Religion neither changes nor updates, it is stuck in time. Evolution gathers strength daily, supported by scientific cross referencing between all the sciences and the need to fit in all of them to be considered worthwhile theory.
No and I have many friends on the internet and praises in reference to my work. However, every time I start a thread, a forum or make a remark, she has attacked me along with her followers. They do this to stop forums. so I am giving her the same treatment so she can see how it feels.Obviously she doesn't like it but expects me to. I am always nice to people and if they are nice, I become nicer. It's not about debating, it is about put downs and snide remarks. If you guys really wanted a voice here you would show respect.Showing respect is the only way to get it back. I didn't know you guys and showed respect till all the attacks made for no reason. Never any one on one talks. No one wants to listen to someone who abuses them when they have a difference of views. We get what we give. So for any who want to attack me or tell me what to do..I'm an adult..then expect to get it back..PERIOD Why is this so difficult to understand?
1. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang. 2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. 3. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets. 4. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter. 5. Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds. 6. Microevolution Variations within kinds
#4 is the one that provides a clash of completely different ideas. #1 and #3 are quite connected, though they would be interesting to read about (at least for me); #2 - too scientific, might be boring; #5 and #6 have quite substantial scientific proof - and I hope you're not going to debate whether that proof is right or wrong.
Also have you decided when you're going to stop debating and draw some conclusions? I mean some timeframe or..?
Of course. About a million ears ago. But - I am trying to find a point that is worth debating. Darwin's theory of evolution has been refined considerably since he wrote it and I do not appreciate you attacking me.
What has proof got to do with a debate?
I thought you wanted to debate an issue or a proposition?
A question will work just fine, I don't all day for you to play semantics. Let's go.
Lincoln/Douglas Debate Format 1AC (first Affirmative Constructive) – A good introduction that attracts the audiences attention and interest in the topic Clearly state the resolution Clearly state each of your contentions Support with reason and evidence Conclude effectively
Cross Ex of the Aff by the Neg – You ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a direction to your questioning Be courteous Face the audience
1NC (first Negative Constructive) – A good introduction that attracts the audiences attention and interest in the topic Clearly state the Negative’s position on the topic Clearly state the Negative’s Observations Support with reason and evidence Attack and question the Affirmative’s Contentions/evidence Conclude effectively
Cross Ex of the Neg by the Aff – You ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a direction to your questioning Be courteous
Rebuttal Speeches – No new arguments are allowed – new evidence, analysis is ok
1AR (first Affirmative Rebuttal) - Respond to the Neg Observations – show how they are not as strong/relevant as the Aff Contentions Rebuild the Aff case
NR (Negative Rebuttal) – Respond to latest Affirmative arguments Make your final case to the audience that the Neg position is superior to the Aff Try and convince the audience the Aff has failed to carry the burden of proof Summarize the debate and conclude effectively and ask for the audience to agree with the Neg position
2AR (second Affirmative Rebuttal) – Respond to final Negative arguments Summarize the debate and show the audience how the Aff position is superior – and the Aff has carried the burden of proof
No one is attacking you, you're too sensitive. Stop playing. You've spent your entire life in on HP attacking and belittling Christians. Your claims range from “I have facts and science, “always saying “evolution has proving us wrong” You claim to be a scientist. Prove it. Bring your augments and facts to that support your claims.
Your sources are the ones that are not credible. You have and almost everyone here has a preconceived notion that Christians know nothing about science and science doesn't support the bible, I contend to refute that idea and reveal the truth, that's why I agreed to this debate, can you handle that?
My basis is the bible(obviously) yours is evolution. We a supposed to reveal our explanation of the facts. And let the people decide whose case is most convincing. Come on this is Debate 101
"reputable scientific website" please. I knew you would do this that's why I wanted to speed things along, but you kept dragging it out until we got to this stand still. You never really wanted to debate. I knew it!
I think before you two can debate. You would first have to define god (all yours truthhurts) and you would also have to clearly define a starting point.
I would suggest that if the debate is about the origins of life, you start (not at the big bang) but start with the How the Earth was made, what life is 'made' of including elements and development of water on the planet, the origins of water etc...
I'm rooting for you dude but you need to calm down and hammer out a proposition which is not a question, since that makes the subject more approachable. Eg: Darwin's evolutionary theory does not provide valid support for the biological evidence.
How on earth is it going to be SCORED? like, 1 point per verifiable statement of unrefutable FACT? if that could happen, this debate would be not even exist. (Is it possable to be impartial?) good luck guys, I am interested to watch, I hope it can happen with no name calling whatsoever... so the truth hurts' name is Gardner?
I vote for Aevans!!! Sorry guys, but I have read the other threads..I know Cags is as close to spock as you can get..but still..hes half human..and Bovine? I am sure he can use logic and all that..but if youve already made your mind up, your not impartial.
Cagsil: Based on the comments I have read he is not at all argumentative however he has already made a decision on his beliefs so that would make him biased. Cagsil, no disrespect and please forgive me for pointing that out with all respect to your beliefs.
Bovine: Based on reading a couple of threads is not argumentative either and is seeking understanding on both sides without causing any conflict which would make him unbiased.
If I had to choose a second judge it would be Bovine
In my defense and in the defense of a fair debate, I am no more partial than AEvans. I am not an atheist but near enough. AEvans is a Christian I believe but rather like myself, not full blooded. In a debate with these two in oppostion I think two judges would be fair.
I think that it matters not who wins, If an uninterrupted debate can be carried to fulfillment; the rest of us might witness some TRUTH being exposed on both sides of the issue, as never experienced on Hub pages before. I am looking forward to this! Good luck to you both!!!
Same here - it would be a shame to ruin this through haste - we need to set out the format, time limits for responses and set up the voting system - I suggest that we use standard format - the judges state whether they are for, against or undecided before the debate.
We then take another vote at the end and the winner is he who gains the most votes
Paraglider would be a good choice, if he is interested.
Anyway, I am GMT +2 and dinner is ready - catch you all later
"Given the choice between a biblical explanation and a scientific explanation of the evidence of how humans came to be, I propose the scientific explanation using the theory of evolution, although I accept that this does not explain the origins of life as we currently understand that term"
Wrong mark you're already trying to state that you have science over Christians which is not true: Biblical worldview vs Secular worldview(evolution) which best explains the evidence. This is the most unbiased premise.
That is a question - not a proposition. I was making the proposition. But you go ahead how about: "Given the choice between a biblical explanation and a scientific explanation of the evidence of how humans came to be, I propose the biblical explanation."
Hi everyone, I am GMT + 8 but I think you know I am always here anyway. If you need to get started without me, I will play catch up. I am assuming this will not be a major issue, this debate could take a while. Just wanted to note the time difference. So you are leaving it for how long?
I agree paraglider would be a good chairperson.
This topic needs to be set pretty soon though, it shouldn't be so difficult in my opinion.
Can we reserve to right to visual aides(ie video evidence), As for using the same book fine, but if there is a proven lie in the book we should be allow to refute it, citing refutation sources. Other than that I agree.
Just as an injerjection and to save time, here is a useful format.
Before starting, maybe we should establish each of these points.
1. The topic of the debate. 2. The opponents of the debate, and what positions they will argue. 3. The scope of the debate. 4. The length of the debate, in number of rounds. 5. Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first. 6. The maximum length of each statement. 7. The time limit between statements. 8. The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed. 9. The starting date of the debate. 10. Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.
I will be offline soon and back tomorrow (my tomorrow). I hope you guys get it together because I am not really confident on this going ahead. You still have me though. It is a worthy venture. I am sore and tired now so I will be back refreshed. Good luck all.
I really don't see this going anywhere. Aren't both parties able to cross reference. The bible and God are whats being refuted. I think the Bible should be cross referenced by both parties as a freebie- and then two argument supportive sites for their case. Seems Mark and Gardener will use the bible collectively.
Well, I usually recommend people look words up in a dictionary when they are using them incorrectly. Sorry - I am sure you hate to learn new things as well. I don't blame you. Stick to the easy stuff huh? Good for you.
The subject has been chosen for the serious debate! 1. The debate is between Mark and Gardner it is not between all others on HP this thread is not open to others commenting please keep your comments to yourselves, as...
With the ever increasing overwhelming amount of Scientific knowledge that we humans now possess, I personally think it's only a matter of time before Religion is almost completley gone, forgotten if you will. What do I...
Science is secular / equitable in nature; it has nothing to do with the AtheistsIf some atheistic scientists support atheism that is their own extra-curricular activity; science has never made them their spokesperson.