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

Since you have not replied in about 15 days and are debating heatedly in numorous other debates, I will assume judging by a comment I noticed you put in a post to someone; "But I feel (arrogantly, perhaps) that if I post an argument and my opponent does not respond, it is a victory on my part" that you are defeated. Peace.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Ha! I guess that is fair enough thing for you to say, but I have not given up. I am somewhere around point 20 on the article. I will admit I've allowed myself to be somewhat sidetracked though. Provided I have the time tonight and tomorrow, I will try to finish it up. In fact I might as well start digging it further right now :)
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

"Waits for critical response on my link :)"The response is there, although it only now occurred to me that it won't show up in your debate stream. For that I apologize, I was very tired by the time I got to the end of it. But I did explain how I was posting: The original post, counting this response and all of my responses to the article, exceeded the character limit for an argument. So I broke it into three parts. Part II is posted as a reply to the response you are disputing, and then Part III is a reply to part II. Unfortunately, this means you will have to jump to the debate, find the youngest one on the page and then expand a bunch of times to get through the debate to the responses in question. If I was smart I would have just put them all up as disputes to the one post, but I was too tired by that point to be smart :( My apologies. As far as the other points, we can get back to those later. For now lets just look at that article, my response to which partially highlights why it being out-of-date is detrimental when one is discussing a scientific concept.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

The response is there, although it only now occurred to me that it won't show up in your debate stream. For that I apologize, I was very tired by the time I got to the end of it. But I did explain how I was posting: The original post, counting this response and all of my responses to the article, exceeded the character limit for an argument. So I broke it into three parts. Part II is posted as a reply to the response you are disputing, and then Part III is a reply to part II. Unfortunately, this means you will have to jump to the debate, find the youngest one on the page and then expand a bunch of times to get through the debate to the responses in question. If I was smart I would have just put them all up as disputes to the one post, but I was too tired by that point to be smart :( My apologies.No offence, but I'm not going to all that work wasting my time for my opposer; debating isn't about making the other person work hard just because you make mistakes. If you want to convince me of your argument, provide it here and here only and don't make me search and jump through debates and work my way through whatever you told me to - it doesn't work like that and besides, I have heaps of things to do each day therefore don't have the time for that. For now lets just look at that article, my response to which partially highlights why it being out-of-date is detrimental when one is discussing a scientific conceptAgain, you will have to state your argument here and here only. Furthermore, you musn't have read my previous post on the matter of 'out of date' so I will go out of my way and post my original comment here on your theory of out of date documents/books "I can't believe you view that as a negative; since when did an old book become tripe? What, so famous authors from centuries ago should have their brilliant books burned simply because they are out of date? This is the most perposterous theory I have ever come across and is completely ridiculous. FYI, the bible is the best selling book and is ancient; example of one of thousands of old but still very popular books. Furthermore, you say mine is longer; so what? The longer the better; it provides much more explanations and manages to cover all the points which is something that your links and many more links I have been sent fails to do." Besides, a document/study/book isn't out of date if it is logically valid. Food goes out of date when it becomes rotten or not fit for eating, the same goes for studies/books; its only out of date if its not fit for reading or proven false which really says a lot on the fact that the bible is still the best selling book. The matter of the study in my link being a few years out is completely irrelevant and the content is what you should focus on, not the age of the study/document. Whether it is scientific or not, the age should not rule it out when the content is logically rational and true.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Yeah, you would waste of all about 2 minutes (actually, you could also just look at my own debate stream, as both posts are still on the first page). It probably would have taken less time than you cut-and-pasting your old response and typing new lines, especially since my response already gave you my answer to your questions. All that being said, I guess I don't mind re-posting in since that's just two more points for my side of the debate. Check back in 5 minutes...
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

For some weird reason they didn't show up on my recent activity stream where I can view who has responded to my posts hence the reason for "I will just wait for your response" when I hadn't realized you'd sent it. When you typed up your post you implied the posts were muddled everywhere as if itd take me a long time to read through hence my reply saying I didn't have time for that. I now can see the posts and firstly I appreciate the time you have taken to type that up and the effort you are putting into this debate. I will begin typing up my replies and will get them to you asap :)
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Well they both now exist on two places on that debate. The first copies wouldn't appear on your stream as I put them as replies on my own comment (don't ask me why. Tired me had a good reason for it, I'm sure.) So I copied and pasted them as direct responses to you. And do feel free to take your time. I sure took mine :)
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Thats fine no worries. Judging by your previous post I assumed from the way you were describing it that they were muddled all over the place and I would have to jump from post to post or something; that I don't have time for. Anyhow, no worries they were clear and simple.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

P.S. Whoever is going around down-voting my posts - if I was you I'd quit being a pathetic loser as I'm in the process of having you banned. Stop now before its too late you douche-bag.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Your post is not addressing the two main points I made in response to your post. You go on to speak about the law of superposition and principle of fossil succession; this was not one of my points. You take a couple of sentences away from beneath the main points but this is not a sufficient reply as I have made many more points that should be addressed before progressing onto further topics. The two points I provided were "God not absent or inactive" and "age estimate of the earth". The agreement was that you would debate one or two of these points. I am not sure why you have changed course. You provided an extensive list and I replied to it choosing two of the points so that we could focus our debate on something as opposed to major posts that focus on every aspect which is just too time-consuming. There is no point in my replying to your post as you are yet to respond to mine on my points. Once you have done this, our debate can begin and focus on one/two of the points. I will be looking forward to your reply addressing the stated points in my previous post.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

First:"You go on to speak about the law of superposition and principle of fossil succession; this was not one of my points."No, but it was part of the answer to your question. You clearly asked me a question:"However, my question is this: you seem so dedicated to your belief in evolution, so I am wondering if you can disprove creationism?"Both the geologic principles and the brief section about lightspeed were answers to your question. If you don't want a question answered, why ask? I didn't change course, I followed the one that you set.After that I did respond to your "God not present or inactive" point, directly and in a reasonable amount of detail, responding to four different lines that you used in that point. You made it clear that I was not under the obligation to answer both. The only reason I didn't go into "age estimate of the Earth" was because you started your whole reply by stating that you are a working girl who doesn't have time to respond to massive posts. It was already getting long, so I pulled it in short, out of respect to you. But I actually wanted to respond to it, so let's go ahead and do it:Please, explain to me the point you have in believing something that a) is invented by men-Cars were invented by men. Airplanes. Computers. Antibiotics. I believe in them because I've seen them work. Believe it or not, men (and women) are pretty clever, especially when they turn down the volume on faith and start thinking objectively. b) no real evidence is presented- over 40 types of radiometric dating which consistently cross-verify each other. Since each method uses a different half-life, they couldn't get the same result if one is wrong. They have also been cross-checked on the short-term with known historic events, ice core samples, tree rings, etc. Cross-referencing known continent rates of movement to identify the supercontinent formations clearly seen in strata all across the world, showing a minimum of hundreds of millions of years. Current concentration of atmosphere could not build up in a mere 6000 years, and oxidation of iron rich rock down to a specific point clearly shows a long period of time where there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. Not to mention Helioseismic calculations and the lightspeed scenario I mentioned in the last post. c) the "facts" are alterered throughout the years-As time goes on, science gets much more precise. The old estimates get revised as better technology and more data comes in. The whole reason the estimates change is because science self-corrects when more evidence appears that contradicts old assertions, religion generally refuses to do so. We know we don't know everything, but we learn more every year.d) there is no evidence for-See B. Have any evidence supporting an Earth of 6-10 thousand years?
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Simply put, I am done. Not just this debate but this site. At least for a while. Its been fun but also too distracting, I need to refocus myself right now and trim the fat out of my life. I might be back around in the future, but for now, take care.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

:( Ok then, I had kind of sensed you were done as you had been away for longer than usual. I hope you manage to refocus yourself and get to where you wish to be. You take care too, Billie x
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

How the heck could that have gotten a down-vote? Seriously guys, SERIOUSLY. Lol
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

True, but you misunderstand my point; why believe in something that men created yet cannot prove?You mean like religion? You can prove airplanes, computers, antibiotics because they are there in front of you yet you cannot prove what they claim on evolutionThe need to constantly develop new antibiotics, is proof that the processes of evolution are an everyday reality.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

You mean like religion?Ahh, deliberately misunderstanding again I see - not so smart, fellow debater. Not so smart at all. No, I mean like EVOLUTION.They need to constantly develop new antibiotics, is proof that the processes of evolution are an everyday realityAirplanes, computers and antibiotics does not prove that men evolved from apes, LOL. Furthermore, what has your statement got to do with the statement of mine that you emboldened. Lastly, I state again, I will not debate you as I have done so before and found that you are an ignorant ass who makes debating a drag. Fare thee well.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Ahh, deliberately misunderstanding again I see - not so smart, fellow debater. Not so smart at all. No, I mean like EVOLUTION.I know perfectly well what you meant. I just find it amusing that the reason you cited for your doubt of Evolution, more aptly applies to religion which you accept whole heartedly.Airplanes, computers and antibiotics does not prove that men evolved from apesWell, I don't know about aircraft, and computers, but developing new antibiotics would only ever be necessary if viruses continued to gain resistances through the process of natural selection.I will not debate you as I have done so before and found that you are an ignorant ass who makes debating a drag.Well, If you want to watch from the sidelines as I dismantle each of your arguments in front of you, that's your choice.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

God is an invention. You stand here and tell me there is a Supreme blah out there then please answer this...why are there so many different replicas of different religions if your god is the only one that exists then how come different people believe in other things.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

God is an invention. You stand here and tell me there is a Supreme blah out there then please answer this...why are there so many different replicas of different religions if your god is the only one that exists then how come different people believe in other things.Thats like saying 'why are there so many different theories on how this world was created', there is no one answer and each answer differs in relation to the individual believing/not believing. For the record, asking a question that has hundreds of potential answers and expecting me to deliver the hundreds of potentialities does not and cannot outsmart me - on the other hand, if you actually have a genuine interest in debate, use your brain and ask questions that have the potential to create decent arguments, savvy? As for "you stand here and tell me" - no, I sit here and I wasn't even telling you; I've never even seen your name before. "Supreme blah"?? Piss off you dimwit lmao.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

If you believe in creationism then your basically saying..well I guess everyone got together and decided to make a planet...and think...only one planet...there is only one planet out there...you don't see any others? like I said before there are many,many, many different types of religions out there with a bunch of theories on how the world is created. Doesn't it seem dumb to you to believe in only one way. Supreme 'blah' is simple for me to say all supreme beings that people believe in not just one...you would be surprised by how many more are out there besides the one you believe in. I also take offense because I am an evolutionist and if you are saying science is an invention etc...then obviously I will take offense to it. Let's just list off the positives of what science has done: - Science has helped to create new medications.-Science shows how the human body functions.- Science has helped to improve technology.- Science has improved the judicial system. - Science has helped people to go into space.- Science has helped to better understandings of the world around us. Religion: - It gives you an imaginary being to believe in, to worship, to read...but Religion also discrimnates, it judges and it hurts people. Also Religion has created but not limited too: - The Holocaust- Genocides- Fucking nut jobs who go out and kill people for the sake that their supreme 'blah' will eventually bring them to sanctuary. Creationism if that's how they feel...do believe in ONE way the world was created and that is through someone who clearly has never existed anywhere except through the power of imagination oh and story books...but you know Anne Rice was always a really good author.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

If you believe in creationism then your basically saying..well I guess everyone got together and decided to make a planet...and think...only one planet...there is only one planet out there...you don't see any others?If you hadn't presented such a dimwitted paragraph to begin with, I might actually view your post as intelligent and even perhaps interesting. But unfortunately, you decided to open with stupidity so I must progress from here with a dull and bored attitude. Your fault. Firstly, I don't believe "everyone got together and decided to make a planet"; this only further displays your lack of intelligence and dangerously low IQ. I believe that the world was created by God who also created every other planet in this universe which rules out your second point. Doesn't it seem dumb to you to believe in only one wayNot really - if I was to believe in several ways then each one would contradict the other thus none making sense; surely that is the dumb option.Supreme 'blah' is simple for me to say all supreme beings that people believe in not just one...you would be surprised by how many more are out there besides the one you believe in.Supreme blah? No offence but piss off. One God, one way, one truth. If you can't hack that then too bad and your loss.I also take offense because I am an evolutionist and if you are saying science is an invention etc...then obviously I will take offense to it.You take offence? Seriously, you mistake me for someone who gives a buck. Science is not an invention but evolution is. As for your list of what relgion 'created' - religion is a thing, not men or God, its an opinion/belief that millions have that differ from each other. It is a thing therefore it could not have created the Holocaust or any other evil event as it is a 'thing'. It was men that created these evils so blame them instead of something that is incapable of sin. Just because some Christians have acted like twats in the past does not make all Christians bad - if you believe this then get a dictionary and study the meaning of 'steryotype' and 'generalizing'. Fucking nut jobs who go out and kill people for the sake that their supreme 'blah' will eventually bring them to sanctuary.Yeah they sure are nut jobs, but that does not in any way make all of mankind who believes in something a nut job. The conclusion you have come to is both delusioned and entirely effed up and I suggest you begin to change your views or people will begin to believe you are verging on ignorant.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

The evolution of man from quadrupedal ape-like animal to today's bi-pedal gait is well documented in fossil evidence, and some of our closest genetic cousins practice bipedal locomotion from time to time so, I'd say you should look up the facts before commenting.Evolution by natural selection is not an invention, it is a natural force that has been observed in nature and in vitro, it has mountains of evidence both from the fossil record and even more convincingly from molecular data. To deny evolution as fact is to stick one's fingers in one's ears and scream (insert favorite tripe here) over and over again until the nasty scientists stop talking.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Oh yeah? Is that so? Well, as far as I can see it is you who is ramming your fingers so far down your earholes yet the true voices are ringing loud and clear, as they always have done and will. Keep mumbling about your ideas and fantasies but shoving a graph in front of me and expecting me to believe the scrappy handwriting that just by the way fails to produce ACCURATE EVIDENCE is an absolute waste of my time. Something else you should note; there is not "mountains of evidence" to support evolution, but rather mountains of documents that fail to produce accurate evidence for men evolving from big hairy apes. It is not well documented in fossil evidence; if it was I would be convinced that your argument wasn't a pile of crap. I think it is yourself who needs to look up the "facts" because you will find that the "document evidence" that you speak about is in fact a pile of tripe, and the man who invented evolution actually refuted it on his deathbed. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr-I-think-I-know-it-all.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Come on, just because you say that "evolution is accepted by most of the top scientists that exist" I am suddenly meant to abandon my beliefs and be taken in by the words of fools? I am nothing like that. You say there has been a 99% DNA match; how do I know that is accurate? How do I know its even true? As for "you obviously know better than..." I am flattered. The in-depth study I have done in science is related to how scientists believe the world came about. The reason I study this is because when discussing creation with an atheist, we would appear ignorant if each one of us had not studied the other's beliefs. Therefore when debating creation, I feel much less ignorant as I know the many theories which makes the debate a genuine and more interesting argument. I may not be as intelligent as many of the top scientists in the world, but I do however feel their intelligence is wasted and could be put to much greater use. You ask for one link disproving evolution. Well, here is one :) http://ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.htmlAs a fellow debator, I ask you to not take any words out of context or twist words to suit your argument. I hope you find the link of some interest; I certainly did, I always find something new on pages such as these.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Also, by the way, down voting without a dispute is tantamount to acceptance of defeat.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Actually, I did not down vote it. I have been really busy lately so am unable to respond to the debate at the present time, but will reply as soon as my plate is clear.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

My bad then, I made an assumption based on the fact that I received downvotes on two of my disputes to you at the same time. I retract my comment.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

One thing you should note is that nothing is a fact.It's all a bunch of shananigans pulled together by the illuminati to throw us off track.Where I come from,religion is a big thing because we deal with powers beyond mere human comprehension.I go to sleep at night not knowing where I'd be the next day and every day we see different things that show us that there is God.So,believe me when I say,it was evolution spurred on by creation.