argument argue about share argue how
 
argue for



pros and cons   against

 
Creds and Cruds for
froggerus on 12-4-2009



It is as close as you can come to a "fact" in science. It is the basis for modern biology. Science "accepts" evolution because there is no current better explanation for how the varying life forms on Earth came to be.

While reading Eugenie Scott's Evolution Vs. Creationism one day, the section explaining the age of the earth troubled me. Not because I believe that violent little collection of short stories called The Bible is accurate in its claim that the earth is but 6,000 - 10,000 years old; but because I had no practical way of fathoming just how long 4.5 billion years (the true age of the earth) was.

So I came up with a way to imagine this enormous amount of time. Imagine that a year is one inch long. This means that I am 35.9 inches, or almost 3 feet, old. World War II ended 64 inches, or a little over five feet ago. The Declaration of Independence was 233 inches, or almost 19-and-a-half feet ago. You get the idea.

Using this measurement, the Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth is between 500 and 833 feet old. For all of you jocks out there, that's 1.38 - 2.31 football fields. Let's just say 2 for the ease of math.

How long is 4.5 billion inches? It's 375 million feet; 71,022 miles; or 2.85 times around the earth at the equator.

So the difference between the age of the Earth to biblical literalists, and the age of the earth to intelligent people, is the difference between two Soldier Fields and the better part of three-times around the Earth. No wonder they don't buy evolution. Dummies.
1 Cred3 Crud


There is simply no compelling evidence for creationism, intelligent design, or whatever term will be coined in the future to try to force god into schools' science curricula. To say that "we are simply too wonderful to have evolved by chance" is an example of the Appeal to Ignorance. You can't imagine how humanity could possibly have come about any other way, so it must have been your imaginary friend in the sky. The first thing you would have to do is show that evolution could not be true. But the more time that goes by the more evidence is found to support evolution. And where is the definition of a "too wonderful" human body to be found? Even if the human body were perfect, this would not be proof of a creator. It would simply show that nature, over the course of 3.5 billion years, developed a pretty good organism. But there are plenty of design flaws with the human body, including the partial shared pathway our air and food go through, the backward wiring of humans' eyes, and the presence of that great useless organ--the appendix. If you've ever chocked on a piece of food, you should question "intelligent" design.
1 Cred1 Crud


Children should still be discouraged from engaging in sexual intercourse, but should nonetheless be made aware that there is a such thing as safer sex to combat teen pregnancy and the transmission of STDs.
2 Cred1 Crud


Laws that protect people from being harmed by others make sense, but laws that protect people from themselves do not. A person should be allowed to choose, even at his own peril, whether or not to engage in risky behavior. Not wearing a helmet is risky behavior in that in the event of a motorcycle crash the person not wearing his helmet is more likely to be injured. So what? It is not the job of the state to act as a nanny. I wear my helmet for my own safety, not because the state tells me to.
4 Cred1 Crud


"For what American spends on the Drug War, we could have a first-class health care system for everybody. Public health problems like HIV and Hepatitis C are exacerbated by zero tolerance laws that restrict access to clean needles. Millions of people who suffer from AIDs, cancer, and other wasting diseases find relief from smoking marijuana." - www.efficacy-online.org
1 Cred2 Crud


Languages are always fluid and changing over time. Dialects can eventually become entirely different languages, unable to be understood by speakers of the root language. While I agree that LOLspeak is largely the result of people who can't spell attempting to write, and though it annoys me to no end, I have to accept that people speak it, seem to understand it even. Besides, it poses no threat to proper English. If convention, over time, forces words like 'ain't' into the lexicon, so be it; it seems unlikely that 'deez' will replace 'these' in the dictionary any time soon.
1 Cred0 Crud


The very question should sound as ridiculous as if you substituted the word 'interracial' for 'same-sex'. And since there seem to be no good secular objections to gay marriage, there should be no opposition from the states.
8 Cred3 Crud


Laws that protect people from being harmed by others make sense, but laws that protect people from themselves do not. A person should be allowed to choose, even at his own peril, whether or not to engage in risky behavior. Not wearing a seatbelt is risky behavior in that in the event of an automobile crash the person not wearing his seatbelt is more likely to be injured. So what? It is not the job of the state to act as a nanny. I wear my seatbelt for my own safety, not because the state tells me to.
3 Cred1 Crud

 
         
argue   for
© 2009 13 Guys Named Ed, LLC   •   About   •   Feedback   •   Sitemap
against   argues