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

There was a worldwide flood we see evidence in strata all over the world. In fact the flood is very easy to prove.I'll just recycle and add to a previous rebuttal I made:There isn't enough water on Earth to cover all land. If all land was covered with water at some point, all life on Earth except microbes would perish.There have been many large floods in history, but never a worldwide flood.Further, and this is obvious, a deluge sorts things out by mass density (buoyancy), while our strata is sorted by age. If there were a massive flood which upset all the silt and dirt as well as buried all the critters in the area, we shouldn't expect the present order of strata where density of objects is irrelevant to column position, but instead reflects radioactive dating ages.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"Further, and this is obvious, a deluge sorts things out by mass density (buoyancy), while our strata is sorted by age." This you are definately wrong about. We witnessed rapid strata formations with the Mt. St. Helens lava dome. The RATE group studied this in detail. Real science was done here (observational) we saw rapid strata layer formations within a day. These layers showed a timeline of millions of years, which is not true because we observed it happen. "There isn't enough water on Earth to cover all land. If all land was covered with water at some point, all life on Earth except microbes would perish." Obviously you have never heard of the polar ice caps or the Mid-Atlantic ridge. These were all caused by a catastrophic global flood. Have you never read Genesis which talks about the "fountains of the deep"? Or the "floodgates of Heaven opened up" referring to rapid evaporation due to deep ocean volcanic activity.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

This you are definately wrong about. We witnessed rapid strata formations with the Mt. St. Helens lava dome. The RATE group studied this in detail. I have an experiment for you. Buy or find a large, clear, plastic tub. Dig some samples of dirt, mud, rocks, gravel, any bones you find of various sizes, shale, igneous rocks, wood debris, etc. Put them into the tub or bucket until it is filled between 1/2 and 1/3 the way. Fill with water, and stir it all up completely. Make sure you have it all mixed and wet with water. Now let it sit, undisturbed, for a few days as it settles. Observe the strata and get back to me.Examples of our strata:Number 1Number 2Number 3Number 4Real science was done here (observational) we saw rapid strata layer formations within a day. These layers showed a timeline of millions of years, which is not true because we observed it happen. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html Obviously you have never heard of the polar ice caps or the Mid-Atlantic ridge. These were all caused by a catastrophic global flood. Have you never read Genesis which talks about the "fountains of the deep"? Or the "floodgates of Heaven opened up" referring to rapid evaporation due to deep ocean volcanic activity.Water, being a fluid, has a defining characteristic that it deforms itself to fill surfaces.Mt. Chimborazo is Earth's highest point, and if we calculate the volume of water it takes to fill Earth's surface from its mean radius to that point, we find we need about 6.8 billion cubic kilometers. The polar Ice Caps represent at maximum about 67.5 million cubic kilometers of water. This is less than one percent of the required volume. In other words there is not enough water on Earth to cover its land masses, conservation of mass requires that the water could not appear from nowhere or leave thusly, therefore we never had enough water to cover our landmasses.Polar Ice Cap Volume
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"Mt. Chimborazo is Earth's highest point, and if we calculate the volume of water it takes to fill Earth's surface from its mean radius to that point, we find we need about 6.8 billion cubic kilometers. The polar Ice Caps represent at maximum about 67.5 million cubic kilometers of water. This is less than one percent of the required volume. In other words there is not enough water on Earth to cover its land masses, conservation of mass requires that the water could not appear from nowhere or leave thusly, therefore we never had enough water to cover our landmasses."What you fail to mention is that these land masses (mountains for example) have not always been. Massive tectonic shifts created the mountains we see today. So for you to say the global terrain we see today has always been is absurd. As far as your example of Dalrymple this article gives a good rebuttal, you may read it in entirely or skip to the AR40 dating method. No Radiogenic Argon Assumption Violated by Many Anomalous “Ages” The assumption of no radiogenic argon (40Ar) when the rocks formed is usually stated as self-evident. For example, Geyh and Schleicher state: What is special about the K-Ar method is that the daughter nuclide is a noble gas, which is not normally incorporated into minerals and is not bound in the mineral in which it is found.118 (p. 56) Similarly, Dalrymple and Lanphere state: a silicate melt will not usually retain the 40Ar that is produced, and thus the potassium-argon clock is not “set” until the mineral solidifies and cools sufficiently to allow the 40Ar to accumulate in the mineral lattice.119 (p. 46)Dalrymple has recently put the argument more strongly: The K-Ar method is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope. This is because 40Ar is an inert gas that does not combine chemically with any other element and so escapes easily from rocks when they are heated. Thus, while a rock is molten the 40Ar formed by decay of 40K escapes from the liquid.120However, these dogmatic statements by Dalrymple are inconsistent with even his own work on historic lava flows, some of which he found had non-zero concentrations of 40Ar in violation of this key assumption of the K-Ar dating method.121 He does go on to admit, “Some cases of initial 40Ar remaining in rocks have been documented but they are uncommon,” but then refers to his study of 26 historic, subaerial lava flows.122, 123 Five (almost 20%) of those flows contained “excess argon,” but Dalrymple still then says “that ‘excess’ argon is rare in these rocks!” The flows and their “ages” were:124 Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800–1801) 1.6±0.16 Ma 1.41±0.08 Ma Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC) 0.25±0.08 Ma Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1792) 0.35±0.14 Ma Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915) 0.11±0.03 Ma Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD 1064–1065) 0.27±0.09 Ma 0.25±0.15 Ma Quoted source http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/mt-ngauruhoe
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

What you fail to mention is that these land masses (mountains for example) have not always been. Massive tectonic shifts created the mountains we see today. So for you to say the global terrain we see today has always been is absurd. Mt. Chimborazo is at least 35000 years old, as this was the last known period of activity (it was a volcano).Filling the Earth with enough water to cover all landmasses is an extreme claim, because even ignoring Mt. Chimborazo, it would require an absurdly large amount of water to do so, which you have yet to account for.As far as your example of Dalrymple this article gives a good rebuttal, you may read it in entirely or skip to the AR40 dating method.No Radiogenic Argon Assumption Violated by Many Anomalous “Ages” I suggest you read this and do your homework.Quoted source http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/mt-ngauruhoe  Answers in Genesis is not a valid source. It is a website which propagates misinformation.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"Answers in Genesis is not a valid source. It is a website which propagates misinformation." This kind of prejudice is what makes your investigation skills devoid of reason. "Mt. Chimborazo is at least 35000 years old, as this was the last known period of activity (it was a volcano)." By what dating method? And by what groups world view?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

This kind of prejudice is what makes your investigation skills devoid of reason. AiG Statement of FaithBy definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.This is not how knowledge grows, and this is just one of many reasons that AiG is not science. If you must define your position as being unassailable by fact, then it is faith, and will never be knowledge.By what dating method? And by what groups world view?Most likely radiometric dating. Scientists, in other words those who are experts and operate with integrity.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

dont underestimate gods power. If god created all the earth surely anything is possible under his name.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

dont underestimate gods power. If god created all the earth surely anything is possible under his name.If you have to retreat to "God did it using his omnipotence to defy reason" then you already left the boundaries of debate. When you enter a debate about god, then it is expected that you abide by the rules of reason and thus god must.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Thank you finally, you are attempting to describe God with the natural when he is in reality supernatural, it simply cannot be done, that is why argumetns like these ones are pointless, because certain foundational ideas or truths have not been accepted before discussion was begun.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

The bible puts the age of the Earth at around 6000 years. The measurement of the rate of decay of Uranium isotopes shows this to be impossible, given that it has a half-life of 703,800,000 years. The Bible has therefore erred and from that fact alone has a total veracity of <100%.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

You are depending on uniformitarism which states radioactive decay rates have always been the same. This is not true and has been monitored as recently as the 1800s.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

You are depending on uniformitarism which states radioactive decay rates have always been the same. This is not true and has been monitored as recently as the 1800s.The time provided was the decay constant, or average rate. We suggest that you refrain from presuming superior knowledge of radioactive decay to established nuclear physicists.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

But do those same physicists adapt for catastrophic events. Like the New Zealand volcano that spread an ash cloud big enough to blanket the globe for several months. Do they consider the massive tectonic shifts due to vulcanic activity which all scientists agree occured in the past. I.E. Nuclear winter brought on by atmospheric dust.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

But do those same physicists adapt for catastrophic events. Like the New Zealand volcano that spread an ash cloud big enough to blanket the globe for several months.We apologise, but we have no conception of how this is at all relevant.Do they consider the massive tectonic shifts due to vulcanic activityYou have that the wrong way around. Volcanic activity is caused by tectonic plate movement.Nuclear winter brought on by atmospheric dust.Now that's just impossible. Nuclear winter is a scenario which can only be caused by a nuclear war.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Nuclear winter brought on by atmospheric dust."Now that's just impossible. Nuclear winter is a scenario which can only be caused by a nuclear war." Certainly you can't be serious. Nuclear winter is a scenario in which the atmosphere is blocked out by dust particles. In science we use the term "nuclear winter" to describe a darkened atmosphere due to debris. This is common knowledge.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Certainly you can't be serious. Nuclear winter is a scenario in which the atmosphere is blocked out by dust particlesWe emphasise the word "Nuclear". The dust particles in the scenario are the direct result of atomic weapons being detonated.In science we use the term "nuclear winter" to describe a darkened atmosphere due to debris.Who are "we"? You are not a scientist, that is certain. We also reject your apparent terminology; other events would be more accurately described as a volcanic winter or an impact winter.This is common knowledge.Then we repudiate it. Notwithstanding, how can you presume to explain "common knowledge"?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

We did not emphasise nuclear I was giving you an example, which most people understand. "Who are "we"? You are not a scientist, that is certain. We also reject your apparent terminology; other events would be more accurately described as a volcanic winter or an impact winter." This sounds like you are claiming to be a scientist. I would be very careful to claim such an advanced education. By your language and impression alone I highly doubt you are more then an undergraduate if even that educated.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

We did not emphasise nuclear I was giving you an example, which most people understand.We submit that most people understand that a nuclear winter refers to the aftermath of a nuclear war.This sounds like you are claiming to be a scientist. We are a gentleman scientist, being too young to enter the profession.I would be very careful to claim such an advanced education.We have made no such claim.By your language and impression alone I highly doubt you are more then an undergraduate if even that educated.As you have suggested that: A) The Bible is 100% true.B) Tectonic plate movement is caused by volcanic activity.C) That you are more highly educated than us.We cannot but think you to be a fool.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

How about instead of cherry picking everyones arguments you come up with your own argument?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

How about instead of cherry picking everyones arguments you come up with your own argument?I've argued exhaustively in this debate and I'm not going to resume my efforts for the sake of an idiot who can't punctuate a sentence properly.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

No it was written by humans who can skew and change information to suit there needs at the time.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Just a funny little video. It is not to be taken as my argument, but it is still funny. Ignore the annoying voice of the little cherub. But contemplate it's message... try to be skeptical of what you were taught as a young religious child..
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

That video made me laugh! That being said, I'm quoting something I just recently read that made so much sense. It said this: There are no thought forms or models of reality that can represent the entirety of the thing they attempt to describe.They are each finite, and therefore incomplete. Expression can only be a reduction of the fullness being sensed. For truly objective awareness to be experienced, it must occur outside of time and the language structures bound to it.When the experience of spiritual illumination reduces itself into the corridors of expression its narrowness defines the parameters of its inaccuracy.Any attempt to describe God (presuming it exists) would be a limitation as God -by definition- is not only indescribable, but also unknowable. The best place we can stay is in the mystery.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

The majority of the Bible is Mythology, false prophesies, and moral stories. It hardly has any truth to it at all.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Let me remind you that you just said hardly which means there is truth to it so your contradicting your self.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

"which means there is truth to it so your contradicting your self."Not at all
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"The majority of the Bible is Mythology, false prophesies, and moral stories. It hardly has any truth to it at all."You say this, yet you know nothing of what is written inside it. Perhaps educating yourself, rather then just regurgitating the first page of your search engine results.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

"You say this, yet you know nothing of what is written inside it."Wrong again. I have read the Bible. Not all of it, of course. Few have. So yes, I do know. You might want to think before arrogantly assuming next time."Perhaps educating yourself, rather then just regurgitating the first page of your search engine results."Might want to take your own advice there, hypocrite.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"Wrong again. I have read the Bible. Not all of it, of course. Few have. So yes, I do know. You might want to think before arrogantly assuming next time."This proves my point. First of all to say few people have read the Bible is just stupid. Many people have read the Bible, believers and unbelievers alike. You speak of what's in the Bible based on your own misunderstood assumptions. Don't just make generalizations about a book you only have second hand knowledge about.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

"Many people have read the Bible"Maybe some of it. The majority, especially believers, haven't read the full bible. "based on your own misunderstood assumptions."Wrong again child."Don't just make generalizations about a book you only have second hand knowledge about."How many false assumptions are you planning to make today?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"Maybe some of it. The majority, especially believers, haven't read the full bible."Do you have any statistics backing this statement. Or is this just another ill-fated generalization based on your poor understanding of anything outside your own world (momma's house). "How many false assumptions are you planning to make today?"None, unlike what you have demonstrated time and time again.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

"anything outside your own world (momma's house)"Awww, now the Theist is going to resort childish insults? How....predictable. "None"Wrong again child. Seeing as how your entire argument is made up of false assumptions.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"Awww, now the Theist is going to resort childish insults? How....predictable.""Wrong again child. Seeing as how your entire argument is made up of false assumptions."I know you are not trying to throw a brick in a glass house.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

"I know you are not trying to throw a brick in a glass house."Is that really the best you can do? If so, I wouldn't be surprised.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Biographical InformationTheHallow1Gender: Male "questionable"Marital Status: Single "staying that way indefinately (see i appendix A)"Political Party: Independent "wishy-washy i.e. bisexual"Country: United States "one positive attribute"Religion: Atheist "had his feelings hurt too much i.e. crys easily"Education: In College "yet is emotionally 12"Appendix A i. Unsure of sexual preference, gender, and species. "Is that really the best you can do? If so, I wouldn't be surprised."That good enough for you.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Thanks for proving my point. You have no real argument so you've resorted to attempted discretization. This is what all Theists do when they've run out of bullshit. Looks like I struck a nerve. XD
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"This is what all Theists do when they've run out of bullshit. Looks like I struck a nerve."The fact you don't contend to my previous statement shows you to be out of bullshit, friend. Or should I say "child" as you would put it. But of course you wouldn't resort to such things. Maybe if you didn't think you are "god" then perhaps you would have a more positive outlook on life. I would presume based on your name you are very empty inside. That could be why you have such a world view as you do. Emotional problems should not be taken lightly.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

"Maybe if you didn't think you are "god" then perhaps you would have a more positive outlook on life."Another false assumption."I would presume based on your name you are very empty inside."False presumption."That could be why you have such a world view as you do"You don't know how I view the world. You really haven't learned your lesson about assumption have you?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"Another false assumption.""False presumption""You don't know how I view the world. You really haven't learned your lesson about assumption have you?"To summarize your statements, it appears you lack any credible rebuttal to my previous comments. Instead it appears you have resorted to short answers to try, and deflect the complete incompetence you possess for basic argumentative skills.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

"the complete incompetence you possess for basic argumentative skills."Your weak arguments aren't with a full response. You still haven't learned have you?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"Your weak arguments aren't with a full response. You still haven't learned have you?"So to summarize, "I know you are, but what am I" this is the response your last three posts.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

"this is the response your last three posts."When are you going to learn?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Under your profile you have nothing but two and three sentence responses. This leads me to believe you are very simple. Seeing how your best rebuttal is to say "that is an assumption". Anytime you speak about scientific theories you are assuming. If you are not then it would be law.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

"This leads me to believe you are very simple."Didn't we already talk about assumption? Or have you still not learned? For someone as outspoken as you are, it's amazing that you can't get past this mental disadvantage you have.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"Wrong again. I have read the Bible. Not all of it, of course. Few have."Demonstrating you ignorance and ridiculous assumptions yet again. There is by no way, any validity of your knowledge of the Bible. When you have not read it, some don't cut it.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Nothing is absolute.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

nope it cant be there is no evidence to show that any of it's true in my opinion the whole thing is made up!
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

There is evidence you just stay confined in your little hole and don't broaden your view.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Irony ...
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

I personally, don't study the bible. BUT: I do know the Adam and Eve story. I don't think snakes talk or convince you to eat a forbidden fruit. Just a thought...
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Just like I think you use -2% of your brain. Just a thought...
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

well, has a snake ever spoken to you? if so, i strongly recommend checking into that mental hospital on Gennesee AVE. they have a whole program for people with hallucinations. just a thought.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

How many times has the Bible been translated and re-translated? I recall that childhood game where the first person whispers something to the next in line, then that second whispers it to a third, and so on down the line; when the last person reveals the whisper to the first person, is it exactly the same? I'm sure the same thing has occurred with the Bible. And, yes, I capitalize the word Bible when I write, because it is a special book for me, even when it has flaws in translation... As far as "the rules" of the Bible are concerned, why is it really called the OLD testament anyway...