azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

How can you claim that scientists look for evidence to contradict G-d? The nature of science is to propose a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and validate or refute the hypothesis based on the outcome of the test. Admittedly not all scientists follow this procedure- but to claim that the population of scientists as a whole are at fault is a sweeping and false claim.When there is evidence of G-d, I will believe. It is not impossible. In the meantime, however, there is no such evidence, so I hold to the theory that the universe does not have a divine creator.Scientists are the first to admit when they were wrong. For instance, scientists used to believe that proteins were the source of trait heritability. However, thanks to the work of Hershey and Chase, it was discovered that DNA was in fact the mode of inheritance.If you do not wish to be as blinded by your own views as you claims scientists are blinded by theirs, you need not close the door on G-d. Hold steadfast to your hypothesis, and conduct a test. I would suggest testing whether or not a miracle occurs after praying. keep in mind that a single perceived miracle is not in fact evidence. I would suggest testing whether or not praying influences the odds of spontaneously recovering from cancer.the conservative proportion is 1 in 60,000 cases result in spontaneous remission.to have results significant at a 95% confidence level, you should make sure to have:a simple random sample of cancer patientssample size > 10/p- which is equal to 600,000 trialsalpha level of 5%of course, the study should probably be double-blind, so you would need another simple random sample of 600,000 trials as a control group whom you would not pray for.if the results are significant at a 5% level, then you have bona-fide evidence for the existence of G-d.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

And yet science try to do this by making Robots ... funny-right? Humans without Intelligence will contradict them selves.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

To teach them as equally valid and probable theories is to give undue credence to the pseudoscience of creationism.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Evolution is still within itself a theory. It has yet to be factually proven as a definite, hence the name "Theory of Evolution".Just due to you and I being different than the accepted normalcy of things does not mean we should oppress the mindsets of others. I am saying that since both are technically theories should they not both be taught?
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

The theory that we are made up of cells is cell theory. The theory that the earth moves around the sun is heliocentric theory. The theory that gravity is a force that keeps us down is gravitational theory. In science, theories are not called theories because there is not sufficient evidence to support them. They are called theories because science is cautious, and avoids absolutes. Not all the questions raised by evolution have been answered, not by far, but it is exhaustively evidenced. Creationism is, as of yet, supported by literally no valid evidence.PS: I like your avatar.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Creationism is, as of yet, supported by literally no valid evidence.Ignorance is bliss huh? PS: I appreciate it ;P
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

By that, do you mean that you think there is some evidence of creationism that is valid?
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Had the intention that was perceived by you was to promote creationism I would have most likely clicked "dispute" opposed to "support".I meant that ignorance is bliss in the sense that those whom are consumed by the ideals of creationism find themselves ignorant of the livelihood of those around them who happen to not follow or denunciate their personal path. It is these people who violate the basic human rights of others whom find themselves in not only feeling a sense of accomplishment after a good picketing, but find that they themselves have done something for the betterment of mankind. Which is where I believe the phrase "ignorance is bliss" applies to such people.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Scientists innately try to solve the world's problems.Forgetting their own.As you just did....You are are indeed a brilliant person with a problem only God can solve.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

You are confusing Biology with chemistry...Sounds like you are a Mormon/Christian scientist.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

They already have a venue where one can learn creationism...it's called church.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

technically Christianity is Not a theory :)Science tries to make it look that way. As you said "Ignorance is Bliss", right?
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

You are right, Christianity isn't a theory. It's a very real religion, that can be clearly seen. It's claims though (existence of God, Jesus having the power to perform miracles, etc) do not make the grade in the scientific meaning of the word. It is merely a hypothesis, one that can not be raised to the level of theory with out any evidence to support it.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Did I say theory? How about a false ideology which oppresses those whom hold differentiating beliefs?Well I am going to make the assumption that you are of the Christian faith and I shall ask you a question, this will be a 2 part question; A.) do you feel that homosexuals commit a sin in being who they are ( homosexuals ) B.) using simple logic and deduction why would someone want to be a homosexual? They are a hated group of people by the masses whom are attacked constantly ( both physically and verbally ) based off of their orientation which, as long as it is consensual, hurts absolutely nobody. If I am correct in my assumption then I am just begging this question, and you sir belong in the same category as those whom follow the ideology of "ignorance is bliss", implicit or not may the force of hatred be with you and those whom take their beliefs to the extremist levels in any faith.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

saying something is 'proven' is an archaic methodology of scientific nomenclature, as it does not leave any room for growth.in modern science, a theory is a supported hypothesis. Creationism is, at best, an unsupported hypothesis. Those are not taught in school. After all, I may have the hypothesis that the moon is made of ice cream. Until I both test and validate that hypothesis it will not be taught in schools.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

If they wan't to teach creationism in Religious Education, then let them. But it should not, and I will never condone it, being taught in science, as is is not science. It is a religious belief and should be taught as such.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

assumes over-dramatic heroic stance while looking at nothing in particular somewhere in the distance with a determined look on my face Not on MY watch!
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

This is the kind of hero the world needs right now. One that has a determined face.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

"This is the kind of hero the world needs right now. One that has a determined face."XD Indeed
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Creationism can be taught in schools as soon as they can find plenty of evidence to back up their claims. (No, a book does NOT count!)
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Evolution, again, is just a simple theory, not a proven fact. But, it is the most logical theory of biological development that humanity as a whole can come up with. If there is freedom of religion in a country, and no designated religion, then the ideas of religion should not be taught in schools if they are being taught in a way that encourages students to convert to this religion/religions. I do believe that students should be taught about certain religions in school, as they are a major part of history, but if any more is taught than just facts about religions, it could be corrupting the minds of students everywhere. The reason creationism should not be taught as a factual belief is that it is an aspect of a religion. If we have freedom of religion, then schools should teach only about facts that humans have agreed on as fact or at least theories of life. The beliefs in religions are not agreed on as common human knowledge, so they should not be taught as fact. The reason that the theory of evolution should be taught in schools is because it is not an aspect of any religion in particular, and is considered common human knowledge. Now some people may disagree with that it is not an aspect of any religion. Some people may consider things like the theory of evolution and the big bang theory, to be of a part of atheism. Let me set something clear...Definition of atheism: The belief that there is no god or any other omnipotent entity.And Nothing Else! Things like evolution and the big bang have nothing to do with this. You do not have to believe in the big bang or evolution just because you are an atheist. You can technically be religious and still believe in the big bang and evolution and stuff also (I do realize that in some religions, it is apparently impossible to believe in these things and still be a member of that religion, but I am not an expert in religion itself, so i'll leave you to figure out contradictions like this on your own if you choose to be religious). I do not believe that it should ever be flat out stated by a teacher in school, that there is no god, or your religion is false. But not teaching the theory of evolution in school because it is against a religion is a very unwise choice. Some of you may also think "Why can't schools just not teach beliefs of any religion, or anything against religion?" If we were to do this, then practically nothing could be taught. It could be part of some religion that 2+2 does not equal 4. Does that mean that we are going to stop teaching it? Of course not. So there are naturally going to have to be things taught in schools that are against some religions. Another point is that religions disagree with each other. So how could we ever teach about religion if there is no designated religion to teach. I am horrible at concluding things, so I suppose I will just leave it at that, please respond.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Evolution, again, is just a simple theory, not a proven fact.It is not unproven and it is far from simple. The amount of evidence for The Theory of Evolution is staggering (I would provide links, but you can Google it, as this is a general matter). Comprehend that in scientific phraseology a theory is (concisely) a model which explains findings, and data. For example, experiments and investigations have shown biological matter to be composed of minuscule bodies which carry out all the basic functions of life. these are called cells, and Cell Theory explains what they are and what they do. The label theory does not change the fact that we are made of cells.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

I largely agree with this. If creationism is to be taught, it's better off taught in religious studies class than in science class.The fact is that no matter how much or how little scientific evidence there is to support creationism, the basis of this theory is the assumption that there is a God. Scientific study is conducted to give support for this assumption, not to question it. Hence it is fundamentally a religious subject.On the contrary, evolutionism makes no initial assumptions about the existence of deities. It is incompatible with some (not all) religious beliefs, but that in itself doesn't make it an atheist theory. It's merely a secular theory - i.e. one that makes no comment over whether or not God exists. Hence evolutionism should be taught in science, a subject that deals with theories on the way the world works, as observed through objective experimentation and logic, completely independent of religious belief.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Only science should be taught in a science class. Creationism is not scientific. At best, it is an untested hypothesis. Evolution on the other hand is a scientific theory with many years of evidence from nature to support it. Creationism is based solely on the words inscribed in a holy book.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

No. Reason being: Evolution is proven. Creation is a Christian/Catholic myth.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Though my idealogy may fall under the Theory of Evolution; to say Evolution is fact is far fetched. Pieces of the puzzle are falling together rather nicely, however the pieces haven't connected perfectly especially not well enough to say proven.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

The theory of evolution in its simplest form states that allele frequencies within a population change over time. This is a fact and it is observable every day. It is easy to get the process confused with evolutionary specifics, such as who descended from who, and when, and of these particulars we may never be sure. These gaps do not disprove evolution as a real process, they merely highlight questions we have about how evolution works and the effects it has had. Evolution will never be proven because proof is the domain of mathematics and logic. It can only be infinitely evidenced.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

The theory of evolution is not a law, and is still a theory. Though it is highly testable and holds well evidenced explanations; it still theoretical.Don't tell me have you ever heard of the "theory of gravity?", as it is a theoretical explanation of observed force between matters.allele frequencies within a population change over time.That is a fact.Human chromosome number 2 is an exant combined match of chimpanzee chromosomes 13 and 14 (a fact explained by the theory) homologous structures exist between closely related taxa (a fact explained by the theory) atavisms occur in organisms (a fact explained by the theory)There are parts of the Theory of Evolution which still holds the label of theory.So: Not factual.Argumentum ad populum
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

The theory of evolution is not a law, and is still a theory. Though it is highly testable and holds well evidenced explanations; it still theoretical.In science, laws describe occurrences but do not explain them; theories explain them. Evolution will never be a law, it will always be a theory, as it explains mechanisms of adaptation and change among living organisms. Theories can also be facts, as is the case when it comes to evolution. There are parts of the Theory of Evolution which still holds the label of theory.Yes, there are many ideas within the field of evolution that are still contested, such as exactly when humans developed bipedalism. However, as I said, these disagreements in no way cast doubt on evolution itself, merely the specifics of how it played out. Even if, say, evidence arose that suggested that humans evolved from squirrels less than 2 MYA, totally dispelling the possibility of a primate ancestry and a relationship to other great apes, as well as many of the things we thought we know about ancestral hominids, evolution itself would not in any way be in trouble. We would just have to majorly rearrange our ideas about how it happened in the past. So: Not factual.Nothing you have said has changed the fact that allele frequencies change over time. Argumentum ad populumI made no statements to this effect.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

The basic knowledge of sciences within themselves still elude me ...I am indefinitely a humanities person. As they say everything is eventual and hypothetically I will possibly have a slightly firmer grasp on anything within the field of science in the future.That being said I concede, and am much more confused with the situation than when I started. Nothing you have said has changed the fact that allele frequencies change over time. I said that was fact.So: Not factual.I said the specific piece I posted was not factual.Argumentum ad populumHa, I was going to post an argument regarding this however decided against it but apparently left the heading up.So I will leave this with a question: so is the Theory of Evolution a "proven theory" or is that within itself not coherent?
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

I apologize if I have been confusing as that certainly was not my intent. I am still practicing with concisely relating the things I have learned.So I will leave this with a question: so is the Theory of Evolution a "proven theory" or is that within itself not coherent?True 'proof' does not apply to any area of science except for logic and mathematics. A simple example of a proof is this:If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. It makes no actual claims and does not attempt to explain anything, just states that if the premise (A being equal to B, and B being equal to C) is correct, then there is no logical way that the conclusion (A being equal to C) cannot follow. Proofs illustrate a conclusion that cannot be falsified. Although evolution is a fact, there are hypothetical events that could falsify it, however unlikely they may be, such as the discovery that all of the data supporting it was invalid, the discovery of modern mammal fossils from the precambrian, and/or the reliably documented occurrence of a complex creature spontaneously forming in mid-air. As evolution is heavily evidenced, it would take a great amount of counter-evidence to actually disprove it, rather than just seriously reshuffle certain ideas, but science is cautious so it would never say such a thing is impossible. This is why evolution will always be a theory, and why there can never be 'proof' of evolution, only endless amounts of evidence. Oftentimes, even knowledgeable people use 'proof' as a shortcut term for 'incredibly convincing and basically indestructible evidence'. This, along with the differing scientific definitions of words like 'theory' and 'law', understandably contribute to misunderstandings.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

It's been proven that species change over time. Hence: Evolution. We just aren't 100% sure HOW it happens. Hence: Evolution Theory.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Evolution IS A THEORY not proven, And not proven wrong. In other words you are teaching a bunch of kids my age something that hasn't been proven. AS IF IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT IT WERE TRUE, Which is just as dumb as creationism is perceived.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

XD Whatever helps you sleep at night. Unfortunately for you, Evolution has been proven and no amount of religious delusion is going to prove otherwise.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Evolution comes in two formsOne as a fact, scientists do not dispute that evolution HAPPENS.Two as a theory, natural selection, which experienced large backlash from religious communities because it made intelligent design seem more like a blind man using building blocks, rather than truly "intelligent design"God as a theory has no scientific backing and thus should not be taught unless at private schools. Who would pay money to go to that school? Who knows XD
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

i could not disagree more, while you may need scientific backing others do not. whit is certain is not faith. but if you want faith, look around you. everything around you from the walls to the very screen you are looking at now, down to you, your eyes, feet, hands and mouth. you claim that you are what you out of chance and that each individual particle and atom created itself, that every cell in your body is there as a result of infinate odds. you are unique and amazing as an individual and i dont see how you cannot see the evidance within that.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

i could not disagree more, while you may need scientific backing others do not.A school's subject matter is (in best efforts) based upon reality. To that end, evidence-based curricula are use. Science is one of this, so is history. It is not the prerogative of teachers to spread myth and fantasy as fact.whit is certain is not faith. but if you want faith, look around you. everything around you from the walls to the very screen you are looking at now, down to you, your eyes, feet, hands and mouth.This argument is one based on equivocation, confusing "trust without evidence" for "reliability of senses."you claim that you are what you out of chance and that each individual particle and atom created itself, that every cell in your body is there as a result of infinate odds.Every object in the universe occupies a state which has a vanishingly small chance of occurring in precisely that pattern. Calling something unlikely based on your assumptions therefore has little meaning. The chance that you would sit in your chair, the atoms occupying the exact positions which they do, is almost infinitely unlikely but we are not looking for exact states in a phase space. We are looking for regions of states, which reduces the rarity by many orders of magnitude.it also doesn't matter how incredulous you are towards a scientific theory. Science education isn't based on your ability to be convinced, it is based on fact, and that is why science education will continue to teach evolution.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

No, because biology is a science and therefore encompasses scientific theories. Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is not. That is because creationism can't be proven scientifically. Try again! :)