azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

You posted a website that is not a reputable source. Therefore your theories are invalid. At least you posted a website? Doesn't matter, you posted a christian apologetic website aimed at promoting pseudoscience, young earth creationism, and god over real science. No, this argument does not work both ways. Unless of course you're a child who doesn't understand what a reputable source is. And yes I can refute it. The reason why antibiotics must be changed every X amount of years is because bacteria evolves. The ones that are more resistant to the antibiotic survive and pass on their genes. The ones that are most resistant to the antibiotic pass on their genes. Eventually through so many generations, you have a bacteria that is virtually immune to the antibiotic. That's when scientists go and look for weaknesses in the bacteria and develop a new or modified antibiotic to counter the bacteria's new defenses. It's an evolutionary arms race. I know this, and I'm not even a med student. Yes, I believe the earth is billions of years old. Why? Because of radio carbon dating. May I ask why you think the earth is thousands of years old? Oh, because the bible says so? Good reason dude. Want my link? I'll provide one from Discovery Health. Aka, the Discovery Channel's Health channel. I will also quote some selections from there:Why do resistance genes persist and spread throughout bacterial populations? It's basically just Darwin's idea of the survival of the fittest, reduced to a microscopic level -- bacteria with these genes survive and outgrow susceptible variants. Discovery Health also sides with Evolution over Creationist nonsense.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

it's a fact that genetics is a loss of informationactually that is anything but fact:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

This guy is delusional, only seeking evidence that supports his claims while ignoring evidence that refutes his claims. Only problem for him is that he won't find a single scientific organization that backs his view. He'll only ever find christian apologetic organizations. Three year med student? He must have slept through every single class the past 3 years.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

No you are delusional. You have not posted one link to any proof. You have not once even attempted to explain where the races come from. All you do is say "Your wrong!" "your wrong!" "Your wrong!" without ANY proof. So go on prove me wrong.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

You're the one who lied about the medical school. Where do races come from? That's not difficult to figure out. Different amounts of melanin in skin lead to the different skin colors. Why do people have darker skin? It turns out that the presence of melanin is a good shield against ultraviolet radiation. In africa, the people with sufficiently dark skin were more likely to pass on their genes that favored more melanin than people with less melanin. Too much ultraviolet radiation is bad, it can cause things like skin cancer. In other places around the world, like Europe, dark skin wasn't necessary. The amount of ultraviolet radiation wasn't strong enough to naturally favor people of darker skin. Want my source?
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Do you even know what delusional means? It means suffering from or characterized by delusions. Do you know what delusions are?An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as realityThe Theory of Evolution is accepted as reality among the entire scientific community, and the overwhelming majority of intelligent people on this planet. When I said you were delusional, I was using it as an adjective to describe you. You are using it as an insult to insult me. Anyways, my other posts have proven you wrong. If you want to have your temper tantrum about me supposedly shouting "Your wrong!" then continue, I won't interrupt you.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

Oh really?http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/mutations
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

That site is not a reputable site. Therefore your argument is invalid. You are not a med student. You are probably not even a college student if you are going to cite answersingenesis as a reputable source.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

I also like how you can't adequately explain your position, but you must defer to me reading a website. If you don't understand the material yourself, then why are you offloading it onto me so I can pick it apart? Afraid to do a little research? This must be why you believe evolution to be false....
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

"I also like how you can't adequately explain your position, but you must defer to me reading a website."Simple, you can't just say something, you have to back it up. If I say "My car can fly", I must prove to you that it does. Just because I say something doesn't mean it's true. Without proof words are meaningless.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

I agree that without proof we cannot be certain people are telling the truth. But you offloaded me onto a website so that I could read the whole thing. What you should have done is quote a few passages that support your position, and then link the website. You need to do some work too if you want to prove your point. If it was a link to a website with a small paragraph or information to read, that's no big deal.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Sorry, it was the end of the day and I wanted to reply to JustIgnoreMe before I logged off.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

That link argues that harmful mutations occur more often than beneficial mutations and that genetic mutations didn't create the first genes, not that the size of the genome is never increased. In fact, it specifically references the flu virus combining with animal virus (which generally occurs through reassortment and/or chromosomal crossover) - producing entirely new genomes.AnswersInGenesis believes in microevolution, natural selection, believes that genomes can and do get longer (they just don't call this "information"), that mutations occur, and that some of those mutations are beneficial (like a virus being able to escape detection by a host). Do you agree with them? If so, I think we can move on to their arguments which seem to be statistical occurrence of bad mutations over good, the origination of the genes themselves, and microevolution vs macroevolution.Anything I missed?See also:"The segmented nature of the influenza type A virus genome allows reassortment (mixing) of genetic material between strains when two or more strains infect the same cell. This type of genetic alteration (antigenic shift) allows a virus strain of which a host has developed immunity against to swap it’s HA and NA proteins (the viral proteins recognized by neutralizing antibodies) with that of other strains which may not usually posses the ability to infect the host. Such antigenic shift can lead to the generation of viral strains by which a population may become infected without protection of neutralizing antibodies generated via previous infection or vaccination."http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/has-it-evolved
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

" In fact, it specifically references the flu virus combining with animal virus"Exactly, nothing NEW is added; only COMBINED."If so, I think we can move on to their arguments which seem to be statistical occurrence of bad mutations over good"Which, in itself, is a good point. For example, if I took a bunch of gears, steel, plastic, and quartz and put it into a box and shook it for 1 billion years; it's not going to turn into a watch. That's what is called statistical impossibility. And that is the thing. Evolution could NEVER happen. It is just too statistically impossible.Supporting Evidence (since I don't know how to do it fancy at the bottom of the post ;)http://www.icr.org/article/155/http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/tj/TJv15n3_Protein_Families.pdf http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v1/n1/look-at-some-figures
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

The three sites you referenced are not reputable sites. One is the institute for creation research. They will always prioritize the bible over evidence, logic, and science. AnswersInGenesis is the same thing, they have a goal and that goal is to change science to fit the bible. if I took a bunch of gears, steel, plastic, and quartz and put it into a box and shook it for 1 billion years; it's not going to turn into a watch. That's what is called statistical impossibility.Your watch analogy does not apply. It is a large scale example, the first cell would be tiny in comparison to the parts of a watch. The Miller Urey experiment is an example of how inorganic material can form organic compounds like amino acids.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

"The three sites you referenced are not reputable sites."I say they are. You need to prove it. If you think they are not reputable, then refuting them should be easy.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

I think the burden of proof is on you, but I'll go ahead and disprove the validity. I'll provide quotes from each article:Its work in the field of creation science has been rejected by the scientific community, but has been significant in shaping anti-evolutionist thought in the United States by introducing creation science through churches and religious schoolsThe scientific community, the people who are experts in their fields, disagree with creation science. The term is really an oxymoron. Creation pseudo science is an accurate description. Creationism is rejected by nearly all scientists,[51][52] with more than 45 science organizations having criticized creationism as not science.Why doesn't a single scientific organization support creation science or creationism? There is no evidence for it! It is baseless, all the creationists do is twist and change science to fit the bible. Pigliucci cites ICR scientist Harold Slusher resorting to non-Euclidean and non-Einsteinian explanations of light travel to reconcile the vast distances light travels in space with the brief timescale given in young earth creationismThere's evidence of that right here, they're denying Einsteins explanation for how fast light travels in order to say that the bible is correct. The earth literally cannot be as young as creationists say it is by the simple fact of the speed of light alone. On top of that, radiometric dating confirms the earth is old as well. Institute for Creation Research WikipediaInstitute for Creation Research RationalWiki
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Also, why did you ignore what I said about the antibiotics? If you are indeed a 3 year medical student, surely you should know how antibiotics work? Please explain to me your idea on how antibiotics work and how my understanding is supposedly wrong. You've pretty much been cornered in this debate. All your points have been refuted with reputable sources, and by people with knowledge on the subject. You however have chosen to lie about your education, and pretended to have a great deal of knowledge on a subject you know next to nothing about.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

Doubt it, I think you pretend to have knowledge on a subject you know next to nothing about.As far as bacteria, nothing new is added; it just uses DNA already there.And another thing. Why haven't you evolutionists found any missing link fossils. I've seen many human fossils, and I've seen many monkey fossils. But I haven't seen any missing link fossils. So where are those?And what about Polystrate fossils (fossils which extend through "millions of years" of layers E.G. tree fossil)? Explain those."You however have chosen to lie about your education"Half lied, there's a difference. I'm a three year student in Computer Science. LOLNo, you haven't come close to backing me into a corner. Especially on statistical probability. I say it's statistically impossible.Supporting Evidence:http://www.icr.org/article/155/http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/tj/TJv15n3_Protein_Families.pdf  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v1/n1/look-at-some-figure And yes, I'm sorry for the delay. Just been busy, busy, busy. College is kicking into gear, and I work from 7 to 7 on weekends. Not as much debate time as I had during summer break.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

How do I know next to nothing about this subject? I've answered your questions, and all you do is insist that I'm wrong while abandoning the arguments you've made in previous posts in favor of creating new ones. You were flat out wrong on antibiotics. As far as bacteria, nothing new is added; it just uses DNA already there.False, new information is added through mutations. The E. Coli long term evolution experiment has proven this. This experiment started in 1988 and is still being done today. They put 12 identical e. coli samples in 12 different incubators. They put a small amount of basic sugar, along with a few other compounds that were not sugar. Each generation made the e. coli more successful and able to survive longer in the incubator with limited resources. Eventually, one of the E coli's population exploded because it developed a mutation that allowed it to not only break down the sugar into energy, but the other non sugar compounds in the incubator into food as well. And another thing. Why haven't you evolutionists found any missing link fossils.Because evolution would be confirmed even in the complete absence of any fossil record. We don't need fossils to verify evolution, DNA already verifies that we have a common ancestor with other animals simply due to the similar strands of DNA in all organisms. The fossil record is just bonus points, even in its terribly incomplete state. And what about Polystrate fossilsI do not know about polystrate fossils. Could you explain them in more detail?No, you haven't come close to backing me into a corner. Especially on statistical probability. I say it's statistically impossible.In regards to the antibiotic issue, you were completely wrong. Statistical probability in comparison to what? The formation of life? Must I refer back to the Miller Urey experiment where inorganic materials managed to form into organic compounds such as amino acids? Sure is statistically improbable alright...Those three sites prioritize the bible over science and evidence. They're more concerned with changing the evidence and science to fit the bible. When the bible and science disagree, you don't side with the bible.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

HA HA HA! Did you seriously just reference that?? Modern scientists reject (I repeat) REJECT that experiment because it actually shows that abiogenisis is NOT possible. This shows you do not know what you are talking about. Even an amateur grade schooler wouldn't reference that. Here's whyI like how you copy and paste material from a different website as if it were you who wrote the whole thing. Let's not resort to plagiarism. Give credit where credit is due, link to the original source material, which in this case is creation.com. Creation.com is not a reputable source. You don't even understand the material that you copy and pasted, you just threw it over to me to dissect. If you refuse to cite reputable material, then there is no point in continuing this debate. Because all you're going to do is run for cover to your creationist website and ignore any and all scientific evidence I propose. Modern scientists do not reject that experiment, they support it. The only thing they do not support is the conditions of early Earth. Get your facts straight. This only serves to show that you have no idea what you're talking about, all you want to do is copy and paste things from people much smarter than yourself but not very smart in general. You only told half the story. What you "forgot" to tell is that the altered organism is less efficient in performing its normal function, making the E. Coli less fit in an environment without that specific solution. I would hardly call that evolution.I told the whole story, you've been brainwashed by creationists into rejecting scientific evidence in favor of creationists pseudo scientific claims. Evolution doesn't mean better all around and at everything. The E Coli may or may not be particularly well adapted for normal life conditions outside of the incubator, but that is irrelevant. The E Coli adapted specifically to their environment, this proves evolution. They even developed a mutation that allowed them to break down another compound into food. Do you know what animal our DNA is closest to? A pig! So tell me, how do you know we evolved from an ape when a pig is our closest relative? Looks like neither the fossil record, nor DNA is on your side.Let's not lie about DNA now... How do you know a pig is our closest relative? Looks like the DNA is on my side, we did not evolve from an ape. We merely had a common ancestor with present day monkeys and apes. Same goes for humans and any other animal. But I must digress. Thank you, THANK YOU for giving me the debate. By being so crazy as to actually cite the Miller Urey experiment, you just lost the argument. Because I'm going to cite it throughout the rest of the debate. LOL!The Miller Urey experiment is not false, it is supported by scientists. There is perhaps only one aspect that scientists do not agree with in regards to the Miller Urey experiment, and that is the conditions for early Earth. As for losing the argument, it is your delusion, and one you must bear alone. Quote it throughout the rest of the debate if you'd like. I am correct on this one.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

"I like how you copy and paste material from a different website as if it were you who wrote the whole thing."LOL, broken "Here's Why" link. Fixed that now. Thank you for brining that to my attention. I copied and pasted because you complained last time I just slapped ya with a link, so I took the time to give you the important bits in order for you to condense your reading. Because the actual web page is like, 100 book pages long. :)"Because all you're going to do is run for cover to your creationist website and ignore any and all scientific evidence I propose."Who's ignoring who you fucking retard? I posted material that showed that the Miller Urey experiment was wrong. All you say is, "It's disreputable" like some twisted text bot. And that's another thing. Off all the obvious logical fallacies, you would think the straw man would be one you wouldn't use. But nope you use it anyway like for you it's somehow "exceptable".And, IF IT'S DISREPUTABLE, IT SHOULD BE EASY TO REFUTE!!!!! Like those sites that say things like "9/11 was a government conspiracy". Those are extremely disreputable, yet because they are, it's all the more easier to refute. But no, you can't refute it, because you know you are wrong! . And another thing. You still need to prove it's disreputable! And don't weasel out of it by saying, "You need to prove it's not disreputable" because that is a fallacy. You can't prove a negative any more that you can prove evolution, but you already proved that with your straw man arguments."you've been brainwashed by creationists into rejecting scientific evidence in favor of creationists pseudo scientific claims".No, I think you have been brainwashed by evolutionists into rejecting scientific evidence in favor of evolutionary pseudo scientific claims. See, these are my favorite type of accusations because they work both ways."but that is irrelevant"No it is relevant because it could never happen naturally outside of a laboratory. Thus does not pertain to actual evolution. You see, you use the word irrelevant like you do not know what it means."But it is in fact truth that gives relevance to "relevance," just as "relevance" becomes irrelevance if it is not related to truth. Without truth, relevance is meaningless and dangerous."-Author Unknown"How do you know a pig is our closest relative?"Because a pig is what they use for medical testing. Your own website even admitted that pigs are used for rare organ transplants. Looks like you shot yourself in the foot."The Miller Urey experiment is not false, it is supported by scientists."Then fucking prove it!!! All you did was say, "It's a disreputable source". You didn't actually give any evidence to actually prove your point. You know, I think there is a word for that.....oh yeah, delusional; the same word you seem to be obsessed with like it's some "magic" argument winner.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Creation.com is not a reputable site. They value god over science and evidence, which is why they edit and change the evidence to fit their world view. They are not scientists because a true scientist does not come up with a theory and try to prove that theory true or correct. A true scientist comes up with a theory and tries to prove it false. Creation.com doesn't do that. They have the bible, and they seek to prove the bible. That's how you know it's not real science, this created an unhealthy bias. From their website:The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and JudgeCreation.com About UsI refuted it, are you satisfied now? Who's ignoring who you fucking retard?Ad hominem attacks now? I feel special. I posted material that showed that the Miller Urey experiment was wrong. All you say is, "It's disreputable"Yes, you are correct. Creation.com is not a reputable site, therefore your argument implodes in on itself. And that's another thing. Off all the obvious logical fallacies, you would think the straw man would be one you wouldn't use. Where did I use a straw man argument?No it is relevant because it could never happen naturally outside of a laboratory.Oh, well then why did it happen outside of a laboratory experiment a few billion years ago? How else did we get here? Because a pig is what they use for medical testing. Your own website even admitted that pigs are used for rare organ transplants. Looks like you shot yourself in the foot.We'll go along with what you say, that pigs are our closest ancestor according to DNA. How does this disprove evolution? We still share a common ancestor with apes, as well as any other form of life. Then fucking prove it!!!Prove that scientists support it? Okay. The state of understanding of early Earth chemistry has changed somewhat since then (a nitrogen-carbon dioxide atmosphere is now considered more likely than Miller and Urey's mixture), but even though the Miller-Urey conditions are no longer widely accepted, the experiment did successfully prove that the basic building blocks of life could form spontaneously in nature without intelligent intervention.Urey Miller Experiment RationalWiki