BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible and REAL science harmonize

I agree with my opponent that this has been a wonderful debate. I had a lot of fun and I hope that my opponent had fun too. Science is indeed not limited by scientific findings. As an analogy, a person's intelligence is not limited to the amount of knowledge that this person has. The fact that an astronomer said (over 30 years ago) that the origin of the world is similar to the Genesis account does not mean anything. We do not know what that astronomer's interpretation of the Bible was (and, as we have seen, they vary greatly from one person to another), we do not know what part of the origin he refers to, etc. I initially thought about talking about the shape of the earth and finally decided against it, but since my opponent is bringing it up, I'll just put a quote from the Bible that seems to hint at a flat earth (the "circle" thing also points to a flat earth):"The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth" (Daniel 4:11) You can not see a all of a sphere from a single point, no matter how high you go. I never brought up the hare chewing the cud, so I won't address this point. In conclusion, my opponent has failed in two points:1) He has failed to defend the accuracy of the Bible against various scientific findings; he either interprets the Bible in a way that suits him (which would not be problem if we had not agreed to take it literally) or he simply ignores what scientists have demonstrated countless times (i. e. Evolution). 2) He has also failed to explain how the Bible's claims follow the scientific method. He debated as though he could win simply by demonstrating how science does NOT contradict science, which he not only failed to do but also failed to realize that this was not enough.
The Bible and REAL science harmonize

Well, this has been a wonderful debate. According to Con, Science is not limited by what the scientific method shows. There's really nothing more to argue. To conclude, all I will say is that the Bible does not contradict what the scientific method shows. In addition, it has science discovered at a later date. (The following is from http://wol.jw.org...). Origin of the Universe: Gen. 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In 1978, astronomer Robert Jastrow wrote: "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.""God and the Astronomers (New York, 1978), p. 14.p. 63 Shape of Planet Earth: Isaiah 40:22: "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." In ancient times the general opinion was that the earth was flat. It was not until over 200 years after this Bible text had been written that a school of Greek philosophers reasoned that the earth likely was spherical, and in about another 300 years a Greek astronomer calculated the approximate radius of the earth. But the idea of a spherical earth was not the general view even then. Only in the 20th century has it been possible for humans to travel by airplane, and later into outer space and even to the moon, thus giving them a clear view of "the circle" of earth"s horizon. Animal Life: Leviticus 11:6: "The hare . . . is a chewer of the cud." Though this was long attacked by some critics, the rabbit"s cud chewing was finally observed by Englishman William Cowper in the 18th century. The unusual way in which it is done was described in 1940 in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, Vol. 110, Series A, pp. 159-163.
Uniformity of Nature proves Biblical Creation

I read those paragraphs before already. . . Uggggh. Yes, We are assuming uniformity, But we're not "justifying" it. Though it is a circular argument, There's no known reason for uniformity to change. If it does, What do we do then? The Bible doesn't mention what to do, Does it (this is a genuine question)? You know that thing scientists do when they want to figure out something? Yeah, It's called research. They are researching why and if uniformity is an aspect of the universe. Again, We DON'T know if it's going to change or not. Got that part? Good. But let's say the laws of nature DO change at some point. What do we do then? Well, We don't know how it would change so why plan for something we don't know anything about? Instead, We should spend our time researching things based on our assumption of nothing changing. You said it yourself: some scientists believe that uniformity will continue due to the fact that we haven't recorded any type of change. Yes, The universe may change, But we don't know how. So, If it did, We don't know what to do about it because we don't know how the laws of nature will change. This is very important to answer your question: There is no reason to assume change. Whether it be God or not, There's nothing that shows us the laws of nature itself will change. Uniformity of nature does not PROVE biblical creation. Nothing so far can prove God's existence. How about this question: let's say the Big Bang actually happened; what reason do we have to believe that the laws of nature would change. Or just pretend that the Bible verse wasn't there (this is, Of course, Hypothetical). Why should it change?
Uniformity of Nature proves Biblical Creation

However, They use the uniformity of nature created by God, Thus they use biblical principles for their science. So now we get to the part where we show them they use Biblical Creation whether they like it or not. But how can those who reject Genesis explain why there should be uniformity of nature? How would an evolutionist respond if asked, "Why will the future re@258;ect the past? " One of the most common responses is: "Well, It always has. So I expect it always will. " But this is circular reasoning. I"ll grant that in the past there has been uniformity. But how do I know that in the future there will be uniformity, Unless I already assumed that the future re@258;ects the past (i. E. , Uniformity)? Whenever we use past experience as a basis for what is likely to happen in the future, We are assuming uniformity. So when an evolutionist says that he believes there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, He"s trying to justify uniformity by simply assuming uniformity " a vicious circular argument. An evolutionist might argue that the nature of matter is such that it behaves in a regular fashion; in other words, Uniformity is just a property of the universe. This answer fails for several reasons. First, It doesn"t really answer the question. Perhaps uniformity is one aspect of the universe, But the question is why? What would be the basis for such a property in an evolutionary worldview? Second, We might ask how an evolutionist could possibly know that uniformity is a property of the universe. At best, He can only say that the universe " in the past " seems to have had some uniformity. But how do we know that will continue into the future unless we already knew about uniformity some other way? Many things in this universe change; how do we know that the laws of nature will not? Some evolutionists might try a more pragmatic response: "Well, I can"t really explain why. But uniformity seems to work, So we use it. " This answer also fails for two reasons. First, We can only argue that uniformity seems to have worked in the past; there"s no guarantee it will continue to work in the future unless we already have a reason to assume uniformity (which only the Christian does). Yet evolutionists do assume that uniformity will be true in the future. They couldn"t even get out of bed without making this assumption. Second, Anyone using this answer has admitted that uniformity is without justi@257;cation in the evolutionary worldview " which is exactly the point. No one is denying that there is uniformity in nature; the point is that only a biblical creation worldview can make sense of it. Evolutionists can only do science if they are inconsistent " that is, If they assume biblical creationist concepts while denying biblical creation.
Uniformity of Nature proves Biblical Creation

Okay, I better understand where you're coming from now. Scientists don't use a Biblical perspective, Though; they use a scientific perspective (hence the name of their profession). They assume that uniformity will continue not because the Bible said so, But because as far as we know it hasn't changed in nature. They don't rely on the Bible to tell them this though. Instead, They use past and present data to determine the present and future possibilities. Now, According to the Bible, Yes, Uniformity is because of God, Just as everything else that has been created by him. But the static nature in which science possesses is observable even from a non-Biblical standpoint. People don't need the Bible in order to comprehend the processes of nature and (most) possibilities of the future. Though the Bible helps with this, Not all people believe in God (as we both know). We see it as God "holding up these laws" but atheists see it as observable science that has remained constant and has no known reason for suddenly changing. Just keep in mind, I'm not disagreeing that this happens because of God, I'm simply stating that it doesn't prove the existence of God. Now, I'm a Christian with knowledge of the Bible, But I can't answer EVERY scientific question that is in the book. I don't know anyone who can. Sure, We can answer many, But not every single one. And even if we could, The Bible isn't a science book; it's religious text written from words God (either literally or figuratively) spoke. I don't disagree with your last sentence, Though it can't be proven that God caused these to change based on evidence. For some people, The Bible isn't evidence enough. And it's not like they think this for no reason; there's plenty of factors that go into the result of their lack of belief. I share the same belief as you yet I make fun of generalized Christian idiosyncracies. Some are known to take it to such an extreme it becomes comedy for even the firmest of believers. It's almost as if they rely on insanity in order to keep their faith stable. Quite ironic, Isn't it?
Uniformity of Nature proves Biblical Creation

You are welcome anything to make it easier. I am saying that in the uniformity of nature that we see in the universe can only take place in a biblical worldview. The evolutionists have to use this biblical perspective to interpret science. Many of them believe it will continue such as gravity, Thermodynamics and basically all the laws of nature will continue. The answer is that God made these laws and he holds it up in place. A Christian with knowledge of the Bible can answer every scientific question in the Bible. If the laws of nature changed it would be because God caused them to change.
Uniformity of Nature proves Biblical Creation

Thank you for the separation of paragraphs! It helps very much. :) The thing you seem to be going for is that scientists/evolutionists don't know for a fact that uniformity will continue. But, The common response is quite accurate. Given that nothing has drastically changed, We have no reason to think it will. Though God seems to have confirmed this based on your interpretation, There's nothing that has happened to think that uniformity will turn into pandemonium. Though evolutionist scientists don't know that it won't change for a fact, Because nothing to prove that we should think otherwise has happened, They continue to assume that. It's all based on assumption and prediction rather than confirmation. I am not experienced enough to know why uniformity is an aspect of the universe. Though I research outer space quite frequently, I've never taken any courses to tell me why this is so. I'm pretty certain there's an answer to that question, But I do not have one. Even if there is no answer, That's why research is being done. To answer questions like those. Keep in mind that Christians do not have the answer to every single question on their religion either. But also, What if the laws of nature do change? What would the verse mean to you then? Basically, Yes, Scientists assume that uniformity will continue and currently do not have a reason to think otherwise.
Uniformity of Nature proves Biblical Creation

The consistent Christian can use past experience as a guide for what is likely to happen in the future, Because God has promised us that (in certain ways) the future will reflect the past (Gen. 8:22). But how can those who reject Genesis explain why there should be uniformity of nature? How would an evolutionist respond if asked, "Why will the future reflect the past? " One of the most common responses is: "Well, It always has. So I expect it always will. " But this is circular reasoning. I"ll grant that in the past there has been uniformity. But how do I know that in the future there will be uniformity, Unless I already assumed that the future reflects the past (i. E. , Uniformity)? Whenever we use past experience as a basis for what is likely to happen in the future, We are assuming uniformity. So when an evolutionist says that he believes there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, He"s trying to justify uniformity by simply assuming uniformity " a vicious circular argument. An evolutionist might argue that the nature of matter is such that it behaves in a regular fashion; in other words, Uniformity is just a property of the universe. This answer fails for several reasons. First, It doesn"t really answer the question. Perhaps uniformity is one aspect of the universe, But the question is why? What would be the basis for such a property in an evolutionary worldview? Second, We might ask how an evolutionist could possibly know that uniformity is a property of the universe. At best, He can only say that the universe " in the past "seems to have had some uniformity. But how do we know that will continue into the future unless we already knew about uniformity some other way? Many things in this universe change; how do we know that the laws of nature will not? Some evolutionists might try a more pragmatic response: "Well, I can"t really explain why. But uniformity seems to work, So we use it. " This answer also fails for two reasons. First, We can only argue that uniformity seems to have worked in the past; there"s no guarantee it will continue to work in the future unless we already have a reason to assume uniformity (which only the Christian does). Yet evolutionists do assume that uniformity will be true in the future. They couldn"t even get out of bed without making this assumption. Second, Anyone using this answer has admitted that uniformity is without justification in the evolutionary worldview " which is exactly the point. No one is denying that there is uniformity in nature; the point is that only a biblical creation worldview can make sense of it. Evolutionists can only do science if they are inconsistent " that is, If they assume biblical creationist concepts while denying biblical creation.
Uniformity of Nature proves Biblical Creation

Hello! Before I get started, I have a request that would make it easier for me to read. Do you think you could separate ideas by hitting the "enter" button twice? Like this. It helps me tremendously so that I can break down each section and fully try to comprehend what you're saying. So, Here's the main problem in your argument: Outer space doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution. Evolution is a long process over the course of billions of years where certain genes are passed down through generations. This is the grossly simplified version, But this should be enough to prove why outer space doesn't have anything to do with this. Alright, With that out of the way, I'll address the rest. Though in the Bible it says God made everything with intention and with a plan, That doesn't necessarily disprove any scientific theory that applies to outer space (perhaps the Big Bang? I don't know what any outer space "atheistic" theory would be). Keep in mind that using Bible verses to further prove the Bible when people don't believe in such a thing are useless. They don't believe what it says, So there's next to no reason to put so many in the argument unless it's requested. Maybe a few here and there, But not as many as you did. But you never disprove anything that some scientific theory has presented. You say how the organization of the universe lines up with God and his plan, But you never go on proving that science is wrong. You mentioned God's "consistent power", Though there's no way of proving this was God's doing. Scientific and mathematical principles apply to predict what may or may not happen, But that doesn't mean "therefore God". There's simply no way of proving that the uniformity is God's doing. I'm more of a neutral person myself, Though I am Christian. I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here, But in this case, It is necessary as it doesn't seem that you've proved anything wrong using Bible verses. You've simply said how the Bible verses can be seen through what we know today, But that doesn't mean that it proves the existence of God.
Uniformity of Nature proves Biblical Creation

The consistent scientist can use research as a guide for what is likely to happen in the future, Because science shows us that (in certain ways) the future will reflect the past. Do I need to go over this again? Sheesh. Okay, We believe in the Bible so that's why we think uniformity is God's doing. Evolutionist scientists don't see it like that; they see that the laws of nature are the way they are because of the Big Bang and they have no reason to change after so many years of static results. CHRISTIANS believe that evolutionists base their research (not belief) of nature on Biblical Creation. But they don't see it that way; they're atheists and don't believe in God. The last sentence doesn't prove any existence for God and simply just states what we generally believe. According to the Bible, God created uniformity and promises to not change it. It hasn't changed. But that doesn't prove that it was God's doing. There's no reason for it to change, So why would it? You cannot prove the existence of God.
Vs Battle! Episode 1: Twilight Sparkle vs Thomas the tank engine

well CLERLY jhuhy7hjjjhujhjnhjhjyunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnbnnnnnnnnnnnnbyttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttso yes thomas= VICt OR
Gun control laws do not make America safer for law biding citizens!

Your statements, though well thought out and very well put, have a lot of holes. A Militia is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as “An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.”. The last time I checked, the people in America are ordinary citizens. How is what I said distorting the spirit of the 2nd Amendment? Just curious. Secondly you discuss the Brady Bill. How again does the Brady Bill make people safer? 600,000 gun purchases have been blocked since 1993. So what? The fact of the matter is people get denied by the Brady Bill for stupid reasons. The “Mental Issues” you talk about can be as simple as being prescribed Prozac once in your past. Why can’t felon’s get fire arms legally? Think about it. They go to prison for their crime, they pay their debt to society, and we still treat them like criminals? Our prison system is set up so you do your time, get out on probation, complete your probation, then you begin life anew as a regular citizen again. At the very least we would know they have the guns! I would rather a ex-con have a gun and I know about it rather than not knowing. The violent criminals that get denied a gun, you think that will stop them from killing somebody, or even getting a gun? I have never seen a Crypt or a blood standing in line at Sports Man’s Warehouse. Drugs are illegal, yet it is easier for me to buy drugs than to renew my driver’s license. I am a citizen in good standing with the law and I can probably buy a gun cheaper and easier illegally than legally! I know you have heard the old saying: “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” It rings true today. The Brady Bill stops people from owning guns that are being judged by the worst thing they have done in their life. What is the point of the justice system if we don’t rehabilitate anyone? Every felony should result in the death penalty if you think that way? If you believe in the American justice system then you are against the Brady Bill, bottom line. Do you want to be like Germany in the 1930s? How about Russia under Stalin? Firearm bans are one of the steps to a totalitarian state under governmental (military) rule. Private ownership of firearms tends to keep government in check. Denying anyone a gun is criminal. Gun control laws protect governments, not people. Boston put a 18-month minimum sentence for possessing an unlawful firearm in 2006, stabbings jumped up 10 percent. Shootings declined 12%, but the number of violent attacks didn’t drop. That didn’t work. Murderers and violent criminals will find a way. Rather than restrict guns, we need harsher punishments for violent crimes. But the same people who don’t want you to own a gun, don’t want to kill killers. We shouldn’t have people on death row for over a decade, we shouldn’t have them on death row for over a month! How is the death penalty a deterrent? It isn’t anymore. Rather than keep guns from private citizens we should look to prevent the crime in the first place!
Gun control laws do not make America safer for law biding citizens!

My intentions for this debate are simple: I want to discredit all the myths that gun control makes law biding citizens safer. Gun control is not only unconstitutional, but dangerous for Americans. The 2nd Amendment was put in place not to protect the Nation, but to protect the people within the nation. I will go on in the later rounds to clarify, but I want to keep my opening statement brief. Thank you, and good luck.