azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

"Do you see the wind?"Technically, yes. Although it'd be impossible to actually describe the 'seeable' attributes of wind. We use touch to identify wind more than sight. To be more concise to find the attributes of wind, it is more preferable to use scientific instruments which we use and which we get information from. Doing this with your God does not seem to work.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

You don't see the wind, you see the effects, of the wind. There is, a difference....................................................................................
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

You don't see the wind, you see the effects, of the wind.What an absolutely typical upside down religious fallacy. The speed, direction and effects of wind can be measured with pinpoint precision. People didn't invent the idea of wind first and then look for something they thought would prove it. That's what they did with God.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Likewise, seeing the effects further tailors the existence of wind.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

It's not a fallacy, I wasn't refering to religion in that comment, you don't know what, you are talking, about. Do get a day, job, sweetie tits.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Fallacy or not, your argument is still flawed. It doesn't help you one bit.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

You have the right to your, opinion. If you don't like my content, you are not obligated, to read, said content. You do, have choices, in this situation. I suggest some tea, and crumpets.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Are you seriously excusing yourself and changing the topic? I already know I'm not obligated to read your content, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to. I also have a choice to tell you that your arguments or claims are absolutely false.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

That's your opinion, and if you reply to me, it's your fault for replying, to my content. I did not force you, to reply, to my content, so stop whining.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

That's your opinion, and if you reply to me, it's your fault for replyingI'm glad we understand each other you fat retarded bitch.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Dude, where's my car?........................................................................................................................................
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Nobody forced me to reply to your comments. What kind of excuse are you pulling off?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Dude, where's my car?..................................................................................................................................
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

It's not a fallacy, I wasn't refering to religion in that commentYes you were. You're such a goddamned liar, Dana. Fallaciously comparing your invisible friend with other things which cannot be seen is one of the oldest religious fallacies in the book. People noticed wind because it blew their shit everywhere. They had physical evidence of it before they even knew what it was. God happened the opposite way. Someone decided what God was first, and then others decided to look (unsuccessfully) for the evidence proving it.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Not yet, I wasn't. I would have in a later statement, but I wasn't in that statement.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Not yet, I wasn't. I would have in a later statement, but I wasn't in that statement.Dana, you're a liar and it's that simple.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

No actually, and you have no proof...................................................................................................................
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

No actually, and you have no proof.Yes actually, and I don't need proof because I have faith. 😉
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

How do you know if a star is forming? Maybe the dust is clearing. Have you thought of that?????
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

One example that tells us that a star is forming and other than "dust clearing" is, "The T-Tauri Phase In the T-Tauri stage, a young star begins to produce strong winds, which push away the surrounding gas and molecules. This allows the forming star to become visible for the first time. Scientists can spot a star in the T-Tauri stage without the help of infrared or radio waves."
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Our Savior is coming soon! He will come with chariots of fire, faster than the non-constant speed of light!
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

If you want to prove your point, explain why someone would take so much time to write, in you terms, a "petty storybook?"
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Science has already shown that animals can adapt, so what makes people think that evolution couldn't happen? Plus, for a human to just appear would be completely absurd because all cells come from other living cells, so for a complex, multi-celled organ system to just appear on earth is just out of the question.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Hey! Micro-evolution and macro evolution are two different things. Only micro-evolution has been proven. I say that a complex multi-celled system that is complex to even exist is a miracle. No organism that is not as complex can even evolve over time.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Macro-evolution is accumulated micro-evolutionary changes. That's it. We have observed multi-celled complex species evolving; that's a fact. Whether or not you recognize that enough of those changes constitute referring to them as another species really is rather subjective.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

No, they are the same thing operating on different scales in much the same manner that macro-economics and micro-economics describe the same thing on different scales, thus the titular prefixes.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

But can't your mind adapt from it's low estate? God can help you!
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Frogs, birds, rabbits and lizards all have different forelimbs, reflecting their different lifestyles. But those different forelimbs all share the same set of bones - the humerus, the radius, and the ulna. These are the same bones seen in fossils of the extinct transitional animal, Eusthenopteron, which demonstrates their common ancestry.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Understanding the history of life on Earth requires a grasp of the depth of time and breadth of space. We must keep in mind that the time involved is vast compared to a human lifetime and the space necessary for this to occur includes all the water and land surfaces of the world. Establishing chronologies, both relative and absolute, and geographic change over time are essential for viewing the motion picture that is the history of life on Earth.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Very true.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Although the history of life is always in the past, there are many ways we can look at present-day organisms, as well as recent history, to better understand what has occurred through deep time. Artificial selection in agriculture or laboratories provides a model for natural selection. Looking at interactions of organisms in ecosystems helps us to understand how populations adapt over time. Experiments demonstrate selection and adaptive advantage. And we can see nested hierarchies in taxonomies based on common descent.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

well said.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

not well said............................................................................................................................................................
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Some of the most renowned evidence for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

For example, wings are very complex anatomical structures specifically adapted for powered flight, yet ostriches have flightless wings. The vestigial wings of ostriches may be used for relatively simple functions, such as balance during running and courtship displays—a situation akin to hammering tacks with a computer keyboard. The specific complexity of the ostrich wing indicates a function which it does not perform, and it performs functions incommensurate with its complexity. Ostrich wings are not vestigial because they are useless structures per se, nor are they vestigial simply because they have different functions compared to wings in other birds. Rather, what defines ostrich wings as vestigial is that they are rudimentary wings which are useless as wings.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Creation
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

One of the most influential evolutionary biologists of the 19th century, August Weismann, wrote on functional vestiges in 1886 in his lengthy essay, "Retrogressive development in nature":"... for, although the latter [ostrich] does not fly, it still uses its wings as aids in running swiftly over the African plains and deserts ... Retrogression is, however, not always carried so far as to do away with a structure altogether ... But not infrequently the degenerating organ can be turned to account in some other way, and then retrogression either stops just short of actual elimination, as in the case of the wings of the ostrich, or so alters and transforms the structure as to fit it for new functions ..." (Weismann 1886, pp. 5-9)As explained above, what is surprising about the functional, vestigial ostrich wing is not that the ostrich wing lacks any function whatsoever, but that it is a rudimentary wing unused for powered flight, its "proper purpose", as Darwin puts it. Even Robert Wiedersheim, the notorious cataloguer of 86 human vestigial structures, never claims that vestigial structures must lack functions. In the introduction to The Structure of Man, Wiedersheim defines "vestigial" in evolutionary terms:"Comparative morphology points not only to the essentially similar plan of organization of the bodies of all Vertebrates, ... but also to the occurrence in them of certain organs, or parts of organs, now known as 'vestigial.'By such organs are meant those which were formerly of greater physiological significance than at present." (Wiedersheim 1893, p. 2)
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Vestigial structures have perplexed naturalists throughout history and were noted long before Darwin first proposed universal common descent. Many eighteenth and nineteenth century naturalists identified and discussed vestigial structures, including Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), Georges-Louis Leclerc, Compte de Buffon (1707-1788), and Georges Cuvier (1769-1832). Over sixty years before Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species, the eminent French anatomist Geoffroy St. Hilaire (1772-1844) discussed his observations of the vestigial wings of the cassowary and ostrich during his travels with Napoleon to Egypt:
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

It follows, then, that we should never find vestigial nipples or a vestigial incus bone in any amphibians, birds, or reptiles. No mammals should be found with vestigial feathers. No primates should ever be found with vestigial horns or degenerate wings hidden underneath the skin of the back. We should never find any arthropods with vestigial backbones. Snakes may occasionally have vestigial legs or arms, but they should never be found with small, vestigial wings. Humans may have a vestigial caecum, since we are descendants of herbivorous mammals, but neither we nor any other primate can have a vestigial gizzard like that found in birds. Mutatis mutandis ad infinitum.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

This prediction is not falsified by finding a complex or essential function for the presumed vestigial structure. Should data of this sort be found, the structure merely becomes an example of parahomology (considered in prediction 3.1) or, more likely, an example of inefficient design (considered in prediction 3.5). Observations that would be truly inconsistent with the concept of vestigiality are given above. More detailed and specific explanations of how to demonstrate that the human appendix is not vestigial are given in the Vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix FAQ.Many anti-evolutionist authors have erroneously concluded that vestigial structures do not exist. They reason that either (1) vestigial organs are actually functional or (2) it is theoretically impossible to demonstrate that a structure has no function (for example, see Ham et al. 1990; Batten and Sarfati 2003; Bergman and Howe 1990; Morris 1986). This latter argument is based upon the false premise that negative results are used to demonstrate a lack of function, and that negative evidence is unscientific. These arguments are faulty for three reasons, each discussed below.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

First, and most importantly, this line of argumentation is beside the point, since it is unnecessary for vestiges to lack a function (see Muller 2002 for a modern discussion of the vestigial concept that specifically includes functionality). Many true vestiges are functional (for many examples see Culver et al. 1995). In popular usage "vestigial" is often believed to be synonymous with "nonfunctional", and this confusion unfortunately has been propagated via poorly-worded definitions found in many non-technical dictionaries and encyclopedias. Even some professional research biologists have fallen prey to this oversimplification of the vestigial concept (for instance, Scadding 1981, often quoted by anti-evolutionists and discussed in the Citing Scadding (1981) and Misunderstanding Vestigiality FAQ). The statement that vestigial structures are functionless is a convenient, yet strictly incorrect, approximation. It is analogous to the common, yet strictly incorrect, scientific claim that the earth is a sphere.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

First, even if biologists truly had changed the definition of 'vestige', why would that be a problem in science? It would not—all science changes as new data is acquired and theories become clarified. Using Sarfati's logic we would reject modern theories like Einstein's theory of relativity, since "physicists changed the rules at whim when they lost".Second, Sarfati quotes terse, layman's definitions from a popular dictionary and a children's encyclopedia as if they were scientific authorities. It is highly likely that the person who wrote those definitions was not an evolutionary biologist. For all we know, it even may have been an anti-evolutionist or young earth creationist! Any true scientist (or legitimate scholar of any sort) would consult an advanced scientific text for definitions of technical terms, especially when attempting to criticize them. In this case, the two-volume Encyclopedia of Evolution (Muller 2002), with technical discussions written by real practicing research biologists, would be one of many appropriate sources.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Third, regardless of popular misconception, from the beginning of modern evolutionary theory a complete absence of function has not been a requirement for vestigiality (Crapo 1985; Culver et al. 1995; Darwin 1872, pp. 601-609; Dodson 1960, p. 44; Griffiths 1992; McCabe 1912, p. 264; Merrell 1962, p. 101; Moody 1962, p. 40; Muller 2002; Naylor 1982; Strickberger 2000; Weismann 1886; Wiedersheim 1893, p. 2, p. 200, p. 205). Sarfati's claim is based upon ignorance, and he of course provides no historical references showing that evolutionary biologists actually changed the definition. As an obvious counterexample, Charles Darwin never claims vestigial organs must be functionless. In his famous section on vestigial organs in On the Origin of Species, written nearly 150 years ago, Darwin in fact emphasizes that vestiges can be functional and gives several examples:
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

"Useful organs, however little they may be developed, unless we have reason to suppose that they were formerly more highly developed, ought not to be considered as rudimentary." (Darwin 1859, emphasis added)"An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. Thus, in plants, the office of the pistil is to allow the pollen-tubes to reach the ovules protected in the ovarium at its base. The pistil consists of a stigma supported on the style; but in some Compositae, the male florets, which of course cannot be fecundated, have a pistil, which is in a rudimentary state, for it is not crowned with a stigma; but the style remains well developed, and is clothed with hairs as in other compositae, for the purpose of brushing the pollen out of the surrounding anthers. Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Other similar instances could be given." (Darwin 1859 [see text]; also Darwin 1872, p. 602, emphasis added)"Rudimentary organs, on the other hand, are either quite useless, such as teeth which never cut through the gums, or almost useless, such as the wings of an ostrich, which serve merely as sails." (Darwin 1872, p. 603)"... an organ rendered, during changed habits of life, useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modified and used for another purpose." (Darwin 1872, p. 603)
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Even though the conclusion may be negative ("structure x has no function"), the detection of biological functionality or lack thereof is based upon positive evidence, not negative evidence. In organismic biology, a function is a physical process performed by an organ that is necessary for the successful reproduction of the organism in a specific environment. Functions are measured in terms of reproduction and viability. An organ has no function in a given environment if the organ's presence has no statistically significant effect on reproductive success or viability. Both reproductive success and viability can be observed and measured quantitatively and are, thus, positive data.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Negative evidence is certainly valid when used properly, and negative evidence is used and reported routinely in the scientific literature. The general claim that negative evidence cannot be used to test a hypothesis is a nihilistic philosophy that has no place in experimental science. Negative evidence is admissible if it is acquired with the proper experimental controls. Good experimental technique involves controlled observations, whether the evidence is positive or negative. Positive results are bolstered by negative controls; valid negative results require positive controls.To clarify the important issue of experimental controls, consider the following analogy with physics. If it is impossible to demonstrate that a certain structure has no function, then by the same logic it is impossible to demonstrate that a given atomic element is not radioactive. However, it is well-established in physics that lead-206 is not radioactive. We know this because radioactivity is detectable from other elements, such as phosphorous-32, yet simultaneously radioactivity is undetectable from lead-206. In this physics example phosphorous-32 is a positive control, which is needed to use the negative evidence gathered from lead-206. Likewise, we can certainly demonstrate that a given structure has no function when we can simultaneously detect a function for another structure in the same environment.Prediction 2.2: Atavisms
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Anatomical atavisms are closely related conceptually to vestigial structures. An atavism is the reappearance of a lost character specific to a remote evolutionary ancestor and not observed in the parents or recent ancestors of the organism displaying the atavistic character. Atavisms have several essential features: (1) presence in adult stages of life, (2) absence in parents or recent ancestors, and (3) extreme rarity in a population (Hall 1984). For developmental reasons, the occasional occurrence of atavisms is expected under common descent if structures or functions are gradually lost between ancestor and descendant lineages (Hall 1984; Hall 1995). Here we are primarily concerned with potential atavistic structures that are characteristic of taxa to which the organism displaying the structure does not belong. As a hypothetical example, if mutant horses occasionally displayed gills, this would be considered a potential atavism, since gills are diagnostic of taxa (e.g. fish) to which horses do not belong. As with vestigial structures, no organism can have an atavistic structure that was not previously found in one of its ancestors. Thus, for each species, the standard phylogenetic tree makes a huge number of predictions about atavisms that are allowed and those that are impossible for any given species.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Many famous examples of atavisms exist, including (1) rare formation of extra toes (2nd and 4th digits) in horses, similar to what is seen in the archaic horses Mesohippus and Merychippus, (2) atavistic thigh muscles in Passeriform birds and sparrows, (3) hyoid muscles in dogs, (4) wings in earwigs (normally wingless), (5) atavistic fibulae in birds (the fibulae are normally extremely reduced), (6) extra toes in guinea pigs and salamanders, (6) the atavistic dew claw in many dog breeds, and (7) various atavisms in humans (one described in detail below) (Hall 1984).
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Creation has no scientific proof behind it. It has been taken from an old storybook, which has been written by bloody humans long before science improved to the level that such things as evolution could be logically explained. Creation is only a belief, if you believe in it you are free to do so, but it still has no proof of any kind.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

There is no scientific proof for macro-evloution. I challenge you to give me evidence that proves evolution without any assumptions!
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

Macroevolution = micro + micro + micro + micro....
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

To what extent are the two supposed to contradict? Through which doctrine of creation?
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Evolution

The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.
Debate: Creation vs Evolution
Side: Creation

Where are the missing links???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????