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

Interesting response. Let me explain some important facts. In these debates, you can support one of two sides. I certainly do not support evolutionary theory, so I am left with creationism. You may not be aware that the basic definition of "creationism" refers simply to the belief that an intelligent force created the universe and, by extension, life on earth. Earlier, you indicated in explicit terms your perception that I must be a Young-Earth Creationist who supports the position that six days were required for our reality to come about. However, this is a complete mis-characterization that is intended to distract from the scientific and logical flaws of your arguments.It is indeed you who has repeated your claims without attempting to refute mine. In fact, your arguments merely reflect the "talking points" that most proponents of evolutionary theory could be expected to utilize, which, as always, fail to explain the major issues that are quite present in your pseudoscience.
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 timeline.This statement is nonsensical. A "missing link" by definition is transitional.What transitional fossils would you be referring to?
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

I am referring to fossils such as australopithecus afarensis, in addition to fragments that established potential transitional forms including Java man and Peking man.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

The Java Man, and the Peking man, are not species, they are individual fossil sets. Both Java Man and Peking man are Homo Erectus and their remains date back to 1 million years ago, while the Australopithecus dates to about 2.6 million years ago. I don't see what the conflict is.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

It continues to demonstrate that the fossil evidence that you have mentioned ceases to exist.Java Man consisted of bone fragments and was determined not to be related to be related to human species.Peking Man specimens' skulls were damaged in the same manner that the indigenous people hunted for monkeys, in addition to not being a verifiable hominid. Human remains were found in the same strata at the sites where both of the aforementioned fragments were found.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

It continues to demonstrate that the fossil evidence that you have mentioned ceases to exist.How so?Java Man consisted of bone fragments and was determined not to be related to be related to human species.Determined by whom? You? Your creationist apologetic websites, perhaps. But not by the scientific community. Certainly not by any evolutionary biologist I am aware of. Bald assertions an argument, does not make.Peking Man specimens' skullsThe fact that you pluralized this tells me you don't know what you're talking about. Peking Man is ONE specimen, of Homo Erectus, to date there have been at least 222 specimens found worldwide.Trying to disprove evolution, by showing that a single specimen of a single species isn't a human ancestor, is absurd and it makes you look like a buffoon.skulls were damaged in the same manner that the indigenous people hunted for monkeysWhat indigeounous people? Homo Erectus is found on three separate continents. I suggest you not use Creationist apologetic websites, they are very unreliable.Are you suggesting that the Homo Erectus is a monkey?Human remains were found in the same strata at the sites where both of the aforementioned fragments were found.Evidence?
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

How so?It should be obvious when I say that there is no fossil evidence to support a theory that it means that the theory is not supported in that way and neither are any arguments to that effect.evolutionary biologistPeople who built their careers around a specific theory and have no desire to accept that it is false when proven thus?Your creationist apologetic websites, perhapsThat is assuming that I use such websites. However, we may draw a parallel here. As you assert that I use these websites while having no evidence thereof, you also have an equivalent amount of evidence supporting evolutionary theory.The fact that you pluralized this tells me you don't know what you're talking about. Peking Man is ONE specimen, of Homo Erectus, to date there have been at least 222 specimens found worldwide.This suggests that you are not aware that multiple fragments were found at the Chinese site that gave Peking Man the nickname.Trying to disprove evolution, by showing that a single specimen of a single species isn't a human ancestor, is absurd and it makes you look like a buffoon.I have provided numerous arguments to such an effect. The one mentioned above simply refutes one of your points.What indigeounous people? Homo Erectus is found on three separate continents. I suggest you not use Creationist apologetic websites, they are very unreliable.The aforementioned fossil fragments indicate that the nature of the assumptions draw around them has no evidence to support it. The Peking Man fragments suggest massive differences between humans and homo erectus.http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/2008-01/15/content_11575842.htm  This supports the notion of evolution but mentions humans found at the site.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

It should be obvious when I say that there is no fossil evidence to support a theory that it means that the theory is not supported in that way and neither are any arguments to that effectHow does the discovery of Java man and Peking man, cause fossil evidence to cease to exist?People who built their careers around a specific theory and have no desire to accept that it is false when proven thus?Well, whether or not Australopithecus was a human ancestor does fall into their field of study. So if 'scientists' are saying that it is no longer a human ancestor, then it would come from an evolutionary biologist. If not, then what credentials would one trust in certifying whether a species falls under a certain phylogenetic tree or not?You are insisting here, that it is their bias that prevents them from seeing the Australopithecus as something other than a human ancestor. Yet this supposed 'bias' did not prevent them from declaring the Homo Neanderthalensis as not an ancestor to humans.That is assuming that I use such websites.Tell me then, where is your source stating that skull damage to the Peking man was similar to the way that indigenous people hunted? Or is this as well un-evidenced?This suggests that you are not aware that multiple fragments were found at the Chinese site that gave Peking Man the nickname.It doesn't matter how many fragments you find, it's still only one specimen and one skull.I have provided numerous arguments to such an effect. The one mentioned above simply refutes one of your points.A fragment, is still a part of a whole. There is no reason to pluralize it. If you drop a ceramic plate and it shatters into 60 fragments, do you now have plates, or just 60 pieces of one plate?The aforementioned fossil fragments indicate that the nature of the assumptions draw around them has no evidence to support itSuch as?The Peking Man fragments suggest massive differences between humans and homo erectus.Yes, because they are completely different species. You would expect to find numerous differences. A wolf has numerous differences from a Chihuahua, but one is still the descendant of the other.Your argument does not support your conclusion.This supports the notion of evolution but mentions humans found at the site.{sigh}By 'human' they mean:n.-A Member of genus homoThe same article also refers to Peking Man as a human. They are not talking about homo sapiens, as most people use the word human to mean.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

How does the discovery of Java man and Peking man, cause fossil evidence to cease to exist?The earlier explanations (which I have no intention of reiterating here) demonstrate that it the evidence of human descent that you posit to exist does indeed not provide the necessary explanation.You are insisting here, that it is their bias that prevents them from seeing the Australopithecus as something other than a human ancestor. Yet this supposed 'bias' did not prevent them from declaring the Homo Neanderthalensis as not an ancestor to humans.They merely replaced it with something else.Tell me then, where is your source stating that skull damage to the Peking man was similar to the way that indigenous people hunted? Or is this as well un-evidenced?http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/courses/Peking1.htm The fifth paragraph provides an accurate description. This also references nature of the injuries as being caused by humans.A fragment, is still a part of a whole. There is no reason to pluralize it. If you drop a ceramic plate and it shatters into 60 fragments, do you now have plates, or just 60 pieces of one plate?This is irrelevant.Yes, because they are completely different species. You would expect to find numerous differences. A wolf has numerous differences from a Chihuahua, but one is still the descendant of the other.Having been bred in such a manner, one would expect such differences, though they are different in nature than h. erectus and h. sapiens.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

The earlier explanations (which I have no intention of reiterating here) demonstrate that it the evidence of human descent that you posit to exist does indeed not provide the necessary explanation.Your explanation is that there is no explanation? Brilliant argument, you've convinced me to become a creationist, where do I signup?They merely replaced it with something else.No, they simply recognizing it as being related to humans but not being their ancestor.The fifth paragraph provides an accurate description. This also references nature of the injuries as being caused by humans.The same article also says that the injuries are most likely the result of Hyenas. It also stated that most paleoanthropologists rejected the view that humans preyed upon Homo erectus. There is a little overlap between homo sapiens, and homo erectus, as the divergence of a new species does not necessarily mean the extinction of the parent species.Having been bred in such a manner, one would expect such differences, though they are different in nature than h. erectus and h. sapiens.I'm sure there are differences, but that doesn't exclude your argument from such poor logic.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Whos to say god didnt creat threw evolution? he made the world and people and animals in only a few days but it aalso says that a day in heavin isnt equal to a day on earth. so whos to say that threw those few days we couldnt of evolved and been created that way? Im a die heart Catholic and that is my opion on the argument
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Whos to say god didnt creat threw evolution?God said that He created in six literal days. but it aalso says that a day in heavin isnt equal to a day on earthNo it doesn't. 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.This is in the Ten Commandments, don't let secular ideology infiltrate the Bible.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Every time debate comes up like this I refuse to listen to or believing that I came from a monkey.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Technically, evolution just means that you and monkeys share a common ancestor. Why do you find that so revolting?
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

See so it's basically saying that you come from an animal. I don't believe that I share  NOTHING with animals whatsoever. Moving along end of discussion because I am what I am.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

You are an animal. A civilized animal, but an animal nonetheless. You're not a plant and you're certainly not a mineral.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

well, aren't humans animals? Thus, since we come from our parents we come from animals? Also, your second sentence is a double negative, it is equivalent to saying "I believe I share something with animals". Context suggests one of the negatives should be a positive? In that case, you most certainly do share some things; such as breathing, living on earth but that isn't what you mean, I'm sure. What is this elitism so many seem to have? This sense of superiority over "animal"(what ever they mean by it?), I don't understand it.As for your third sentence, welcome to debate.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Thanks for the invitation bud.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Its completely ridiculous isn't it? They haven't a scrap of true evidence yet they call us blind! throws back head and laughs for hours
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

"They haven't a scrap of true evidence yet they call us blind!" The National Academy of Sciences says otherwise, as does every reputable scientific organization in the world. I have to assume that you haven't read any of the plethora of books about evolution, nor studied the findings of paleontologists, microbiologists, etc. The fact that you have to get a new flu shot every year is evidence that evolution occurs - because the virus has evolved. (Viruses have shorter life spans, so it takes less time for significant evolutionary change to emerge in them.) Another great example of evolution in action is ring species. There's also the fact that every fossil is found in accordance with geography and chronological events (that is, they're all in the fossil record when and where we'd expect them to be). Add in the study of genetics, and you've got yourself an incredible array of evidence.Recommended Reading (concise list): The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins; What Evolution Is, Ernest Mayr; The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins; Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett; Why Darwin Matters, Michael Shermer; Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences (free and legal pdf is here - http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876) )
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

if there is evolution.. . why do we all keep on worshiping??  maybe this years monkeys should be endagered species caused of evolution...when i see ( for example : a frog give birth to a cat, ) then i believe in macro-evolution..* i didn't saw ever since " a monkey give birth to human???
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

This is spam/ a joke right?If not, please read about what evolution is; you seem very ignorant on the subject.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

God created this world. Evolution makes no sense. You cant put bread,peanut butter, and jelly on a table and say make me a sandwich...It wont work
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

You can put those ina table and say to God make me a sandwich.... It wont work.....hehehheheh so easy!
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

God created this world. Evolution makes no sense. You cant put bread,peanut butter, and jelly on a table and say make me a sandwich...It wont workAnd I suppose the inability to create a sandwhich via telepathy somehow deals a crushing blow to the evolutionary argument?
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

"In the beginning god said..." does your criticism more accurately apply towards certain religion's creation stories, and not evolution?
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Evolution is a process... not a belief system. So the term evolutionism doesn't make any sense. It's like creating an ideology based on Evolution.anyway, we see evolution happening constantly. Very well, we know that Natural Selection works because we see it happen over time. Be it technology from business or personalities from learning, people are adapting and becoming better. Not to mention that Evolution has a much larger basis than just some scripture. Science isn't some deceptive work. Science is merely the pursuit to gain knowledge about the things around us. Through it, we have discovered the theory of evolution. A brilliant theory that has been met with such hostility from people who are unwilling to accept that maybe things aren't like they always thought it was. From this same mindset, this is why there was so much hostility towards blacks during the Civil Rights movement or why the government rushes to banning any psychoactive substance that becomes really popular.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: Creationism

You see natural selection CONSTANTLY. Which isn't denyable. NO ONE HAS SEEN EVOLUTION HAPPEN - the creation of a new species from another. The only constant is indoctrination. If you saw a frog turn into a bird it was because you need to get off the drugs. It takes as much or even more faith to believe evolution. A ton of details must be overlooked or hypothetically proposed. People believe what they believe or feel, some get emotionally tide on both sides. You must be the classic liberal to bring Civil right conversion into this one!
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: Evolutionism

NO ONE HAS SEEN EVOLUTION HAPPEN - the creation of a new species from another. Actually you're wrong. Speciation has already been observed and documented. Only the willfuly ignorant choose to ignore it. "Macro evolution has never been observed" It takes as much or even more faith to believe evolution. A ton of details must be overlooked or hypothetically proposedIt doesn't take any faith to believe in evolution. Belief in evolution is justified through evidence, experimentation, observation, the scientific method, and peer review. No details must be overlooked or hypothetically proposed. Look up the material you're trying to refute before making a fool out of yourself. You must be the classic liberal to bring Civil right conversion into this one!Since when is being "liberal" a bad thing?
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

If we were made in the image of God, please explain the appendix and wisdom teeth. The whole, evolution is guided by god completely dodges ockham's razor, you are making a process more complicated than it needs to be, evolution works fine without god.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: Creationism

Nautilus, I am sure you have been indoctrinated by the finest of schools. However, because we see species go through natural selection and stronger traits prevail does not mean we can leap to the conclusion that we came to be from sludge(ie mineral soup). Actually this first step from minerals to protein which all life is created is impossible. It is huge conundrum because cells need oxygen but oxygen destroys, I will let your brilliance research the details… I am not overly religious and have be through this process of indoctrination(elementary-college education) as well, and I find far less conclusive data on evolution. Forget man for a moment, show me bones of a giraffe or rhino that show that it was something else before it was a giraffe or rhino. You can’t. What about all the other species in the world that have “evolved” from some other species. Where are all these freaking bones! Dinosaurs did exist, something wiped them out and species do change and parish. BUT DARWINISM TAKES MORE FAITH THAN ALL RELIGIONS COMBINED. YOUR DISIPLE IS STILL A FLAWED HUMAN!
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: Evolutionism

Cells do not need Oxygen. There are many cells that actually die from oxygen exposure. Many members of the kingdoms Monera and Archea and even Animalia do not require oxygen for survival. Extremophiles are Archea organisms that live in environmental extremes, such as inside volcanoes, where life normally wouldn't occur. And water is not oxygen. It has an oxygen atom, but the cell does not rely on the oxygen in water, it relies on the waters properties.Evolution does not claim life comes from this primordial ooze. That is abiogenesis, separate from evolution. Evolution is just how life changes once it is there, but it does not explain where that life came from. Evolution has been observed. It is fact. We have witnessed it. We have witness countless examples of speciation. But the reason we have never seen an 'amphibian become a reptile' because it takes far too long. We have proof that is did happen, called fossils. Maybe you should look them up.The giraffe has seven vertebrae in its neck, like most mammals. But its neck is so long. Why is that? Because of mutation and natural selection. And that is all evolution is. Evolution, at its most basic, is the combination of random mutation with non-random natural selection. Both work together.Dinosaurs still exist. We call them birds. The Velociraptor, a 6ft, 30 lbs predator from Cretaceous Mongolia, resembles a bird in many ways. It had feathers, in fact, it had complex feathers that modern birds utilize for flight. We know this because of the present of quill knobs on its arm. Though not all birds with flight feathers (flamingoes) have them, all birds with quill knobs, have feathers. If it were alive today, we would have called it a bird. A weird looking bird with claws and teeth, but it still superficially looked like a bird. Even Tyrannosaurus' ancestors had feathers. A relative a T. rex, just found recently, was covered in feathers and is the largest feathered animal known to have exist. It is called Yutyrannus, and it was 30ft long and weighed over a ton.Archaeopteryx is a prime example of a transitional fossil. It has many featured of a reptile. Teeth, claws, a reptile-like hip structure, but it also has many bird-like features, such as complex feathers, a wishbone, etc. Now, technically, all extinct species, except those that have no modern day descendants, are transitional forms, but that is beside the point.Evolution is one of the most well studied theories. It is one of the most widely supported theories. There is more evidence to support the Theory of Evolution then there is to support the Theory of Gravity.And to make it clear, a theory is an explanation of a naturally occurring phenomena. We know Gravity exists, but we don't care. We make theories to explain how it works. Same with evolution. We have both directly and indirectly observed Evolution, and we make a theory based on what we observe. That is science. The Theory Evolution had so much evidence that it is unlikely to change in the near future.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

How does it work fine without God? It doesn't. What process is complicated? The simple matter of God creating the world in six days?