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.
People who are adamantly anti-evolution have no understanding of it.
Ignorance itself isn't a bad thing. What's bad is ignorance by choice.
Whenever people dispute the legitimacy of the Theory of Evolution, they demonstrate a severe misunderstandin often comparing it to Pokemon (which is actually a metamorphosis) or implying that a parent species always disappears.
Do you admit to not understanding evolution? Do you admit to not wanting to understand evolution? Do you admit to not wanting to understand evolution and still deny it due to a lack of understanding? Would you be willing to become enlightened in the ways of evolution?
Join the evolution cult today and get limited edition Darwin themed cult robe! Llame ahora!
I realize how evolution works. The concurrent generations are the same species. Its the the great x 100 grandfather that's not the same species. I know how it works.
If you're talking about the point where a species stops being one and becomes another, that's like asking at what point on a gray scale does the colour stop being white and then become black.
A guy... who wanted to make people stop being douchebags... but since they wouldn't listen, he had to say he was the son of God. Get me documents outside of the Bible, however, and they should be from the time Jesus was on Earth.
Many of the historians tried to discredit Jesus'smumiracles but could only do so by disputing where his power came from, most commonly being sorcery. However, if Jesus did do the things he did, as it was with the people who were around him in the first century, its left up to us to decide to believe in him. If he did do all the miracles described, what else could he be? His miracles are supported by both the fallibility of the historians to disprove them, and how loyal his followers were after his death. They were at first disloyal by running away when he was crucified. But then they all came back and many died for his name. What reason could their be for this transformation but his ressurection? By his miracles and ressurection not being able to be disproven outside of your disbelief (due to you not being their) I see no reason to not belief he is trully the Son of God.
First of all, using that logic, I could also make up the Sacred Sexy Unicorn and get a bunch of friends to say the Sacred Sexy Unicorn existed and asked us to devote our lives to the endeavours of getting this Unicorn the best carrot juice in the land. If we kept it up for long enough and never let up, we could see a future based on carrots simply because it the encounter with the Unicorn was so long ago, we were so loyal, and there was no way to disprove the Unicorn's Sexiness.
Furthermore, they might not have been miracles. What if they were metaphors for his grace? What if he walked on ice? What if he had a vineyard that he watered and then used the grapes to make wine?
First of all, using that logic, I could also make up the Sacred Sexy Unicorn and get a bunch of friends to say the Sacred Sexy Unicorn existed and asked us to devote our lives to the endeavours of getting this Unicorn the best carrot juice in the land. If we kept it up for long enough and never let up, we could see a future based on carrots simply because it the encounter with the Unicorn was so long ago, we were so loyal, and there was no way to disprove the Unicorn's Sexiness.
This is hypothetical. If you legitly die for your unicorn cause I will renounce Christianity, until then....
Or what if his miracles were legit because your metaphor theory doesn't for in with the Bible or history as stated in my previous post.
All the other self-proclaimed messiahs were killed and they didn't make the impact Jesus did. Once again, Jesus depicted in the is the only one that makes historical and biblical sense.
These fossils are more like creationists when they claim they have found fossils that claim to show that man and disnasour lived together but in reality little evidence is shown in the first place. And when it is shown it is hilighted in a way to hide the fact that the "man" footprints are eroded dinasour footprints. Like these, the crocofish has way more evidence than the whale with legs. The "push and nudge" technique is computer graphics with the original fossils rarely to never shown. The crocfish has more evidence but their are debates if it really is a fish-croc or a different species of crocodile.
Absolutely - right after you specifically define 'kind'.
If 'kinds' are so distinct it should be quite easy for you to name them, and there should be no fossil evidence between one 'kind' and another, correct? So, can you name the 'kinds' to which you are referring?
I agree - but you need to understand that most people who claim to be anti-evolution are mostly against Darwin's and Dawkin's theories of evolution, not so much evolution in general.
I realize some might be anti-evolution, but in my mind that is like being anti-gravity or something.
I believe we are evolving, I believe everything evolves - I just don't believe we came from monkeys.
But true - people who are against don't understand it.
I do accept where you're coming from, but the Theory of Evolution does not say that we came from monkeys. According to how evolution works, we would not have come from monkeys, but we would have a common ancestor. It's like how if you share some features with your siblings, it doesn't mean they're the ones whose vadginas you squeezed out of.
I know that, but I don't consider that as a fact like many scientists do. I believe we evolve, I just don't believe we evolved from a monkey or any other being that resembles a monkey.
Like you say, we have many things in common with the monkey - but we have many things in common with a bunch of other species too.
Human beings share 95% of their DNA with mice, and 89% with zebrafish.
Plus - monkeys do not react on the HIV bacteria, they all have it without actually getting ill from it - don't you think this kind of contradicts the theory that we evolved from monkeys? Why would the human specie evolve from being tolerant to intolerant to a certain bacteria? That goes against evolution.
The reason scientists hypothesisisisisisieseseses that humans and monkeys share a similar ancestor is that they can hypothesesesesiseseisieisiisieiis how and where the divergence possibly happened.
Geographical separation is a simple enough to understand cause of speciation, so I'll use it as an example. The assumed ancestors of humans and apes (I will say apes because they're closer than 'monkeys.') could have been separated geographically by something like a natural disaster or a random whim to migrate. If their environments differed, so would their challenges, thus those who were unfit for their environments were weeded out along with their genes and there began the divergence, which I'm too lazy to expound further.
Since I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't know everything, I won't comment on the DNA thing because I have no knowledge of it.
As for HIV, first of all, it's not a bacteria - it's a virus. Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Getting to the actual point though, monkeys are not humans. If monkeys were humans, they would react to the Human Immunodefiency Virus, but they're not human. Moreover, it's very possible for evolution to go wrong, as nature is not a perfect thing, which is why it keeps on changing.
The virus is a thing that contributes HEAVILY to evolution. Again, it's not something I know much about, but since HIV started when humans had been around for a really long time, it's only natural that if its target were the human species, it would specialise in destroying the human immune system, but after an extreme divergence, monkeys must have a vastly different immune system from humans, so the virus would in a sense be 'confused.' It's like trying to read a page of a book written entirely in a language you don't understand - you'll be like, "What the fuck does this say?"
I am not saying the ape/monkey theory is totally false. It could be true, but as for now I don't really believe it. I don't think it has good scientific arguments to be considered a ''true theory'', if that is such a thing :)
That I can understand. Actually, I agree in a sense, in that it can't be concrete. This might be another Schroedinger's Cat case if I actually understood that paradox better.
"Human beings share 95% of their DNA with mice, and 89% with zebrafish."
This is factually incorrect. About 70% of protein coding genes have a corollary in zebrafish (that does not mean they are the same and there is a lot of DNA that does not fall into that category - the vast majority of human DNA is noncoding).
"don't you think this kind of contradicts the theory that we evolved from monkeys?"
not at all actually. There are several ways that existing animals with shared ancestors would have different levels of resistance to a given virus. Either the resistance did not exist in the common ancestor and developed after biological separation. Or, it could have existed and due to lack of prevalence in a given population resistance could have given way to other mutations. Since humans lived successfully without encountering HIV until the 20th century, they likely did not need to attain/maintain resistance for the intervening millions of years.
If you believe in evolution, what is it you think we evolved from if not monkeys/apes?
It's likely that some people could refute evolution because it's difficult to see the effects in one lifetime (or a more reasonable time frame). It's not that they don't understand it, it's that they don't see it. The solution to this is to show them microevolution in a laboratory setting. Pressure a colony of microbes to evolve! If the environment they're in changes quickly and at least some survive, evolution will take place!