CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS TrueMojo

Reward Points:4
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
80%
Arguments:6
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
6 most recent arguments.
1 point

The debate would be more precise if it were obvious what we're saying computers or teachers are better at; (I presume all tutoring for all ages is the implication). A teacher can play video and share resources, which a computer can also do, but a computer can't help a non-comprehending child who can't understand the words or numbers in front of their face, nor can it spot and play mentor to a needy child, so until then, I don't believe a computer can completely replace a teacher with a decent level of success.

Primary school kids would do better with a human teacher but many older kids are fine with a computer. I don't think people can effectively debate such an undefined and open ended topic, because there is no outcome defined as success delineated so there's no wrong or right. It's both yes and no. Which makes it no.

It would work for those kids who self-teach/learn without guidance as long as they've got the information/study materials needed. It won't work for the many otherwise capable kids who have problems that may only flare up occasionally or may be constantly thwarting them, anything from dyslexia to socioeconomic problems (like abusive drunkards for parents). Some minds work vastly differently from others. I think until curriculum is made for the many different types of minds out there, having computers for teachers will leave many children at a loss; also some children are emotionally needy of attention and reassurance.

One day soon computers may well replace human teachers but at this moment in time they're not capable enough to be exchanged for the common school system, as terribly flawed as that is. However I think it's entirely possible that Einstein would have fledged and flown sooner with a computer; or maybe he would have become a lazy nerd who never achieved brilliance. Who knows....

1 point

Bah, the bodgy website doubleposted....

Re: someone thinking I've copied and pasted my opinions: I do understand that's actually something people do these days but much prefer to simply state my own opinions. If I ever do copy and paste information from another site I give credit. I'm not bent on anyone believing in God or evolution, I'm just stating my reasons why evolutionism is not an acceptable theory to me.

1 point

Re: the theory of gravity being used to defend the theory of evolution: obviously a big difference there, because despite the spin doctoring of pro-evolutionists, there is still no evidence of the existence of evolution, whereas there is evidence of gravity. A rose by any other name...

People shouldn't take it as a personal attack or some kind of command to submit to religion when I point out that many scientists themselves have abandoned the THEORY of evolution, while others still work to prove it. All the so-called 'proof' accumulated since the theory's advent doesn't stand up to any scientific validation testing. The facts of the matter is that evolution itself as a theory does not stand up to scrutiny and has collapsed under testing, every time, even when the testers were seeking to remove its 'theory' prefix tag by proving it. For the purposes of this debate I will use 'evolution' as a term including the 'big bang' theory, and all related/correlated theories of those two, to cover the 'accidents happen' explanation for the world's existence.

Science and scientists are fallible, it's a human fact. Much idiocy has sailed into the safe harbour of being publicly accepted under the flag of 'fact' despite gaping holes in the logic and criteria of their studies that supposedly render the proof. From there it's unquestionable, unchallengeable until pop science loses its hold with age and new information comes to light. Often it's the non-scientist who decries the new facts the loudest.

If you're so sure it's the truth then why do we have world-leading scientists seeking another explanation for the world - namely, creation - that is in complete opposition to the old theory of evolution? Maybe you should teach them the 'proven facts', and why it's a flawless theory. After all the hype died down, the best minds of our day have woken up to the realization of it simply not being a working theory. It's sacrilegious to question against evolution but gradually we are emerging into a modern world capable of questioning without lynchings.

Instead of merely reacting with the learnt-by-rote propaganda you were indoctrinated with in high school, perhaps take a moment to stop and think. Like the modern scientist is. If evolution were a proven theory no scientist would be seeking the means of intelligent or guided creation. But they are.

Not all those called scientists are making progress; many learn about science too worshipfully to ever question the old findings that have gone before, and instead of advancing science or contributing, they teach the flawed 'facts' of last century. That sort tends to rabidly and fervently (religiously) swallow piecemeal, and propagate/preach evolutionism. The rather self-righteous, hysterical, completely illogical behaviour evolutionists tend to erupt into when their faith's ideology is questioned is identical to the behaviour of the religiously fanatical. But, like all good fanatics, the most faithful of the closed-minded evolutionists are blind to their own behaviour.

I think evolutionism should be classified as a type of cultist religion; in fact in future it will almost certainly go down into history as a quasi-cult doctrine perpetrated upon the ignorant common man who had not the education to save himself, for the purposes of liberation from the control of the big churches into the hands of commercialism and industrialism. Certainly some people are fanatical and willfully blind enough in their support of it. I understand it's comforting and liberating to many, but the truth is not encompassed by evolutionary theory. I too was all abuzz when evolutionism was first taught. But even to me the faults became obvious, and this late in the day the rats (a.k.a. leading scientists) are finally deserting the sinking ship. Very reluctantly though. They're not saying it's not a plausible explanation for the world because they believe in God; (most of them don't); rather, they're saying that evolution/big bang theory etc is not a plausible explanation for the world because they have inquiring and evaluating minds, have done the studies and maths, and know it doesn't work. Not by a long stretch. It's a laughable fantasy, in all truth. I bet there'll still be devoted believers of evolutionism when it's been discredited for centuries, in future. When people believe so blindly they lose the ability to see or seek truth, they are lost. I'm glad it's freed the commoner from the complete and hypocritical dictatorship of the big churches, but it's still not a working theory. Many of the scientists back then were mis-educated and intimidated sycophants. Be a little more open minded if you dare.

1 point

So, how is this a debate? It's just a chat thread. If anyone wants to go with the 'official' answer, there's any number of different takes on the various scriptures ad texts available, and if they want to speculate, well, that's a boring line of joke. Dead 'debate' either way... And seriously, Jesus jokes? Some of the most boring and lame jokes out there. Small bit of info most people don't know about the bible's description of Jesus: he wasn't good looking, he was quite possibly the ugliest man alive, and a cripple to boot.

0 points

Actually, you need to do a simple search on evolution, and a simple search of the meaning of a theory, and you will find the theory of evolution is still a theory. It has not lost its theory prefix for many, many good reasons. Scientists have tried long and hard to prove it, and all failed. And this is accepted and common knowledge. You need to educate yourself.

Saying 'blah' makes someone lose all credibility is not the same as debating, if anything it's like a little child saying I'm 'it' somehow.

2 points

Creationism. There's a reason evolutionism is still only a theory: it can't be proven, despite countless scientist's attempts. It was a handy pseudo-scientific theory that served the powers that were (and are) very nicely; how to create moral-free consumers? It was biblical law they needed to separate mankind from to move forward into the future they envisioned, and Darwin provided that. Not really a strong theory, but good enough for the purposes it was used for against the unlearned commoner. Modern scientists are trying to find what actually created the world, because some time ago it became painfully clear to the cutting edge scientists that the world cannot be an accident; that flies in the face of mathematics and all other disciplines. All attempts to prove evolution true once and for all had only succeeded in proving it was not true. Only low-grade scientists are still in the dark about that one. It's actually a dead theory, disproven by all the attempts to prove it. So this is actually a dead debate. However, they will leave evolution being taught as fact just like they did when it was clearly an unfleshed theory, because they haven't figured out what they want to replace it with, and 'God' is an abhorrent thought to them. They'll let us know when they've thought up the creator they attribute the world to.

Once you study biology (or genetics or physics or whatever) you see how precisely everything is built together. Countless perfect sums working together in preset programs and processes can't be a happy whoopsie; that defies logic itself. Evolution as per Darwin's theory works from the whopper of a presupposition that mistakes kept being evolved away from until a species was created, and happy mistakes kept happening in cohesion. The real world is far too complex to result from such a haphazard method. We live in the midst of the most complex, precisely orchestrated symphony imaginable; it could not possibly be a result of trial and error or unguided happenstance because the failures in the process of evolution into a living organism would have doomed that species to never become a species in the first place.

What guided evolution to work? If you believe in evolution, for it to work, something had to be making the right accidents happen perfectly and stay happening; otherwise we'd still be trying to emerge from the primordial ooze, constantly being retarded back into single cells. Everything around us, from each cell to each ecosystem, is built of so many interacting molecules and cells etc, that it is literally impossible for evolution to occur due to the sheer number of mistakes that would be fatal to the entire race. Maybe we could swallow the idea of one cell 'evolving'; but uncountable cells 'evolving' in cooperative harmony with one another and their environment and the planetary organism itself? That's sheer untrammeled fantasy.

Leading scientists are now leaning towards creationism because the best science tells them there is no way this all happened by accident; that's the greatest fairytale of all, and requires learnt ignorance which is fostered and taught under the facade of educated scientific knowledge. It's ancient ignorant pseudo-science and has been and is progressively being debunked. Whether or not you want to believe in God, the facts/sciences/maths actually support creationism, in the most nonreligious sense of the word, and now world leading science, while trying to avoid inciting a stampede of panicked evolutionist lemmings, is seeking the means and method of intelligent or guided creation. It's a fact that we are created and live in creation; now, it's time to seek the creator. It's still pretty hush-hush because the cult of evolution reigns strong, as do all of the most ignorant belief systems, but bit by bit common media is starting to come around to the idea that evolution is a failed doctrine, and the truth is yet to be accepted.

TrueMojo has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here