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.
Reward Points: | 54 |
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. | 70% |
Arguments: | 25 |
Debates: | 2 |
All right, I admit I started this debate just to hear what creationists should say. But since there don't seem to be many creationists on this site, I changed the settings. I think teachers should teach creationism as an example of a hypothesis that lacks evidence.
I understand the position that you are speaking from, but
1. How did the creator come into existence?
2. Why does this creator have to be a God? As I understand, this debate has basically come down to disputing the credibility of the Christian god, which does not necessarily have to be the creator.
That doesn't mean that evolution is flawed. It's a biological theory, and the creation of the universe has more to do with physics. As to the origin of life, how is the interference of a divine being more likely than chance? Just because evolution does not explain the origin of life does not mean that God is the explanation.
The theory of evolution is not meant to explain how the universe was created or how life originated on Earth. Sure, we don't know the answers to these questions today, but that's not a good reason to provide an explanation that doesn't really make sense.
Well, I know quite a few teachers that don't like evolution, but they do a good job of teaching it anyways. And I haven't watched Expelled yet, so I don't know what it says, but the obvious next step in Intelligent Design (pretty much the same as creationism) being scientifically accepted is it being taught as an alternative theory.
Yes, and it's even more unreliable to prove something with the same source that the thing was from.
E.g. I know pigs can fly because it said so in the book that described a pig flying!
|