Evolution [Debate Proposal]
I want a debate with one person from the forum arguing evolution is not a myth. And I will be arguing against evolution and showing the many discrepancies within it.
The debate parameters are as follows:
1. Only two people will participate in the debate all other posts will be ignored.
2. The debate will be for 3 rounds.
3. Posts will be made in turns, we will agree on who makes the initial post.
4. The maximum length of each statement, will be 3000 words or less.
5. The time limit between statements is 3 days.
6. quotes and references from outside sources should be marked clearly
The maximum length of each statement:
The word "quote:" that appears automatically when using VBB coding to quote material is not counted in the total word count. The use of numbers, symbols, and quoting an opponent's words is counted. Formal debate statements must also be of an abundance that is reasonably acceptable. For example, statements consisting solely of the words "Why?" or "Who says?" will be declined. Images can also be used as long as the amount and size used is not excessive or a means to get around word limits.
The time limit between statements:
Debate participants are expected to respond within a particular time frame. For example, if the time limit chosen is a week, then a debater is expected to reply within a week of his or her opponent’s last statement. For debates that are concurrent, debaters are expected to submit their statements within the time limit from the date of the last statement of the previous round. Time limits do not work by means of a fixed calendar. As long as it's within the time limit, debaters can post statements any time they wish to -- even if it's a within a few hours after his/her opponent's statement.
If anyone is up for the challenge then let me know in this thread.
Registered Senior Abuser
good luck Pi, muslim you are an idiot
Evolution is a theory, not a fact and is accepted as a theory by the scientific community.
Evolution may, in time, be disproved but untill that time it remains the most likeley of all theories of how humans came to exist.
There is evidence to support evolution in the form of bacteria, these mutate and reproduce so quickly that evolution takes place over a shorter period of time than mammals. Evidence:
When penicillin was first introduced it could kill almost all bacteria that caused disease in humans, however it was not long before bacteria were found to have resistance. This is because bacteria <b>evolved</b> to a changing habitat.
Please give me evidence of any alternative theory
<i>a book written by a prophet is not evidence, it is fiction</i>
Pi, may I first say that you're an idiot for even accepting the challenge?
Second, may I say that you are doubly an idiot for impulsively submitting an incomplete PoS post?
less hate, more science
this is an interesting thread =]
cant wait until his arguments fall apart!
Although only Pi will post (if he is accepted as the challenger) others can still PM him with ideas.
You will also need a third person to impatially chair the debate.
The debate will take place on a proper debating forum!
Live the life
The Bible, Torah, or Quran could very easy have truth in them. I believe everything that happened in the new testment because it could all happen. Nothing in it was that absurd. IN fact some things in the Bible have been Proven to have really happened.
Originally Posted by Pi-Sudoku
I will start off, I'll make the first post:
It will be in this thread.
The debate we have will not be anywhere but here. It started here and it will finish here.
I have already used bacteria as an example of evolution happening over a short period of time, the fact that the bacteria died during early trials removes any possibility that bacteria "learned" to be tolerant. Changes happened between generations. That is evidence of evolution.
Originally Posted by Charles Darwin
You may claim that God made animals adapted to their daily tasks but surely he can't be racing with human science to assist with disease. For every animal to be inteligently designed there would have to be repeated involvement to introduce new animals repeatedly. Otherwise there would be fossil evidence of modern creatures dating back to periods of time when we have evidence of life such as dinosours.
Responce please Muslim
How come only an idiot thinks he can refute the theory of evolution by picking an outdated quote from one of Darwin's books and show that it isn't entirely correct anymore?
my advice: just point out the fallacy of the argument, and then show the modern support of the theory of evolution.
So I'm reading Msulim's thread, and I think "this idiot is writing pretty well," so I googled the first paragraph.
Yeah, this kid just copied and pasted.
The post he wrote in the forum he links to doesn't even really attack the theory of evolution.
Firstly, he is obviously confused: does he think Darwin's theory of natural selection is the same thing as the theory of evolution?
Secondly, the only thing that comes close to a good attack on evolution is a random passage he quoted (without commenting) by an Indian scientist who I it appears is hinting about irreducible complexity (although neither Muslim nor the quoted passage actually argue the concept).
Thirdly, Muslim thinks that if something can cause racist thoughts it must be factually wrong. Ackowledging the differences in various ethnic groups is not racist, nor is trying to theorise about why these differences are advantagous in different environments.
Edit: I believe it is Muslim's birthday today.
Last edited by Blue_UK; 04-05-06 at 11:33 AM.
less hate, more science
is the debate taking place on another forum? that is ridiculous. a temp ban should be put on him for, essentially, spamming another site.
And other than using Darwin - an outdated model of evolution based entirely on the "Natural Selection" mechanism - and a poor understanding of probability - the post singularly fails to make any attack on Evolution nor offer an alternative.
To decry Evolution as a myth one must surely strip away the claims of evolution (i.e. by debunking the evidence) or by offering an alternative that fits all the facts and is acceptable to Occam's Razor.
On the probability matter - of how unlikely it might be for all those molecules to group together...
Shuffle a deck of cards and then deal them 1 by 1 - face up - recording the cards as you do so.
Then look back at what you have just done.
Did you know that the probability of dealing those cards in that EXACT order is nearly 1 in 10^68.
And yet you did it!