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

Okay i was refering to the moderate creationist argument that god is the one who is the driving force behind evolution. By complicated i mean that you don't need god to guide evolution because evolution does not need god to guide it, god is an unnecessary hypothesis. But that is a different argument, since you are a biblical literalist, i will have to address that. Okay let's systematically tear down the creation story, yayyyyy. Okay so first off, there was light before there was a sun to make light. And apparently god made plants right away, even though the first fossil records of plants begin at abou 416 million years ago, although you probably think the earth is only 6000 years old. Unfortunately there is a little thing called carbon dating by which you can measure how old something by measuring the amount of decay in a radioactive substance in the rock layer, and it is a legitimate science and accurately predicts ages, such as that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Whether or not you accept it has no bearing on it being true. God apparently never made dinosaurs or every other species that is now extinct. Infact over 95% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct because they were not fit for survival in a changing world, so they died out and other evolved. God on the other hand, made everything just as it is now and all those extinct species never existed, because unfortunately, 4.5 billion year old human remains have not been found. I could go on for hours pointing out all of the discrepancies in the book of Genesis, but I am too lazy to type them all out. We know that the world was not created in 6 days, and your willful ignorance of scientific facts and advancements on our collective knowledge of a species does not change history for you fairytale.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

While your information is almost entirely correct, you did make a slight semantic error:"Unfortunately there is a little thing called carbon dating by which you can measure how old something by measuring the amount of decay in a radioactive substance in the rock layer, and it is a legitimate science and accurately predicts ages, such as that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old."Carbon dating is only one of over 40 techniques in radiometric dating, and due to a short half-life is only used for spans of time of about 50,000 years. To go beyond that you use different methods of radiometric dating, although the general concept is pretty much identical.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Wow, I take it you're one of the friendlier debators who doesn't yell insults at Christians - cool! Ok, first of, you say that the first fossil records of plants begin at about 416 million years ago. Please give me several pieces of factual and proven evidence because otherwise, that could just be false. As for the bible, it does mention dinosaurs, but since there was no word back then in the Hebrew language for dinosaurs, they are labelled as "sea monsters" instead which is rather similar. You mention that there are many discrepincies in Genesis, please do mention them, I am a learning Christian and love to find out new information - good or bad; it helps me. As for "we know that the world was not created in 6 days" well, you think that perhaps, and other athiests, but not myself or thousands of other Christians. My willful ignorance? I could say the same to you.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

I support you fully in every way. however you did not comment on whether creationism and evolutionism could be two parts of the same story? that is what i believe i am just curious for your opinion on the idea that god not only created us but created us in order to evolve.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

however you did not comment on whether creationism and evolutionism could be two parts of the same story?That's just unnecessary pandering to religious sensitivities. Evolution does not require creationism, and there is no evidence to support creationism. It is simply an empty hypothesis to state that they are two parts of one story.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

No evolution may not require creationism but it may have been a factor. if you ask any scientist they will tell you that you must look at all possibilities. just because something is not required does not mean it does not exist to effect life.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

No evolution may not require creationism but it may have been a factor.That is impossible. Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive. if you ask any scientist they will tell you that you must look at all possibilities.Except that Creation as described in the bible is not a possibility, as it conflicts with what is now understood about the evolution of life.just because something is not required does not mean it does not exist to effect life.If it is not required, is not logical, conflicts with current understanding and is not proven, it cannot be considered anything more than fallacious conjecture.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

They are not excusive. Yes if you look at the Bible solely they cannot exist together. But pure creationism and evolutionism can.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

They are not excusive. Yes if you look at the Bible solely they cannot exist together. But pure creationism and evolutionism can.Yes they are.With or without the Bible they are.That is not possible.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Too bad you are giving up, you were doing well. I can understand your reasoning though. If you have the time, I would like you to check out the debate I've been having with her in the other column of this debate. P.S. I have proof of thin Americans, for I am one :)
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Not giving up, just retiring the debate. It was good but the posts were getting ridiculously long and were growing each time, I typed them in a word document in size 10 font and the last ones were 4 or 5 pages. I don't know how it happened but somehow a few different arguments kept getting added each time.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

That's happening with my debate with her too. And it was a characteristic of the first major debate I had on this site, with Zerunagerous. These types of debates can get really complex, and I suppose there comes a time when any sane person would pack it in. I just don't like doing that. Fortunately, few people keep debating with me for more than a handful of rounds. We'll see how much tenacity Billie has :)
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

It comes down to who has more time, go for it if you can. I was looking through you debate and I see the arguments getting longer and longer each time, then i realized that it's trench warfare, let's see who can outlast the other. I'm in grade 12 and preparing for university so I just don't have the time to write one or two 5 page debates every night. Btw there is one point i wanted to make but didn't want to add more to my debate to make it too long, so if you want to use it, if you haven't already, then go ahead. It's about how bacteria can be used as a microcosm case study for evolution, for example how Staphylococcus aureus became resistant to penicillin. Those bacteria that evolved a genetic mutation making them resistant to the antibiotics would survive, their fast rate of reproduction is a way to see evolution at work in real time, the antibiotic treatment worked for 4 years until the resistant strain evolved. Anyways I like your arguments and I hope you keep going with the debate, good luck.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Yeah, honestly I should be spending more time with my studies. But since this is some of the stuff I study, I consider it of some value. About as staph evolution, I actually did that in a lab last semester! It was rather cool. It is something I always have in mind. It just depends on where the debate goes. I have something for almost every contingency. And thanks!
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Billie has so much tenacity she's going to whip your ass with it ;)
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

If I may:I have always found debates concerning the specific wording of Biblical passages to be highly problematic (for both sides) when the debates concern the English translations thereof. Do either of you happen to be fluent in Classical Hebrew or Aramaic? Further, do you have non-translated transcriptions of the Dead Sea Scrolls or something older handy? The simple fact that there are many slightly variant versions of the Bible, some of which are criticized by certain sects of Christianity and all of which are claimed by some Christians to be the most accurate (but really least inaccurate) English language translations should be a red flag concerning the veracity of any of them. At their heart, they essentially say the same thing, but when we start taking them word-for-word, we need to remember that errors in translation are unavoidable and that what we are reading is definitely not the original writing, so trying to get so specific on the wording is not really useful. Technically, I am aiming this at both you and Nautilus, but since you are the Bible literalist, this is more of a problem for your stance than his. I think Nautilus might have misunderstood what kind of evidence you were looking for. Concerning the first land plants:http://www.xs4all.nl/~steurh/eng/old1.html and here's a cool interactive site all about paleobotany:http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/IB181/VPL/Dir.html As far as "sea monsters", the Sea likely referred to and known to the locals would be the Mediterranean, which is connected to the Atlantic via the Straits of Gibraltar. The Sea regularly hosts pods of whales and dolphins, as well as some seals and of course, sharks. All of these are pretty big for sea creatures (especially, obviously, whales) and all could be conceivably classed as monsters by superstitious folk. And the region is home to jellies, which are both very alien looking and quite dangerous, so also could be seen as monsters. And "sea monsters" hardly accounts for the wide range of land dinosaurs. The only land monster from the Bible that I know of that may potentially be considered a dinosaur would be the Behemoth. The actual size and most of the description of the beast is incredibly vague, including whether or not it was mammalian or reptilian. Some have argued that it could have been a elephant, a crocodile (although the Behemoth was identified as being a herbivore, so this is less likely) or another large beast that was not native to the territory but had wandered in from adjoining regions (Africa and Asia both hosted several large creatures), or (perhaps most likely) a mythological creation inherited from any of the imaginative fables present in the region at and before the time the Bible was written.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Evolution worke fine without god, since god doesnt exist. All of biology came to be, and will persist as it will, entirely independent of any divine intervention (since all of the processes and forms of biology can arise from the basic phyiscal forces of the universe and there is no emperical evidence suggesting anything like miraculous intervention). If one were to say talk about the concept of ontological harmonescence (a secular ordering principle of the universe based on the tendency for types of existence to form and persist [both ontically and ontologically] in existence)
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

- I would be able to follow their reasoning and its non-inconsistancy with scientific method knowledge and perspective
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: Creationism

evolution does not work period. minerals do not become proteins on their own, its impossible and science has yet to prove how this very important first leap is made. have an open mind like neither exist and start asking questions.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

"The simple matter of God creating the world in six days"O, Irony, how I love thee.Creating the world was so simple, He simply spoke it into existence.You're missing the point that to add an extraneous entity to the theory of evolution violates Occam's Razor. If God exists, the theory of evolution would hold true, and evolution would continue without His intervention, guidance, or help. If God doesn't exist, the theory of evolution would still hold true, and evolution would still continue without His intervention, guidance, or help. Therefore, why is discussing God necessary in a discussion of evolution?
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

"why is discussing God necessary in a discussion of evolution"Can't you read? The debate is between evolution and creationism which explains why God and evolution are debated in almost every post. I thought that would have been very obvious...
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

If you had read the argument, there being a God is totally irrelevant to evolution. Therefore, creationism is irrelevant. I thought that would have been very obvious...
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

The entire scientific community (such as the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science) is united behind evolutionary theory, it's the central unifying principle of modern biology. It's also supported by molecular biology, paleontology, virology, and other fields of science. The amount of evidence is incontrovertible - we understand not only the processes of speciation (including concepts like ring species) and the mechanisms of evolution, but we can trace the evolutionary history of countless organisms, including humans, whales, horses, and dogs. We also understand such complex adaptations such as the evolution of the eye (again, just one example). That evolution happens is indisputable - we've seen it proven through the selective breeding (ie artificial selection) of dogs and plants such as cauliflower and bananas, through examples like the Galapagos finches, and through studying viruses (that's why you have to get a flu shot every year - you've created a selective pressure for resistant organisms, which acts as an evolutionary catalyst), among many other examples. Evolution and religion doesn't even HAVE to be in conflict (any more than the heliocentric theory has to be, and that's pretty much generally accepted among Christians, I'd have to say). However, if you want to argue that evolution has to be contradictory of Christianity, so be it - and if you want to do that, evolution is still the clear victor. This is not only because there is actual evidence directly supporting its existence, but also because of the many examples supporting a lack of 'intelligent' design in evolution (such as the pharyngeal nerve, the prostate, and more). In other words, evolution has no foresight, and can create some pretty poorly engineered organisms. (One can still argue that it's compatible with a belief God though, by belief that God merely put the action in motion/created the force of natural selection.)
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Well stated. However, most people of "faith" dont believe that god merely put the universe/life into motion and left it to sort itself out. Most religious belief entails divine intervention
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

This one.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

This is a very simple matter.Creationism is illogical and creationists hardly ever know how to answer any given question without saying "it was God's will." Evolutionism is not 100% correct but at least evolutionists can give logical and fundamented answers to most kinds of questions without saying "it was Athom's will". :D And btw, creationists always get pissed off when we don't believe their answers, while evolutionists will just probably think they didn't explain it clearly enough. ;)Simple as that.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Here's a logical answer:the woodpecker could never developed each of the components that are necessary for it to drill into trees over the evolutionary timeline. Prior to these developments, it could never have hunted for insects in that way.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Just saying that it couldn't do it that way doesn't necessarily imply that it also couldn't do it in some other way, prior to these developments.A weak reason for refuting - and not necessarily related to - it's development, if that's what you're trying to accomplish. What you said has it's fair ammount of logic, but it's quite superficial.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

And it would have had to develop the features that protect it from the repeated impact with trees, regardless of the anatomical possibilities involved. Other species of birds could not survive act of penetrating trees with their beaks, and a woodpecker before it developed that ability would not have been able to either.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Any development that allows the woodpecker to feed in its unique way would have had to occur, according to evolutionary theory, over a long period and numerous generations, but it would never have been able to begin the process of drilling into trees prior to possessing its current anatomy. As such, evolutionary theory does not apply here, and, by extension, it would not apply elsewhere.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

As such, evolutionary theory does not apply here, and, by extension, it would not apply elsewhere.I've already argued this point elsewhere, but I couldn't help but address this rather amusing logical fallacy."Cars don't work up mountains, and by extension don't work elsewhere"OrX≠4 ==> X∉ {N, Z, R, C}
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

I was trying to find an analogy to try to help him see what he's saying (or not saying), but I was having a hard time at it... thanks.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Even if evolution was a wrong theory and creation was perfectly right, what you're saying doesn't support it.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

the woodpecker could never developed each of the components that are necessary for it to drill into trees over the evolutionary timeline. Prior to these developments, it could never have hunted for insects in that way.A proposed transitional for the Wood pecker would be an ancestor which can peck away at soft wood and catch flying insects.Problem solved.What do you want to bet there are already birds like this now?
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

That ignores the important evolutionary "fact" that there there would necessarily be transitional forms between these.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

that there there would necessarily be transitional forms between these.Yes, but I don't see how that supports your argument. For your argument of irreducible complexity to work an intermediate must be impossible. The woodpecker argument fails because some birds can drill deeply into hard wood and others can only chip away at very soft wood, and some can only peck away at rotting wood. Often the irreducible complexity argument fails due to the lack of imagination of it's proponent. Traits are often used in ways that we never thought.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Not true. For your theory to operate correctly, this gradual biological evolution must have occurred. That requires that is possess a mechanism that operates properly, but irreducible complexity disproves that notion. Even if there were instances in which traits are utilized in unsuspected ways, in other instances they would not be, and as such evolution would be necessary. However, it would not occur because, in those instances, the first traces of development would not benefit the creature and as such would be eliminated through natural selection.The woodpecker possesses numerous traits that enable it to drill into trees. These are necessary for its protection and simply so that it can extract insects from the wood. Simply because various birds have the capability to drill into different forms of wood in so way proves that an evolutionary development occurred.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Not true. For your theory to operate correctly, this gradual biological evolution must have occurred. That requires that is possess a mechanism that operates properlyMechanisms for Evolution:Natural selectionArtificial selectionSexual selectionGenetic driftbut irreducible complexity disproves that notion. I don't think you understand what irreducible Complexity actually means. Irreducible Complexity is an apologetic argument, it is a hypothetical natural system, that if discovered would disprove Evolution. The problem is, that no one has actually ever actually found an irreducibly complex system. Some have been proposed, such as the bacterial Flagellum, but none have been verified.The woodpecker possesses numerous traits that enable it to drill into treesThe woodpecker possesses numerous traits that enable it to drill into trees EFFICIENTLY. Many birds lacking these individual traits are capable of drilling into trees.Simply because various birds have the capability to drill into different forms of wood in so way proves that an evolutionary development occurred.But it does prove that it is not an irreducibly complex system.We need not know how specific evolutionary traits developed to know that evolution occurs.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

I believe that the term that you are searching for when describing evolution is argumentum ad ignorantiam.Mechanisms for Evolution:You ignore the biological processes that must occur in order for such alterations to occur. They are not explained by the above mechanisms.I don't think you understand what irreducible Complexity actually means. Irreducible Complexity is an apologetic argument, it is a hypothetical natural system, that if discovered would disprove Evolution. The problem is, that no one has actually ever actually found an irreducibly complex system. Some have been proposed, such as the bacterial Flagellum, but none have been verified.No, the real problem is that evolutionists fail to accept that the majority of biological systems are irreducibly complex.The woodpecker possesses numerous traits that enable it to drill into trees EFFICIENTLY. Many birds lacking these individual traits are capable of drilling into trees.The woodpecker possesses protective measures that enable it to survive drilling into trees. Otherwise it would be killed. If those did not exist, it would be useless to possess the other capabilities that allow it to drill into trees.But it does prove that it is not an irreducibly complex system.We need not know how specific evolutionary traits developed to know that evolution occurs.If scientists said that about other fields, we would not have the level of advancement that we do as a society. You profess not to need to know why it works simply because it does not work. However, no evolutionist could admit that.