azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is True

You didn't actually present any evidence of research or any related results.Right, I guess I can't blame you for not knowing what I researched.The site lists many of the contradictions, but leaves many of them barely adressed much less completely resolved.I picked one of my favorites since I was interested in the explanation and I have to say I was left wanting:http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/what-are-last-words-jesus You read the Crucifixion Chronology page, right?Then are you saying that now you belive some parts of the bible are symbolic? If so, then I'll reiterate my prior question:How do you decide which parts are literal and which are symbolic?I can't. How do you determine which parts of science you believe and which you don't? Lol, silly question. Most of science agrees with itself.Even if each "day" of creation was 1000 years that would only add 7,000 years to the Ussher dating and would result in a universe that is only 13,000 years old.Do you believe that all of these lines of evidence are wrong enough to allow for that age?The 1,000 and the lack of a word for million or billion were connected.The Torah uses several multiples of thousands including 10's of thousands and 100's of thousands.However, this does not account for the word billion. This would be a thousand of a thousand of a thousand... The Torah doesn't get much higher than what you said.That depends on which chapter of Genesis you are readingNot really. Read on the link I sent you.Do you believe that fish evolved into tetrapods?Well, why wouldn't I? Fish did come before land animals in both modern science and the Bible.The Big Bang theory does not purport to explain the origin of the universe.Right, right. It just says that it came from a rapid expansion of all of the compressed energy, which, by your beliefs, has always been there. But, science dictates a beginning of it... So... Yeah... How'd it come from nothing?Only if you don't question it.Not really. Every time I question it, I get an answer. An answer which makes sense. Unlike the above.
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is False

You read the Crucifixion Chronology page, right?Yes, but I saw no way in which it was dispositive of which words were last - they seem to just assert it. And there is no explanation why there are 3 different "last words" given in the 4 gospels.this does not account for the word billionWithout the word billion, they could still have said 100 thousand times 140 thousand and have reached the correct approximate age similar to the way other parts of the bible do (Daniel, 1 Chronicles, Revelations, etc.) Surely an omniscient god could have helped them with this, no? So, is it safe to assume that you concur with the scientific calculation for the age of the universe?Not really. Read on the link I sent you. {re: Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2}Of course I checked it, but as you can see, it offers no method to resolve the contradictions, it only asserts that there are none. I think they are misleading, if not outright lying to the reader when they say "Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day". It specifically disagees with Genesis 1 on whether trees were created before or after man and whether land and air animals were created before or after man.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202 Do you disagree?Well, why wouldn't I? {re: fish to tetrapod evolution}Since the bible says that animals reproduce "after their kind", some of the people on this site who believe the bible is literally true tend to assert that only evolution within kinds is possible and not larger evolutions like fish to tetrapod.by your beliefs, has always been there. But, science dictates a beginning of itThere are several hypotheses which are still being evaluated - e.g. the Hartle-Hawking no boudary condition, the cyclic models, the multiverse models, Black-hole cosmology, etc.
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is True

Yes, but I saw no way in which it was dispositive of which words were last - they seem to just assert it. And there is no explanation why there are 3 different "last words" given in the 4 gospels.I understand how you would come to that conclusion. However, the page looks for time clues, such as "45 the sun being obscured ..."Without the word billion, they could still have ... & Of course I checked it, but as you can see ...First, I want to point out the words "Correct approximate." That is an oxymoron.Second, check this site. It might have the answers you are looking for.Third, about Gen. 1 & Gen. 2. It says that God created a Garden directly after land. This means that the Earth was not filled with the creations. So, Man was the last to fill the Earth and leave the Garden. Possibly man was made first in the Garden, and helped God name all of the creatures and designate their purpose.Fourth, I want to cover this: Surely an omniscient god could have helped them with this, no? God probably is more focused on salvation of the people on Earth right now as opposed to the enlightenment of how the world works. I'm sure that God probably will tell us the secrets of how He did it. When we get to Heaven, at least. At this point, though, we have to get to Heaven first.Since the bible says that animals reproduce ...Yep, normally animals yield offspring similar to themselves. However, genetic mutations occur, and over time I guess that a fish could.There are several hypotheses ...
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is False

the page looks for time clues, such as "45 the sun being obscured ..."Time clues can only be compared if they exist in more than one version of the story."Correct approximate." That is an oxymoronpeople certainly understood the intent. I tend to not be much of a stickler for semantics unless they are important to the discussion. 14 Billion is a more correct approximation and would have been achievable with their existing language.check this siteIt is more evidence that many things in the bible should not be taken literally. It does not address the parts of Genesis which contradict science - like the earth with trees and night and day existing before the sun existed - which are generally just dismissed with God is magic arguments, nor does it address the contradictions within Genesis itself (nor the Bible as a whole).about Gen. 1 & Gen. 2Genesis 1 {re: man or animals first}"25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. ..."Genesis 2 {re: man or animals first}"18 Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.' 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name."The site's explanation:"Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created."Is that a resolution of the contradiction or an admittal that some things are wrong, but it's probably just a story-telling device so no need to concern yourself?God probably is more focused onIt is not very important to our discussion so I won't harp on it much, but what you seem to be saying here is that God (who is all-knowing and all-powerful and is outside of our time/space and yet omnipresent in it) was busy...genetic mutations occur, and over time I guess that a fish could.You are quite a bit less literal than your initial post led me to believe. I guess since you do no think reproducing after their kind is not prohibitive to evolution, we will just have to agree to agree :)There are several hypotheses ...Yes, and all of them are simpler and therefore more probable than the God hypothesis.God used to be the cause of lightning, thunder, asteroids, earthquakes, rainbows, volcanic eruptions, illness, etc. until we understood them; I see no reason to believe that the origin of the universe is not similarly attributed to god simply because of our ignorance.
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is True

It is more evidence that ...Check this pageGenesis 1 {re: man or animals first} ...Check this page again. I am pretty sure that this gives an explanation.It is not very important to our discussion ...Yeah... Hmm, maybe He is busy. Trying to get us to be able to get to Heaven.You are quite a bit less literal ...Right. We can agree there. :)Yes, and all of them are simpler and ...Simple. If you don't think about them too much. ;)
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is True

Check this page again. ...Realized that this did not do as I thought. What I think is that Genesis 2 happened during the days when God was creating land, then plants, then animals. If He's created a garden, then He has a template for the animals, and He can(I don't like using this terminology) copy-paste these things onto the world. Also, in the garden, if man is made, then man can dictate how the animals and plants be named and such.Time clues can only be compared if they ...They do, and are pretty much consistent from what I read, with only one going further and saying the quote I gave you. However, I understand that this provides an inconsistency.
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is False

Genesis 2So, I take it you disagree with the CARM.org analysis that it is describing the 6th day?Do you agree that "18 Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.' 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.",has man existing before animals and is not in accordance with the chronology of Genesis 1?with only one going further and saying the quote I gave youThe one relevant to discerning which last words were actually last is "the sun being obscured" which does not occur in any of the other versions - so it remains impossible to tell.I assume people will just chalk it up to Jesus magic, but it would otherwise seem a blatant contradiction to have "And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit." And having said this, He breathed His last." (Luke 23:46)and"When Jesus therefore had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit." (John 19:30)To me it seems far more probable that the chronologically older books, Mark then Matthew, which agree on the last words:"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?",were subsequently changed by the writers of Luke and John - likely to convey something other than a forsaken Jesus.
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is True

So, I take it you disagree ... Sent you another link on godandscience.org. Here it is again, though.The one relevant to discerning ...This is possibly to convey how big what was going on was. Also, it could have been that Luke and/or John got the account of someone who visited Him while He was on the cross after whoever heard: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is False

Sent you another link on godandscience.orgI saw it - the second part that begins "Do you agree that ..." was my response. It is probably phrased better in the other post I just sent.Mostly I was trying to get a fuller understanding of what your position is.it could have been that Luke and/or John got the account of someone who visited Him while He was on the cross after whoever heard: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"I allow for the Luke or John account to occur after the Mark/Matthew account, but the Luke and John accounts are exclusive of each other since they both recount the last words followed by the death.
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is True

I saw it - the second part that begins ...Yes, I understand. However, I feel as if they do not contradict each other, and both are correct. The second either is not chronological, or the Garden theory.I allow for the Luke or John ...Perhaps they happened at the same time(Not exact same time, but in the same moment.) What if after He said "It is finished," He bowed His head and said "Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit." I mean, that makes sense, as He bowed His head and said this to the Lord.
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is False

The second either is not chronological, or the Garden theory.Even if it takes place in the Garden, one has man existing after animals and the other has man existing before animals. We may just have to agree to disagree on that one.If you are saying that you believe the bible to still be inerrant, I believe a further comparison between the contradiction lists from before (here and here) and the carm.org site (or others) would yield additional items that are unresolved.Perhaps they happened at the same timeThat would require the watcher in the version eventually recorded in Luke to hear "Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit." and not hear "It is finished",and the watcher in the version eventually recorded in John to hear "It is finished" and not hear (or convey hearing) "Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit.",(and would still presume that the watcher(s) depicted in Mark and Mathew heard neither of those two quotes.)I would think that the last words of the Messiah would be of fairly high import. If there is such incongruity with the last words of Jesus, how can we be certain of the other words attributed to Him?
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is False

Check this pageMy first impressions are:It does not address the conflicts between Gen 1 and Gen 2It would not explain the evolution of animals that were land animals before they were sea animals - e.g. whalesBirds did not come before land animalsThere is no evidence of 1000 year old humansIt is at least much more compelling than the CARM.org stuff, and I will have to come back to it and see what other issues lingerCheck this page again.I saw that you responded about this so will post there.maybe He is busyis he not much of a multi-tasker?? maybe we can get him a calendar organizer for x-mas :)Simple. If you don't think about them too much.Simpler is simply not the same as simple. :)
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is True

My first impressions are:Will address individually:It does not address the conflicts between Gen 1 and Gen 2Maybe this does better than CARM.It would not explain the evolution of animals that were land animals before they were sea animals - e.g. whalesThat is a very interesting statement. Perhaps the aquatic mammals came from the animals that were being prepared to become land mammals and wound up not.Birds did not come before land animalsWho's to say that wings could not have came from the fish's fins?There is no evidence of 1000 year old humansIs there evidence against, besides our own lives?--- --- --- --- --- --- ---I contemplated what I said, and wound up realizing this: Business is not a problem for an omniscient and omnipotent being. So, possibly there is a reason He doesn't just let us know. Possibly because of: As God, He doesn't want us to just love Him because we love Him. Or, possibly, He wants us to try to find out ourselves while here, and when we get to Heaven, He will tell us the exact way that He did it.
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is False

Maybe this does better than CARM.It is certainly better than carm, but even allowing a separate plant creation for the garden of eden, "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air" would seem to result in two creations for land and air animals with opposing chronologies.Perhaps the aquatic mammals came from the animals that were being prepared to become land mammals and wound up not.You should probably check out some information related to whale evolution:This article might serve as a starting point.The wikipedia article can serve as a fuller overview/jumping off point.Who's to say that wings could not have came from the fish's fins?Mostly scientists ;) Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs.Is there evidence against, besides our own lives?our own lives should not be fully discounted, but there is certainly other evidence - mostly through the science of bone histology (including lines of arrested growth, etc.)
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is True

It is certainly better than carm ...See below. Birds have different chronologies in science as well, right? They split of from the theropods, the bipedal dinosaurs.You should probably check out some ...These are very eye-opening articles, actually. Thank you for sending them so that I may read them. However, the Bible does not say that the land animals did not evolve into whales. Possibly, what could have happened is that the dinosaurs roamed before the birds and land animals, and the birds evolved from the bipedal theropods before the livestock, rodents, and such evolved from the quadrupedal dinosaurs. Also, possibly, the whale emerged from the predecessor of the Indohysus, as it came relatively early, probably before livestock, rodents, and such.Mostly scientists ;) ...I realized the mistake that I made and addressed it above.our own lives should not be fully discountedWell, obviously the conditions were very different that long ago. So, the conditions could have been to where we could have lived 1,000 years. Especially if we were very healthy(food-and-exercise-wise), as I suspect we would have had to have been.
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is False

Birds have different chronologies in science as well, right?In science, different species of bird have their own chronologies, but they all trace their origins back to the species of bird that mutated from theropod dinosaurs, so there would be no birds prior to the existance of theropod dinosaurs.the Bible does not say that the land animals did not evolve into whalesGenesis 1:20-23 (King James Version)"20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day."So the bible says that God created whales and birds on the 5th day before any land animals (like theropods or Indohysus) existed.the dinosaurs roamed before the birdsSee abovepossibly, the whale emerged from the predecessor of the IndohysusSee above + Whales are warm-blooded mammals and decended from warm-blooded mammals. Mammals evolved from amniotes which lived on land.the conditions could have been to where we could have lived 1,000 years. Especially if we were very healthy(food-and-exercise-wise)We have lots of information about the conditions of the environment in the past from fossils, ice layers, coral, etc.This article seems like a decent intro.Today, even the most healthy people rarely live into their 100's. We have several ways to determine the age of an animal at the time of its death that would show some indication that humans (and/or other animals) lived 10 times there present lifespan.
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is True

Considering that the books of the Bible were written by different people, in different geological locations, at different times, and yet still harmonizes with one another -- one must certainly give it the benefit of the doubt. At the very least.
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is True

Yes, yes, yes! I agree completely. Even their word choices is so similar, when they are in different places.
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is True

this bible is true. no matter if you dont believe some parts, a lot of it is obviously true
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is True

The Bible is a book from God and therefore, is 110 percent accurate of its content.This is why.The Bible is a book or a collection of books really that had 40 different writers with different backgrounds living in different times and in many different locations. The earliest writings of the Bible is around 3500 years ago. Although, the writers and the times change one thing that remains consistent is they all claim to have been inspired by God in their works.In Job 26:7 The earth is decribed as hanging on nothing.Today it is common knowledge that the earth does indeed hang on nothing, but is being manipulated by the gravity pull of the sun. In those days, mankind did not have the technology to discover this fact. So how did Job know this when no one else knew? Tell me.Furthermore, in Isaiah 40:22 the earth is described as a circle. Now hang on! Wasn't Christophor Columbus the one that discovered this scientific fact?Well sorry to burst you bubble, but Isaiah seems to have won the race thousands of years before Chris C.Concerning the scientific facts above the Bible seemed to be 100% accurate.Many prophecies have been foretold by the Bible and all of which have been fulfilled and recorded in the Bible. Now I could post it here but you can just Google it.The Bible also offers perfect advice for difficulties in life. Now I am sure if you study the Bible more you will see why.The Bible also never will contradict itself just like God. If you do find something that seems to contradict in the Bible. I am sure if you study it you will find out that they don't.People who claim that the Bible is false or who do not answer this question with Scripture proof are people who never read or who do not understand the Bible. Yet, they act as if they are experts of the Bible.
Debate: Bible Is True - vs. - Bible Is False
Side: Bible Is True

I take from attempting to read some of the arguments of the bible being false, that there are many who either don't read their bibles or are just leaning on what they may have remembered through the years..much of which is based on false teachings and much misrepresentation. your argument is more than what i wanted to say as it relates to historical undisputed bible facts. 110% factual. but like you know there are those who just like their ears tickled''some of their arguments are what the bible warns us about'' the philosophy of men'' Mark chapter 7 verse 7 and the traditions' 1 CORINTHIANS chapter 3 verse 19, 20 for the wisdom of this world is foolishness' and Jehovah knows that the reasoning of the wise men are futile''when you talked about what was written in the bible book of Isaiah 40' 22 .it clearly proved that Christopher Columbus and those on that voyage did not read the bible'',It is a pleasure to read and argument like yours especially when you know what you are talking about'' from the greatest source gods word the bible...PROVERBS 3 verse 13 ''happy is the man that has found WISDOM' and the man that gets discernment...