Homework Help

[xpaulinabearx]

its not a scientific theory? it is, by nature, not empirically provable. c'mon, this is really fuckin basic...

no shit...............................that's why you're suppose to argue that it is provable......isn't that why it's called a fucking debate......................................................? awkward

[DüM]

...................awkward

[xpaulinabearx]

awkward...

[DüM]

that awkward moment when it's....................?awkward

[xpaulinabearx]

hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[blm14]

no shit...............................that's why you're suppose to argue that it is provable......isn't that why it's called a fucking debate......................................................? awkward

I would seriously be curious if you could come up with a good argument that creationism is provable.

But it sounds like what you're being asked to argue is that it should be taught, not that it's true, no?

[_ironman]

i thought her post says she is supposed to argue against teaching it. confused :confused:

[duck sauce]

with our education system in the shape that it's in, a little more damage couldn't hurt if it will placate the religious

good luck xpaulinabearx

[bryanayrb]

i thought her post says she is supposed to argue against teaching it. confused :confused:

i haven't done a debate topic thingy in a while but don't you have to argue both sides?

[_ironman]

for real? i don't remember doing both sides. the last thing i remember debating is pro choice abortion in high school bio

[bryanayrb]

so, i have a debate on "why school's should NOT teach intelligent design (creationism) along side biology (evolution)." I actually do believe that schools SHOULD teach creationism..but i got stuck with this fucking topic..i seriously have no clue what to say/write since i am religious...i'm fucked....please help me...

no shit...............................that's why you're suppose to argue that it is provable......isn't that why it's called a fucking debate......................................................? awkward

for real? i don't remember doing both sides. the last thing i remember debating is pro choice abortion in high school bio

i dunno i had to read this shit like 6 times and i still cant follow

she has a debate on why schools should not teach creationism & evolution.

she believes they SHOULD teach creationism b/c she is religious

haploid says she a basic bitch cause it's not really provable

then she says u gotta argue it is provable

this is ................................................? awkward

maybe cause im still not awake yet

[Spastic_Koala]

no shit...............................that's why you're suppose to argue that it is provable......isn't that why it's called a fucking debate......................................................? awkward

I'm lost. Aren't you arguing that creationism should NOT be taught in school? You're not arguing whether or not creationism is true or provable.

The awkward way you conveyed your awkward assignment makes me concerned that you'll make awkward arguments at your debate, which will leave everyone feeling awkward.

.........................why so many ellipses?

[destructodisk]

so, i have a debate on "why school's should NOT teach intelligent design (creationism) along side biology (evolution)." I actually do believe that schools SHOULD teach creationism..but i got stuck with this fucking topic..i seriously have no clue what to say/write since i am religious...i'm fucked....please help me...

just ignore the prompt for the body and talk about irreducible complexity and flagella and dinosaurs roaming the earth 3000 years ago and then conclude by saying this is all pseudo science and precisely the reason intelligent design should not be taught alongside actual science. that way you can show your real opinions and thoughts in the essay and still get an A because you demonstrated to the reader that intelligent design is a mockery of both itself and real science. perhaps you will learn something!

[ninetynine]

so, i have a debate on "why school's should NOT teach intelligent design (creationism) along side biology (evolution)." I actually do believe that schools SHOULD teach creationism..but i got stuck with this fucking topic..i seriously have no clue what to say/write since i am religious...i'm fucked....please help me...

Maybe you should be less Religious if you can't even hold your own against 3 -5 sheets of paper...

Don't get mad at me, get mad at yourself.

P.S. - arguing creationism as opposed to evolution could go on for hours or be done in a single sentence, no matter how much arguing you do you're never going to reach a conclusion.

[haploid]

OK. do you see biologists demanding stickers that say "the contents of this book are just ancient myths that have gained a stigma of validity through the passage of time" on the inside of world religions textbooks?

the opposite of that is what's happening with the "creationism in the biology classroom" argument. evolution poses a hypothesis that can be proven and disproven by observable evidence, and therefore it is science. creationism poses a hypothesis that cannot be proven nor disproven by scientific means, and therefore to teach it alongside a scientific theory is completely absurd. i am not saying one is "right" and one is "wrong", they are just two very separate things that really have nothing to do with each other and should stay in their respective classrooms. that's it.

[xpaulinabearx]

Okay then...since basically everybody is bashing at my first question....what are some questions I could ask the other side as to why the believe creationism should be taught along side evolution...be serious pleas...got some basic questions down but they suck

[michaelttizzle]

this is funny because I just had an assignment in bio to visit a creationist museum and basically bash on it.

[Bislane]

Okay then...since basically everybody is bashing at my first question....what are some questions I could ask the other side as to why the believe creationism should be taught along side evolution...be serious pleas...got some basic questions down but they suck

this should be easy because you are pretty much already behind enemy lines right? go visit your preacher over the weekend and let him spout some old age wisdom on you for an hour or two and blam!

[TPR950H]

ancient astronaut theory.

2012.

science is the same thing as religion except that it can change its theories based evidence.

[AstroWolf]

this thread makes me feel old.

[Scais]

who/what started evolution? theres your argument.

and lol.

[blm14]

who/what started evolution? theres your argument.

and lol.

Two separate theories. Evolution only deals with change in things that are already alive. The transition from non-life to life is a theory called abiogenesis. I also appreciate that you phrased your question as a "what" and not just a "who."

science is the same thing as religion except that it can change its theories based evidence.

Several major differences. Religion doesn't have theories, it only has revealed knowledge, which is usually revealed to some prophet or preacher long ago and cannot change or be questioned without a ton of drama. Science does not have any absolutes - a theory is never proven, only held until disproven.

Science is a process. Religion is a set of dogma.

Also, for the record, creationism is not just A theory, it's a huge number of theories, basically one for just about any religion you can think of. So the question of teaching creationism becomes "whose creationism do we teach" and then you start running afoul of the first amendment by picking some over others. The reason we teach science is that science is typically outcome-agnostic. Science is only interested in ever more accurate models of reality, which change with human knowledge. Religion can be taught at home or in church, but there's no need to teach it in public schools.

Wait, which side of this argument are you supposed to represent again? LOL

[sawyer]

^don't forget that whole falsifiability thing

[xpaulinabearx]

Two separate theories. Evolution only deals with change in things that are already alive. The transition from non-life to life is a theory called abiogenesis. I also appreciate that you phrased your question as a "what" and not just a "who."

Several major differences. Religion doesn't have theories, it only has revealed knowledge, which is usually revealed to some prophet or preacher long ago and cannot change or be questioned without a ton of drama. Science does not have any absolutes - a theory is never proven, only held until disproven.

Science is a process. Religion is a set of dogma.

Also, for the record, creationism is not just A theory, it's a huge number of theories, basically one for just about any religion you can think of. So the question of teaching creationism becomes "whose creationism do we teach" and then you start running afoul of the first amendment by picking some over others. The reason we teach science is that science is typically outcome-agnostic. Science is only interested in ever more accurate models of reality, which change with human knowledge. Religion can be taught at home or in church, but there's no need to teach it in public schools.

Wait, which side of this argument are you supposed to represent again? LOL

agaisnt teaching creationism. this shit just saved my life, haha, thanks!. debate is tomorrow, fuck. someone give me questions to ask about why these people believe ID should be taugh in science!

[TPR950H]

All knowledge is theory.

[xpaulinabearx]

All knowledge is theory.

but it can't be tested

[blm14]

All knowledge is theory.

Well see now we are getting into epistemology. Is there a difference between knowledge and belief? Is it possible to believe something without claiming to know that it's true? Does believing something make it true? Just for you? For everyone? What does it mean to say that something is "known?"

[blm14]

So what happened with this?

[AstroWolf]

"Is it possible to believe something without claiming to know that it's true?"

Call that one life. Why i always laugh when people get strung out on opinions they have, like they have any real reflection on them, or the ownership of the thought self defines. I think and know a lot, but its all good if you dont agree, in fact, i dig it when people are on another page, makes for a good talk.

[pepper davies]

Is anyone interested in editing a paper for me around midnight EST? The topic is Hume's Standard of Taste. <3