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

HOLY CRAP. Reading this debate has frustrated me more than i can put into words. anyone who believes in creationsim is almost not worth debating with, at least, thats what im inferring from this debate. I mean truly? there is no proof that it is natural selection? how about countless books proving it? not enough, lets look at your famous creationist believers, shall we? how about the famous scientist, whom exactly i cannot recall the name, unfortunately, ill revise if i happen across it in my books again. He went on trial and in front of a full jury was torn to shreds, his argument was for the institution of creationism in the teaching curriculum. a judge concluded that he had no evidence and was not even educated in the topic. at least, the factual aspect of it. i'm sorry, but when he was on stand, and talking about the so called irreducibly complex creatures and scientist after scientist demonstrated fossil and logical evidence of evolutionary steps leading to the so called IC creatures. It was astounding to say the least to watch the person leading the creationist movement fall into peices under scientific scruntity, which im sure everyone on this debate would. One arguement countless creationists pose is that it is impossible for one to assume that through creation a full blown human eye could be created. that there is no way the human eye could function if one part were to be removed. therefore, it must have been designed. However, what the creationist is trying ot argue is not in conflict with the darwinists belief, darwinists dont believe that the human eye was simply evolved to in one giant leap, we believe that through eons of time and small incremental changes and natural selection, we have arrived where we are today. and for the argument that if one peice was missing it would be useless? let us examin the common ground worms eye, not nearly as complex as ours, yet, it uses the eye to make out basic images that it uses, it is a much more basic eye, it lacks most of the components in a human eye, yet still allows sight. i would go further but i cannot idle my time argueing with those that wont listen. im always looking for someone to debate with that may actually listen if presented with factual and logical evidence, if such person exists please let me know,
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

how about countless books proving it?That assumes that the people writing the books are correct and that they even considered pursuing scientific evidence to the contrary. a judge concluded that he had no evidence and was not even educated in the topic.If he was not educated, that disproves the notion that he had the expertise to accurately represent creationists in court.darwinists dont believe that the human eye was simply evolved to in one giant leap, we believe that through eons of time and small incremental changes and natural selection, we have arrived where we are today.Why would the eye begin to develop in the first place? Even if it began to evolve, why would any adaptations contribute to its creation? The answer is that they would not, as the first steps produce no useful structure and consequently they violate natural selection. Before you answer with "mutations," remember that mutations do not add to information, but rather they alter, indeed they corrupt currently existing information. There is no reason to believe that the information for an eye (in the form of DNA) began to exist before it began to physically develop. For this evolution to occur, there would have been a requirement for coordination, but, biologically, this "blueprint" would never have developed.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

very good points sir, unfortunately i do have to make this quick, but ill be back when i can do edit and expand.The fact of the matter is, creationism was believed before evolution, the burden of proof that was set for evolution to meet has been met. it was the thing that everyone said, its impossible, now, with the amount of evidence, the number of evolutionists grow every single day. The books on evolutionism take the creationism logic, and tear it down piece by piece, until there isnt any viable logic left, thats where creationists come in, they then change the way that people should look at their religion. For example - creationism started with the concept that the lord created our entire world, with all the creatures in it in 6 days, resting on the seventh, correct? now, since that time, the idea has changed, now creationists believe that the world was simply kicked into motion by some higher power. but i ask you sir, who created your higher power? or what i should say. and i wasnt saying that he possessed the ability to accurately represent your movement, simply that the person that WAS representing your movement, the very face of the movement at the time, was completely uneducated. thats all.again, thanks for the great debate, i think i got enough in for now, let me know if i missed anything, if not, your move
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: intelligent design

it was the thing that everyone said, its impossible, now, with the amount of evidence, the number of evolutionists grow every single day.Aside from the notion that one cannot proceed beyond the first phases of an evolutionary development and still be compatible with natural selection, there are other issues. For instance, as the first cells developed, there would have been two central requirements: information (to describe the cellular components) and the ability to read said information. The information would be necessary to create structures that translate such information. So we can establish that the information would have proceeded these structures. However, the information would be useless without the ability to read it. In that is a sizeable problem.Also, consider the Cambrian explosion. Over a relatively small period, compared to the generally accepted evolutionary timeline, the majority of phyla recognized by scientists rather rapidly appeared. This has been acknowledged by evolutionists as a potential problem with their theory.For example - creationism started with the concept that the lord created our entire world, with all the creatures in it in 6 days, resting on the seventh, correct? now, since that time, the idea has changed, now creationists believe that the world was simply kicked into motion by some higher power. but i ask you sir, who created your higher power? or what i should say.Creationism as a general belief refers to the notion that a higher power created the universe and the life contained in it, not necessarily the belief in Young-Earth creationism. The idea of a creator suggests that said being was not influenced by natural laws. However, I am attempting to dispute the merits of the theory of evolution, not debate the finer points of creationism.Another question could be: from where did the universe originate? I seek to find a scientific solution to the questions that have been raised in this debate, and it seems that evolution does not provide the answers.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Basically your stating that there are holes in the theory of evolutionism, yet, when i start to bring out the so called finer points in creationism you flag me out as discussing something not of issue, if i do remember correctly, the issue at debate is creationism vs. evolutionism and i also would like to just say, evolutionism is just a theory, however so is creationism. they are both theories, they both have their wholes, and they both have there area where they do have a better explanation. now, with that being said, the parts of the creationism theory that can actually be used are based on faith, which at its roots is illogical, faith is defined as belief without reason. illogical at best. the parts of evolutionism that are known is that we did evolve from other creatures, that is based on fossil, geographic and other scientific hard evidence. The only argument you creationists can use is the fact that we cannot explain what there was before there was life. and correct, there is no hard evidence of things before life. there is no real sound scientific evidence for what there was before life, but please, provide me with any scientific evidence for anything in the creationist beliefs, besides that we dont know what started the first life.by the way, labeling things we cant explain as gods doing simply tells scientists to be satisfied with the god answer. your taking the side of st james when he said, curiosity is the greatest sin, im sorry, i dont believe curiosity is the greatest sin, i want to be able to scientifically explain what happened in the begging, even if that explaination is proven to have god involved, or a higher power. ps, i know i may not make the most sense at certain parts, just try and follow it, its late where i am, but i needed to respond.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: intelligent design

First, I do enjoy academic debate regarding such subjects.the parts of evolutionism that are known is that we did evolve from other creatures, that is based on fossil, geographic and other scientific hard evidence.I would posit that evolutionary theory required much more faith. It lacks the evidence that you suggest. An overarching goal of science is to discover the laws that govern the universe. As current understanding still has yet to unearth all of these, it should not be considered a problem by the scientific community when a theory is proven to be false. I will assume that some of these fossils that you refer to might be ones such as australopithecus afarensis, but the unfortunate fact (for proponents of the above theory) is that it has been discovered to not be a predecessor form in the supposed "hominid tree."There are too many gaps in the current evolutionary tree to state that any sufficient fossil evidence exists. You will find that these gaps occur in many locations that would describe important missing links in the various species' evolution. Darwin stated that there must have been an extraordinary number of transitional forms. but please, provide me with any scientific evidence for anything in the creationist beliefs, besides that we dont know what started the first life.Please provide evidence for evolutionary theory. by the way, labeling things we cant explain as gods doing simply tells scientists to be satisfied with the god answer. your taking the side of st james when he said, curiosity is the greatest sin, im sorry, i dont believe curiosity is the greatest sin, i want to be able to scientifically explain what happened in the begging, even if that explaination is proven to have god involved, or a higher power.That curiosity being referred to above does not encompass scientific inquiry. There are certainly scientific explanations for many aspects of the universe's development (and by extension Earth's), but logic and science conspire against evolution.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

I would posit that evolutionary theory required much more faith. It lacks the evidence that you suggest.“Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontolo­gy shows a fossil sequence, the list of species representi­ng changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationsh­ips among species. Evolution is the explanatio­n that threads it all together.Creationis­m is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and covering one's ears and screaming, Does Not!"” An overarching goal of science is to discover the laws that govern the universe. As current understanding still has yet to unearth all of these, it should not be considered a problem by the scientific community when a theory is proven to be false.And it isn't. But you have yet to provide any such proofs.I will assume that some of these fossils that you refer to might be ones such as australopithecus afarensis, but the unfortunate fact (for proponents of the above theory) is that it has been discovered to not be a predecessor form in the supposed "hominid tree."You would be mistaken. The Australopithecus Afarensis is an evolutionary predecessor to Homo Sapiens. Source: http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/images/v12i2g2.gif You are most likely thinking of the Homo Neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) which were once believed to an ancestor of modern humans, but were later discovered to have lived at the same time as Homo Sapiens.At any rate, this presents no problem to the theory of Evolution, there will be of course shifting of species. This is to be expected. Whether the neanderthal was an ancestor or a cousin, to mankind makes no difference to the validity of Evolutionary Theory.There are too many gaps in the current evolutionary tree to state that any sufficient fossil evidence exists.This is a nonsense argument. There are an estimated 1 billion species, and about 99% of them are now extinct. And of course, the more species we have, the more fossils we have, the more gaps would exist between them. So many, that we are able to catalog the rise of individual traits. There is a specific sequence in the fossil record. There are no human remains older than 200 thousand years old. There are no Mammal fossils older than 300 million. There are no Reptile fossils older than 400 million years old. No vertebrates at all before 600 million years ago.We see fossil remains clumped in the geologic layer corresponding to the time when the reigned. And what no paleontologist will dispute is that different species existed at different times. What we do NOT find is a random distribution of fossils. There is a specific sequence relating to the evolution of new species over time. If creationism were true we would expect to find all fossils in the earliest layers, but this is not what we find at all.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Evolution is the explanatio­n that threads it all together. That is assuming that it can be proven.And it isn't. But you have yet to provide any such proofs.I have. Just glance at the earlier arguments in this particular debate string.You would be mistaken. The Australopithecus Afarensis is an evolutionary predecessor to Homo Sapiens.Scientists have determined that the number of differences between australopithecus afarensis and both humans and gorillas suggests that it does not represent a predecessor to humans. You can search for the relevant information on Google.At any rate, this presents no problem to the theory of Evolution, there will be of course shifting of species.It continues to demonstrate that you have no sufficient proof of evolution.And of course, the more species we have, the more fossils we have, the more gaps would exist between them. So many, that we are able to catalog the rise of individual traits. There is a specific sequence in the fossil record. There are no human remains older than 200 thousand years old. There are no Mammal fossils older than 300 million. There are no Reptile fossils older than 400 million years old. No vertebrates at all before 600 million years ago.There is no fossil evidence that demonstrates the forms that would represent a transition between species. That evidence simply does not exist.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

I have. Just glance at the earlier arguments in this particular debate string.I have seen your other arguments. Your arguments do not constitute proofs. Nor have you presented such. You have offered only rhetorical and polemical arguments. Scientists have determined that the number of differences between australopithecus afarensis and both humans and gorillas suggests that it does not represent a predecessor to humans."Scientists" have done no such thing. Australopithecus Afarensis, is today as ever still considered an ancestor to modern humans by the scientific community.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/d.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100621151119.htm http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/44143/Australopithecus-afarensis http://www.answers.com/topic/australopithecus-afarensis-2 You can search for the relevant information on Google.I have and all legitimate sources confirm what I have already stated. Nor is it my obligation to do research for your argument. You make a claim and it is your prerogative to support that claim.If you have any scientific literature, to support your claim I would be happy to see it.It continues to demonstrate that you have no sufficient proof of evolution.Proof of evolution:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19468/ This is a scholarly article.There is no fossil evidence that demonstrates the forms that would represent a transition between species. That evidence simply does not exist.The alternative being that these specimens aren't related, that they just "appeared" and "disappeared" (as if by magic) periodically over the course of earth's history for no known reason. That their appearance just so happens to correspond to common shared traits (ie fish appearing first, then reptiles, then mammals in that order).I find that exceedingly unlikely, don't you?
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

I have seen your other arguments. Your arguments do not constitute proofs. Nor have you presented such. You have offered only rhetorical and polemical arguments.My arguments significantly impact the cases that I have seen mentioned here by evolutionists, both here and otherwise. You have yet to provide a substantial argument to the contrary in any case."Scientists" have done no such thing. Australopithecus Afarensis, is today as ever still considered an ancestor to modern humans by the scientific community.The fossil evidence found was rather clear. The cranial characteristics suggest massive similarities between gorillas and a. afarensis. The body suggests capabilities that optimize its ability to transport itself through trees. Overall, the fossils are evident to consist of a creature that greatly resembled a gorilla rather than humans.Proof of evolution:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19468/ This is a scholarly article.The word proof suggests that it actually serves as proof.The alternative being that these specimens aren't related, that they just "appeared" and "disappeared" (as if by magic) periodically over the course of earth's history for no known reason. That their appearance just so happens to correspond to common shared traits (ie fish appearing first, then reptiles, then mammals in that order).This is not unexpected. When evolutionists are confronted with arguments which they cannot refute, an immediate distraction is in order. I have provided several arguments that clearly demonstrate that the mechanisms touted as enabling evolution simply cannot operate.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

The fossil evidence found was rather clear. The cranial characteristics suggest massive similarities between gorillas and a. afarensis. The body suggests capabilities that optimize its ability to transport itself through trees. Overall, the fossils are evident to consist of a creature that greatly resembled a gorilla rather than humans.The premise of your argument is that this species had many ape-like characteristics and therefore couldn't be a human ancestor, is completely asinine. Especially given it's distance to Modern humans.Of course, a human ancestor is going to have many ape-like characteristics, attempting to highlight these characteristics and ignoring it's human-like characteristics, does nothing to dispute Autralopithecus' place as a common ancestor. To argue as such is very deceptive and disingenuous to say the least.  While the Australopithecus A. had many ape-like characteristics, one feature that set it apart from modern apes is it's bipedlaism and ability to walk upright. The creature also had adducted big toes, making it nearly impossible to grasp anything with the feet. This all of course is minor, compared to the utilization of mtDNA and DNA-DNA Hybridization to construct a phylogenetic tree using computer software which clearly places the Australopithecus A. as a human ancestor. The word proof suggests that it actually serves as proof.Indeed it does. You inability to comprehend a scholarly scientific work, makes it no less of strong verifiable evidence (or proof).http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19468/ This is not unexpected. When evolutionists are confronted with arguments which they cannot refute, an immediate distraction is in order.This is not a distraction, it is basic logic.If Explanation A does is not true. Then there must be some alternative explanation that bests suits the available facts. I am asking you what that alternative is given what we know about the fossil record. If evolution is not true, then what would explain the sudden appearance and disappearance of species in the fossil record in direct correspondence to shared traits (ie fish appearing first, then reptiles, then mammals in that order)?They are either related via evolution, or some divine force creates a new species every thousand years or so. Which sounds more reasonable?I have provided several arguments that clearly demonstrate that the mechanisms touted as enabling evolution simply cannot operate.No, you just assume (without explanation) that the first stage of a new trait cannot be beneficial. I've asked numerous time for you to expound on this argument.And you proposed the woodpecker as an example of irreducible complexity. The fact that birds exist which can peck through wood but lack many of the traits of the woodpecker verily refutes this argument as an example of irreducible complexity.