azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Again you have not provided evidence, also, hasn't the world changed over years? So even if there is not enough water now couldn't of there been enough water back then.Conservation of mass. More specifically, if there was enough water to cover the Earth four thousand years ago, then where did it go?Another thing, if God was the one to do, wouldn't he be able to make as much water to flood the earth because he is God.You defeat the basis of debate when you invoke magic to solve logical and physical contradictions.Fossils don't form on lake bottoms today, nor are they found forming on the bottom of the sea. Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal is buried soon after it dies. Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophe such as a flood or volcanic eruption that took place in the past.Fossils form in layers, with the deepest layers being oldest. There is no single layer of fossils dated at four thousand years which contains all life of that era without a gradient. Further as stated before, a worldwide flood would extinguish all life on Earth. In other words there is no recovery from it.Creationists, and a growing number of geologists see problems with such interpretations. First because there is virtually no evidence of erosion between the layers, and second, because the sheer size and extent of the strata suggests that the layers were neither formed by rivers, or river deltas. That's because many of the "layers" are quite thick, and cover (literally) hundreds and even thousands of square miles, and in many instances are the size of the state of Utah, or even larger.Creationists are the only people that reject modern science in favour of magical explanations which are incongruous with the evidence and basic logic. If a worldwide flood happened, then the water must have existed beforehand in some state. It must also have continued to exist after the flood on Earth in some state. There is no excess of water on Earth that would allow a flood to occur which could cover all of Earth. Secondly, there is no fossil evidence of a worldwide catastrophe that ended all life on Earth, recently. The last great extinction event was over sixty million years ago. Third, a worldwide flood would end all life, including aqualife, permanently. Subsequently there can be no way to survive such a flood with the Earth's ecosystem destroyed.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

" Further as stated before, a worldwide flood would extinguish all life on Earth. In other words there is no recovery from it."-You forgot that Noah had an ark that had all the animals on it. So that is why we are still here. You also said,"Creationists are the only people that reject modern science in favor of magical explanations which are incongruous with the evidence and basic logic"I gave you evidence and basic logic.  In the Bible it said that the water came up from the ground also. Which means all the moisture in the ground. That is definitely enough water to cover the earth."More specifically, if there was enough water to cover the Earth four thousand years ago, then where did it go?"It didn't go anywhere we still have enough water to cover the earth today. Also, many,many more mountains have formed so it would be alittle more tough to cover the earth today like it did back in the day but it is still possible."Fossils form in layers, with the deepest layers being oldest. There is no single layer of fossils dated at four thousand years which contains all life of that era without a gradient."-How exactly can they date these rocks? This is a different debate because one side can show proof that they have been dated billions of years ago and another side can debate that they have been dated a million years ago. Truth is that no one can really no the facts on that.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

-You forgot that Noah had an ark that had all the animals on it. So that is why we are still here.No, I didn't forget it. Ark or not, a destroyed ecosystem is unrecoverable. It wouldn't matter if Noah had an Ark a thousand times larger than described, without a proper ecosystem, there is no oxygen or food to support life.I gave you evidence and basic logic. No you didn't. You just denied conservation of mass and invoked god.In the Bible it said that the water came up from the ground also. Which means all the moisture in the ground. That is definitely enough water to cover the earth.Again, conservation of mass. The Earth has a crust made up of heavy elements, with a dense metal core. There would not be water of this scale hidden in the crust because this violates the nature of gravity in that it sorts matter by mass, and water being lighter than the heavy elements should not be buried deep beneath them. This is why we don't have a canopy of water in the sky, or castles in the clouds.Besides the more obvious point: conservation of mass. If the water flooded the Earth, then it must remain there. Also the entire crust must shift from the displaced mass which you allege. You are not obeying physics.It didn't go anywhere we still have enough water to cover the earth today. Also, many,many more mountains have formed so it would be alittle more tough to cover the earth today like it did back in the day but it is still possible.Water is a fluid which deforms to fit the surface which it occupies. If it didn't go anywhere then the Earth must remain flooded. This is the property of fluids.-How exactly can they date these rocks? This is a different debate because one side can show proof that they have been dated billions of years ago and another side can debate that they have been dated a million years ago. Truth is that no one can really no the facts on that.If you are dating fossils that are less than 50000-70000 years old, which retain some organic molecules, you may use Carbon-14 dating. If you are dating fossils which are older, or do not contain organic matter, you may use potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium to date the adjoining rocks. If you are using relative dating, you may date using index fossils and the depth of your fossil relative to it, thus giving a correlated age since deeper is generally older.Do not rely on creationist misinformation. Read the actual science.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"Creationist literature hijacked this research and misrepresented the process so that it appeared to suggest that unfossilized tissues were found in these fossils." please provide evidenceI said "maybe they should look closer at the how they date the age of Dino's... instead of trying to figure out how "soft tissue" can survive as long as it has... " I never said that they didn't look at when the Dino's was dated. I just said they should look closer at it. Don't worry i read my sources and look over them."if it turns out their dating system is off... Never trust creationist literature. You need to read the source."The source says that the fossils were 68 million years old, and that the tissues required demineralization."I know what they said and I read the source. I just stated that they were wrong. Never trust evolutionist literature.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

please provide evidenceRead those abstracts. They do not say what creationist literature presented them as.I said "maybe they should look closer at the how they date the age of Dino's... instead of trying to figure out how "soft tissue" can survive as long as it has... " What is your justification for such a statement? The fossils are 68 million years old, and fit within that time period. Unless you have conclusive evidence your statement is just idle speculation.I never said that they didn't look at when the Dino's was dated. I just said they should look closer at it. Don't worry i read my sources and look over them.I didn't say to read your sources, I said to read the abstracts from the scientists whose work was misrepresented by your sources.I know what they said and I read the source. I just stated that they were wrong. Never trust evolutionist literature.They being educated researchers who have performed numerous research programs and have published into respected journals are wrong because... you have a gut feeling?The data disagrees with you. Read the source, not creationist misinformation.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Here is some more scientific proof. It tells the bible verse first then gives the scientific proof afterwards to back it up. Just so were clear that I was not misinformed.  http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/gen/the_flood.shtml
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

The following are extracts from some creationist bullshit you recently repudiated, to clarify. We have our own opinions on it, and consider you the most appropriate source of confirmation.Frozen debris at –300 degrees would create a sudden cold air burstIs it not impossible to reach to temperature colder than -273.4 C?he impact would do two things, ad a sudden weight to the earth causing it to adjust like the spinning top with a new center of gravityWe cannot believe that this would actually occur. We understand that a Mars sized planet was required to give Earth the tilt is has today. An impact of such a magnitude would render subsequent flooding irrelevant, surely? Also, would the centre of gravity not remain at the core regardless of orientation?would trigger massive earthquakes that could easily fracture the earth’s plates. The water beneath would spew out in great eruptions and the flood would begin.Is it not impossible for sufficient quantities of water to exist beneath the Earth's crust? Surely the steam produced would create an incredible amount of pressure and cause massive fissures to emerge across the entire surface of the Earth? And why would water be there in the first place? Accretion would leave Hydrogen at the outermost layer, surely?One wonders how they sleep at night, knowing what bullshit they have typed.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: Proved wrong on many occasions

Why is it that people that believe in the literal interpretation of the bible can't seem to cite credible sources?The article you cited was written not by a scientist, but by a Baptist pastor. And he wasn't even a pastor with a background in science. He is an accountant and computer technician.Hardly credible proof and definitely misinformed.Please cite ACTUAL scientific papers and evidence that back up your claim. It doesn't need to be from evolutionary biology. It could be from archeology, geology, or anthropology if you would like, but at least cite sources from people that actually spend their time putting in the effort to answer questions, as apposed to data mining to suit your agenda.Besides, we would have seen evidence in ice core records. The core from Dome C, high on East Antarctica's plateau, contains snowfall from the last 740,000 years and is by far the oldest continuous climate record obtained from ice cores so far.There was absolutely NO record of a global flood contained in the core... ever.Also there are several other problems with a global flood idea, such as...Why are geological eras consistent worldwide?How was the fossil record sorted in an order that supports evolution?How does a global flood explain angular unconformities?When did granite batholiths form if there was a flood?How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering?I could go on and on...
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"Further as stated before, a worldwide flood would extinguish all life on Earth. In other words there is no recovery from it."Ever heard of the Ark (translate so you can understand) it was a big boat.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Ever heard of the Ark (translate so you can understand) it was a big boat.Sealife requires precise conditions to flourish, a deluge of rainwater would completely upset the pH and kill all ocean life. Likewise all river life which depends on freshwater would die from the salt of the ocean. All plantlife would die, and with the plantlife goes the ecosystem because everything else depends on plants. An ark would mean nothing to this.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"Sealife requires precise conditions to flourish, a deluge of rainwater would completely upset the pH and kill all ocean life. Likewise all river life which depends on freshwater would die from the salt of the ocean. All plantlife would die, and with the plantlife goes the ecosystem because everything else depends on plants."Not all sea life would perish. The rain would consist of sea water "fountains of the deep" (referring to underwater volcanic activity [40,000 miles of volcanic activity] that caused ocean temperatures to rise) from rapid evaporation. You could also imagine the salt concentration would be extremely diluted as well. The world was covered for about a year are we entirely sure that seeds (submerged before the flood) wouldn't survive. If you say no I would like a cited source that shows they would not.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Not all sea life would perish.Sea life is remarkably sensitive to changes in salinity, and changes in temperature. Corals are an example of a ridiculously sensitive type of species.The rain would consist of sea water "fountains of the deep" (referring to underwater volcanic activity [40,000 miles of volcanic activity] that caused ocean temperatures to rise) from rapid evaporation.You know what they say: prove that 6.8 billion cubic kilometers of water (over two hundred times the content of the land mass of Antarctica) existed under the Earth.Then prove that a source of heat could exist to vaporise that water. Finally witness how that much energy and vaporised water would annihilate everything on Earth by raising the temperature of the surface to around 100 degrees Celsius.You could also imagine the salt concentration would be extremely diluted as well.Thanks for killing all Sea and River life.The world was covered for about a year are we entirely sure that seeds (submerged before the flood) wouldn't survive. If you say no I would like a cited source that shows they would not.Seeds do not survive in completely wet conditions for very long. They decay from bacteria and fungus. In fact all seeds require very exact conditions to grow in the first place, for example a stratifying force, sunlight, and warmth. Salt kills plants because it causes the soil to become hypertonic, thus pulling water away from the roots.Congratulations for killing all plant life with your ignorance of basic botany.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

The Bible suggests a source of the extra water. In Genesis 7:11 we read that at the initiation of the Flood all the fountains of the great deep were broken up. In other words, the earth’s crust was split open all around the globe and water apparently burst forth as fountains from inside the earth. We then read in Genesis 7:24–8:2 that these fountains were open for 150 days. No wonder the ocean volume increased so much that the ocean waters flooded over the continents. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH420.html The catastrophic breakup of the earth’s crust, referred to in Genesis 7:11, would not only have released huge volumes of water from inside the earth, but much molten rock.5 The ocean floors would have been effectively replaced by hot lavas. Being less dense than the original ocean floors, these hot lavas would have had an expanded thickness, so the new ocean floors would have effectively risen, raising the sea level by more than 3,500 feet (1,067 m). Because today’s mountains had not yet formed, and it is likely the pre-Flood hills and mountains were nowhere near as high as today’s mountains, a sea level rise of over 3,500 feet would have been sufficient to inundate the pre-Flood continental land surfaces. Mt. Chimborazo is over 35000 years old, so this is just base assertions with no evidence. Also, that much magma would boil the oceans and kill every living thing.Toward the end of the Flood, when the molten rock cooled and the ocean floors sank, the sea level would have fallen and the waters would have drained off the continents into new, deeper ocean basins. As indicated earlier, Psalm 104:8 describes the mountains being raised at the end of the Flood and the Flood waters draining down valleys and off the emerging new land surfaces. This is consistent with much evidence that today’s mountains only very recently rose to their present incredible heights.So the seas are boiling for one year, and you introduce yet another problem: where did the water go? You just asserted that water came from under the earth, as well as more magma. That means all this new water must go somewhere.We must remember that the rock layers in the Himalayas and other mountain ranges around the globe were deposited during the Flood, well before these mountains were formed. In fact, many of these mountain ranges were pushed up by earth movements to their present high elevations at the end of the Flood. This is recorded in Psalm 104:8, where the Flood waters are described as eroding and retreating down valleys as the mountains rose at the end of the Flood.Bald assertions, unfalsifiable conjecture, and obedience to dogma. Typical creationism.Quoted source http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/high-dry-sea-creatures  Answers in Genesis is not proof, nor evidence. It isn't even basic science. It is faith.Try again.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH420.html" You cited a source that is responding to a theory by merely proclaiming it couldn't be true. There is no evidence listed to the contrary. "Mt. Chimborazo is over 35000 years old, so this is just base assertions with no evidence. Also, that much magma would boil the oceans and kill every living thing."How much magma do you suppose it would take to "boil" everything? I would like an amount that is scientificly proven if not you are just speaking conjecture. I have already told you the dating methods you support are flawed. I even gave you a cited source.  "So the seas are boiling for one year, and you introduce yet another problem: where did the water go? You just asserted that water came from under the earth, as well as more magma. That means all this new water must go somewhere." You just ignored the entire paragraph on top of your response. You ask where all this water went, you have heard of the mid-Atlantic ridge right? And you still assume the world has always had the same geographical features. "Bald assertions, unfalsifiable conjecture, and obedience to dogma. Typical creationism." So you are denying the envidence of marine fossils found in the mountains? Either you are ignorant or just stupid, because this is a secular fact. http://geology.com/publications/lyell/ch3.shtml There is some reading for you. Don't be scared it's a secular site. "Answers in Genesis is not proof, nor evidence. It isn't even basic science. It is faith." Have you never read their technical journals? Read them and compare them to the secular ones. If you simply dismiss based on the fact it doesn't agree with your conjecture, then you will never learn anything. If you want to say something is false you must provide evidence to substantiate your claim. I have given you evidence. If you refuse to read an article simply because of your bias, then you are not understanding the argument in which you are participating. If you say Answers in Genesis is "not science" again without evidence, this will lead me to believe you have none. Provide technical information about what is false, don't just make an empty claim. In other words, back up your conjecture.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

So you are denying the envidence of marine fossils found in the mountains? Either you are ignorant or just stupid, because this is a secular fact.Marine fossils on mountains proves only the movement of tectonic plates.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"Marine fossils on mountains proves only the movement of tectonic plates." Caused by the catastrophic events of the global flood.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

"Marine fossils on mountains proves only the movement of tectonic plates."Caused by the catastrophic events of the global flood....caused by convection!How exactly do you propose that a flood would cause plate convergence?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"...caused by convection!How exactly do you propose that a flood would cause plate convergence?"The flood is the byproduct of the tectonic shifts. I am not going to write this theory out. If you want I will give you a list of different sites and books.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

The flood is the byproduct of the tectonic shifts.So you're telling me that within the span of 150 days marine fossils go from the bottom of the seafloor to the tops of mountains, because of tectonic plate movement?I am not going to write this theory out. If you want I will give you a list of different sites and books.Because you yourself don't understand what you are copying and pasting from creation proselytistic websites. You accept it because it appears to confirm your beliefs. I want you to explain in "Your own words" what is causing these 'tectonic shifts' and how these tectonic shifts are related to the deluge?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Yes, the mythological boat that was said to have carried all life that would repopulate the world. Only on a single wooden craft. Assuming the animals on it didn't devour each other or Noah. There are two zebra and two lions....we know all the animals were good friends and subsisted themselves solely on sunshine and friendship. Not to mention that if the story were true all the world's insects would have been wiped out.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Kircher, a Jesuit priest and scholar, concluded from his research......in music and theology?that some of our modern species of animals were not on Noah’s Ark because they originated from other species after the Flood by a kind of divinely guided metamorphosis.'Divine metamorphosis'? And what kind of research did this 'scholar' (aka priest) do to conclude this?Is this divine metamorphosis responsible for the existence of different serpentine species across the different continents? How would you account for this considering these continents are separated by oceans? In other words, after the Flood, some animals changed and generated new species. In this way, God did not have to preserve every modern species on the ArkIt's almost like God invoked this "divine metamorphosis" to fill logical holes in your argument....Now, of course we know that plants and animals do change over time, it's a naturally occurring process that is happening all the time and not just when it convenient for your story.Based on my own biological research into created kinds, I would be even bolder than Nelson. Over the past decade, I have worked to develop new methods of studying created kinds using statistics.YOUR research!? This isn't even your writing, you copied and pasted it from ANSWERSINGENESIS, why are you masquerading this as your work? Cite your source.How many animals were on Noah’s Ark? If created kinds really are families, as few as 2,000 individual animals might have been on the Ark.Where is your source for this number? Also is this ark containing ecological habitats, to support the diverse array of life on this ark? Is this including dinosaurs and other extinct lifeforms?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

I apologize that I forgot to put quotes on this passage. They had plenty of storage on ark for both food and seeds.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Okay, but that still doesn't answer any of my questions. Where are you getting this 2,000 figure from? Is this anything more than guesswork? Is this figure including extinct fauna? Does the ark contain all the specialized habitats that is required by the diverse array of life?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

There was a worldwide flood we see evidence in strata all over the world. In fact the flood is very easy to prove.