azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Macro evolution has been observed though. The definition that theists use is not the same as the one that biologists use. In general, the definition can be put as:Any change above the level of species.This basically just asks for speciation, which has been observed on numerous occasions.No leap of faith required whatsoever.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

It has been observed, yet he will keep saying it hasn't and will refuse to accept.That is the way of a religious person, he does not care whether what he believes is true or not, only that he continues to believe.I am hoping that this stereotype is wrong, however, and that people will realize evolution has been observed and proven true.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

It hasn't been observed because this is fact. I used links to back this up and the only thing that all you atheists used to say otherwise is wishful thinking. An argument is only good when it is true. I didn't coin the terminology, science did.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

1) You claim that macro evolution has never occurred.2) Speciation is a form of macro evolution3) Speciation has occurred numerous times. Evidence can be found here4) Ergo, macro evolution has occurred (from 2 and 3)5) Ergo, you are wrong.Care to challenge any of those points?
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Macro has still never occurred, speciation is form of micro-evolution. A new species hasn't been developed through speciation, just a mutated one of the original species. To came something as bold as macro, one better prove that a fish turned into a mammal, not that a fish grew different scales. Micro is within and micro is that you have shown.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

speciation is form of micro-evolutionThe definition you used says otherwise:"Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species"A new species hasn't been developed through speciationYou may want to read that again...prove that a fish turned into a mammalHere is a debate for fish to tetrapod - of course the same can be done all the way to mammal
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Ah, but this is where you're wrong.Speciation is macro evolution, whether you like it or not. Macro evolution occurs above or at the level of species. Speciation is within this. If that does not content you, then how about this? Ample evidence for macro evolution.If you don't accept this, I'm afraid you are being willfully ignorant.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Unless atheists use something other than dictionaries and terms used by scientist, than we both use the same sources. I posted mine. I suggest you do the same. Not only is evolution a lie, but it appears it's followers are as well.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Prove evolution is a lie.Valid, peer-reviewed, verifiable evidence, please.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

I already proved it is a lie. Learn to read .Peer-reviewed, so I get some one else to agree with me than I'm right? Christianity, I win.There is no verifiable evidence that macro-evolution occurred. Evolution theory is based on micro-evolution. This means that if one happened; it is possible that the other happened, not that it did. Evolution is a theory, not fact.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

1) You did not. Perhaps your delusions are getting to you...2) Way to be a smartass. No, when I say "peer-reviewed," I mean the most objective person you can possibly get.3) There's sure as hell a whole lot of damn evidence than there is for God. Of course you reject every significant scientific theory we currently have, being the idiotic buffon you are.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" To call some one a name takes not a brain, but the lack of one.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Why do people laugh at creationists? thunderf00tmacroevolution is just alot of microevolution.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Okay, so therefore we would require some kind of change in species, right? Therefore, let's go and look and see...Well, I've found the following examples:1. Titaalik: a strange little critter found in an ancient swamp, it shows clear transitions between fish and amphibian2. Microraptor: less famous than Archaeopteryx, it is a small, feathered dinosaur living in trees and eating insects. Sounds eerily familiar to another kind of animal today...3. Protohippus: well, this is pretty easy to see just from the name4. Dormaalocyon: link between canines and felines5. Titaalik: see above
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Macro evolution and Micro evoultion is not the same thing.I read other people saying that macro evolution is just lots of micro evolution. What a bunch of bollocks. This is not pokemon or digimon. Nor is this Harry Potter ''Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish.'' You clearly can see that the beliefs of evolution has been disproven by real life circumstances. To continue believing in evolution which is disproven, is to be a total air-headed, hair-brained idiot. ''Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. ''Bacteria do not evolve. And when a scientists forcefully and artificially injects new DNA into animals, like the case a person called Nichole mentioned on another debate mentioned, it was still a fly. If you want a more complex being:''There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.'' Like us you can say that fruit flies have races. But they can still reproduce with each other, because they are one and the same species. A white man can procreate with any other female HUMAN ''race'' no matter her genetic mutation. But he or she was never proven to be an Ape,chimpanzee or any other primate. Science DISPROVES evolution. Scientists like those who are here winning this debate with up votes of ignorance accept for a reason I do not know..
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Erm the mechanics in micro- and macro-evolution are exactly the same. Macro evolution is just that - lots of micro evolution.It's patently absurd to say that micro-evolution is possible and macro-evolution isn't. It's like saying that it's possible to walk to my neighbours house but impossible to walk from Chicago to New York.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

If you have no food, it IS possible to walk to your neighbor's house but not across the country. This is a more accurate description of my viewpoint.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

The distinction between micro and macro was invented by creationists as an explanation as to why we have observed animals evolve. The only real difference is time.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

macro-evolvedThis is a term coined by those that said there would never be any observable evolution, in order to make it sound like they were still right when biologists proved them wrong.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

If the earth is billions of years old as you all say. Explain how can their be petrified trees standing straight up through multiple layers of strata? Aren't each of these layers supposed to represent millions of years? How can a tree stand up for millions of years to be petrified? I think the global flood about 4000 years ago laid all the layers of strata as you see today. That would explain perfectly these trees standing up through multiple layers.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

I believe physical matter was created from energy, which scientists seek to do themselves. On earth, we have a building up of topsoil. We also have, upon the highest mountains in the world, sedimentary rock containing fossils of leaves and easily perishable things that could not have occurred from a slow buildup like that of topsoil.The fossil record contains huge gaps that 'scientists' fill in with supposition. And, there is nothing in the BIble that indicates dinosaurs coexisted with men. Both you guys are wrong.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Creationism is a primitive hypothesis. You can try to find evidence, but it's not even as good as the FSM argument.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Primitive in which way? The FSM argument is a joke, it's a satire, to make fun of the Intelligent Design theories. What's the point in science cracking jokes about religion, namely intelligent design, by teachers in hopes of not teaching intelligent design? FSM is lame and not even fruitful. At least creationism (non christian, and including christian; the entire spectrum of creationism) is not a joke, is taken seriously by many people. Again, why would creationism be a primitive hypothesis?
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

How dare you insult His Noodlyness! He boiled for your sins!Man in the clouds makes the entire universe...?Hypothesis. Yes- there is very little that could be used as evidence.Primitive- well, there is no science or rational thought behind it!
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Evolution as it is taught now, I believe to be a lie. I am not disputing the changes in animals that can occur as a result of the environment, but I do not believe one can change species from ape to man.So in response to the title of this debate (I cannot view the video due to audio output failure), I will have to say that Evolution is a lie as it currently stands. Should they wish to amend their theory in a more accurate light, I may reconsider my position.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

but I do not believe one can change species from ape to man.Wow educate yourself before spewing nonsense like that.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Here is a video pointing out that Evolution is false and I believe every word this person says its a short video.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Evolution refuted - refuted. Okay, I'm going to pick out some quotes from this video and show why they are fallacious and in many cases simply nonsense. " evolution in the sense that life began to randomly generate new genetic information...is something that quite honestly doesn't hold up against science"An honest mistake, but unfortunately for creationists a mistake nonetheless. Beneficial constructive (positive) mutations have been observed in bacteria many times - hence why bacteria can become immune to antibiotics. Positive mutations concerning the Nylon Bug are described here: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm" it (evolution) is in great opposition to observational science"(see above). Also, as I've mentioned in a couple of posts now: ubiquitous genes are something we can and have observed and strongly indicate that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Ubiquitous genes are protein sequences that are found in all life forms that perform the same function. However, different protein sequences could perform these functions just as well - so there is no reason for all life to use the same sequence, a phenomena explained only by a common ancestor. "life doesn't arise from non life"Miller and Urey's experiment in an attempt to verify the primordial soup theory showed that amino acids can be created from non-living chemicals. Suggesting it is certainly possible for life to arise from non life. I am not stating that their experiment proves the primordial soup theory, only that it demonstrates non-living chemicals, in the right environment, can be conducive to life. "there is no known observable process by which genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code"(see first paragraph - this statement is simply false). "humans are humans, apes are apes"It is important to be clear that no modern day animal evolved into another modern day animal. For example, we did not evolve from monkeys. Both humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, but a monkey did not evolve into a man. Likewise, a fish has never evolved into an amphibian. There was no half-fish half-frog species (so the drawings in this video are incredibly misleading). Humans are humans, apes are apes, but both are descended from a common ancestor that was neither a human or an ape. "never has it been observed that life can arise from non life"(see paragraph 3) - clearly this video is a tad repetitive - not as much substance as it makes out. "all powerful, all knowing, supernatural God"Clearly the only possible alternative....
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

lol this looks like a presentation a grade seven kid put together at a catholic school. This guy doesn't know science for shit. His puny brain just doesn't understand. Look at the actual science behind evolution and it makes sense, even though it might not seem so at first. OliverJDH you fucking nailed it.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

I agree with everything in spirit, but, being anal, I have to point out a few technical issues:Humans are humans, apes are apes, but both are descended from a common ancestor that was neither a human or an ape.Technically, it was an ape, and humans are apes too. It just wasn't one of the contemporary ape species.Both humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, but a monkey did not evolve into a manSame basic issue, that common ancestor was a monkey, just not a contemporary monkey species.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Technically, it was an ape, and humans are apes too. It just wasn't one of the contemporary ape species.True true - I should have made that clear. Where I have used the term ape I meant a member of the contemporary ape species as described in the video. However of course, if you trace our lineage back far enough the common ancestor would not be an ape.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

That bacteria then died when reintroduced to its surroundings.Where did DNA come from? That is merely evidence for a common designer.Amino acids are not life. Law of Biogenesis.I have already refuted the first evidence.There is still no proof of that common ancestor.Repetition is good for memory.Clearly.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

I'm saying that while in the laboratory, the bacteria when reintroduced with the parent bacteria were killed very shortly after encountering one another. Second, this is still not prof of macro-evolution.DNA is the longest book in the world and could reach the moon and back 5 million times if stretched out. Do you truly believe that, not even a book, but a magazine could randomly form itself together especially when things in nature away from complexity?Watch the video series! The experiment is faulty. They didn't use oxygen so that nothing would oxidize, however, if there was no oxygen on earth there wouldn't have been ozone which blocks UV light from the sun which destroys ammonia which was one of the fundamental components in the soup.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

I'm saying that while in the laboratory, the bacteria when reintroduced with the parent bacteria were killed very shortly after encountering one another.I'm going to assume you are talking about the Nylon Bug, correct me if I'm mistaken. This bacteria was found in a pond behind a Japanese factory - due to the waste from the factory this pond contained large quantities of Nylon. If taken out of this environment this bacteria would die as it has been removed from its food source. If reintroduced with the unmutated bacteria (which aren't present in the pond) it would die because (again) it is not near its food source. I fail to understand your point, the only time in which this bacteria was in the lab was to be examined (no changes to the bacteria were made) - furthermore, in this instance your point is irrelevant; I am merely demonstrating that productive mutations do occur - that is to say that new genetic information can be created - not whether it incurs a survival advantage (though in the case of the Nylon Bug it did). Second, this is still not prof of macro-evolutionIt wasn't intended to be an all encompassing proof - as I stated above, this is simply evidence that new genetic information can be created, a fact that (as the video pointed out) must be true in order for macro-evolution to be true. DNA is the longest book in the world and could reach the moon and back 5 million times if stretched out. Do you truly believe that, not even a book, but a magazine could randomly form itself together especially when things in nature away from complexity?The argument from design (the teleological argument - whatever you want to call it) has been disputed time and time again. One famous response is simply that: You cannot explain away complexity by introducing greater complexity (i.e. God). It is much more sensible to assert that complexity arises from a number of simple steps over a long period of time than from an even greater complexity over a short period of time. As for DNA in particular - it is comprised of varying patterns of 4 different kinds of bases consisting of 4 (I think) different elements - hardly the archetype of complexity. The experiment is faultyI am not claiming that Miller and Urey's experiment proves the primordial soup theory - it simply demonstrates that given the right environment it is possible for non-living chemicals to produce amino-acids. I'm not saying it happened as described by their experiment.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Before I begin a rebuttal, I must ask you something. If I prove that the claims in that video are false, beyond all doubt, will you accept evolution as true?If not, I shan't bother.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

No I will never in my life accept that evolution is true in any instance.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

People like you make this site worthless. When you join a debate, you join it with an open mind with an eye on your thesis and your stand. Ideally, if you want to be taken seriously, you fight an argument with an equally logical argument. Even if those arguments do not convince you, then you should at the least defend your stand, otherwise, you are merely one of those brainless nitwits that believe in something they don't know about. Don't just take a stand and ignore all arguments. FIGHT for your stand with proper, concise and well substantiated arguments! Otherwise, piss off this debate.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

all he said was that he was not going to belive in evolution and you are to stubborn so you make excuses just to dispute him all because hes a christian.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Why the heck not? Given all the proof we have shown you? Are you just choosing to ignore it or something?
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

The reason why I choose not to believe it is because in the video it said that no one has refuted that argument in the video and I believe what He said and their is plenty of evidence how evolution if flawed and not a fact.I have been studying the flaws of evolution and it appears that there is flaws in the theory of evolution.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

So if evidence is shown against your position, you'd keep your belief, ignoring the evidence? Oh, and OliverJ (I believe it is) just refuted the video's claims quite adequately.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

I don't care if he refuted the argument. I am not going to refuted the argument because I already stated my opinion and now I am going to leave this debate and move on.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

That's the most stupid form of self-dishonesty I've ever seen. Basicaly, what you're saying is "No matter how strongly you can prove me wrong, I'm right, because I want to be right".One can't be more dishonest with himself than that.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

I honestly don't care if you try and refute Oliver's arguments or not. Let me see... If evidence against the Christian god was found, would you continue to belief it?
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

If evidence against the Christian god was found, would you continue to belief it?There is no error or contradiction found in the Bible and there hasn't been anyone who has disproved the resurrection of Christ. So therefore there isn't any evidence against God and if it there is it is probably vague or I could refute it easily.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

There is no error or contradiction found in the BibleSo? The Bible has yet to be proven true, so I honestly don't care what the Bible says.and there hasn't been anyone who has disproved the resurrection of Christ.Don't care about that, either. If there was solid prove directly against the Christian god, would you continue to believe in God?
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

If there was solid prove directly against the Christian god, would you continue to believe in God?There hasn't been solid proof against the Christian God no one has ever refuted every single thing about Christianity. But I would still continue to believe because I know for a fact that Christianity isn't flawed.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

There hasn't been solid proof against the Christian God no one has ever refuted every single thing about Christianity.Uh... not what I meant. Ignore everything else about Christianity, I am simply asking if evidence against the Christian god (as if the God is false, then everything else about Christianity is, too) was presented to you, would you believe in it?But I would still continue to believe because I know for a fact that Christianity isn't flawed.I am trying to get you IMAGINE if evidence against God was presented to you... So you'd continue to believe in God, even if (verified, peer-reviewed) evidence of the contrary was shown to you?...Ignorance at it's best.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

I would still believe it in it even if someone proved it to be completely false.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

If the God is false, then everything about Christianity is false. For example, God is said to have made the Earth in 6 days. However, if God is proven false, then this obviously isn't true, and as such nothing past that point is true, as well.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Yes without God there wouldn't be earth or anyone of us here right now.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

God=No evidence.Big Bang Theory=Immense amount of evidence.What to believe?