PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     I need no proof (HA!)
       Creation argument vs. Scientific

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The one thing that irks me about the creationist argument is that when I ask for proof that not only is there a god, but it is THE God of Christian myth is that often say, "I need no proof...Faith in God is all I need."  So why are they so hard-core in need of "proof--solid, concrete proof" for evolution to exist?  Do they realize that it takes YEARS of in-depth study to fully comprehend the theory of evolution?  At the very least, a minor understanding of Geology, Biology, Weather (yes, weather also plays a major role in evolution due to climatology), statistics, history (not as written by man, but as written by nature and laid out for us in archaeology), theology (there are so many different god stories out there...why claim the egocentric, ethnocentric belief that it is MY God who is the one and only God?  Theology is not necessary to understand evolution, but it is necessary to keep this lame, uneducated--on some parts--debate going.)  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:29 AM on September 13, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

(Oops.)  Just yesterday, I was debating with a Christian fundamentalist about evolution.  I asked, "can evolution and creation both be believed?"  She told me, "No.  Evolution is a stupid idea."  I calmly asked her to elaborate.  "I just think it's a stupid idea, believing that once you die, you come back as something else--like a cockroach."  The entire debate from the Christian side only uses a single source--The Bible--whereas evolutionists have many years of scientific knowledge that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution did, in FACT, take place and still to this day does, in FACT, continue.  In the military, they have to update our flu shot EVERY YEAR due to the constant evolving of the flu virus.  As proven by my example above, most of the debates are based on fallacies and use examples from several other sources, which also based their arguments on fallacies and ignorance...the debate will never end so long as Christian fundamentalists continue making these outrageous claims.  Sadly, evolution has been stricken from Tennessee IAW House Bill 185, which prohibits the teaching of evolution and fines any teacher found "guilty" of this act between $100 and $500.  Basically, the state of Tennessee--despite its overwhelming beauty--chooses to strengthen the stereotype that it's full of ignoramuses.  In the bill's words, "it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities...to teach any theory that denies the story of Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower form of animal."  These people are denying education, and it is extremely frustrating to see that despite all of our technological advances and the glorious findings of science, the state of Tennessee requests the lecture to be something along these lines: "God snapped his fingers, clicked his heels together three times, and said 'let there be man!'"  Now, the Christian fundamentalists claim that evolution is an outrageous claim!  (Yes, I realize that I've included a fallacy in here as well, but this debate is making me too sick to be professional.)

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:45 AM on September 13, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

anyway, look on the bright side. With out fundamentalist creationists, arguments for evolution wouldn't be as strong. If evolution was simply accepted by pretty much everyone, and those who opposed it just didn't care enough to do anything about it, then there wouldn't be the wealth of information available there is today.

anyway, as long as creationists don't actually hurt us or take away our rights, let them say what they want.

about tennessee... bla, i'm thinking that is infringing on some constitutional right. that really sucks. can a law be passed (And enforced) that says a certain idea can't be taught (not because it was wrong... no that would be too easy) because it goes against the bible? so instead of giving teachers a curriculum that teaches the bible (which is unconstitutional) ... teachers are not permitted to teach anything that directly contradicts the bible. Sort of like they have reverted to the process of elimination.

Anyway, thanks to Jonathan Rauch (“In Defense of Prejudice”) for most of the ideas here. Sometimes you have to suffer the bad with the good.



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:45 AM on September 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

anyway, look on the bright side. With out fundamentalist creationists, arguments for evolution wouldn't be as strong. If evolution was simply accepted by pretty much everyone, and those who opposed it just didn't care enough to do anything about it, then there wouldn't be the wealth of information available there is today.

anyway, as long as creationists don't actually hurt us or take away our rights, let them say what they want.

about tennessee... bla, i'm thinking that is infringing on some constitutional right. that really sucks. can a law be passed (And enforced) that says a certain idea can't be taught (not because it was wrong... no that would be too easy) because it goes against the bible? so instead of giving teachers a curriculum that teaches the bible (which is unconstitutional) ... teachers are not permitted to teach anything that directly contradicts the bible. Sort of like they have reverted to the process of elimination.

Anyway, thanks to Jonathan Rauch (“In Defense of Prejudice”) for most of the ideas here. Sometimes you have to suffer the bad with the good.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:46 AM on September 15, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Uh Tenessee House Bill 185 was repealed in 1967 as it was deemed unconstitutional.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 08:39 AM on September 15, 2003 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

in newbie's second post wouldn't she be thinking of reincarnation not evolution?
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 9:05 PM on February 6, 2004 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.