.
The bubonic plague killed two thirds of the European population, and it is still around today. But thanks to science, that won't happen again. Same with small pox and all the other big viruses.
Also, it is a well known fact that the Sun won't be hanging around for all of eternity- it's gonna die in a billion years or so, and we humans are gonna suffer from it- as in, we are all gonna die and the human race will cease to exist.
But, there is hope.
With science, we can create and invent ways to cope with this. We could use space travel to populate other worlds, possibly find a way to keep the sun alive. Within a period of time of a billion years, the human race would of already achieved and advanced so much that we would be safe and well away when the sun finally dies. We would of mastered the galaxy- met other alien races. We could be on top of the universe with science.
That's the thing about science- it could actually save all of mankind from extinction.
But I think religion promotes more hate filled killing than science.
Science and progress has made us so lazy and made us take everything for granted. But I know I owe science a great deal of respect when compared to religion.
Everyone thinks that they're god or whatever is the one that exists and it makes other religions mad and want to argue. Therefore, nuclear missiles are pointed down each other's throats. Science on the other hand is universal and cannot be debated
Ha! This is absolutely a no brainer. Religion! Why? What wars have been created over Science? How many people, in the name of science have died in comparison to that of religion? Ever since the dawn of mankind people have been dying for, and because of religion. Religion is the most corrupt, problamatic thing on this earth, if you ask me... although this isn't just a matter of opinion here, there are numbers to prove it.
I'm pretty sure this view has popped up more than once in this debate segment. I believe that Religion has caused more wars and more separation between individuals than Science. Science is also a belief system but it is a lot more private and reserved. People are prideful of their religion and therefore it is visible and in clear view of people who can disagree with it. I actually witness a very defining argument of religion between two people in a public area. This person was pushed and shoved because of his belief and it caused a whole disturbance in the areas surrounding. Not to mention we are a lot more judgmental of others when it comes to religion. We believe that our religion is the right one, and therefore grow a sort of hierarchy towards it. It's no hesitation in these factors when it comes to my views.
But not all religions condemn extremism and extremists can find valid support for their beliefs in scripture and religious teachings. That'll make them religious extremists, then. Don't see how this does anything to nullify my point.
What those extremists is cut out a verse for example, they show everyone it says kill the infidel, but if you read the rest of the verse, it shows that the verse is talking about a defensive war. Also, the extremists don't do what the religeon tells them to do, they just justify anything by snipping out verses.
Is this somehow a less valid interpretation of scripture than, say, people who cut out verses and use them for "good?"
Even if you accept and follow everything in your given scripture to the letter, there is still room for interpretation and application. Scripture and religion change their message all the time to better integrate with/combat the culture they occupy. Why should people be unable to do the same?
It seems to me if you accept religion and religious freedom, you need to accept the good and the bad, both in terms of scripture and followers.
You see, it depends on the religion, also in Islam, we have something called, tasfir , in which is the interpretation of each verse, most are told by the prophet. I did not really need tasfir because I read the previous verses.
Science has changed the world massively over the last few thousand years. It's advanced society in almost every way that anything's been advanced. It's helped every single person in the world.
But, without it, we'd still be a primitive race, and have a tiny, backward population. Life would be much, much worse, but there would be much less problems than is currently faced by the 7 billion people of today.
Obviously, there would be much much less benefits (both in real and relative terms), but this debate isn't over which has helped more, just what's caused more problems.
Technology is indirectly responsible for the meaningless lives we are living today. We forget about caring for our peers and are just engrossed in materialistic things. I sometimes feel that we have lost some of the pleasures of life that technology can’t easily replace.
I believe that science has caused more benefits, and more problems. Religion has caused a higher ratio of problems to benefits, but both to a lesser degree. However, it's simply asking what has caused more problems.
It didn't cause the Cold War at all. It was a featuring factor within it- but in the end actually helped to reach a conclusion. After the Cuban Missile Crisis- the two countries communicated and interacted better. If anything, the entire concept of M.A.D (Mutually Assured Destruction) is probably the best possible prevention of international conflict. So nuclear weapons, inadvertently, help prevent war.
I would also like to point the the delusion that religion is the problem in the world. Religion is supposed to teach us caring, loving for others and inner self reflection. So we ask why it causes problems in the world? It is in fact the cause of exploitation of religion that is causing problems. I think people should not make blunt comments on any matter without looking at it at different perspectives.
Well religion has caused religious leaders in the past to kill off those who didn't share the faith, sacrifices, genocides practically. Science has created technology thats created bombs, guns, tactical weapons, and genocide as well. However religion has healed broken hearts, turned peoples lifes around, fed the poor. Science has given people a way to breathe, gave them a heart beat, faster communication for more efficent and rapid emergency responses. Neither one of them causes more problems than the other as they dont solve problems any more than the other. The fact is they both have relatively equal effects on society on both pros and cons.
Science and Religion are not that different in terms of forces in our world. Both of them consistently do huge amounts of good to make human life better. However, they are also both used by unscrupulous people to take advantage of others and gain power.
Since the first man tied a rock to a stick science has been used to kill people. Religion has not been that different.
Bottom line... tools are only as good or evil as the person who wields it.
Science has caused a lot of troubles too. We can obviously think to the atomic bomb which is can still destroy the entire planet but paradoxically we have never felt so powerful thanks to the knowledge, the science. Because of this feeling of power (which is in my opinion fake) we don't hesitate to behave as if no one could punish us, and maybe become more and more violent (the XXth century became more and more atheist and though it was extremely violent and deadly).