CreateDebate


Munificent's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Munificent's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

"stellar evolution"

Not related to the theory of evolution.

"macroevolution"

To posit a difference between micro and macro evolution, you'll first need definitions of both, and then an explanation of why there would be a line between the two, and then finally evidence in nature for the mechanism that causes that line.

"Therefore, because science must be observable and repeatable, those definitions of evolution have not been scientifically proven."

You're confusing empirical and historical sciences. The emprical sciences such as chemistry and phyics are indeed founded on repeatable experiment. Historical sciences such as geology and archaelogy are based on "natural experiments".

Evolution is both empirical (look up the many speciation experiments) and historical. Darwin's original theory of evolution posed a large number of hypotheses for natural experiments. For example, according to evolution, we would expect to find species with certain body shapes in certain strata of the earth. Later paleontologists consistently found the predicted forms.

Supporting Evidence: Natural experiment @ wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org)
3 points

"every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If the big-bang was the reaction, what was the action that caused it??"

You're confusing causality with mechanical force. Newton's third law has nothing to do with causality because it states those two opposing forces occur simultaneously.

"Why would we evolve into two sexes??"

To protect against disease and other "enemy" organisms. The reason we can fight off infection is because when we have a cold, all of the bacteria in our bodies are exact clones. Once our immune system can fight off one, it can fight them all off.

The same thing is true in the larger world. Sexual reproduction makes a collection of organisms more diverse, which equips them to survive a changing environment.

Besides, not all organisms reproduce sexually.

"If evolution were true, which evolved first, the acids in your stomach, or the liner to keep the acids from eating through."

The liner. Do a little reading.

3 points

Both participants are able to give consent.

2 points

No, of course not. To be classified as a mental disease, it must be shown to interfere with the person (and those around him/her) living a complete and happy life. There are many happy, productive homosexuals. Therefore, it's not a disease.

By analogy, drinking alcohol is in itself not a disease. It only becomes the disease alcoholism when the alcoholic's need for alcohol intereferes with his or her ability to hold down a job, maintain a family, etc.

1 point

"I believe that you were the one who argued this for the opposing side. I think you should get your side situated man."

There's no need for a participant in a debate to personally support the side they are arguing for. If you learn debating in school, you'll often be given the side to argue for, regardless of your personal preferences.

Outside of training, arguing against your position is helpful for learning more about the subject. The goal here, is to learn more, not just line up our little soldiers against the other guy's.

3 points

Creationism includes both the beginning of the universe, and the origin of species on Earth. Evolution addresses the latter. (Cosmology addresses the former.)

If creationism only said "the universe began when God created it but then who knows where us and the animals came from?" then it would not be in conflict with evolutionary theory.

2 points

Can you provided a definition of "kind" that isn't a tautology?

5 points

"Evolution will never obtain the title of Law as that is reserved for mathematical formulas."

There's a few, Mendel's come to mind. But it's hard to break down something as statistically based as evolution into something with nice algebraic terms.

Supporting Evidence: Mendelian inheritance (en.wikipedia.org)
5 points

You're a little mixed up in your terminology here.

"In the strict sense of the word 'proof', it has not been proven."

Incorrect. Hypotheses in science are proven when the scientific body as a whole reaches consensus. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that evolution is proven. There is no stricter sense than that in science. Wide consensus + much other subsequent science based on it = proof.

"All scientific facts have at some base level axioms - statements that are either accepted or rejected but not provable."

You're confusing math with science here. Mathematical theorems are based on axioms. Science is based on repeated observations of the real world, experiment, consensus, etc.

10 points

Bible quotes are never effective arguments. If your opponent believes the Bible is an infallible source of truth, you have no disagreement to begin with. If you opponent does not agree with you, he does not believe the Bible either, and the quote carries no weight.

8 points

"Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. "

Not necessarily. You're skipping over the much more likely reality that things cause each other to change, in an interrelated cycle.

7 points

"To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved?"

The problem here is that "thing" is pretty poorly defined. An acorn does not magically transform into a tree. Instead, the molecules within it used their stored energy to build the first shoot. That shoot then takes in carbon dioxide from the air and uses that to build new plant cells, which in turn grow more and more. So, from the perspective of the carbon, nothing has changed. It used to be floating in the air with its two oxygen pals and nows it's in a plant cell, part of an oak tree. At no point did that molecule attain "treeness".

1 point

I'm OK with Wikipedia's definition.

7 points

"Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything."

That would be true if the state itself did physically exist, but it does not. "Mature size" is not a "thing" in the world. It's a quality of oak trees that some people perceive of certain trees. If all of the oaks on Earth died "mature size oak" would still exist because it only exists as a concept in the minds of humans. Conversely, if all humans died, "mature size oak" would disappear, because there would be no philosophers to declare, "this is a mature size oak".

Trees need no outside supernatural force to manifest some property that isn't intrinsic to them to begin with.

2 points

I'm sorry, but I didn't see anything in that video that looked like a logical argument (I didn't listen to the audio). Pretty zoom effect or not, a series of uncorrelated assertions proves little. The only thing close to an argument I saw in there was:

"Either everything came from nothing or something always existed and created everything that is created."

...which is clearly a false dichotomy. It leaves out, among other things, the possibility that everything always existed and nothing has been created.

4 points

> I am able to keep both hands on the wheel and both eyes on the road.

Yes, and if you had two brains you could keep one of those on the road too. Unfortunately, there is only the one, and since so much of it is hardwired for human interaction, you're very likely keeping it on the conversation and not your driving.

2 points
Clever, but unconvincing. Logical deduction is useful in math and other abstract formal systems, but does not apply to arguments in the real world. (Even the name "formal system" implies as much: it's a system where truth is based solely on the forms of the statements, not the truth of the propositions.)
Or, if you prefer reductio ad absurdum:
1. There are at least two religions with Gods who claim to be the only God.
2. Denying the existence any God is affirming a universal negative, which is illogical.
3. Therefore, multiple Gods, each of whom is the only one, cannot be denied.
4. Absurd.
11 points
There's a flaw in your argument. The Law of Cause and Effect is a property within the physical universe itself (or possibly even just our perception of it). Just because things in the universe follow the Law doesn't mean the universe itself does.
Your statement is analogous to saying "everything in this house is under a roof, therefore the house itself must have a further roof above it."
Even if you disagree with that analogy, you still haven't solved the First Cause problem, you've just bumped it up a level. If something greater than the universe caused the universe, what created that "greater cause"? If that "greater cause" has some special property that enables it to be a First Cause, why attribute that property to something outside the universe instead of applying it to the universe itself?
2 points
While that may be true, consider the theory of natural selection. It's easy to hypothesize that humans that find the faces of newborns to be fascinating and adorable will spend more time nuturing and caring for the infants. Better cared for infants are more likely to survive and pass on those genes, leading to more humans who find babies' faces mysteriously awe-inspiring.
That seems like a simpler and more logical explanation for why the faces of babies are so compelling than having to manufacture a supernatural deity, creation myth, etc.


Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]