azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

In our first exchange it appeared as if you didn't/don't know what the theory of evolution or the big bang actually entailed, but now your making knowledge claims about one of those theories saying 'no evidence for macro evolution'. I am pretty sure you are not on solid ground making claims like that.I get the feeling you didn't read any of my links I posted. Macro evolution is quite well covered there and your comments seem to show a misunderstanding of the term. You appear to be operation off of some non scientific definition of macro evolution.If someone wants to discuss rocket science but insists on using the star wars definition of 'force' instead of the science version then the discussion is doomed. I stated before that if you wish to discuss a scientific idea its best to see what that idea actually says instead of using some strawmanned version of that claim.Macro evolution is the accumulation of micro evolutions. If you agree someone can count to 100 why not 1000 or 10,000? Sure getting to a million may take a while but there has been plenty of time for this to happen on earth. The more time that passes the more changes that can accumulate, there is no logical reason this can't happen.Here is that link again. Quick question and this is relevant to evolution...how old is the earth? or how do you determine how old the earth is?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

The fossil record can't be explained by only micro evolution. The DNA similarities of all living creatures can't be explained by only micro evolution.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

We have already seen animals adapt to different climates, so if the animal has genetically changed itself and its offspring, what makes you think that over thousands of years that we couldn't slowly become more intelligent and physically adapted to the point where we are now? At this point I would like you to prove that macro evolution is not true and prove how a spirit-like being in a story book is a better explanation than evolution.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Which came first, the DNA or the protein?????????????????????????????????????
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

If you are starting your argument with "trolling assumptions", then I don't understand if I can take you seriously.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Where is your actual evidence for creation? Why is it that every single argument for creation is simply just and argument against aspects of science?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Evolution
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Leftist like to believe they came from apes ! I find it very amusing because their brain has never evolved pass the ape stage. It is not hard to figure out why they believe in such nonsense !
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

micro-evolution is not the same as macro-evolutiononly micro-evolution is provedmicro-evolution proves creationism right
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

It can't possibly prove creationism since evolution requires micro evolution as well.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Which came first, the DNA, or the Protein? DNA needs Proteins to survive. Proteins need DNA to survive.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Exactly. They came at the same time! Genesis 1:3 states: "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." They came at the same time!
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Is the big bang technically a religion because you are putting your faith in the theory that something will com out of nothing.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

These are a number of reason why evolution is incorrect. Check this link out.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

None of those are facts.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

None of your "facts" are facts! Clearly assumptions! Not facts!
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Providing a link and saying "that's that" is very bad debating technique.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Can you give me real evidence that evolution is true? Or is this all assumptions?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

All this hullabaloo is a result of the same kind of heart that Pharaoh had.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Amen and amen! ...................................................................................................................
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Carbon dating is inaccurate because the rate of carbon decay and formation has not yet reached equilibrium. Carbon dating is inaccurate because it has assumed that the rate of decay and formation has reached equilibrium.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Darwin admits himself that he cannot prove that a single species has evolved or change. This different form adaptations.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Where did life come from? Life is a miracle. You can put a frog in a blender and have all the parts to make a frog. Can you get it back to life? It's the same thing with your primordial soup.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Can a complex organism evolve? Can you prove it? Is there evidence?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

In order for blood to clot, more than 20 complex steps need to successfully be completed. How in the world did that process possibly evolve?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Can you solve the following riddle by Perry Marshall?…1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Evolutionists simply cannot explain why our planet is so perfectly suited to support life.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Shells from living snails have been “carbon dated” to be 27,000 years old.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Evolution is Scientifically ImpossibleEvolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago by Charles Darwin (N/A actually, by his grandfather in 1794 - before Charles was even born), before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false.His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution.Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by the main stream scientists.Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support.They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense.Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly.What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. (...)The Indoctrination System Called "Education"The educational system teaches children not to think. Any student who uses logic and solid scientific evidence to question the Theory of Evolution is ridiculed and insulted into submission. The students who submit become non-thinking robots who dare not question the dogma presented.A forth-grade elementary school class was observed at the park playing a three-legged race game, where adjacent legs of the two kids were placed into a bag. The kids must cooperate with each step in order to run. The kids thought it was great fun. The teacher told them they were being trained to cooperate.Actually, it was brainwashing kids into conforming to a system in which they are not allowed to have individual thoughts or opinions. They must become a "team player" and submit to peer pressure. Communist countries have used this same brainwashing technique for decades.The brainwashing of school children continues by teaching them there is no absolute right or wrong, and the teacher is absolutely positive about it.Whatever the children think is right for them is OK. That is of course until they question evolution. They are then told they are wrong. This brainwashing results in children who are unable to think logically, scientifically, and accurately.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

If humans have been around for so long, where are all of the bones and all of the graves? The following is an excerpt from an article by Don Batten…Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found. However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Evolutionists claim that just because it looks like we were designed that does not mean that we actually were. They often speak of the “illusion of design”, but that is kind of like saying that it is an “illusion” that a 747 airplane or an Apple iPhone were designed. And of course the human body is far more complex that a 747 or an iPhone.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

If you want to be part of the “scientific community” today, you must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to you. Richard Lewontin of Harvard once made the following comment regarding this harsh reality…We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Time Magazine once made the following statement about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution…“Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.”
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Malcolm Muggeridge, the world famous journalist and philosopher, once made the following statement about the absurdity of the theory of evolution…“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself. Do you have that much blind faith?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Behind closed doors, more and more scientists will admit that evolution is not a matter of fact and cannot possibly explain the origin of life. When penned down by fellow scientists of equal status, many in the world of academia merely reply that the origin of life is something that nobody understands.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

As a well-known chemist and professor at Rice University, Dr. James Tour specializes in chemistry, nanoengineering, and computer science. Authoring over 500 research publications over the past 30 years, Dr. Tour has received awards and recognition from the American Chemical Society, Thomas Reuters, Honda, NASA, and others. He has also been recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today”Even with his many scientific accolades, Dr. Tour readily admits evolution holds no fact-filled answer as to mankind’s origin. Shouldn’t a famous chemist of this caliber be able to understand the science behind the claims of evolution?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions.If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now “evolving” into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed.In Darwin’s landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as “could,” “perhaps” and “possibly” plague the entire book.Evolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it—and in many respects runs counter to it.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

The law of biogenesis as taught in biology class states that only life can produce life.You’ve probably heard the famous question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It’s a real dilemma for an evolutionist to answer. An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?To complicate matters even more, the chicken has to come from a fertilized egg that has the mixture of two different genetic strains from both its parents. So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.Yet for someone who believes in special creation by a Creator, there is no dilemma here. First God made the male and female chickens, which produced the first fertilized egg—and the rest is history.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Let me ask you this: is the "big-bang" an accident? It either is an accident, or Intelligent Design is the reason. If it is an accident, or by "chance" it happened, then why do you (a product of "chance" or an "accident") believe that your thoughts are 100% correct? If we are all products of chance, then are products of chance reliable? Are accidents reliable? Is chance reliable?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it’s called a symbiotic relationship.A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple—both were created at about the same time.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Famous Chemist Drops Bomb on EvolutionBy on October 15, 2014 in Articles, Beginner Behind closed doors, more and more scientists will admit that evolution is not a matter of fact and cannot possibly explain the origin of life. When penned down by fellow scientists of equal status, many in the world of academia merely reply that the origin of life is something that nobody understands.James-Tour-1009x1024Dr. James TourAs a well-known chemist and professor at Rice University, Dr. James Tour specializes in chemistry, nanoengineering, and computer science. Authoring over 500 research publications over the past 30 years, Dr. Tour has received awards and recognition from the American Chemical Society, Thomas Reuters, Honda, NASA, and others. He has also been recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today”1Even with his many scientific accolades, Dr. Tour readily admits evolution holds no fact-filled answer as to mankind’s origin. Shouldn’t a famous chemist of this caliber be able to understand the science behind the claims of evolution?In this video from 2012, Tour explains his experience with making molecules. I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist, if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules.And yet, Dr. James Tour cannot understand how evolution can explain the origin of life.About seven or eight years ago I posted on my website that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution. And I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something and then I will ask you to clarify — Nobody has come forth.Clearly, the world-renowned chemist is not the only one with this conundrum, though few possess the courage to publicly agree.Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science—with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public—because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said—I say, ‘Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?’ Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go, ‘Uh-uh. Nope.’ And if they’re afraid to say ‘yes,’ they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.Nearly 900 scientists, including Tour, have currently signed, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, which expresses skepticism in the claims of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.Despite this overwhelming testimonial evidence, many will continue to proclaim evolution as dogmatic truth. Yet, those who are honest have no other option than to admit that, “the emperor truly has no clothes!”Now all we need is for Dr. Tour to become a Young Earth Creationist! Why don’t you pray for this with us.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

"Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context."Dr. James Tour - full letter here
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

All living things are exquisitely engineered or designed. Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it’s only an illusion of design—that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate.One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day.” How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process?Again, you need more “faith” to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.Now you have five proofs that evolution is F-A-L-S-E and that special creation is true—and we didn’t even use the Bible. Remember the acronym FALSE when you read or hear about evolution—and do take time to read our Creator’s great book of truth! It has much to say regarding origins.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Why do you believe in Darwins story book but not Gods, that was written by many people, through the holy spirt of God