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

A 'theory' or 'hypothesis' in science is NOT considered a fact, you've been told wrong. For any scientist to assert that their theory is an absolute truth is totally unacceptable. Scientific laws cannot be verified but they can be falsified- as Karl Popper described in his Falsification Principle in Response to Alfred Ayer's Verfification Principle. On the subject of evolution, Darwin himself ,NEVER at any point in his own lifetime,did assert that his evolutionary theory was an absolute fact. He, for want of better phrasing, simply laid out what he had found on his voyage on the Beagle and the evidence he'd gathered and pretty much said: 'look, here's what I've got, this is my theory (and I emphasise that word here) as to how the life began on this planet and how we have come to be what we are today' (the theory for the origins of life should not be confused with the origins of the universe in this matter). For Darwin to let the world see what he had discovered was a huge decision- he was himself a Christian and his wife was a staunch Roman Catholic- to against the church and everything he believed in in the name of science was a brave choice. And once again I stress that evolution is only a theory however, its the best lead we've got to determine how we have become the human beings that we are today. And thank you I appreciate your compliment :)
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

ah! that makes some sense!So... what do you say to the first couple questions?
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Oh wait scratch that last sentence I meant you don't have to be an atheist to support the BBT :)
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

he follows the Bible in that they lived with humans.Where does it say this in the Bible?
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Job 40 ad 41 has it; the term dinosaur was not coined until the 19th century when the theory of evolution was beginning to take off.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Are you referring to the behemoth and leiviathan? These have not been confirmed to be dinosaurs. And actually, from what I've read, its more likely that these creatures were hippopotamus and crocodile.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Weren't they bones too in that part of the bible? I'm pretty sure that's what the passage said.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

I personally own the video series in question and, while he does not mention these other topics in detail in this video, you have to remember that it is still part of a SERIES. He explains all these other topics and more in his other videos. Don't attack something when you only see a small piece of it. Though he charges roughly 80 dollars for his 6 part series, his explanations make sense and all his counter-arguments are solid. And if you don't want to see the videos, he has debated MANY supporters in evolution, The Big Bang, etc. So feel free to find any of these debates, his name is Kent Hovind
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Kent Hovind is in prison for fraud. All his arguments are from ignorance, based on his wishes not on evidence. He has fake degree from degree mill. He is illiterate and useless fuck.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Yes he has evidence of the people.... adam and eve... Every human on the planet comes from a single Paternal ancestor and a maternal ancestor..... Not acknowledging this fact (which the Bible does, and narrows it down to Noah and Eve (since the x chromosome was more ancient than the y-chromosome of Noah- or whoever you want to call it!) is testament to your extreme ignorance...
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

There is substantial evidence for both micro and macroevolution:Ubiquitous genes being an example of molecular evidence for macro. (I noticed you didn't reply to this evidence lolzors last time I referenced it in a previous debate...?)Microevolution has been observed - for example, the changing colour of Guppies (type of fish) according to the levels of predation in their environment. In my narrow-minded dogmatic view, there are people who believe in evolution and there are people who don't understand evolution.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Simply because I ignore an argument means nothing.If you would like for me to specifically answer something then point it out to me as something I did not answer and I will try to answer it.What do you want me to answer?
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Guppies changing color to adapt to predation in their envirionment is adaptation, not evolution. The guppies didn't become seagulls or men or monkeys or horses. Nothing will make a guppy change his guppiness. He will always be a fish "according to its kind."
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

I appreciate this debate is cluttered with posts, and you probably haven't had the opportunity to read everything I've posted so I'll reiterate briefly:Adaptation within a species is called "microevolution" - and my example involving Guppies was an example of microevolution, not "macroevolution" which you are disputing. Secondly; a Guppy will never evolve to become another modern day species like a man or horse (and no evolutionist claims this). However, a guppy may in the future evolve into an entirely new species. This occurs as a result of a number of factors - and constructive genetic mutations (which I have talked about in quite some detail in this debate) is one of them. At a simpler level, macroevolution is simply microevolution happening again and again to a large number of a certain species - large enough so that the evolving members can mate with each other and not with the "unevolving" members of the species. To clarify: If the genetic make-up of a group of guppies changes enough over a period of time through "adaptation" or "microevolution" it will become distinguishable from a guppy who hasn't made this change. If an "evolved" guppy and an "unevolved" guppy cannot mate together, the "evolved" guppy is now a member of a new species. I hope I have made this clear - let me know if you still have any questions.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Kent Hovind is a moronHow can you even deny evolution.If you are going to deny evolution why not deny everything else science has proven.All kinds of proof for it the best of which is DNAEven if there were no other evidence other than DNA the theory would still be accepted. We share 98-99% of our DNA with chimps. Humans also share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm. Whales have genes for making legsChickens have genes for making teethHumans have genes for making TAILS!and these are just 3 examples.The only way these genes can get there if they were once dominant in the ancestorsIf you dig down in the layers of the earth, you find fossils of life forms that don't exist anymore, and you don't find fossils of life forms that exist now. The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation. ERVs are usually species-specific, inserted almost randomly in the host genome, and the error or mutation that inactivated the gene is random. If two organisms share the same ERV in the same location with the same inactivation mutations, then they almost certainly share them due to common inheritance and not two separate infections. Researchers analyze shared ERV insertions across species to construct phylogenetic trees. For example, the common ERVs in simians indicates they share a common genome. When phylogenetic trees are constructed based on the pattern of ERVs, they indicate humans share more ERVs with chimps than either share with gorillas. Other examples are known.This is strong evidence for common descent. Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth and just about every living thing has a tail in embryology.Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions. Creationism fails
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Your mom and dad had sex, there genes mixed and created you. You are different than the previous generation. EVOLUTION!
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Variations of like kinds... no one is arguing that.... This is called micro-evolution.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Have we observed this "macro-evolution?" No, we have not.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

You might be interested in the sources of the wiki article on macro evolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution ^ Rice, W.R.; Hostert (1993). "Laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in 40 years". Evolution 47 (6): 1637–1653. doi:10.2307/2410209. JSTOR 2410209.Jiggins CD, Bridle JR (2004). "Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages?". Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 19 (3): 111–4. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2003.12.008. PMID 16701238.Boxhorn, J (1995). "Observed Instances of Speciation". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 26 December 2008.Weinberg JR, Starczak VR, Jorg, D (1992). "Evidence for Rapid Speciation Following a Founder Event in the Laboratory". Evolution 46 (4): 1214–20. doi:10.2307/2409766. JSTOR 2409766.Kirkpatrick, Mark; Virginie Ravigné (2002-03). "Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments". The American Naturalist 159 (3): S22–S35. doi:10.1086/338370. ISSN 00030147. JSTOR 3078919. PMID 18707367.You may also be interested in knowing that we don't have to observe everything, but that we can make logical deductions from what we have observed. I want you to read this carefully: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/05/04/an-easy-way-to-explain-evolution/
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/micromacro.htm "So exactly why can’t microevolution lead to macroevolution? In order for this to happen, something very fundamental must occur: new genetic information must arise in an organism. The organism must then pass on its genes on to its descendents, and with later accumulations of changes over several generations, eventually macroevolution will occur. This theory actually seems pretty logical, yet as logical as it may seem, it is not what we observe when microevolution occurs. In fact, we observe exactly the opposite of what must happen if microbe-to-man evolution is true. And that is, we see organisms become more specialized as they adapt to their environment, or when speciation occurs. Sometimes these changes might even be beneficial despite being an overall loss of information. For example, beetles on a windy island will sometimes lose their wings due to a degenerative mutation.[2] This mutation is actually beneficial in this circumstance because the beetles aren’t able to fly and be blown off into the ocean. But even though this mutation is beneficial, it still resulted in a net loss of information."Even a biased source for evolution agrees...http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d020411.html "So there are observed instances of secondary speciation -- which is not what Darwinism needs -- but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria."And I can't read books if we are on the internet.So just because we don't have to observe some things, we can make logical deductions and come to conclusion? Okay, then read this article: http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/second_law.html Therefore, God is real.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

The first paragraph is just rhetoric and shows a lack of understanding of the basics of information. The lose of wings can be interpreted as a gain in "information" just as much as a loss. Demorgan's laws are pretty awesome. As for the last link, it is a leap of faith to suppose there was an uncaused cause of a supernatural origin, especially one with so many attributes and surrounding mythos as any particular god. Lets just say occums razor says its simpliest to stick to what we actually know in this case, which is that in the begining there was a giant wound of clock...and thats all folks.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Occams razor says what is simplest is the most likely. God being real and creating the world in seven days is pretty simple compared to the big bang happened for no reason, and was there randomly, and randomly created life that randomly over the years went into plants with no cause and also into animals with no cause, and finally went to humans which are insanely complex and ordered by no means of propulsion. Sounds like God wins in this.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Keyword is evolution, we are always evolving, proof of evolution.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

There are different types of evolution. The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

There are different types of evolution.Yes, but you can see it on a small level. If you want to you can look at how quickly dogs evolve, or you could just look at the features of people over time and see how we change, we sure have gotten alot taller.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Watch the videos. Dogs evolve into less efficient organisms because no new genetic information is added but instead is lost. If you start with 2 parents with 48 chromosomes each but they only pass 24 down then the other 24 were lost as well. Macro-evolution is dogs gaining genetic information to become something other than a dog.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

I watched the video, I would like to see the sources for the video's claims. Most of the things in the video is just creationist views, which weather you like it or not, the Bible has less proof than science. It is not God's word, it is a collection of stories from various sources that were picked to be in the bible by the church.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Every time he says something it shows the citation and the wording on the screen. Evolution is a faith just like Christianity.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Oh that video, sorry watched the wrong one. At 10-24 not a christian but this guy knows what he is talking about.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Can the creator of this thread give one logical criticism of evolution? And that means in his/her own words, not saying "Watch these 30 Christian propaganda videos."
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

I have already given you one and you tried refuting it. Just because you don't agree with logic doesn't mean what I say is false and just because I agree with logic doesn't mean what I say is true.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

I have already given you one and you tried refuting it.That's weird considering that I haven't even posted on this debate yet (previous comment excluded).Just because you don't agree with logic doesn't mean what I say is falseI do "agree" with logic. And yes, young earth creationism is a load of pseudo-intellectual crap.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

In other debates I have given you logical reasoning against evolution.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

No you haven't...Regardless...give me one. Right here. Right now.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that we go from complexity/order to simplicity/chaos, yet, the theory of evolution states that we go from simplicity to complexity. One of them is correct but which one is it? Look at the world around us, do things not go from structured order to chaotic messes? And if it were even possibly for things to go backwards contrary to the 2nd law, then mutants would never be able to reproduce after they have mutated to another kind. I'm not arguing micro-evolution, we have clearly seen variations of like kinds but we have not seen one kind change to another kind (meaning not being able to reproduce with any organism but of its own kind; this is also listed in the law of biogenesis). And if we had seen something mutate into a different kind then who would this organism reproduce with? If it can't reproduce outside of its own kind then another organism would have to mutate likewise and be of the opposite gender. However, mutations generally are detrimental for organisms and if some sort of mutation did in fact allow for the organism to become another kind then it most certainly would have some sort of problem that would not allow for the new kind to continue throughout history. Would you like for me to continue?
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

1. The second law of thermodynamics applies only to a closed system. 2. A closed system receives no outside energy. 3.The Earth receives outside energy from the Sun. 4. The Earth is not a closed system. 5. The second law of thermodynamics does not contradict the theory of evolution.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Thats a very good rebuttal... I concede on that the earth is not a closed system... but it still does not show how things that are simple and useless can go to complex organisms. Do you truly think that life becomes more complex over time? Does anything become more complex over time? And even at that, regardless of the earth not being a closed system, the entire universe is, which demonstrates that cosmological evolution is incorrect. And yes, evolution does refer to the entire thing maybe not the "theory of evolution" specifically but the concept of the results of evolution and what was required before it could happen and what the effects of those things are, etc. Even if you could find a hole through that, it still does not refute the other claims about the mutations and like kinds.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

but it still does not show how things that are simple and useless can go to complex organisms.Evolution does not state that life becomes more complex, only that life changes. This can be to a more complex or more simple structure, whichever one benefits the species the most.And even at that, regardless of the earth not being a closed system, the entire universe is, which demonstrates that cosmological evolution is incorrect. Wrong. The universe is an isolated system. it still does not refute the other claims about the mutations and like kinds.There is no problem with mutations, I believe a user already clarified this in response to Srom, read that.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Evolution states that we adapt to the environment to best suit the environment. If we started as bacteria and go to humans, then that is becoming more complex.http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/second_law.html And I have rebutted his argument.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Evolution states that we adapt to the environment to best suit the environment. Which is not synonymous with "evolution states we become more complex", is it?http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/second_law.html Again, the universe is isolated, not closed. Furthermore, energy does not require creation, as energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy merely changes form. Thirdly, even if his argument were true, it does not logically follow that God did it. Allow me to outline his argument.P1: The universe is a closed systemP2: The second law of thermodynamics states that all available energy becomes unavailable eventually.P3: There must have been a point when all energy was available (from 2).C: The Christian God of the Bible created the universe.That argument is completely invalid.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

Its contextual... be picky why don't you... evolution does state that we become more complex because that is the theory... we go from bacteria to humans.... Well, a doctor says otherwise... so I'll trust him... We're not saying the God of the Bible is true... we are saying that God must be true.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Its contextual... be picky why don't you.I'd rather be picky than wrong.evolution does state that we become more complex because that is the theory... we go from bacteria to humans....In that particular instance, yes. But that's anthropocentrising the concept of evolution. Read this, it should clear up 2 key terms: "Complexity" and "DiversityWell, a doctor says otherwise... so I'll trust him.Fallacious appeal to authority, by doing this you concede the point.Though I should point out, I am not the the only one saying this. It is listed on Wikipedia's article concerning isolated systems. Not to have an intellectual dick measuring contest, but if we're appealing to authority...We're not saying the God of the Bible is true... we are saying that God must be true.OK, replace the words "God of the Bible" with "God" in his argument then. It's still invalid.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

I don't concede point... I merely choose to trust that people who know what they are talking about advocate what I am talking about.How is it invalid?
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

I don't concede point... I merely choose to trust that people who know what they are talking about advocate what I am talking about.But he doesn't know what he's talking about, that's my point. The universe is not a closed system, the mass energy is constant. What have I specifically said that is wrong? You keep ducking my points regarding the science, and appealing to authority.How is it invalid?The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. One cannot deduce "God created the universe" from "the second law of thermodynamics necessitates that energy has an origin".
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

How is he wrong, though? The universe is one big closed system. Can anything exit the universe? Can anything enter the universe? No. He is a Ph.D. scientist at Penn State.How does it not?
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Can anything exit the universe? Can anything enter the universe? No. Which is what makes the universe isolated, not closed. Seeing as I'm not sure you actually know what these terms mean, I will clarify for you.Closed system: Can exchange energy with its surroundings, but not matter.Isolated system: Cannot exchange energy nor matter with its surroundings.Seeing as the universe has no surroundings, it is isolated by default.He is a Ph.D. scientist at Penn State.Irrelevant, that's fallacious. After reading it again, I actually noticed something that may explain how a PHD scientist could make such a bad mistake. He says: Imagine the universe as a closed system...Imagine. I believe this man knows that the universe is isolated, not closed, but allowed his beliefs to influence his work, and make it appear to Christians that they have a shred of empirical evidence.How does it not?It's a complete non sequitur. It's also affiriming the consequent.If A then B.BErgo A.Which is fallacious, as A is not the only sufficient condition for B. Applying that to his argument:If God, then closed universeClosed universeErgo God.God is not the only sufficient condition for a closed universe, therefore the argument is fallacious.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Others have given good refutations. But I have another one.Fundamentally, what is life? The second law of thermodynamics was misstated in your argument. It has do with a concept called entropy (S).Again, what is life? Life has a special characteristic that, for all we know, is distinctive of life.What is that? The ability to counteract the entropy of the universe.Schrödinger would say life feeds off of negative entropy. Thus, the second law of thermodynamics and the evolution of life are no more contradictory than of the very existence of life itself. And the latter no one denies. Thus your argument is nonsensical and self-contradictory.