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

One thing you should note is that nothing is a fact.It's all a bunch of shananigans pulled together by the illuminati to throw us off track.Sure, so all the discoveries and scientific theories that lead to understanding are in fact being concocted by a secret society hell bent on confusing the ignorant with their bamboozling words and crazy formulae that no-one can understand. Is that your point? Where I come from,religion is a big thing because we deal with powers beyond mere human comprehension.Such as what, what happens where you come from that doesn't happen anywhere else?I go to sleep at night not knowing where I'd be the next dayI'm sure your bed in the morning would be a good place to start. and every day we see different things that show us that there is GodSuch as?So,believe me when I say,it was evolution spurred on by creation.I'll not believe you when you say it, thanks anyway, what have you got that shows this to be true. Just wondering which branch of creationism are you buying.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

The fact is that no actual transition fossils have been found. Even the supposed "missing links" that are touted as the answer to the evolutionary chain are located before any transition forms would have been found in the evolutionary timeline. Also, consider the principle of irreducible complexity. Evolutionary theory and natural selection posit that biological systems would be efficient but, at the same time, that lifeforms evolved over centuries and millennia. How, then, would a life form begin to develop a new organ or biological system if its first stages were completely useless.A resource-consuming organ like that would not appear in the life form's offspring.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

The fact is that no actual transition fossils have been found. Even the supposed "missing links" that are touted as the answer to the evolutionary chain are located before any transition forms would have been found in the evolutionary time line.http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html These are just two of many, look as well to living fossils such as platypus which is half reptile, half mammal. What about whales and dolphins that have vestigial legs, or snakes that have a pelvis, all of these point to evolutionary variationAlso, consider the principle of irreducible complexity. Evolutionary theory and natural selection posit that biological systems would be efficient but, at the same time, that lifeforms evolved over centuries and millennia. How, then, would a life form begin to develop a new organ or biological system if its first stages were completely useless.What is wrong with 1% of an eye when your competitor has none, there are microorganisms with light sensitive spots, there are flat tubellarians with light sensitive cells in hollows on the front of their bodies that take the light sensitive spot to the next level by giving the perception of direction, there are many more slight variations on this up until the eyes of prey birds. Indeed what is the advantage of cells on one organism that detoxify the system as their function (a rudimentary liver), this would lead to a better capability to consume and therefore propagate the species further, an advantage over their rivals, over time this would become more complex building to what you know as the liver, complex yes but there is no need to invoke a designer.There is also a good point to made from Darwin's cranes rather than sky hooks analogy, a complex system doesn't necessarily have to always keep all it's parts, something as complex as ATP transcriptase may not always have functioned alone, it may have been part of a much bigger, more easily understandable system that lost over time it's superfluous proteins or structures leaving behind only that which is needed.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Also, consider the principle of irreducible complexity.That is not a principle; it's an identified pseudoscience.How, then, would a life form begin to develop a new organ or biological system if its first stages were completely useless.I believe the current understanding is that the function of these systems changed over time.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Developing over time requires stage-by-stage alterations. Look at the woodpecker. Its beak, head, and body are all optimized for drilling into trees. It would never have developed these over generations, as it could never have obtained any insects from the trees prior to these anatomical developments.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Look at the woodpecker. Its beak, head, and body are all optimized for drilling into trees. It would never have developed these over generations, as it could never have obtained any insects from the trees prior to these anatomical developments.Your misconception is that the beak was always used as an instrument for extracting insects from beneath the bark of trees. It is simply necessary for a bird to be born with a pointy beak, and to discover that it can then use the beak, in addition to its usual feeding practices, to garner some mote of additional nutrition from such a source. As the beak becomes more refined, the birds simply switch to trees as the source of their staple food.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

the design of the woodpecker's beak has been optimized for this purpose, as well as numerous other parts of its body.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

You haven't addressed EnigmaticMan's argument at all, you've simply re-stated your initial claim (as if it was it's own proof).
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

The beak is indeed specially designed to drill into trees repeatedly with regard to strength and size.In addition, its smaller brain size and the fact that its head is protected by cartilage very similar to a shock absorber support my point. Also, its tongue is bristled to aid in the extraction of insects. Finally, the woodpecker's zygodactyl feet support it on the bark as it completes the drilling and extraction process. All of these developments function in tandem to ensure that the woodpecker survives this process.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

The beak is indeed specially designed to drill into trees repeatedly with regard to strength and size.I see you have failed entirely to comprehend what I said. But no matter.In addition, its smaller brain size and the fact that its head is protected by cartilage very similar to a shock absorber support my point.Your point is that the woodpecker is very well equipped for the extraction of insects from trees. That's reasonable enough.Where I have a problem is how that simple fact posits the following: "A supernatural and omnipotent being created the Earth in six days, along with all of the animals now present, as they appear now, without causing them to evolve and without ever creating something known as the dinosaur". Your position is brain-dead. You can't A) be bothered to work it out.and/orB)Admit that your ridiculous beliefs, wholly unsupported and physically impossible as they are, are wrong.As I have explained, any trait which is conducive to the survival of a species in a particular environment is usually propagated. You need to remember that not all traits are evolved simultaneously. A plausible explanation is that after the birds had switched to trees as their staple source of food, they began to develop thicker skulls (you might be able to empathise with this).And that ignores the possibility that the birds inherited these systems from dinosaurs (for we understand now that birds are descended from dinosaurs).
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

I never in any way suggested that I believe in the creationist world view. Rather, every argument of mine has focused on the scientific problems associated with the theory of evolution. it seems odd that you immediately attack what you assume to be my beliefs without defending the fundamental questions that are posed by evolutionary theory.In fact, I do believe that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, although the exact age of the universe and Earth could vary quite a bit based on the mathematics used to measure the universe's expansion.The primary issue that the pseudoscience of evolution has has never answered has to do with how biological systems could develop in stages over long periods of time while respecting natural selection. The woodpecker would not have developed all of these features immediately, and, as such, it could never have been able to drill into trees prior to doing so. According to evolution, the cartilage protecting its head would not have immediately appeared. The first stages of this would create superfluous anatomical developments of little or no purpose. The skull would still not have been able to withstand the repeated impact against trees. So, as it was of no use, those initial phases of the shock absorbing cartilage would be bred out in the offspring.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

I never in any way suggested that I believe in the creationist world view.Your arguments are tagged "creationism" and you have argued against evolution. In fact, I believe I spy below this passage the term "pseudoscience of evolution". I've never heard that one. Virtually the entire biological science community supports evolution, its observation is an unquestionable fact, it is posited by genetic theory, it is supported by volumes of fossil evidence; yet you label it so? Your impudence is astounding.Rather, every argument of mine has focused on the scientific problems associated with the theory of evolution."Irreducible complexity" is a recognised pseudoscience, so your have no foundation upon which to argue scientifically.. it seems odd that you immediately attack what you assume to be my beliefs without defending the fundamental questions that are posed by evolutionary theory.I have simply shown you that your understanding of the mechanics of evolution is flawed. You have failed to respond to what I said; rather you have expounded upon your misconceptions.The woodpecker would not have developed all of these features immediately, and, as such, it could never have been able to drill into trees prior to doing so.As I have already said, the explanation proposed by the scientific community (whomever they may be) is that the systems' function has changed as they developed. You have yet to counter this point.According to evolution, the cartilage protecting its head would not have immediately appeared. The first stages of this would create superfluous anatomical developments of little or no purpose. The skull would still not have been able to withstand the repeated impact against trees. So, as it was of no use, those initial phases of the shock absorbing cartilage would be bred out in the offspring.Unless the cartilage was always present in the ancestors of the woodpeckers. Your argument is irreparably flawed, as it fails to accommodate the possibility, nay the certainty, that woodpecker species originated as dinosaurs. Who is to say that the cartilage was not present in their ancestor; and that it was removed by natural selection from other species of birds, or was never present in those pedigrees? So, as it was of no use, those initial phases of the shock absorbing cartilage would be bred out in the offspring.What is of no use but no detriment is not always bred out, or at least not quickly. The appendix in humans, for example.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

First, you're not going to lure me from my arguments about irreducible complexity. YOU have yet to explain how, in any biological system, the first stages of development, as required by evolutionary theory, can lead to more advanced structures in the body. To use the woodpecker example, why would it have had the unique cartilage in its head if it didn't need a shock absorber, assuming that it did not initially use trees as a source of food? An unnecessary structure like that would never have survived in offspring serving no purpose. How about its zygodactyl feet and its tongue, both of which greatly support the woodpecker in its form of feeding.So there is a choice. The woodpecker could have existed this way from the beginning, or it didn't, and rather started to develope each feature because of a sudden need to feed from trees, despite the fact that this would have taken an extremely long period and consequently would not have satisfied the woodpecker's new requirement. In that scenario, all of the features that I mentioned would have taken stages to develop, but in the initial phases they would have formed superfluous structures which would not allow the woodpecker to drill into trees and extract insects. Because they are superfluous, the features would be bred out in subsequent generations. Therefore, this pre-woodpecker bird would never have transitioned into a woodpecker.So, it really is quite simple.a) Woodpeckers, from the beginning, possessed all of the features necessary to feed from trees. That would contradict evolution. Orb) they start to develop new features but these are eliminated in subsequent generations because the initial features serve no purpose.I am simplifying this as much as possible, but it is clear that despite the overwhelming logic that I am using.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

I completely agree that irreducible complexity requires no thought, or at least very little thought. That is because it it so utterly simple that anyone who believes in or previously believed in evolutionary theory should be able to recognize its logic.The only reason that I continuously repeat my argument regarding the fact that biological systems can't develop in stages over long periods is because it is exactly the answer to your arguments that the woodpecker may have possessed the cartilage in its head prior to feeding from trees. You seem to have researched the issues to an extent, and therefore my logic should be blatantly obvious (and, viewed objectively, it is indeed obvious).So assuming that this pre-woodpecker form did possess the protective cartilage in its head, that does not explain EVERY other feature that enables woodpeckers to effectively feed from trees. The feet, thicker skull, smooth, smaller brain, barbed tongue, and unique behavior designed to protect it during the feeding process are also characteristics that must be explained, unless I am to assume that the woodpecker inherited all of these characteristics from a predecessor, in which this predecessor would be suspiciously similar to a woodpecker and might indeed not need to evolve. This predecessor could never have obtained food from trees without the aforementioned developments, as it simply would not have had the anatomical capability to do so.Perhaps one would assume that the woodpecker's ancestor possessed most of these features (because, of course, were it to possess all of them, then it would be a woodpecker, with no need for evolution). First, we could assume that it had an urgent need to find an additional food source because of, for instance, an environmental issue affecting the existing supply. In that case, the ancestor would die out simply because it would not have had all of the necessary features to acquire sustenance and would not have developed them in the necessary time frame.Second, we can assume that it possessed some of these features but did not have an urgent need to utilize a new food source. In that case, it would have had the necessary time to evolve in the necessary way, but it could never have exceeded the first steps. Why? Because the first structures, serving no purpose and being in violation of natural selection, would be eliminated in the offspring. You have stated more than once that the woodpecker would have developed the necessary attributes to feed from trees. However, the question is how it would be able to do so in stages, and for what reason that it would have continued to develop the required biological structures if the first were completely unnecessary and thus never survived the first generation. The answer is that it is impossible for that to occur. There is just one of the many fundamental flaws in evolutionary theory.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: intelligent design

1. Occam's razor.2. You have not refuted my logic. More than once, you have stated that the woodpecker could have developed the necessary features and may have originally possessed some of them from a hypothetical predecessor. I have explained that it is impossible for this stage-by-stage development to occur, yet I see no attempt to describe this process or explain how it does not violate natural selection from your perspective.3. On the issue of your supposition that evolution has been observed, let's take a slight digression.There is, for instance, your assertion that evolution has been observed in viruses. It is an irrefutable fact that the processes observed in laboratories contain numerous errors, as the attempts to demonstrate evolution are conducted by humans and therefore will not and have not perfectly mimicked the processes posited by proponents of evolution to be true (this is referred to as "directed evolution," which suggests an intelligent being guiding the experiment with a specific outcome in mind). before you consider speaking about diseases ability to adapt to medications, that it easily explained as an adaptation, a completely legitimate process that, despite what some would have you believe, does not provide evidence for evolution. Indeed, viruses such as the flu strains that circulate each year easily mutate and, in that process, can produce beneficial protection for themselves.It is reasonable to assume that someone like yourself recognizes the importance of the origin of life on Earth even before the fictitious evolution of species occurred. So a question inevitably arises: how did life originate on Earth?
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

First of all, stop down-voting my arguments you dipshit. I have far more points than you and I can afford to down-vote every argument you ever make, so grow up and fuck off. I have struck against five of your arguments and, upon discovering that you have consistently down-voted other people's arguments as fast as you can across multiple debates, I have reported you to the site authorities, who have the power to ban your account for such behaviour. I think I've made my point abundantly clear.1. Occam's razor.That concept has no pertinence to this discussion. It deals with the number of assumptions required for a model or hypothesis to work. I'm not making assumptions, I am merely detailing a theory which explains observed natural phenomena, and is supported almost universally by scientists in the relevant field.I have explained that it is impossible for this stage-by-stage development to occurI have already explained that your assertions are pure nonsense. The refinement of an already existing feature such as the tongue, foot or beak is not impossible. And redundant systems are not always removed, as seen in the human appendix.yet I see no attempt to describe this processYou are refuting evolution. If you need me to explain it to you, why on Earth do you consider your knowledge of it sufficient to refute it? explain how it does not violate natural selection from your perspective.Your assertion that it does has already been dealt with. I have shown you that redundant systems are not always removed. Beyond that, you've made no mention of natural selection.It is an irrefutable fact that the processes observed in laboratories contain numerous errorsExperimental error is accounted for, which is why scientists run series of experiments. You're an idiot if you think that experimental error makes experimentation useless.before you consider speaking about diseases ability to adapt to medications, that it easily explained as an adaptationRight, I see the problem here. You don't understand what evolution is. It's a process by which organisms change over time by making adaptations (you only seem to take notice if I embolden the text) which allow them to survive and propagate in a particular environment. Indeed, viruses such as the flu strains that circulate each year easily mutate and, in that process, can produce beneficial protection for themselves.That's called evolution.So a question inevitably arises: how did life originate on Earth?Life is, at a fundamental level, a self-replicating molecule. There are numerous hypotheses on what the first molecule was (phospholipids, or two fatty acids, a glycerol and a phosphate being one of the most popular), but none have been substantiated. Bottom line is, the answer is a work in progress. That doesn't immediately sunstantiate your "MAGIC" answer, however.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Oh no! It is possible that your arguments are being voted down because they are not adequate on a debating website such as this one. Perhaps you can discuss this myth on an ancient mythology website, because that would be more appropriate.You never provided a scientific refutation of my argument. I continued to repeat it in the most fundamental terms, but you seem unwilling to respond. Obviously, that it because there is no actual response to my assertions. Maybe you should also consider researching how to conduct the ad hominem fallacy because you are simply not succeeding.I am quite aware of the definitions pertaining to evolution. You have yet to provide any true refutation of my points, though I have noticed an effort to do so.And finally, a statement regarding the origin of life: as more complex molecules begin to develop into the first single-celled organisms (we must assume that this process has begun in the first place), the need for information to describe the cells (cells are quite complex). This consists of, for instance, DNA. In order to make information useful, the information must be read. That requires the structures that will perform this action. However, if there is no information, the systems that interpret the information will not arise. That contradicts evolutionary theory.It seems that you are not willing to provide the adequate arguments in this debate, so you may consider capitulating.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Oh no! It is possible that your arguments are being voted down because they are not adequate on a debating website such as this one. Perhaps you can discuss this myth on an ancient mythology website, because that would be more appropriate.You never provided a scientific refutation of my argument. I continued to repeat it in the most fundamental terms, but you seem unwilling to respond. Obviously, that it because there is no actual response to my assertions.Maybe you should also consider researching how to conduct the ad hominem fallacy because you are simply not succeeding.I am quite aware of the definitions pertaining to evolution. You have yet to provide any true refutation of my points, though I have noticed an effort to do so.And finally, a statement regarding the origin of life: as more complex molecules begin to develop into the first single-celled organisms (we must assume that this process has begun in the first place), the need for information to describe the cells (cells are quite complex). This consists of, for instance, DNA. In order to make information useful, the information must be read. That requires the structures that will perform this action. However, if there is no information, the systems that interpret the information will not arise. That contradicts evolutionary theory.It seems that you are not willing to provide the adequate arguments in this debate, so you may consider capitulating.Please create a new response which actually addresses the counterpoints I expressed. One which does not include magic.