azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

If there was no such thing as evolution then why would you have to argue about it?Remember that? See how it doesn't work at all as an argument?Seriously though. Evidence for evolution:http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent http://txtwriter.com/backgrounders/evolution/evcontents.html http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=9 http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?recordid=11876 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossilhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciationhttp://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htmhttp://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/ObservedEvolution.htm http://futurismic.com/2008/06/11/evolution-observed-in-laboratory-bacteria/ Let me know if you read all those and want more.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

You are correct I was wrong about that statement. I didn't read word for word, but I did scan them all. There was a lot of good research that can prove both sides. Now, I have one question if we all were to evolve from one creature based on evolution. Then, why are the old ones still around? Why isn't there just one species?
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Natural selection creates differences in populations based on environmental pressures. Environments are not uniform the world over, nor are they static; they differ from area to area, and change over time. There is not one species on earth capable of surviving in every habitat, from the dessert to the tundra to the bottom of the ocean to the sky (mitochondria do not count as their environment is a cell, not any of the abovementioned.)Additionally, different abilities are required to fill different niches in different environments. A single uniform specie would meet far too much competition for resources to survive; therefor, organisms evolved to metabolize different materials, and utilize different food sources.Finally, I am curious what evidence you believe supports both evolution and creationism, as I cannot think of any.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Evolution is not religion. Religion require faith. Evolutionists only believe in evolution because there is considerable evidence to support it. Religions all have some idea of afterlife. Evolution doesn't have that at all. Creationism isn't based on scientific facts. The premise that a supernatural entity created life is unfalsifiable, therefore not scientific. However, the notion that life appeared fully formed is falsifiable and has been repeatedly falsified by evolution.If you intend to refer to science, its time you demonstrate that you know something about it.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Show me the evidence and I will never call it a religion again. Otherwise, go eat some chicken and noodle grandma.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Let's see: failure to support your claims and name calling. Do you even know how to debate like an adult?You didn't show me any evidence that evolution is a religion, or that creationism is a viable science.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzmbnxtnMB4&feature=related http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionreligionreligious/p/EvolutionRelig.htm http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/crenotscience.html http://www.skepdic.com/creation.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJA6cMXjhGY Just a scratch on the surface of evidence for evolution:http://txtwriter.com/backgrounders/evolution/evcontents.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htmokay, your turn.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Man, you need to read before you say I name called. The chicken noodle Grandma was in reference to soup. For in evolution you came from soup.Evidence that evolution is a religion. You believe we just appeared. I believe God.Viable science. Deterioration. Which, is from sin. Since creation is based from the Bible.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Actually, abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution is is theory that describes how and why allele frequencies change from one generation to the other in a population. This change in alleles is observed fact. Evolution seeks to describe it, and it needs these alleles (in other words, genetics) to exist in the first place. You can't have evoultion until you have life. The non-creation theories behind the origin of life are referred to as abiogenesis. Although abiogenesis and evolution are intertwined, they are not the same thing. The reason I didn't get your, umm, evidence, is because I don't refer to abiogenesis as a priomordial soup. That is an out-of-date notion that is now more promoted by Hollywood and comic books than by actual scientists. The only thing that most modern Theories of abiogenesis have in common with soup is that there was water, as life first emerged in the oceans. No evolutionist who knows what they are talking about believes that life just appeared. We understand that life emerged slowly through a mixture of chemical process guided by observable laws of chemistry and physics. Just like these laws guide the formations of mineral deposits, clouds, snowflakes, stars and anything else appearing in nature. Creationists are the ones who believe that everything just appeared. In order to deal with the obvious impossibilities of this notion they invoke God. Problem is, a limitless, all-powerful being can't be proven, so it just compounds the impossibility of their argument. Deterioration happens to all living beings. But they hold it off long enough to reproduce. And the offspring sooner or later start to deviate slightly over time. Eventually the deviations form new species. All observed in numerous branches of biology.The Bible is not a viable science book. It also is not a particularly good historical text, and its value as a moral guide is highly disputable as well.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

There is literally not one single piece of evidence for creationism. (the bible is NOT evidence, it is more of the claim, btw.) Can you explain to me why on certain islands, flowers EVOLVE to the exact shape of hummingbirds that dwell on that specific island, and EVOLVE into different shapes, to match the differently EVOLVED hummingbirds on different islands? Or how we need to get different flu vaccines because the virus EVOLVES and we need to change the vaccine? Or why finches EVOLVE different beak density and size to suit their dietary requirements over the years to prevent competition for food?
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Yes. Creationism should definitely be taught in schools. Evolution is just a theory and has no real fact.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Unless you have some seriously revolutionary evidence to add to that, you are sadly mistaken about everything you have just said.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Creationism is a belief and has no standing in the scientific community. It literally takes the most basic knowledge of biology to know that it is false.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Definatley

It is only fair! Evolution is a religion as much as Creationism is.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

No, it isn't. It is a fact that allele frequencies change over generations. Everything else that has to do with evolution, such as the idea we share a common ancestor with apes, is based upon massive amounts of empirical evidence. It is the opposite of religion, so to speak.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Sigh. Evolution is not a religion. It is a description of an observed process within the field of biology. It does not attempt to guide our morality. It does not make any comment on supernatural entities except that if a god or gods created life, evolution is part of the process. It does not require faith; scientific theories are required to be falsifiable, religious doctrines are not. It does not propose any concept of after life, but all ideologies universally agreed to be religions do. And if it is only fair to teach creationism in schools, than it is only fair to teach ALL creation myths in school. There are hundreds, if not thousands of those.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

I think it would children to have a balanced view and would also help in children forming their own views.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

I agree, only people who think for themselves ever find out anything new/undiscovered. Galileo, Jimi Hendrix (LOL)etc
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

I believe they should both be taught at schools to sum it up this is the best way to explain itCreationism-Why the world was createdopposed toEvolution-How the world and creatures became what they are today
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

I think creationism and evolution should both be taught in school. Neither should be taught as fact because neither can be 100% proven which is why the are THEORIES in the first place. Seriously, NO ONE knows what really happened so i don't see the point in arguing about something that neither side can win. Let both sides be taught because high school kids are mature and can decide what they want to believe in. Nobody will know who is right until they die and either nothing happens or they are in front of the pearly gates, but then it is to late to tell anyone about it so just live your life and stop arguing over something that has no end.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Oh and in the Debate title it never said that evolution and creationism both be taught in science class or in the same class for that matter so i don't know where that idea came from, but if one is required then we can't turn a blind eye to the other side.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

A message from the heart to debaters who fight in favor of evolution. Adaptation is not evolution no matter how you define it. Adaptation takes a formed life form and adapts within its own fully formed makeup. It doesnt adapt by becoming a different creature. Evolution defined as used to describe the establishment of life and nature as we sknow it is not adaptation. As a term used in the debate of Creator vs self creation of evolution.So please stick to the definition. Adaptation is subtle. Evolution is creative in a foundational senseAdaptation would be darkening of pigmentstion or lengthening a nose to adapt to changing atmosphere. But there is no drastic changes needed for evolution. I dont argue and poke fun out of a dislike for you. I am hoping at some point you will question reasonably and logically some of the things you accepy as truth and isnt founded in science or logic or reasoning. I am not being mean or cruel, I'm challenging you for a greater purpose, to question and weigh reasonably.Like evolution starts aftwr life forms are already in process and builds on it, balancing nature in the process to foster the evolving life forms and to support its progressive action to its current presentation. Yet when proof of the Bible has connections confirmed, in front of your face, it is denied.Arent these connections similar. Yet at least with the Bible evidence is tangable and visible, and not just assumptive, as seen in the foundation of the biginning of life, the first life form that assembled itself to start with, then the balancing act needed to progress from the beginning. Neither of these at the foundation are logical, no matter what biology connects similarities, and no matter what adaptations we see after the fact of a living thing at its completion.There is only evidence of biological simillarites. Not sound science in the beginning of the first formed living thing. Nor in the balance required beyond that, with entropy working against it from the creation of the first cell, and naturally beyond that!Creatures with eyes have eye genes. But its a big jump to then say life formed and stabilized out of nonliving matter.Its a religion of idiots.Its the greatest insult to the Creator. The actual creator.Man being a god created himself out of a process from nothing.Man breathed life into himself out of evolving from a combination of dead matter.Not even another god, a nothing god ... the earth was void, unformed, darkness over the deep. Into nothing He brought forth life, into chaos He established the balance for life to continue. And evolution is the god nothing. The self god, nature and man created self by selection of the best. The self made man, evolved from nothing..
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

If we show one theory (evolution) we must teach the other as well. I don't think we are actually created by a God, but we cant physically prove we are not. its the mystery that has left all of us in question. is it possible we evolved, sure is. Are we created by a higher power, could be as well! Or, we (humanity) founded this planet to start anew from a deteriorating other!
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

lets see.....the bIG bang , EVEloution etc are all lies, simply because of this.......CAn something come from nothing? no it can't. Now, If u ask a scientist this, he'd say no, but when you mention the Big Bang. Hed say yes. Believing in God is saying that you believe in something that was always there. Which is better than saying a few things popped up out of nowhere.Believing in God also means u believe, that there are things, and mysteries, that the human mind can not understand. HEY, we only use a small percentage of our brains.Humans simply dont like to know, that there is something that make them look dumb.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

"lets see.....the bIG bang , EVEloution etc are all lies, simply because of this.......CAn something come from nothing? no it can't."Neither the Big Bang Theory or Theory of Evolution claim that anything came from nothing. "Now, If u ask a scientist this, he'd say no, but when you mention the Big Bang. Hed say yes."Wrong. He would tell you that the Big Bang Theory starts slightly after the Big Bang got going, and does not currently describe what caused the Big Bang itself because we don't have conclusive data about that. There are quantum theories (technically hypotheses) that are being developed to try to figure this out, but they are limited by our technology, knowledge of quantum mechanics and current understanding of math. Therefore, none of these hypotheses are considered anywhere near as strong as Big Bang Theory. While God is a potential answer, it is not one we should jump to just because we don't currently have another one. "Believing in God is saying that you believe in something that was always there."Only because you have no other answer to the conundrum, and are not interested in examining the evidence to find one. "Believing in God also means u believe, that there are things, and mysteries, that the human mind can not understand."Fair enough. However, the human mind is capable understanding quite a few things, and there is no reason to believe we have found the limit yet. "HEY, we only use a small percentage of our brains."You are way behind the times on the scientific data. It is now known that we use all of it, and has been for quite some time now.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

lolthe reason you cant have conclusive data about the big bang, is because of, i daresay... their arrogance.conclusive data? OK, so a few atoms bumped into each other and, as a result of this such a complex thing such as the human brain came about as a result of this.If you were to say the origin of the "accident" of the atoms bumping into each other, which I will say is no accident, you'd have to say what or WHO started it. You seem very educated, i agree with you 160% about your implications that theists don't use logic when dealing with emotional topics such as these. Many things humans understand are rather otherworldly (here is something devoid of logic again). Humans do have a limit. And it cannot fathom the creation/origin of the universe. There is a verse?chapter in the Bible that states that God can use the simplest/most foolish thing and make the wisdom of Man seem illogical and unreasonable. I fully understand where you are coming from, but I was once in your position. Something convinced me that there is more to the World than the Natural. Something convinced me there where was another place... Due to skepticism, it does not make sense me telling you. This all I have to say for now, and I must say you are truly are one of a kind......
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Where did you get the idea that a human brain is the result of two atoms bumping into each other?
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Obviously u misunderstood my comment. Im saying that as a result of the big bang according to scientists, created humans as well as a whole other set of living organisms etc.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Im not claiming to UNDERSTAND anything Otherworldly. And i do agree that 'one must question how one can truly know anything about their nature' But what if i told you that scientific evidence could not disprove this 'event'? ( Science does not/can not concern itself with anything BUT the Natural as that is what science is about) What would you say to that? 'Interesting. You see I had pretty much the exact opposite experience.' are you saying that something convinced you that the Natural is all there is to the world? I as an individual has believes that most of science if not all is true( and that The Natural and Super Natural are connected) , BUT some mysteries Cannot be solved by Science. such as matters Unnatural.Do you mind sharing this 'exact opposite experience'? I could tell you mine.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Come to think of it i now agree. The scientific community makes the theories- not The Pathetic Christians that we always had since the Birth of Christ.Creationism basically favors one religion over another, and Though I believe in creationism, And that science cannot explain Time,(OK so God created the world, where did HE come from?) Or anything Supernatural( which is real), how can Science be the only medium with which humans find out things? I'm not saying you become an occultist or become a christian simply for knowledge but I'm saying science is not everything.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

I agree that science can't explain everything. It is based around a pretty rigid methodology. The three biggest rules are: 1) leave your biases at the laboratory door. Report what you see, whether you like it or not. 2) Every hypothesis and theory must be falsifiable. If it happens to be wrong, you would need to be able to show it so science can move away from it and change its claims if necessary. 3) No supernatural. Partially because of the falsifiability rule, but also because of issues regarding quantifiable measurements. Scientists often try to quantify such matters. If they can, they will look more into the issues. Most of the time, they end up finding naturalistic causes to the phenomena. This has actually done quite a bit for adding to scientific knowledge. But they can't do this if the measurements are impossible to obtain or are inconclusive.These rules do limit science's scope. However it does mean that the things science can work with can eventually be understood. We can use these understandings in countless ways, and we can get predictable results. If supernatural occurrences can't be thus quantified, how can we predict them? How can we do anything to figure out why they are happening? And if their results are so unpredictable, what does that imply about their affect on our lives?
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science, and have no place in a science classroom. See Kitzmiller vs Dover for more information.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Actually they go hand in hand. I mean, we learn all about gravity in school. But no one ever talks about the fact that gravity had to come from somewhere. And sure we know atoms exist...but why? Did gravity and atoms just always exist? If people believe that, then how is that any less crazy or pseudo than believing these things must have been created by something. And like many theories that we learn in science class, creationism is just another theory. So as long as the schools are presenting it as theory and not fact, then there should be no problems.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

No, evolution and creationism do not go hand in hand, they contradict each other. And no, creationism is not like any other theory you learn in science class, because all the available evidence contradicts it.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

NO, The evidence scientists LOOK for contradicts it! they are blinded by their own wisdom. AS some Christians are blinded by who they think is God.I refuse to do this. Choose who you would rather believe...