BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive

Stellar Formation is an accepted part of Modern Cosmology. If you do a basic google search, you can find thousands of scientific sources about it. Here is just one from NASA (1). What my sources show is that we have a fossil record from dinosaurs to birds. One transitional is archyeopteryx. Another source for laypeople is linked here (2). It shows fossils such as Archy that have transitional traits between birds and dinosaurs such as wings with claws, and teeth. The bird dinosaur evolution is accepted by the scientific community and is only doubted by creationists. Since birds came before land animals according to evolution but land animals were created on a later day than birds, there is a real contradiction. Wikipedia provides a list of human evolution fossils from traditional species such has homo habilis, homo erectus, and Neanderthals (3). Human evolution is not doubted by evolutionists, but it is by creationists. Humans evolved from apes according to evolution. We were not created from dirt by God according to Darwin. Absence of Evidence and the Food If there was a global flood, we should see a lot of fossils in the newest layers in amounts not seen elsewhere. That is a prediction of a recent global flood. And that prediction fails. Also, as I pointed out, a global flood would have broken up the ice caps, so we should not have current ice records going back hundreds of thousands of years. Yet we find them (4). So yes, there is evidence against a recent global flood. Also, the question of how penguins migrated from Antarctica to the ark was never addressed. Consecutive Days The bible claims that God made the plants in one day. Land animals such as cattle were created in one day. Even if these days were not sequential, within each day, the bible claims that a lot of creation happened. Evolution is clear that cattle evolved over millions of years just like plants, birds, and fish. They were not created in disjoint single day segments. 1:http://solarsystem.nasa.gov... 2: http://people.eku.edu... 3: http://en.wikipedia.org... 4: http://www.csa.com...
Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive

Thank you for providing Sources, however I don't believe one is credible. Here is my problems with it.3.) The article is written by writer Tega Jessa. Jessa is not a scientist, and provides no sources other than "NASA". Jessa does not provide a specific link or source other than saying "NASA." Since there are no credible articles linked, I think it is safe to disregard this source. Anyway, moving on. I have read through all of your (incredibly dense) websites, and I didn't seem to find anywhere that proved any of your claims. While it may be probable, we don't have enough proof to say that air animals come from land animals.You CANNOT disprove the flood with Evidence of Absence! Your argument that there is no evidence for the flood does not prove that the flood never happened. Keep in mind, this debate is not to prove that Christianity and Evolution are both real. Today's debate is just to prove that they are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, I don't have to prove that the Flood was real, I simply need to not disprove it. Following basic laws of logic, Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.I really like theoretical situations, so let me try another one:Let's say a baker bakes pies every morning and puts them on his windowsill. One day there is no pie on his windowsill. Does this mean that there were absolutely no pies that day? The point I'm making is that just because there was no evidence for the pie that day, it doesn't mean that there was no pie.You said:"Lets say I asked you to make me a boat in six days. The meaning is clear in this language as in all. When you say in six days, you mean in six consecutive days. If I actually mean six days scattered over a month, and do not specifically point that out, I are purposely trying to confuse people. It is highly unlikely, that the verse actually doesn't mean consecutive days since no reference is made to them not being consecutive." Again, I state that today's debate is not to prove that Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. As I stated in my previous argument, probability =/= truth. Many things in history happened that were unlikely. Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible, and for it to be mutually exclusive, there has to be no situations in which both can occur.Final Conclusion: In this debate, my opponent has failed to disprove that Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive. Most of his major points point to "probability." Probability implies that there are some scenarios in which both can occur, and if there is even one scenario in which both can occur, it is not mutually exclusive.At this current point, my opponent has not supplied enough evidence to disprove anything in the bible absolutely. I would challenge potential voters to read through his sources and not to take his claims as fact.Thank you to my opponent for this debate tonight.Tega Jessa - https://www.elance.com...;
Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive

Bird Evolution Birds came from land animals. More specifically they evolved from dinosaurs. In the fossil records we can see the step by step evolution of the bird wing from dinosaur arms (1). The Flood and Evolution Evolution does discount the flood. There is a genealogy from Abraham to Jesus that is over only a few thousands years (2). So the global flood happened a few thousand years ago. So where are the fossils for this? Why don't we find evidence of a mass extinction event in the highest strata? How did Penguins get into the ark from Antarctica and go all the way back? Why do we have solid ice records going back hundreds of thousands of years ago, if the flood would have broken them up in a global flood, and the flood was very recent? Planets and Stars According to stellar evolution planets formed from the dust circling the sun through the process of accretion (3). Human Evolution I don't know why doubt is cast on the idea that human population evolved from ape populations. This is a central idea of Darwinism. We have a fossil records of ape-like populations becoming more human-like (4). Six Consecutive Days? Exodus 20: 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Exodus 31: 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed."" Lets say I asked you to make me a boat in six days. The meaning is clear in this language as in all. When you say in six days, you mean in six consecutive days. If I actually mean six days scattered over a month, and do not specifically point that out, I are purposely trying to confuse people. It is highly unlikely, that the verse actually doesn't mean consecutive days since no reference is made to them not being consecutive. If the days are not consecutive: The bible clearly states that God made all land animal species including cattle in one day. Cattle took millions of years to evolve. He said the same thing about trees, seed bearing planets, and fruit trees. He said they where created in the space of one day when evolution says millions of years. 1: http://www.pbs.org... 2: http://www.ldolphin.org... 3: http://www.universetoday.com... 4: http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive

First of all, I would like some credible sources on some claims you made before I even attempt to rebuttal them. "Evolution discounts global flood and yet it is in the bible. ""Also, evolution says birds came after land animals, not the other way around. ""According to our current stellar evolution theories, the sun was formed far before the moon was and definitely before the earth. ""evolution claims that the human population evolved from more ape-like populations. There were never just two humans. We see a progression from humans to apes. "Alright, let's move on. You said, " These events are spoken of as actual events, and there is no hint of metaphore. Why would God confuse people by making them metaphore? If these events are metaphore, what else isn't. Making entire parts of the bible metaphore is a cheap way of discounting parts that you don't agree with. " I completely agree wih you! Noah and the Ark is indeed a literal event, according to the bible. I never said anything in the Bible was metaphorical. I believe you misunderstood my argument. You also referred to a couple other verses. "The Creation event is referred elsewhere:Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Exodus 31:17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. "" In both of these instances, it just states that the Earth was created in six days, however, it never says that the days were consecutive. In case you misunderstood this part of my argumnet, let me present you with a hypothetical. Let's say I build a house. I had a really big team and it only took my six days. However, I am a busy man. Building this house is not the top of my priorities, and I can only build the house on mondays. So, over a span of 6 weeks, I build the house, working only on mondays. After 6 weeks, I brag to people saying that I only worked on the house for 6 days. Am I lying? Certainly not! In reality, I am only working on the house in 6 days. That doesn't mean that I started on a Monday of a certain week and ended on Saturday night of that week. This is the point I'm trying to make, that the days weren't necessarily consecutive, allowing for time for species to "evolve. "Moving on, you state that " I would like to observe that Genesis does refer to 24 hour days. " However, the source you use to make that claim is Genesis 1, which just says there was Evening and there was Morning on the first day. It never says how long the days are in terms of hours. Couldn't the Omnipotent God of the Bible slow down or even stop the sun? Or in another Scenario, couldn't he be looking on Earth from another location in the universe and be referring to the Evening and Morning at that place? I'm not saying that either of those scenarios are probable, but as you know, probably =/= truth.
Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive

As I mentioned before, the topic of tonight's debate is "Christianity and Evolution are NOT mutually exclusive." This does not mean that I necessarily believe in one or the other, my point is just that it is possible to have a scenario in which both exist.For the rest of my argument, I am going to assume that both Christianity (and therefore everything in the bible) and evolution are both true to prove my reasoning. So, let's begin.I am going to begin with one of the largest arguments about Creationism and Evolution. 1.) In the Bible it says that everything in the Earth was created in 7 days. (Technically 6, with the seventh for rest)My source for this is Genesis 1, since it's a fairly long passage, I'm not going to post it all, but feel free to look at it for yourselves.http://www.esvbible.org...Some of you may be confused. I just said that I believe that Christianity and Evolution can both be true, so why did I just use that verse to prove my point? Well, it's a verse many Creationists use to prove their point, and a verse that Evolutionists use to say that Creationism is false. However, the bible also says:"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." 2 Peter 3:8 NIV version. My point that I am attempting to make is that nowhere in the Bible does it specify that God did all of these things using "Universe Time." Christians believe that God lives outside of time. (As that verse states) Therefore, God could not mean 7 literal days. For all we know, he could be using the time of some other area, perhaps heaven. The point is, the Bible never says."But it says and there was Evening, and there was morning the (nth) day!" Also very true, but it doesn't ever say, "And the next day was the (nth + 1) day." For all we know, even if God created parts of the Earth in Seven literal days, who is to say that those days are consecutive. Thanks for taking time to read, and I'm super excited to see my opponents arguments.
Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive

Hello everybody. I'm very tired of people posting things like, "I can't wait until enough evidence for evolution is present for religion to be destroyed." I hear things like this all the time from friends and from users on this site, so I am here so say otherwise.This is the claim I would like to make for tonight's debate:Christianity and Evolution are NOT mutually exclusive.Definitions:Christianity: the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ChristianityEvolution: Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes asmutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. http://dictionary.reference.com... Rules for tonight's debate:-There will be 4 rounds. 1.)Acceptance 2.)Arguments 3.)Rebuttal 4.)Closing Arguments -The time to argue is 60 minutes. This debate will unfold before you all tonight.-The debate will be kept friendly and professional. At any time if my opponent starts using profanity, trolling, or otherwise being incredibly disrespectful, I will drop out of tonight's debate. I ask that my opponent holds me to the same standard. Clarification: The Evolution I am speaking of is the Theory of Evolution, not Micro evolution. Thanks!
GOD is ALIVE.

GOD is ALIVE. it is not possible to prove anything to a person un-willing to receive the good news. where ever a man exists then GOD is there with him. your thought life has deceived you to the point that you believe you can exist on your own. i will guarantee that you were taught everything that you are saying. do you think perhaps that you were lied to sometime in your past? for instance if i started to teach a 1st grade class that 7+5=13, they will most likely believe me. like now my friend it takes a person who truly has been enlightened to tell the truth to those who have been lied to. deep in your heart you know that GOD is ALIVE. there is more evidence in the world that GOD is ALIVE than any other verse you can utter. every other planet to date is not alive, yet this earth is alive. you speak of science but do you neglect that GOD was here before science? it is not comprehensible to believe that a man can out-think what created him. the information has to be given to him, and it was given to those who believe they can receive it. GOD has talked with me through the faith i have in my spirit. un-believers do not believe this is possible, thats why they do not operate in this spiritual principle. they who believe only in themselves are doomed to receive the gift of their actions. you are always looking for something yet you never find it. set your hope and your vision on GOD my friend and you will be enlightened. i will pray for you that you will know beyond even your own doubts that GOD is ALIVE, and very near you. Thank you. I hope all goes according to your plans. may CHRIST come towards you with power and a demonstration of HIS Wisdom in your witness very soon. do not reject the people who will begin to minister to you. let them speak and you will know that GOD is ALIVE. Let them come in peace and gentle-ness. amen.
GOD is ALIVE.

< > One could just as easily say the body operates on its own thanks to the heart and circulatory system of the body. Another could say Yahweh, Allah, Zues, Thor or any number of others motivate your flesh to live. That does not mean that "GOD is ALIVE", as there, arguably, hasn't been a physical manifestation of a god for nearly two millenia. < > It means that "GOD" is not alive, as He does not act/move/breathe/jump/walk/talk. < > I know with equal certainty that He is not "ALIVE". You have faith that He is alive, but there is not proof of that. < > Exactly. And if he is in another realm, he cannot be "ALIVE" in this realm. < > His love may exist in this realm, but He is not alive in it, which is where we are now. < > I am a single homosexual male, so this does not apply to me; nor do I think that He is alive in the actions of others. The actions belong to the persons exercising the actions, not GOD. < > Sunlight and water have been attributed to giving life to seeds for growth -- not God. < > Such a statement would lead some to believe that you believe to be a god. Are you omnipresent? Omniscient? Omnipotent? Do you believe that if God lives within you that you yourself are a god? < > The reason why I do not think "GOD is ALIVE" is because there is no evidence to support the claim that an entity designated as "GOD" is in a state of action. Your argument cannot be scientifically proven. Thank you.
GOD is ALIVE.

thank you for your comment. GOD is ALIVE. GOD in my mind, heart, and soul is ALIVE. HE shows himself in many ways that humans can easily comprehend. if men follow HIS laws like they follow mens laws, you will see that HE is ALIVE. if GOD is outside of you, then who is it that keeps your flesh motivated to live? surely you know the difference between a man who lives and a man who dies. dead men can do nothing. living men can do whatever they think they can do. you said GOD is not in a state of action. what does that mean? this may seem weird to you, friend, but i know that i know GOD is ALIVE. in a special way HE lets me see HIS LOVE through this system of LIFE that HE has created. GOD is always working with those who trust and believe that HE is able. it is true that GOD is in another realm, yet HIS LOVE permeates into this realm through HIS LIGHT, which is the TRUTH. if you have children then GOD has also worked with your wife and you to bring more free-will into this world. GOD is ALIVE through the actions of obedient men and women. GOD is ALIVE. suppose you were a farmer. you sow corn seed into the earth that is prepared to recieve the seed. who gives the seed increase? is HE a dead GOD that brings dead seeds to life? many people search hard for something other than the truth to live by. you know in your heart that GOD is ALIVE. look in the mirror and think about it before you respond. people are at the bottom of their thinking cup when it comes to GOD. yet when it comes to the devil, they are ready to preach that the devil is alive. the common phrase that weak thinkers use is "the devil made me do it". let go of your doubt and give me a reason why you think GOD is not ALIVE. thank you. i look forward to hearing from you.
GOD is ALIVE.

com. As opposed to handling this argument from an atheistic point of view, I will tackle it from another angle. I define "ALIVE" as it is stated on Dictionary. com: in a state of action; in force or operation; active. God is NOT in a state of action, as he does not act in a recognizable way. Therefore, God is NOT alive, He simply is a non-corporeal being that exists on another plane of existence.
GOD is ALIVE.

GOD is ALiVE. lets debate. i would like a 'strongest' willed person to debate with. i do not want a push over. i welcome all challengers. tell the world why you think GOD does not live. i am sure i will come out with more evidence that HE does live versus anything you can say. don't be afraid to be enlightened. don't be afraid to change your mind. GOD is near you. tell HIM why HE does not exist.
Famer's Story-Writing Debate Round #2 Sans_the_Ander vs. TUF

"I'm really sorry about doing this, but i'm going to change the pairings for the second round of this tournament. Here are the pairings:Drafterman VS TUFSans_the_Ander VS Ren"It seems the pairings have been changed. Lucky me, because I would have been out due to my FF for lack of time. Anyway, I thank TUF for helping with this short-lived story. This could have been pretty epic but I guess the story must come to an end.ANYONE WHO READS THIS PLEASE DO NOT VOTE ON THIS DEBATE IT IS STRICKEN FROM THE STORY-WRITING TOURNAMENT DUE TO PAIRING CHANGES
Famer's Story-Writing Debate Round #2 Sans_the_Ander vs. TUF

"However, as the rules of the tournament goes, if any of the debaters forfeits a round (unless both forfeits an equals number of times), they will, by default automatically lose all 7 points as a result." Unforunately, due to lack of time, my opponent is no longer able to continue. I wish him luck in future debates, and thank him for the awesome intro. Due to tournament rules, please cote CON.
Britain should not have a Royal Family.

Sorry for the delay, I've been rather busy the last two days :)'Although the royal family may create income through tourism, this does not benefit the tax payers who are yearly paying for the royal family.'The monarchy costs just 56p per taxpayer per year (1); which is hardly enough to warrant removal of the monarchy.Furthermore, the income from tourism goes into local businesses which improves the economy as a whole, which will reduce taxes as well as austerity measures. So in a roundabout way, the British people actually benefit financially.'Also, the royal family themselves are not appealing to tourists, it is the history and architecture of buildings, such as Buckingham Palace, that are encouraging tourists.'Yet these attractions would be gradually transformed for modern, business use over time if the monarchy was to be abolished; eventually they would lose their cultural value. Besides, it isn't just the history/architecture that people come to see. One of the most popular tourist attractions is watching the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace. This is a tradition that would cease to be if the monarchy was to be removed.'I agree that the Royal Family are a symbol of Britain, however, are they British themselves?The answer to this, is no. In fact, the BRITISH Royal Family are actually of German heritage.'All British people have European heritage to some extent or another. The Celts were originally from central Europe before they came to Britain, the Romans were Italian, the Anglo-Saxons were German, The Vikings were Scandinavian, the Normans were French, the Plantagenets were French, the Georgians were German and so on...With your logic, nobody is actually British. Yet it is generally accepted that after a certain amount of time of living within Britain, a family is considered to be British. The reason that our current Royal Family is of German heritage is because King George I was German, yet that was near 300 years ago!'Another symbol of Britain is democracy, the will to vote and choose who rules the country. However, the royal family strongly goes against this.'It doesn't! We vote for members of parliament and a Prime Minister who rules the country. The monarchy does not rule the country!'I admit, in the past, monarch's and the royal family have been of great use, although today, are they really necessary?'I wouldn't say they are 'necessary', but they are a integral part of British heritage and I maintain that Britain would be a culturally poorer country if we were to lose the Royal family. (1) http://www.express.co.uk...