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.
Yes the contributions of scientists and science cannot be underestimated , anyone who thinks science is bad for the world is possibly insane , uneducated or a religious lunatic .
NerdyRoo is the perfect place for students who want to get their academic papers written by other students. We have a huge database of academic papers that have been written by high school, college, and university students. Our team of professional writers is always available to help you with your writing needs.
I Agree. I think that we can rely on the help of various sources. PapersGeek is the best source of ideas and help for students who want to improve their studies. We offer a vast database of research papers and term papers, as well as topics for persuasive and argumentative essays. All our resources are carefully curated to provide you with the best possible help for your education https://papersgeeks.com/
I agree. NerdyRoo is the perfect place for students who want to get their academic papers written by other students. We have a huge database of academic papers that have been written by high school, college, and university students. Our team of professional writers is always available to help you with your writing needs.https://nerdyroo.com/
EduRaven is a website that offers a multitude of academic samples on any given subject. Our main goal is to provide every student who needs it without jeopardizing their self-improvement. We want to transmit the message that with enough resources, even the most difficult academic topics can be tackled. We believe that if a person is inspired and driven enough, they can thrive academically - no matter what their educational level may be. https://eduraven.com/
Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen compares global warming to past politicized scientific movements: the eugenics movement in the early 20th Century and Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union under Stalin. However, the MIT professor argues that global warming goes even beyond what these past movements in terms of twisting science.
“Global Warming has become a religion,” writes Lindzen. “A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.”
You going to argue with the MIT professor there SouthPark ?
No , you exposed nothing except your ignorance on what is true , and if you want evidence look at your own country where a fair percentage of your population dismiss Evolution and global warming as nonsense which leaves a fair chunk of Americans aligned in their viewpoint with Saudi Arabia and Turkey , how fucking embarrassing is that ?
Thankfully the tide is turning as the youth of the US are beginning to reject the nonsense of previous generations .
A piece of legislation Senate Bill 1161, the Orwellian-named “California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016,” would have dramatically extended the period of time that state officials could prosecute anyone who dared challenge the climate orthodoxy, including statements made decades ago. It would have sought “redress for unfair competition practices committed by entities that have deceived, confused or misled the public on the risks of climate change or financially supported activities that have deceived, confused or misled the public on those risks.”
Those in Moonbeam Land do view Climate Chaos as a religion ! Did you miss the Senate Bill 1161 there SouthPark ?
Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen compares global warming to past politicized scientific movements: the eugenics movement in the early 20th Century and Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union under Stalin. However, the MIT professor argues that global warming goes even beyond what these past movements in terms of twisting science.
“Global Warming has become a religion,” writes Lindzen. “A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.”
You going to argue with the MIT professor there SouthPark ? Answer the question
A piece of legislation Senate Bill 1161, the Orwellian-named “California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016,” would have dramatically extended the period of time that state officials could prosecute anyone who dared challenge the climate orthodoxy, including statements made decades ago. It would have sought “redress for unfair competition practices committed by entities that have deceived, confused or misled the public on the risks of climate change or financially supported activities that have deceived, confused or misled the public on those risks.”
Those in Moonbeam Land do view Climate Chaos as a religion ! Did you miss the Senate Bill 1161 there SouthPark ?
I know you are refering to your father(idiocy) thou art in your genes.
"Religion is resistant to science, not the other way around."
you idiot......do religious people not use electric power, vehicles and meds etc. which are products of science?
It's just that religious people are not that stupid to a accept your incomplete atheistic under cover(science) nonsensical theories, with so many unanswered questions surrounding them.....
Evolution wasn't considered atheistic until a religious "God believer" said it had nothing to do with God. Oh and your examples are fucking stupid too. The Amish reject those things because they are religious. Jehovah's Witness reject medicine because they are religious. The only people who reject science are religious. But, not everyone who goes into science rejects religion.
Whenever i see cartman's comment on "new argument", i get irritated before i even read what he has to say, so i don't like replying with an irritated head unlike you do with a frozen brain.
Frozen brain ? Indeed , I just read your gibberish about Evolution I'm still laughing 🙀 I also see you got another severe ass kicking , how many a day do you get ?
You are right. My brain is too big for my skull,so i have it in a bigger container in a top secret place. And i connect with it wirelessly. How about you ? You have it and it's frozen.
Oh, so that's how the delusional blue chicken ate it.
I wondered about that.
But it's strange that your skull couldn't fit in something the size of a seed. Mine can fit in something the size of my brain, after all, so a skull being so small is strange to hear.
"But it's strange that your skull couldn't fit in something the size of a seed. "
It's the biggest seed in the world, like size of a basket ball. And it keeps growing, producing so many fruits of wisdom and intelligence. The delusional blue chicken was too greedy and 'tried' eating a full fruit and died from choking. So you are right, the delusional blue chicken 'died trying' to eat from the fruits of my brain. I told you your mum signed up, she's next
Yes you're super intelligent let's have a look again at your views on Evolution 😂😂
Let's look at Jeffries theory of Evolution 😱😱😱.......
So if it is true that humans were once monkeys, then it means humans are going to change into what next? A hamburger? Abiognesis or evolution, whatever, it's bullshit.......
Two five year olds just asked me if a Half wit typed this I said " yes called Jefferey '
📖📖The theory of Evolutuionary Hamburgers by Jeffery the pot plant 📖📖
Let's look at Jeffries theory of Evolution 😱😱😱.......
So if it is true that humans were once monkeys, then it means humans are going to change into what next? A hamburger? Abiognesis or evolution, whatever, it's bullshit.......
You have the' intellect ' of a pot plant and reside on a window ledge somewhere in Ghana your sustenance as in watering twice weekly is conducted by sympathetic neighbours who undoubtedly ' feel ' your families pain .
So if it is true that humans were once monkeys, then it means humans are going to change into what next? A hamburger? Abiognesis or evolution, whatever, it's bullshit.
What a fabulous counter argument. That's an interesting strategy. I have never seen the "I won't admit the truth, so I don't need a counter argument" strategy. Thanks for something new.
Science void of atheistic nonsensical theories is good: evolution, big bang etc.
Tell me, what do either of these have to do with atheism? Neither theory suggests there is no god, the only thing making these theories "atheistic" is that they contradict fundamentalist christianity. That doesn't make evolution, nor the big bang "atheistic", if anything it is anti-fundamentalist, and not really when you consider the fact that the theory was never intended to contradict anyones religious beliefs, it just happened to do so and was only intended to explain the phenomena of biodiversity of life, and it explains the phenomena very well establishing evidence across several fields of science that also coincidentally documented things that fit the theory (thus being established as evidence). Evolution is more Pro-truth" than it is "anti-fundamentalist christian", and it is more "anti-fundamentalist christian" than it is "atheistic".
The Big Bang theory came from a catholic who believed it to be the moment of creation from god himself. Of course none of that is scientifically verifiable and thus has no place in a scientific theory so of course when science classes teach the theory they don't teach it to students as gods work, they just teach it for what it is meant for in the field of science as they should, an explanation to how our universe as we know it was created, why the universe is expanding, and etc, because it does that well. Now tell me, if the scientific community is trying to bend science to support the atheistic stance on god's existence, why would we accept a scientific theory from a religious man claiming it be evidence for his god's creating of the universe?
It is evident that all the flaws in science are from theories generated by hypocritical atheistic scientists.
No, the flaws are generated from the fact that the entire universe and the whole of reality are pretty fucking incomprehendable... Entire Scientific fields that are obviously studying very real aspects of our reality contradict each other... What we understand from the very big "Astrophysics" crumbles to dust when we walk on over to "Quantum Physics" territory and vice versa. The most controversial issues within science is not evolution... Evolution is one of the most backed scientific theories in history, as far as the scientific community is concerned is pretty much fact at this point with over a century of research backing, only controversial politically. True scientific controversies have nothing to do with religion, atheism, or anything that is actually pretty fucking off subject. God is not even considered a factor, because god cannot be scientifically verified one way or another, not even used to explain anything scientifically. Science doesn't reject nor accept god, it doesn't consider god at all and probably won't until we get emprical evidence of god if we ever do.
It doesn't suggest. It implies a high possibility of no God(capital 'G' pls take note). Like 85%.
"the only thing making these theories "atheistic" is that they contradict fundamentalist christianity"
Even without christianity they still don't make sense.
"That doesn't make evolution, nor the big bang "atheistic""
Even if so
Come on!! You know the train is moved by atheists. Those scientistts get their emotions mixed up with work. You don't have to wait for them to come for confession.
"not really when you consider the fact that the theory was never intended to contradict anyones religious beliefs"
So it's a coincidence? It's sensible . But then it's just the outlook. You cannot confidently conclude on motives.
"Evolution is more Pro-truth" than it is "anti-fundamentalist christian", and it is more "anti-fundamentalist christian" than it is "atheistic"."
Evolution makes sense(continuity) to some extent(doesn't mean it's true though); incomplete at the core(origins) making it nonsensical.
"The Big Bang theory came from a catholic who believed it to be the moment of creation from god himself. "
There are demonic doctrines. "Not all who say lord lord............"
And it sounds like more nonsense if you believe in the big bang theory and yet say God exists or he caused it in creation. He is a loony seeking attention and he got it. Even these atheistic scientists made it less nonsensical by making it highly imply God couldn't exist then.
"why would we accept a scientific theory from a religious man claiming it be evidence for his god's creating of the universe?"
Religious is just letters. Your heart proves it. That guy was atheist at heart. And atheist scientists grabbed it. Most religious scientists reject what their fellow religious person said.....why? The catholic guy was either lying he believes God exists or he is an idiot.
I don't even think he even had a personal bible he used to read. The big bang was one of his childhood imaginations, he never let go(many can't), and he finally got a good platform to shylessly blurt it out. And it was grabbed by........(not all scientists)
I have a lot of self made scientific theories. Some are with existing evidence and some are assumptions. So there many people who have a lot of things in their heads. some are good and others nonsense(what big bang happened to be)
"True scientific controversies have nothing to do with religion, atheism, or anything that is actually pretty fucking off subject. God is not even considered a factor, "
That is the good science i was talking about. It's okay they don't involve God. It's not their fault they cannot find scientific evidence of Him. They study nature, but he created and exists independent of nature. He set and changes His own rules whenever He feels like it. It will be disrespect, to discover Him like a planet.
It doesn't suggest. It implies a high possibility of no God(capital 'G' pls take note). Like 85%
I don't have to pander to your sensibilities, you don't like the way I type god that is your problem.
Actually god is not mentioned whatsoever in either theory because god is not scientifically verifiable, god is irrelevant.
Even without christianity they still don't make sense.
What are you talking about? The theory of evolution makes perfect sense and the evidence is well established, the experts don't disagree on evolution the consensus is strong, the only objectors are the fundamentalist christian groups.
Even if so
Come on!! You know the train is moved by atheists. Those scientistts get their emotions mixed up with work. You don't have to wait for them to come for confession.
Your understanding of science as a discipline is laughable, science it is engineered to work against our biases, peer reviews plays a part in deterring bias, I've studied the evidence, from an objective rational point of view the theory of evolution predicts much of what we expect to see in nature thus attesting to it's accuracy, we can make predictions using the theory of evolution.
So it's a coincidence? It's sensible . But then it's just the outlook. You cannot confidently conclude on motives.
The theory is highly unlikely to be intended for contradicting anyone's beliefs as science is a discipline that is engineered to deter biases.
Evolution makes sense(continuity) to some extent(doesn't mean it's true though);
It's not just that it makes sense, it's the fact that it explains a lot of phenomena and the entire biodiversity of life itself accurately enough we can make predictions off of it... That means something in science, I'm sorry slice it however you want but that is good science. It's empirically backed, it's the most accurate understanding of how species are changing over time (because they are, that is an established fact).
incomplete at the core(origins) making it nonsensical.
Are you talking about the theory of Abiogenesis? Because that is not evolution, evolution doesn't claim to explain the origin of anything other than biodiversity in life which it does beautifully, we all started out as a single cell organism and over time through changes (via mutations) driven by the desire to live and reproduce and the environment in relation to the organisms of that species leads to aquiring more advantages among it's populace over time. It makes perfect sense because it explains what we see in our overall understanding of the world scientifically and historically. We know due to methods used within geography that the deeper underground the fossil the older it tends to be, when aligning all the fossils we see change over time as the theory of evolution would predict. We've observed it directly via experimenting with cells, it aligns with our understanding of DNA perfectly, the only way it could not be true between our understanding of DNA and the theory of evolution is if mutations didn't occur which there is very concrete evidence of them occuring. No, the explanation for biodiversity of life does not explain the origin of life, that is a different explanation. We don't ask where atoms came from before we ask why atoms are doing the things they do. We ask both questions.
There are demonic doctrines. "Not all who say lord lord............"
And it sounds like more nonsense if you believe in the big bang theory and yet say God exists or he caused it in creation. He is a loony seeking attention and he got it. Even these atheistic scientists made it less nonsensical by making it highly imply God couldn't exist then.
LMFAO I can so relate, the irony is dumbfounding.
Religious is just letters. Your heart proves it. That guy was atheist at heart. And atheist scientists grabbed it. Most religious scientists reject what their fellow religious person said.....why? The catholic guy was either lying he believes God exists or he is an idiot.
I don't even think he even had a personal bible he used to read. The big bang was one of his childhood imaginations, he never let go(many can't), and he finally got a good platform to shylessly blurt it out. And it was grabbed by........(not all scientists)
Ok, do let me ask again, their is a man claiming that his theory explains how the universe was created and that he believes it was god's (liar or an idiot, doesn't matter) work, if the scientific community is trying to bend science to support the atheistic world view why would we lend credit to that man?
I have a lot of self made scientific theories. Some are with existing evidence and some are assumptions. So there many people who have a lot of things in their heads. some are good and others nonsense(what big bang happened to be)
Ok, if you think it is so easy then go collect your nobel prize. I'm waiting... after all if a man claiming his theory was god's work was accepted by the scientific community why couldn't your theories?
It will be disrespect, to discover Him like a planet.
On a side note, I am very curious as to why you think that is?
"science it is engineered to work against our biases, peer reviews plays a part in deterring bias"
No matter what, as long as it is humans(with personal feelings or opinions) involved and not robots, knowingly or unknowingly, there will be some bias work somewhere. But you don't expect anyone to come for confession; do you?
"Actually god is not mentioned whatsoever in either theory because god is not scientifically verifiable,"
Scientists who support evolution have given independent definitions of who God is, and it brings suspicions about the motives behind their theories.
"What are you talking about? The theory of evolution makes perfect sense and the evidence is well established, the experts don't disagree on evolution the consensus is strong, the only objectors are the fundamentalist christian groups."
Who are you trying to lie to? That the experts accept it......ignoring what the fundamentalist christians group thinks, is it 'all' of them(experts you say) that accept it. Or those who have disagreed are no more significant?
"from an objective rational point of view the theory of evolution predicts much of what we expect to see in nature thus attesting to it's accuracy, we can make predictions using the theory of evolution."
It makes sense to an extent as i have said already(continuity~yet another flaw here). And it doesn't make sense at the origins that man was once like a monkey, horses are descendants dinasours. Ignoring what the bible has to say, It is still not sensible because there is no strong backing evidence of that assertion. That is at the beginning, and in the continuity, it makes sense to the extent where it says man in some time will grow ex. An extra finger. Which is absolute nonsense. There is no history of that, both B.C and A.D, upon the many generations that has come to pass by that, man once had three fingers and it became four, then five so we are going six next. It is nonsense. As long as parent have 5 fingers, children too will and unto their children's children and no such change will happen. So if it is true that humans were once monkeys, then it means humans are going to change into what next? A hamburger? Abiognesis or evolution, whatever, it's bullshit.
" it's the fact that it explains a lot of phenomena and the entire biodiversity of life itself accurately enough we can make predictions off of it"
A theory cannot completely not make sense. There have to be some sense somewhere to be acknowledged and that sense evolution makes is just common sense. But when it tries to go into profundity, it gets it all wrong(nonsense).
"we all started out as a single cell organism and over time through changes (via mutations) driven by the desire to live and reproduce and the environment in relation to the organisms of that species "
About continuity of cells is common sense, but about mutation is bullshit.
Afterall, your evolutionist richard dawkins says"Evolution is just a theory" A theory is a theory. Every theory has common sense in it but doesn't necessarily make it reality. It's someone's thoughts. The nonsense in it beats the slight sense in it....making it bullshit.
"LMFAO I can so relate, the irony is dumbfounding."
You are presuming am dumb founded? Why? I don't even like the catholic church in the first place, and any theory that comes out of there is bullshit to me.
"if the scientific community is trying to bend science to support the atheistic world view why would we lend credit to that man?"
As a 'community', by their principles, that is not their intent. But as individuals in a community with their personal feelings which i can't say for sure whether knowingly or unknowing, get mixed up in their work; unethical.
And you say was given credit by the scientific community, is it everyone in the scientific community that accepts it?
" if you think it is so easy then go collect your nobel prize. "
And then? Am not interested.
"On a side note, I am very curious as to why you think that is?"
Consider the universe as a big book with various characters. The characters can discover and investigate each other yet they cannot comprehend their own contents or existence entirely, due to how sophisticated the intelligence of the book is. characters are overwhelmed by their contents that, they are not even done discovering or fully comprehend. And you want to discover the author? Well, His name is on the book but His body cannot be part of it. Take it or leave it(science choose to leave it...am okay...not their fault).
If you intend to reply, type something cute......okay.
Jeffery you really ought to stop talking about Evolution it's hilarious but extremely embarrassing the level of your ignorance , you're the type of person who needs an operating manual for a screwdriver 🙀
Another ass kicking I think is on the way from KingGinger 😭😭
Me ignorant?About three years ago i used to watch video documentaries explaining such nonsense and also of that sick guy in a wheel chair etc. I just don't store nonsense up in my head. I watched videos of evolution which is better than reading,ofcourse, and concluded it is mostly nonsense.
"you're the type of person who needs an operating manual for a screwdriver"
Instead of being worried about me, be worried about your magic trick that awfully went wrong; permanent brain freezing.
You have never made any sensible arguments.........you are just a comment(h)ater.......
You feed f people's sense. Or else you are always are faced with a sense famine.
You're not alone ignorant you're incredibly dense , I pressume you're talking about Stephen Hawkings ( sick guy in a wheel chair ) showing once again what a truly idiotic creature you are .
You say .... I just don't store nonsense in my head ...😂😂
That's all you store in your head as you believe stage magicians are in league with demons , that spirits exist , that people talk in tounges , and hilariously think Evolution is trying to demonstrate how humans could turn into ...... hamburgers 🍔 You're plain and simply a fucking idiot
"you're incredibly dense , I pressume you're talking about Stephen Hawkings ( sick guy in a wheel chair ) showing once again what a truly idiotic creature you are "
You think i don't know hawkings is his name? This is the second or third time i mentioned him on CD. And the first time, i mentioned his name, but the wheel chair description is enough So i don't need to mention his name always like whenever i mention a magician with a frozen brain you automatically know its you. Right?
"magicians are in league with demons , "
Untill it's accurate, i never said that.
And you always say this, is that all you got? It so cliche.
"that spirits exist"
And so? You say it as if everyone in the world is atheist like you.
Come to reality idiot, not everyone uses a frozen brain.
"that people talk in tounges "
yeah and so?
Quit yourchildish tirade, you are an old man for God sake. If you are so intelligent as you claim you have a masters, why did you do magic?
"hilariously think Evolution is trying to demonstrate how humans could turn into ...... hamburgers "
I think you will need some heat to comprehend the original sense; frozen brain.
Let's look at Jeffries theory of Evolution 😱😱😱.......
So if it is true that humans were once monkeys, then it means humans are going to change into what next? A hamburger? Abiognesis or evolution, whatever, it's bullshit.......
Two five year olds just asked me if a Half wit typed this I said " yes called Jefferey '
📖📖The theory of Evolutuionary Hamburgers by Jeffery the pot plant 📖📖
"Two five year olds just asked me if a Half wit typed this I said " yes called Jefferey '"
If this wasn't made up...then it's my first proof your brain is actually frozen and you take counsel from two five year olds before you utter anything here on CD.
Thanks for the proof.
Plus, no child is born with the theory of evolution already installed in their minds. They are brainwashed to believe it especially the under the care of a grandpa magician/ atheist. (You are an icon to them but an idiot to me)
They readily accept any nonsense you give to them won't think twice about it.
kids who don't manufacture their own knowledge or are incapable of making sensible analysis do not factor in an argument.
"No child is born with the theory of evolution already INSTALLED in their minds"
Are you sure about this Jeffrey? How is it possible then that more and more public schools in America try to ban the subject of Evolution from their repertoires?
"They are brainwashed to believe it especially the under the care of a grandpa magician/ atheist." Oh really, since when was the notion of "critical thinking" considered to be brainwashing? Atheists who despise the notion of creationism and only rely within the seeable physical world aren't magicians (au contraire)."(You are an icon to them but an idiot to me)" Look Jeffrey, if you argue intelligently you shouldn't be diverting the topic to yourself, someone else or an irrelevant topic such as the courtroom.
Kids who are educated at the first place to inquire the topics being thought to them and to search anything that might go against the topics have the might to scrutinise critically. It's the same with scientific papers which are daily being tested by scientists as crowd-sourced information delegated by societies then would go through rough scrutinising again.
What's most interesting on this site is that the opponents of Evolution are incredibly aggressive and hostile to anything that upsets their world view , which I suppose is only natural as they feel so much is at stake .
The last stats I read about countries who reject Evolution put America on a par with Saudi Arabia and Turkey in the rejection of Evolution which is truly appalling and very telling .
The dishonesty used by those taking a stance against Evolution is shocking , in a recent encounter the piece below was used as evidence to defend a question I asked which was ...." why are no peer reviewed papers published by opponents of Evolution in any journals ,scientific publications , or reputable sources ?
This is one of the dreadful cowardly defence used by opponents of Evolution.....
We have often received feedback in the form of questions on the lines of, ‘If creation is scientific, then why don’t you publish in peer-reviewed secular journals?’ Andrew Kulikovsky answers this common question in detail. He points out the advantage of peer review but then documents its many shortcomings in practice, including rejecting top research while admitting fraud, as well as an all-too-common role in protecting the ruling paradigm. So it is folly for anticreationists to hide behind it instead of dealing with the arguments. This is why, to keep the advantages and overcome its drawbacks, creationists have started their own journals, e.g. CMI’s longstanding publication now titled Journal of Creation.
"How is it possible then that more and more public schools in America try to ban the subject of Evolution from their repertoires?"
Because they are now learning. Its not default. And it can be prevented, after all it shouldn't be part of the school syllabus......it's just a theory with flaws also.
Oh really, since when was the notion of "critical thinking" considered to be brainwashing?
Critical thinking with a two and five years olds?
Come on!! Its brainwashing, not brainstorming.
Atheists who despise the notion of creationism and only rely within the seeable physical world aren't magicians (au contraire)
He claim to be a magician.
if you argue intelligently you shouldn't be diverting the topic to yourself, someone else or an irrelevant topic such as the courtroom
He started it that way and arguments between he and i have been that way ever since.
Kids who are educated at the first place to inquire the topics being thought to them and to search anything that might go against the topics have the might to scrutinise critically. It's the same with scientific papers which are daily being tested by scientists as crowd-sourced information delegated by societies then would go through rough scrutinising again.
Kids take delight in knowing something new and do judge what they are being taught whether right or wrong.
And they will grow up to defend it with all their might,
Can you give me one of those flaws that you've mentioned? Please support the statements that you give instead of throwing things unto the pulpit. It should be a part of the school syllabus as it has been proven to be a fact. If you're going to equate different theories from the theory of evolution the evidences are substantial. It's not brainwashing, brainwashing is when you force children to learn about a few bible verses that were written thousands of years ago without any evidence. Whilst if you teach children the factual events that happened ago I suppose that it isn't called brainwashing. In countries such as Finland,Germany and France ( Considering other high-schools in America that freely teach evolution) the teacher must and will notify his/her students to think critically first. Perhaps you're too dimwitted to even realise that you're uncle was acting sarcastically. Your arguments don't make any sense!! They're advised by the teachers to bring-up opinions about the topic and search for flaws! The truth is the truth, par evolution with your fucking bible and see if it holds any water.
Your argument is incomprehensible as your motion is, he was specifically talking about the religious right whilst you talk about the religious left. The question is about the good contained in scientists and science in our world. The "religious left" isn't probably that scientifically inclined as you think.
Absolutely. But one must make sure there are certain ethics that are maintained. There is such a thing as going too far, as is the case with most anything.
Of course scientists are good for the world, knowledge empowers everyone. Science advances the world and empowers every aspect of society, we live longer, happier lives due to our scientific prowess. Science is the means that our species learns, and to gain wisdom means to learn. Yeah sometimes it seems a little ridiculous with irresponsible people not paying attention due to their phone, and sending in essays with texting lingo but compared to the preservation of life, rising quality in life, it is worth it, plus much popular technology exists in it's infancy (cell phones) that young people are just starting to learn how to use responsibly. We'll grow out of it.
I love playing video games. I can relax after a day's work only this way. I want to immerse myself in the game and enjoy the magical world. So thank you very much for the game poppy playtime you recommended.
Overall no, in fact from what I can see science has caused more destruction overall, such as via the invention of nuclear weapons, gas chambers, and sweatshop labor.
In fact most of the good things which science produces are just remedies to ills caused by humans for tampering with nature in abnormal ways to begin with.
Vaccines for example only had to be invented to cure diseases which Europeans caused themselves by living in dirty cities, and which Native Americans had lived for 1,000s of years without ever catching since they lived closer to nature and did without dirty industrialism (which unfortunately is also why they died of the diseases Europeans brought to them).
If anything science is just a necessary evil for the sake of survival, rather than a good.
For that matter the average "scientist" is not very intelligent or creative, and many of them are little better than bean counters or video game debuggers, only a few standouts such as Einstein were truly inventive. They're also often very unattractive to women because of how ugly and reductive the nature of their work and their minds is, and also more likely to be sociopathic I believe.
Truly intelligent and creative people tend to be found far more in the arts and humanities, or the formal sciences such as logic and mathematics, rather than the ugly 'natural sciences' like biology and chemistry.
You start off your argument by using the phrase "Overall no" and proceed by mentioning a few benefits such as the prevention of climate change and the prevention of diseases. Science isn't a "necessary evil", it has always been a necessity for us humans to inquire the nature of an aspect in our world whether it be in the microscopic level or in the external level. . Either you're a troll or an utter idiot, natural sciences is one of the most important sciences around besides logic and mathematics as it's being used to analyse everything that's abstract in our universe wherein logic and mathematics aren't able to solve such. Without natural sciences you're not going to be able to take medications for whatever illness you undoubtably have.
