techtalknow

Thank you for posing a kind and helpful reply. I actually understand what you're trying to say.

Well played.

"The key to winning any debate is ensuring that you have the last word". That right here, while it is the simplest thing ever, makes the most sense of everything I've read on this thread so far.

So then how is it that the materials for the Big Bang or whatever came into existance? What created time? Or material? Existance, substance? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be made to change forms. But does that mean that everything we are today has just been recycled and changed forms over the millenia, or does that allow you to accept the possible existance of an Intelligent Designer?

Evolution is a religion against creationism. If you're against evolution, then you're for its opposite. By being against evolution you accept that there are other scientific or religious possibilities, including Intelligent Design by a divine maker.

You call me a coward? You realize you're struggling so much with a 15 year old you've stooped to calling me a narrow-minded ignorant coward?

I refuse to listen to someone who sources their information from Wikipedia.

Apparently you haven't evolved enough to be capable of doing a simple Google Search.

So you're telling me that my arguments are false. Present me with a rebuttal.

While I PERSONALLY believe in creationism, my debate is in regards to anti-evolutionism. I'd prefer we kept it to that. Obviously you guys have little tolerance for things you can't understand. Who knows, maybe this conversation has created an evolutionary pressure that could cause you to learn some decency...then again, I don't think you're advanced enough to evolve just sayin

And "Discussing science" involves insulting my beliefs? Mhm sure

If they do decide to throw things at me, I'll throw them back a hell of a lot harder, and I'll make sure you're the first person to know,

Are you challenging him to a personal debate?

The main topic here is Human Evolution, to be specific. Plants and doges have nothing to do with the HUMAN aspect. There is a debate. There are people who accept YOUR illusion of reality and there are people who accept MINE. I'd rather I got constructive, helpful feedback on my OG post instead of having my beliefs insulted and belittled.

It's a shame you don't have the capacity for nor the faith to believe in things that aren't tangible to the human. Again, you're not only belittling the work I put in, you're going on the offensive against creationism. The debate is pro/anti evolution, not evolution vs creationism.

And yet it's still a theory. Apparently well supported, but still a theory.

^That last comment was rude and uncalled for. I hoped your mama taught you better than that, and I'm scared to know what YOU evolved from. How is it though that fact has previously been proven wrong? And what is this relevant to? Sadly I don't have the proximity to nor the financial means to participate in a research project. I asked Santa, tho Overtone you should watch yourself. Just because you don't believe in Irreducible Complexity doesn't give you the right to bash those who teach and learn it. If you're expecting an apology from my teacher, you'll have to go get it yourself as he owes you nothing. You've taken this too far from the simple question of asking for feedback, not unproductive insults. You should seriously go calm down because at this point you've stopped being helpful and started being a pain.

How can you demonstrate evolution? Is there a DIY Evolution Lab Kit you can buy?

ugh from the beginning i felt like this would escalate. I was asking for some constructive criticism, not a fight to tear my 10th grade work apart. FFS.

If something is fact, that means its true no matter what, correct? If we are able to prove a fact wrong then the theory/idea it was based on is inherently incorrect...

ALSO, Why is it that evolutionists are unwilling to allow for competing models, i.e., creation or even intelligent design? The hypothesis of evolution changes every year; if one theory is said to be fact, but then a year later is shown to be wrong, then how can it be fact in the first place? A true fact is something that never changes, am I right?

Going to this school wasn't my choice in the first place. My old high school forced me out. It was a fiasco, TBH.

oh and for those wondering, my job was to only focus on Irreducible Complexity, not a whole argument against Evolution.

Then why not explain to me where I am wrong? Also do realize, this is a debate by about 10 tenth graders. I'm not sure what you were expecting... Funnily enough, at my school, those participating against evolution have won the last three years.

also, what about the fact that there are periods of time where we have no proof/evidence? didnt that single cell require outside influence to be created/supported? It seems you have been caught up in believing evolution is science, when it is indeed a religion—an anti-Christian religion. And since “molecules-to-man” evolution is origins science, it is not observable, testable or repeatable unlike operational science, which is how we get space shuttles, computers, antibiotics and mapped genomes! Even popular evolutionist Ernst Mayr is aware of this fact. He stated, and I quote, “ Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented.”In other words, if anything is anti-science, it is the belief in undocumented, unrepeatable, unobservable molecules-to-man evolution.