Quote:
Quote by: leegao  ad hominem may help you prove points but be careful when you're using them since they're generally offensive.
let me just summarize what this debate is about, and how every single one like this were and will turn out to be.
Creationists believe in a divine intervention in the natural orders that creates life. Those against this idea believes that life was created from organic materials under the right condition.
Now, here's where the main focus is going to be.
The creationists will base their ideology off of their religious belief or some kinda divine book, say the Bible. The evolutionists will like wise base their ideology off of some scientific book.
Now, the main argument against the creationists is that their belief have no scientific support. As gallo pointed out, there are tons of books out there about the big bang which have all these scientific support, therefore the big bang theory should automatically win right?
Wrong. The main problem with this debate is that no one here have prioritized which basis we should use to evaluate this topic. Science or Religion. Since the 2 ideologies rests on vastly different grounds, we can never make a clearcut argument if we haven't even pointed out that Science is the better ground to uphold or that religion is the better ground to uphold. So since the pro-creationists here are mostly upholding a religious ground for their arguments, and prioritize religion over science. The evolutionists on the other hand mainly upholds a scientific ground, taking almost no notice of impacts made by arguments that upheld religious grounds. Therefore, each side think that they're the right side because, by god's grace, the evolutionists believe that the creationists "usually aren't very smart or educated" and wouldn't take in their belief because it has no scientific value. Meanwhile the creationists believe that they are right because the big bang theory just doesn't appeal to their religious belief.
So, in order to clean up this mess we must first debate out whether Science takes precedence over Religion or vice versa, there-after we can re-evaluate the topic.
Also, please, if you're going to make a counter-argument, only make arguments that have direct impact, don't just redefine a word without changing the contextual purpose of the argument. |
Here is how it should be determined, I suppose. If you want to teach creationism in a science class, as science. Then Science is in charge.
If you want to teach evolution or the Big Bang at some church as a religious topic, then the Church is in charge.
Same could be the case at Volconvo because we have different forums of people who like one or the other kinds of debates.
So you could have the same debate in two different forums, here Gallo is in charge, and at the religion forum, you get to be in charge. And we can watch to see how each method works out.