azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

But you wouldn't know about those things were it not for science discovering them and in some cases just thinking the concept into existence.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

If the Sims figure out binary code, did they discover it, or did the programmer create the code...
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Nevertheless, we don't need science to prove Jesus was correct.https://www.facebook.com/The-Beast-is-Strong-in-This-One-273041423117102/ If you want the solely "science answer" to how we know atheism is false, go look up James Gates...
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Actually, you do need science to prove Jesus was correct. That is how logic and reason tends to work. For one, we know Jesus wouldn't look like his common depiction in the church, and two we don't even know if he was a real person. The only, and I repeat, the only documentation for Jesus is the Bible itself, and the books on Jesus were written by a man who had never even met him.And if you want to know why James Gates finds a 'code' in nature, it's called Natural Selection. Animals with better traits tend to survive more than those with lesser traits. Thus creating a trend of common traits among all living things based on what helps them survive.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

And if you want to know why James Gates finds a 'code' in natureHe finds the codes in the equations that physicists use to describe the universe.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Actually, you do need science to prove Jesus was correct.Okay. Show me how to correctly predict the future with accuracy and detail with science. You have to control science.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Natural selection has nothing to do with any code. It's simply whatever survives, survives, and whatever dies, dies. The offspring of the survivor continue on.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

First of all, the bible is not a credible source for fact. So a site with a bunch of bible quotes does your claim no justice. Second, James Gates is dope as hell. All he says is that he finds something resembling a code embedded into nature, and religious people want to make the jump that their god wrote the code. Mind you that this code says nothing about the nature of the designer or even if there is one. This proves nothing about atheism. In fact, the reference James Gates uses is "The Matrix".
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Second, James Gates is dope as hell. All he says is that he finds something resembling a code embedded into natureHe gets the "code" from the equations that physicists use to describe the universe.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

in fact, the reference James Gates uses is "The MatrixI'm good with that. No one ever said "how" God creates realities or our reality.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

First of all, the bible is not a credible source for factIf Christ/God is fact then...
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Mind you that this code says nothing about the nature of the designer or even if there is one.Science is the study of how. Religion is the study of who. My page that I provided the link for is based on the latter.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

The Quran is surely not a credible source for the Muslims and the Religion of Islam as you see it ?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Are you asking if I think the quran is credible? .
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Belief in the "Big Band" is not science. There is no need in any field of science to believe in the Big Bang. Believing in the Big Bang and all of the "science" used to support the hypothesis is a waste of time. Teaching the Big Bang is a waste of money.Not only that, it's silly. The leading Big Pang proponents make the craziest statements like "everything came from nothing" and expect you to believe it. It is not possible for something to come from nothing. Nothing is nothing and can never be anything other than nothing.What you refer to as "detailed scientific reports" are always full of conjecture and speculation and presumptuous declarations of "proof". The pushers of that stuff are only trying to justify their sins and they feel better if they can convince others to do the same thing.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

detailed scientific reports.........hahahahah......they are detailed statements of belief, when you read those reports they clearly are stating their beliefs saying things like "this could have caused that". If what they say could have happened and did happen, why can't they make it happen and show us instead of doing nothing but telling us what they believe happened? They can't make it happen because it did not happen, life did not emerge from non-living things.Public schools and television sure did a good job of mass brainwashing the public so they are numb to the evils of their leaders.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Riddle me this: Why did God give us an appendix? Or wisdom teeth? Or a tiny little tail bone? (Some people even grow a tail)
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

If we are the highest evolved species ever in the Earthly history of Darwinism, why did said Darwinism naturally select those exact traits as "the best selection"?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Have you ever heard of vestigial forms? These are the leftover parts in a species that were useful to its ancestors, but no longer serve a purpose. For instance, wisdom teeth made more sense when our jaws were larger and we lost more teeth by natural causes. Now that our jaws are smaller and we have less risk of losing teeth, wisdom teeth are still left over. There are many examples in the animal kingdom. There is no explanation for this without evolution. Also, there is no such thing as a "best selection" necessarily. Its just whatever helps the species survive and multiply more. For example, let's say there is a fish with a colorful tail. The more colorful and bright the tail is, the more attractive it is to a potential mate. Lets say a large group of fish get separated. Half of the group swims north, another swims south. The group in the north are in a more hostile environment with predators while the southern group have few to worry about. The ones in the north with the slightly less colorful tails are able to hide from predators. These ones get eaten less frequently. The ones in the south with slightly more colorful tails have better chances at getting mates. Over thousands of generations, the ones in the north adapt to their environment and become darker in order to stay hidden from predators while the southern ones become brighter and more colorful. These eventually branch and become 2 separate species of fish. So you can see, nature didn't necessarily think one was better than the other. It is just based on the circumstances and the environment of the animal. There is no "best selection". There are just many branches to a tree. Every species alive today is technically the "best selection".
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

There is no explanation for this without evolution.Theistic Evolution
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

What is theistic evolution? And how does it explain the changes in these animals?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Generally speaking, it is the belief that God created the system of Darwinian evolution as the mechanism for bringing randomness to his creation. It's like a created computer algorythm. Once it spewed out something to his liking, he went with it.Another version is what we think we see is God deliberately making changes and extinctions until he got what he desired. To him it might have happened in an instance. We are simply seeing his craftsmanship and imagination on display and he's okay with that.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

So you agree that evolution happened as long as God kicked it off?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Lets say a large group of fish get separated. Half of the group swims north, another swims south. The group in the north are in a more hostile environment with predators while the southern group have few to worry aboutIt is possible that it is simply a variation within the species.If only tall people could survive in a given environment, we'd only have tall people. No mutation happened. No change of kind happened. And if suddenly an environment where only short people survive appeared, the short people would be the survivors. This doesn't represent any metamorphic change or a "change of kind". In this example the kind would rotate back and forth from tall to short but never avert from being human. And if the shorts go north and the talls go south, still, no metamorphical change, they could still mate if they met up, and no change in "human-ness". Yes, they would look different, but the premise would still stand as reality. They are both humans. Neither became anything else.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Of course it is a variation within the species at first. The whole idea is that these small variations become greater as time goes on. And there are definitely examples of variations within the human species over time. That's pretty much what different races are. They come from different areas and were separated for long periods of time which made them very different. The races that are closer to the equator have darker skin and have adapted to the hotter climate. The human races in colder, windier climates adapted with lighter skin and hairier bodies. People adapt to disease. There are taller races of people and shorter races of people. I honestly believe if given a longer timeline like millions of years, the human species would have separated into several different species. There are definitely many factors that can seperate parts of a species long enough to evolve separately. This could be geography or reproductive isolation. causes of speciationThere is a very grey area as to when a species branches into two seperate ones. In fact, there are many examples of when two species can breed with eachother. Look at Horses and Donkeys. They are seperate species but you can breed them into mules and hinneys. Or even Tigers and Lions. Its really just humans that classify when a species becomes different. Theres a whole science behind it call Taxonomy.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Of course it is a variation within the species at first. The whole idea is that these small variations become greater as time goes onAnd if it simply rotated back around to being the original creature, what would that tell you? I say this because it happens with bacteria. We falsely say "the bacteria got stronger". No. One of the bacteria that was different, simply was able to survive in the new environment. In another environment it doesn't survive and the originals do. It has nothing to with strength. And what happens if you keep changing the dosage is you can eventually rotate back around to the original strain type being the survivor again. That's not a metamorphical change. That's simply variations surviving. They never become non-bacteria.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

It's all adaptation to an environment. If something did just rotate back around, we wouldn't know. It might be cyclical in some cases. But most cases aren't. The bacteria got stronger based on it's environment. If the environment changed back to its previous state, perhaps the new bacteria wouldn't be as strong as its older form. One is not better than the other. Its just a change to adapt. Part of being alive is a fight to survive. Inevitably, some will be better at it than others. When their surroundings change, so do they. That's the whole premise.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

The races that are closer to the equator have darker skin and have adapted to the hotter climate. The human races in colder, windier climates adapted with lighter skin and hairier bodiesAnd we would both agree, I assume, that this wasn't a mystical metamorphical change. It's simply that hairy people survived and had kids. If you make the environment abnormally hot we are back to square one with "not hairy people".
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Ideally yes. We can't really predict what will happen because we haven't been around long enough to see it and document it. But if the environment got a lot sunnier, I would definitely anticipate there would be more dark skinned people. Its really whoever dies the least and breeds the most.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Riddle me this: Why did God give men nipples? And how come we can grow breasts?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

1)Because you'd look strange without them. Why do humans design things to look a certain way?2)Humans can grow breasts to feed babies milk. It's for survival and health of the baby. The grocery store didn't exist long ago...
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

I would accept the second part to your answer. Except if you take it a little further, you realize everything we have biologically is really about survival (or reproduction).But because we would "look strange" is not satisfactory. There are many things that we have that do make us look strange anyway. You can't argue that god designed humans to look a certain way because of aesthetics when most of our other body parts don't follow the same logic.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Riddle me this: How did kangaroos get all the way to Australia? Why arent there any bones or fossils showing how they migrated there?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Getting fossilized takes a rare and improbable event to even happen. Ask Richard Dawkins. (Grin)I have a question. Why do chicken bones and dog bones decompose in no time but pre historic bones do not...
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

The first part of your answer actually answers the second part. Fossils are rare occurrences. The perfect conditions have to be present. If it wasn't, then we would find fossils laying around all the time.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Negligentt SmellyBelly: even if it was very rare, the fact that 100% of the Kangeroo fossils (and many other unique animals) are ONLY found in Australia shows that they are very unlikely to have existed outside Australia.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Not by "natural" processes, but I believe in the big bang theory, simply because we have deduced it out of all the observations we have made..
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

People arguing for an intelligent designer, I have questions for you. Riddle me this: Why did God make the place where we swallow the same place we need to breathe air? People choke to death all the time because of this poor design.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Saying "it's a poor design", then saying we were the creature that evolved to the highest level in the survival of the fittest model is a contradiction of terms.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

I think if there was a designer, that is definitely a terrible design. I also don't believe we are the pinnacle of evolution. We may be at the top of the food chain, but we are a self important species. By no means are we a chosen creation above all others.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

I don't see any animals writing books or building skyscrapers, amongst many other things that I don't see them doing.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Animals do all kinds of incredible things that we can't do. There are hawks that see infinitely better than we do. There are ants and termites that form extremely intricate structures. There are dolphins that call each other by names and have communication. There are thousands of animals with better senses than our own. Dogs and cows can even sense the magnetic field to an extent. There are animals and plants that manage to live thousands of years or in extreme conditions that we could not survive. We are the assholes of the planet. We think our skyscrapers are amazing, but we trample the land. We cut down thousands of homes and make entire species go extinct. Now we are ruining our own ecosystem. Humans are self important and we aren't as amazing and chosen as we like to think we are. We have no humility.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

I think if there was a designer, that is definitely a terrible designYou live in a machine that is so advanced that a woman who fell from a cliff, broke both legs and many ribs and crawled miles to safety to get help. When she saw she was now safe, only then did the pain kick in. Her brain completely shut off all pain to keep her fighting for survival. You're welcome to try and create better.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

There is no question that the human body is amazing. But so are the bodies of most of the animal kingdom. We are all adapting to our environment. Take any aspect of the human body, and I can show you an animal that does it better. The only thing we excel at is our frontal lobe intelligence. Yet we still act completely uncivilized. We are predators. We are slightly smarter monkeys that still fight over females and power. We are NOT the pinnacle.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Riddle me this: How come when we look at the DNA of every animal, it makes a giant tree? Almost like we are one giant family?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Because we are one giant family.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

I agree. That's evolution my friend. One giant family. We are all related with small changes in genetics over time.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Riddle me this: If we didn't have the bible, how do we know Adam and Eve existed? (Bonus points if you explain the belly buttons)
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

A first male and a first female must be true per deductive logic.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

False. There is no reason to believe this MUST be true. There are many possibilities for how life could have started.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Riddle me this: Why are there hermaphodites? (People born with both genetalia) Are they allowed to have sex?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

You know scientifically why. They can do sexually whatever they can do. Eunichs are mentioned in the Bible.You'll have to look up what Jesus said about people born with these issues. I'll give you an example as a hint. He was asked why a man was born blind. He responded, but you'll have to put in a little effort of your own to get the response. This stuff isn't free ya know. You are welcome to send me donations if you'd like.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Lmao nice try. There is no way I am giving you money to explain what Jesus thought of hermaphodites based on what a fictional book says. But if you send me a donation, Ill let you know what the Lorax thought about trees.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Send me the donation first, and I promise you that is technically possible that I might send you a donation back.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

It is technically possible that I already sent the donation.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Riddle me this: What came first? The chicken or the egg?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

All of the data that makes a chicken a chicken and an egg an egg came first.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Which manifested first? .
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Riddle me this: Whats up with disease? Why did God design something that could kill off whole regions? And why did he allow us to make medicine to fix it?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

1)To prove that mortal man will still find ways to maintain arrogance even though they are really weak and have no real control. They will still lust for wealth, power, and influence despite an environment that obviously will end in their demise.2)Medicine? To prove some men are not those things. They look to heal and help others.The variables that an omniscient being would be looking at to develope a true "why" are incalculable to a non-omniscient mind.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Why does God need to prove that at all? What kind of God kills off little kids and innocents to prove a point? Either God is a disgusting, demented person, or there is no God and bacteria are fighting for their place in this world just like we are.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Why does God need to prove that at all? What kind of God kills off little kids and innocents to prove a pointHe doesn't need to prove it. You and I need for him to prove it.Kids dying is a result of the human condition. We don't know the after effects of each death. Their ripple effect is incalculable. The entire world was shaped by the death of one man, Jesus Christ.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

"Prove" was your word not mine. You said God created disease to prove man will find ways to maintain arrogance. My question was why would he do that? It's unnecessary and nonsensical. Plus we can fix it most of the time so it proves nothing anyway.And apparently the only thing Jesus' death did was start a new movement. It's pretty much based off of an older movement that already existed. It didn't make the world better. In fact, it caused more wars and suffering than any of the other religions. More people are dying and sinning since the apparent death of Jesus than ever before. This has nothing to do with disease. We still get sick and die all the time. Jesus didn't save us.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Riddle me this: Why did God put a spot for pleasure in the male anus? (Its called the P spot)
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Why did Darwinism put it there? Did the male experiencing pleasure help survival or make the man more apt to breed? Perhaps.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Evolution doesn't care about morals and doesn't have any ethical code to follow. But a God would. So why would he do that?