Evolution

[LightningClap0002]

I can answer this thread using my beliefs because this whole thing is based off of beliefs. Read the original post.



By using the word believe she is opening it up for everyone to deny that belief and then explain our beliefs by saying "why don't you?" But for her to say we can not use the Bible because it is not proven is absurd when that is what we believe.

Hahaha, I think you just proved her point.

The validity of a belief in evolution can be argued against. The validity of your own beliefs in the Bible can not. It's not really fair to go into a discussion where only one of the two people can have their stance brought into question or refuted. And in the debate arena, it is truly absurd.

 

[Daniel94]

Hahaha, I think you just proved her point.

The validity of a belief in evolution can be argued against. The validity of your own beliefs in the Bible can not. It's not really fair to go into a discussion where only one of the two people can have their stance brought into question or refuted. And in the debate arena, it is truly absurd.

Um...no. She can question the Bible, but to just blatantly say it is not true without any supporting evidence makes no sense to me. She needs to explain her beliefs. We are explaining our beliefs, but she is not accepting them or our evidence. That is her problem if she does not like where my beliefs come from or the evidence I provide. In the debate arena to make a statement without supporting evidence is truly absurd.

 

[LightningClap0002]

Um...no. She can question the Bible, but to just blatantly say it is not true without any supporting evidence makes no sense to me. She needs to explain her beliefs. We are explaining our beliefs, but she is not accepting them or our evidence. That is her problem if she does not like where my beliefs come from or the evidence I provide. In the debate arena to make a statement without supporting evidence is truly absurd.

So how would one demonstrate to you that your belief in the Bible is invalid?

 

[Daniel94]

So how would one demonstrate to you that your belief in the Bible is invalid?

....I don't know because I don't try to disprove my own beliefs. I am not going to do her work for her. If she is going to say what I believe is false then she needs to provide me something to back up that argument. Are you saying that I could have just came and said evolution is false and left without giving supporting evidence? Do you know how a debate works?

 

[Ugly]

I have trusted servants?? Schweet, why did no one tell me? Man, where are they, i have laundry to be done and dinner to be cooked.

 

[LightningClap0002]

....I don't know because I don't try to disprove my own beliefs. I am not going to do her work for her. If she is going to say what I believe is false then she needs to provide me something to back up that argument. Are you saying that I could have just came and said evolution is false and left without giving supporting evidence? Do you know how a debate works?

That's not what I suggested, and I'm not sure about debates. How does a debate work?

 

[Daniel94]

That's not what I suggested, and I'm not sure about debates. How does a debate work?

Then what are you suggesting? Are you trying to be sarcastic about how debates work?

 

[LightningClap0002]

Then what are you suggesting? Are you trying to be sarcastic about how debates work?

Nope, no sarcasm, just asking a question. How do debates work?

 

[Daniel94]

Nope, I am asking a question. How do debates work?

Team A - Opening Statement
Team B - Opening Statement
Team A - First "Argument"
Team B - Rebuttal
Team A - Counter (I think that is what it is called it has been awhile since I have been in a debate)
Team B - First "Argument"
Team A - Rebuttal
Team B - Counter
Team A - Closing Statement
Team B - Closing Statement

This is the very bare minimum and probably lower than that. Of course you also have time allotted for each statement, argument, etc., but the time varies depending on what type of debate you are in and how formal it is. This is also the general outline for the debates I have been in(which have been informal), but there are many types. My point is though that every debate I have been in if you bring an idea out to the open you HAVE to have supporting evidence.

I consider this a discussion rather than a debate. You were the first to call it a debate so that is why I kept with that.

 

[LightningClap0002]

Team A - Opening Statement
Team B - Opening Statement
Team A - First "Argument"
Team B - Rebuttal
Team A - Counter (I think that is what it is called it has been awhile since I have been in a debate)
Team B - First "Argument"
Team A - Rebuttal
Team B - Counter
Team A - Closing Statement
Team B - Closing Statement

This is the very bare minimum and probably lower than that. Of course you also have time allotted for each statement, argument, etc., but the time varies depending on what type of debate you are in and how formal it is. This is also the general outline for the debates I have been in(which have been informal), but there are many types. My point is though that every debate I have been in if you bring an idea out to the open you HAVE to have supporting evidence.

I consider this a discussion rather than a debate. You were the first to call it a debate so that is why I kept with that.

Nah, I never called it a debate. But that's kind of beside the point.

Are you sure that teams are required to debate? Does philosophy play a role in debates?

 

[Daniel94]

Nah, I never called it a debate. But that's kind of beside the point.

And in the debate arena, it is truly absurd.

I understood that to mean you were calling this a debate. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Are you sure that teams are required to debate? Does philosophy play a role in debates?

By teams I don't necessarily mean a group. Typically, you have at least two vs two, but it can be one vs one. I guess philosophy does play a role in debates.

 

[LightningClap0002]

I understood that to mean you were calling this a debate. Sorry if I misunderstood.




By teams I don't necessarily mean a group. Typically, you have at least two vs two, but it can be one vs one. I guess philosophy does play a role in debates.

Nah, I was calling this a discussion (see the sentence before the one you bolded). And then pointing out that if taken out of the discussion realm, it would actually be absurd, not just unfair.

Either way, you may want to look into philosophical debates versus political/legal ones. They are much more directly applicable to these sorts of discussions. And may help you understand a little more about why your beliefs could so quickly be discredited. In particular, I would say that circulus in probando applies most often.

 

[Daniel94]

Nah, I was calling this a discussion (see the sentence before the one you bolded). And then pointing out that if taken out of the discussion realm, it would actually be absurd, not just unfair.

Sorry...I see where you called this a discussion. I must have overlooked it.

Either way, you may want to look into philosophical debates versus political/legal ones. They are much more directly applicable to these sorts of discussions. And may help you understand a little more about why your beliefs could so quickly be discredited. In particular, I would say that circulus in probando applies most often.

I will check it out.

 

[GRA]

Most of your trusted servants believe in evolution, why don't you?

This question need not be addressed at all until GodlessGirl1 proves the initial premise to be true...

( Otherwise - it is just heresay - and completely meaningless... -----> Which it is... )

.

 

[rtb]

Came from apes? What? Are you crazy? I mean our DNA is only 98.5% the same as chimpanzees.
It's not like that's an overwhelming majority or anything.

 

[VikkiKate89]

I agree its a theory so unproven

Gravity's also a theory yet people are less eager to argue against it for some crazy reason.

 

[HolyMoly]

The funny thing about evolution is that everyone here thinks they have a full understanding of it. I doubt most people here that don't "believe"
in it have ever read a book in favor of evolution. They have never challenged their belief by actually reading and looking at the evidence.
By the way, evolution is a not a belief, it's true. We have the transformational fossils - fish that walked on land (Tiktaalik) and dinosaur with
feathers (Archaeopteryx). We have our own ancestors remains that clearly show our evolution from apes to our present form. With all this
evidence you can't at least admit it's a possibility?

 

[LightningClap0002]

The funny thing about evolution is that everyone here thinks they have a full understanding of it. I doubt most people here that don't "believe"
in it have ever read a book in favor of evolution. They have never challenged their belief by actually reading and looking at the evidence.
By the way, evolution is a not a belief, it's true. We have the transformational fossils - fish that walked on land (Tiktaalik) and dinosaur with
feathers (Archaeopteryx). We have our own ancestors remains that clearly show our evolution from apes to our present form. With all this
evidence you can't at least admit it's a possibility?

I have studied evolution for 6 years from both a scientific and philosophical(philosophy of science) standpoint. After studying both the history and progression of the theory and the philosophy of the science behind it, I have come to my opinion that evolution is not a sound scientific theory. As such, I am still waiting for a sound scientific theory to be presented. I firmly believe that the current evolutionary theory does not accurately explain or describe what it claims to. There are certain mechanisms used by the theory which do seem to be solid and have been shown to be scientifically true; the entire theory, however, is not.

 

[Daniel94]

The funny thing about evolution is that everyone here thinks they have a full understanding of it. I doubt most people here that don't "believe"
in it have ever read a book in favor of evolution. They have never challenged their belief by actually reading and looking at the evidence.
By the way, evolution is a not a belief, it's true. We have the transformational fossils - fish that walked on land (Tiktaalik) and dinosaur with
feathers (Archaeopteryx). We have our own ancestors remains that clearly show our evolution from apes to our present form. With all this
evidence you can't at least admit it's a possibility?

What I find amazing is how people claim the Bible seems so irrational and fictional, but do you not realize how crazy you sound saying a fish walked on land or that man evolved from a chimp? It might be a possibility for those who need to explain every little thing that happens in the world, but I am not going to question God's word because I have no need to. I can accept it for what it is. Also why do I need to read books on evolution when they teach evolution in school. Honestly if they aren't teaching me right from the beginning then I really don't want to waste my time reading more information that is just going to change sometime in the future. My Bible stands firm with what it says and what is in it will NOT change.

 

[chip]

No, I do not believe in evolution.

However, I do believe that natural selection is a viable statement and though not leading to "evolution" can evolve the same creature into a version capable of living in a new environment. But, that is not evolution as it is commonly taught.