azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

The premise of your argument is that this species had many ape-like characteristics and therefore couldn't be a human ancestor, is completely asinine. Especially given it's distance to Modern humans.Humans have been found in the same strata as these fossil fragments. This indicates that they would not have been transitional forms.This also neglects all other instances in which the fossil record fails to demonstrate the transitional forms that would be expected were evolution to be correct.A genetic relationship does not mean that the one organism precedes another.Indeed it does. You inability to comprehend a scholarly scientific work, makes it no less of strong verifiable evidence (or proof).Or my ability to comprehend that it does not overcome the limitations associated with the theory.If evolution is not true, then what would explain the sudden appearance and disappearance of species in the fossil record in direct correspondence to shared traits (ie fish appearing first, then reptiles, then mammals in that order)?This does not accurately represent the fossil record. There are numerous instances of events that drove the existence of various species. The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, for instance, eliminated the dinosaurs. You also may not be aware of the somewhat inconvenient (for evolutionists) Cambrian explosion, which suggests that numerous species emerged during a period that is much shorter than the commonly accepted evolutionary timeline.They are either related via evolution, or some divine force creates a new species every thousand years or so. Which sounds more reasonable?Considering that I have demonstrated where evolution fails resist scrutiny, it is obvious that creationism is more believable.No, you just assume (without explanation) that the first stage of a new trait cannot be beneficial. I've asked numerous time for you to expound on this argument.I have offered an explanation, without any proper rebuttal.And you proposed the woodpecker as an example of irreducible complexity. The fact that birds exist which can peck through wood but lack many of the traits of the woodpecker verily refutes this argument as an example of irreducible complexity.The beaks of numerous birds may have the integrity to withstand several repeated impacts, but that does not mean that they have the capability to sustain that. Woodpeckers possess:1. zygodactyl feet2. protective cartilage around the head3. a barbed tongue to aid in insect extraction4. a round, smaller brain to alleviate impact forceThis nullifies your argument.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

by human you mean, a member of the genus Homo, then yes. But by this very same definition the fragments themselves are considered 'human'. This is not what most people mean when they say human. If you are implying that homo sapien remains are found in the same layer then this would be entirely false.I do believe that this has been explained. Humans were identified as having assailed h. erectus and as such disprove the notion that said species preceded h. sapiens.Such a transition is entirely feasible.That is a statement and not an explanation of how that might work.You mean like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils None of these supposed transitional fossils represent the critical alterations that one might expect.Using this data scientists have been able to construct an evolutionary tree up until the point where DNA is still obtainable.This in no way suggests an accurate depiction of the tree. It has been demonstrated that ERVs have specific functions, and it is a simple matter to document that species possess this virus, but not to state that they necessarily demonstrate development. How is it that they infected the original hosts without causing damage?Nevertheless the only problem this poses to evolution, is the rate at which scientists believe diversification occurs.The strata in the region demonstrate that through that point 98% of species ultimately became extinct. This is the converse of evolutionary theory. They also provide evidence showing that most phyla known to us now coexisted during this period. This contradicts the suppositions that are accepted by evolutionists.Such a transition is entirely feasible.There is no reason to believe this. If there was no need to begin feeding from trees with more resilient wood, any predecessor forms would not have done so and consequently not have altered. If there was an urgent requirement, they would not have survived to evolve.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

You ask for sufficient scientific evidence, yet, when i point out that there is at least, some fossil evidence you simply say its not sufficient. Yet, when it comes right down to it, if evolutionists had just one predecessor fossil for our species it would be double what creationists have for their theory. Creationists base their theory on a book that some supposed holy person wrote during the middle ages. But the validity of you so called holy book is not the target of this argument so ill leave it at that. Your theory simply speculates that there is a higher power, your theory trys to propose a answer to a question that still needs more scientific exploration. As i said, neither theory does provide a complete answer. But please, point me towards one actual piece of scientific evidence that supports your theory, evolutionism provides its evidence through the fossil record, though it may be in complete. How can you hold the evolutionists to such a high standard of proof anyways? What your asking for, in a legal metaphor is for a prosecutor to provide a detailed description of every single step the murderer took the day of the murder for him to be proven guilty. We know where we are, we know there was a murder, we have evidence it was evolutionism, why do you require such vast amounts of evidence for you to even be swayed that evolutionism could be the answer?
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

I say that it is not sufficient merely because such "evidence" does not provide the answers to the problems that I am posing in relation to evolution. As this occurs, you turn to assail creationist belief, not realizing that my arguments have gone unanswered.I am not asking for a fossil line that demonstrates every stage of every evolution that supposedly occurred, as that does not and will not exist. However, as time progresses, one would suspect that actual fossilized evidence of some important transitional forms would appear at some point, especially considering the effort that the scientific community applies to proving its vaunted theory of evolution.While, as you said, neither theory provides every answer, it is clear that, evolution, having been eviscerated in such a way, did not occur. There is only one alternative. The complexity of the universe and its components is one indicator. Given the probability alone, it is impossible that these factors could have developed by any other means.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Neither. But since there are only two choices evolution makes more sense to me.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

"Neither. But since there are only two choices evolution makes more sense to me."What would the third choice be then?
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Third choice, understanding that we will/may never know how we came to be, and live contentedly with that understanding.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

The origin of species is not on the list of 14 unanswerable questions. Those questions refer to the nature of the world/universe in relation to time and space, the exact relationship between self and body, and afterlife. Evolution does not deal with these things. Evolution is widely accepted among Buddhists. Not only does it not contradict any of the Buddha's teachings, but it does serve as representation of the "question everything" motif: rather than accepting blindly an emotionally charged notion unsupported by evidence, the theory of evolution is based on a considerable body of evidence. It is logic based, as is Buddhism.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Third choice is solipsism. And I am not sure why people think that we might never know. People who know believe in evolution, people that don’t know believe in creationism or are agnostic. The formation of life is based upon the behaviors of the universe which is independent of the concept of god. Whether or not there is a god that created the universe we will never truly know, the answer to that question is an impossibility (this is a lot to say for me as an atheist). I don’t believe in god because the concept of god, at least in the traditional sense, is incompatible with sociological, anthropological, physical, psychological, the majority of contemporary philosophical and biological understanding of existence. To me the concept of god fits in with the concepts of the dim witted and uneducated base level human being, which makes sense that religions have been with us since before recorded history since most people in the very ancient days of modern humanity were running around with spears and foraging for roots etc…
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Creationism is something just that. Ever since the evolution of mankind, we have seen things that we couldn't have an answer to. So someone started bowing down to a rock. And now thousands waste their money on these things were "god" can forgive them. Guess what nothing started from this god, it started from this thing called the Big Bang Theory. Otherwise it is in your psychological mind on how you want to believe in this and have an easier life. With "god" you have less stress. With "god you suddenly don't want to do something such as robber. It is purely psychological, on how we have taught how this is wrong.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

It makes more of a logical sense that a Creator who is outside time and space to create the earth, and how life originated.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

It is illogical to believe that something outside of time and space created life inside time and space.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

How does it make any sense that something outside of space and time created space and time when there is no evidence to the notion that anything does exist outside of space and time? The entire known universe exists within space and time - there is nothing outside of it, to the extent of human knowledge (unfortunately, human credulity is still about 2,000 years behind).
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

This is a straw man argument, arguing against something which is not God. God is someone, the One who created all things.How in the world do you know there is nothing outside of the known universe? Did you murder God and burn Him to destroy the evidence?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

He does have a point. Everything else that has ever been created has been created by something outside of the thing that was created. The problem is that we can't be sure that applies to the universe.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Were did god originate from? How did god come to be? it may make sense to some people that a powerful man created his servents/ soldiors. But who created god?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

the god you are asking about is a created thing. Your argument is a straw man argument. God is God, before all things. If there is a god, God created it and looking at it as a god is idolatry.You invent a straw man argument against God because there is no sound argument against God, you can only argue against something which is less than god to show that it is not God. It's a completely failed argument from the start because it's not God you are talking about, it's a god which is not God and you are logically proving it cannot be God because the thing you are arguing is not God is a straw man and a straw man is all you can really argue against......so your argument is nonsense.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Nobody created Him because an eternal being doesn't need to be created. He always has existed.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

If all animals have legs, is that not a common design by a Creator?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

You've heard of snakes, right?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

The earth has evolved. And many animals do not have legs. There are snakes, fish, ect. Do u consider yourself a animal? Because many creation believers consider ourself humans and superior to any animals. We have alot of traits identical to animals, and animals have alot of traits identical of ours. Think about the cell theory, and the living chart.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

What currency is such a creator being compelled to conserve by using repetitious morphology?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

If Evolution is real, then explain these questions:1. Why are there still monkeys?2. Why are you calling yourself animals? Your actually making fun of your own self. Animals have no brain and you agree that you are a dirty, nasty, filthy animal
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

1. Why are there still monkeys?The real question is why would there not be?A. Humans did not descend from monkeys, we came from apes.B. Neither monkeys or apes are a single species, they are a taxonomic group. If one evolved into us, that doesn't mean the rest would have suddenly disappeared. C. Plus species don't always disappear when they evolve, because species don't evolve populations of species do. Often, one population moves into a new environment and evolves, while the original stays where they are and change little. Asking this question makes you sound ignorant.2. Why are you calling yourself animals? Your actually making fun of your own self. Animals have no brain and you agree that you are a dirty, nasty, filthy animalIt was Linnaeus who categorized us as apes way back in 1758, and he was a creationist. Plato and Aristotle, to of the biggest thinkers of the ancient world identified us as animals. Almost all animals have a brain, some almost as sophisticated as ours. Many animals are quite clean and many humans are dirtier, nastier and filthier than my cat. What else would we be? Plants? Bacteria? Fungus?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Exactly. What about dogs? there are many species of dogs. And just because another species is created. Why do all other dogs have to disapear? And animals are very smart. They can figure out puzzles and mazes. they know shapes, they have feelings. And the human mouth and what we say and think is a whole lot dirtier that innocent animals. Your point is what they would say. ON FLEEK. XD
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

So...what you're telling me is...That the universe came from a huge fireball.And gravity set itself up JUST the right way so that we didn't all die instantly.And JUST the right chemicals were set up to produce everything you see, including life itself (which is impossible) and that everything would so perfectly depend on each other.It takes more faith to believe life came from a fireball that it did from a Creator.So, if you believe that, then congrats! You won the cosmic lottery on so many levels.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

The earth has a balance. we have green house gases that keep the earth the right temperature. The earth has magnetic poles that keep us stable. And it may take a lots of faith to believe in science. The universe is unpredictable. Theories are changed constantly to keep up with the world around us. But we are always updated. we are not following something from so many years ago. We are not following a puzzle. A book made from a catholic! A catholic that didn't like his religion and made his own. Christians are also called Lutherans. The guy who created the religion. I Believe it takes a lot more faith to believe a book made from a guy who didn't like Catholics, a book, and a updated source.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

That's why life is so rare, that's why we struggle to find life on other planets.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

To be strict with your opposing viewpoint and not with yours and use that as evidence for your viewpoint gives you no grounds to say that your viewpoint is more justified.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

The law of thermodynamics contradicts the Big Bang Theory.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Evolution and cosmology are two totally separate concepts.Arguing against the latter to disprove the former is like saying that oranges aren't green, therefore no fruit can be green.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Evolution also have theories about how the earth was created.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/Definitions.html Do you see you are misrepresenting your opposition? Are you fooling yourself by not actually looking at the other sides arguments? If you did look at the other sides arguments you would see that the theory of evolution deals with the diversity of species and not how the earth was created. Your continued unfaithful representation of what the theory of evolution entails certainly doesn't instill any confidence in objectivity from you regarding your stance on creationism.Do you admit the possibility that you don't know as much about evolution as you think?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

No. Not at all. Absolutely not.Evolution is a theory itself, and its only concern is for the process of adaptation by which a group of chemicals can turn into life (chemical evolution) and that life can turn into the diversity which we have today, and had in the past (biological evolution).It says nothing on the creation of the universe. That is cosmology.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

No it doesn't. The Theory of Evolution says nothing on how the Earth was created. People who recognize evolution tend to also put credit in certain scientific theories about how the Earth was created, but that doesn't mean that they are a part of the Theory of Evolution.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

It generally stems from the dualistic temptation to view the Theory of Evolution as the secular antithesis of Creationism. It is the reason different disciplines of science, and even philosophy are lumped together under the banner of "Evolutionism" to create the visage of a duality.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

cosmology is a science, evolution is a belief in the religion of naturalism. They are not two concepts. One is a science, the other is a religious concept. You are a dirty pervert, and that's why you think life is dirt with no real value.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

No it does not!For one primary reason......Time itself was created with the Big Bang.Thus..nothing existed before.Thus...no laws of physics or thermodynamics to contradict.Also the laws of TD regarding conservation of energy and increasing entropy apply only to closed systems.Which the Universe most certainly is NOT!It is infused with new energy all the time by way of stellar astrophysics.All those laws can only apply after the system in which they govern in created.Ergo...pre Big Bang there was nothing.No time.No systems.Thus...no breaching of non existent laws.So.........The posits set forth in the video are moot.Moot!Hope this helps!Thanks!LOLSS
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Is this a fancy way of saying matter came from nothing?I can argue that it makes more sense that everything was created by a Creator who is all powerful and is not limited by scientific laws. You are saying that nothing is not limited by scientific laws while I'm saying that a Creator made those laws. Can energy create laws? Can energy create time? Can that be proven?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

But at that point you have essentially abandoned a logic conversation, as the topic exists outside of logic. So even then, your argument would still not indicate that Creationism is more logical, even if it was true.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Which law of thermodynamics, exactly? There are four. And no, not one contradicts the BB.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

As the reigning science guru here, allow me to elucidate...He was Erroneously referring to the First and Second Laws, which deal with the Conservation of Energy...it can not be created nor destroyed...and also the law of Increased Disorder within a closed system. Sometimes wrong interpreted to mean that the magnitude of Entropy must always increase.But as you and I both correctly surmised, the Big Bang in no way violates either of these laws.As it is neither a closed system, nor is an event which created time itself and all subsequent laws beholden to any laws dicerned by mammals after the fact.Religious zealots have also in the past tried to pull the lame violation of TD laws out of their ignorant Asses when attempting to discredit Evolution.Which is yet another example of an OPEN System!These guys never learn.But I try to teach them!Thanks!
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

One does not simply go against a Creationist with an accusation that they are a zealot. Evolutionists are zealots for a spent argument.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

If you are not a troll please understand your debate here looks like a trolling attempt. That is because your framing of the argument shows a lack of understanding of a few scientific principles. Evolution is about how the diversity of species comes about and has nothing to do with the big bang. If you want to discuss evolution I would start at a source that promotes the sciences and make an argument off of what they say rather than use a strawmanned argument from an opposing non scientific source. Here is a good start if you wish to discuss evolution.Your post addresses the big bang, not evolution. Your argument also does not give an argument for creationism but instead tries to say 'not the big bang'.But to address your comment about the big bang; the theory describes the changes the universe went through using the evidence we have on hand. The known trajectory of stars and galaxies, red shift, CMB and so on all support the idea that the universe was in a smaller denser state at one time. Here is a good start if you want to discuss astronomy or the big bangTo claim that the big bang violates the first law of thermo dynamics implies that something is known about the state of the universe before the big bang. This is clearly an assumption, accusation really, and holds no scientific validity.To claim that the big bang violates the second law of thermodynamics is to misinterpret the second law. Pockets of order does not mean that entropy overall isn't increasing. Analogies of cleaning houses/rooms/refrigerators etc. have all been used to explain this. Here is a factchecking site that examines this erroneous claim made by a presidential candidate and gives an analogy from an expert.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

well there is no evidence of macro evolution. Prove it to me that macro evolution is true. If micro-evolution is true, that does not automatically make macro-evolution true also.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Macro-evolution is essentially arbitrary. It is observing micro-evolution and semi-arbitrarily deciding when enough micro-evolutionary changes have constituted what we consider to be a new species.I think you can agree that micro-evolution is an objective truth, right?Edit: By the way, his link to Berkeley does provide evidence for macro-evolution as well.