azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

I think you are missing his point. Something perfect does not need a creator. Medicine isn't perfect Man made medicine. Man Isn't perfect God made Man. God is perfect and always was.If he said:Everything in the world/universe needs a creatorThen god is included in that as part of the universe.The universe as we understand it is everything, that is what a universe means. The idea of a multiverse is conjecture at this point and there can be nothing outside the universe.So the logical syllogism is:Everything in the universe needs a creatorGod is in the universeGod needs a creatorThe only way you can invalidate this is to defeat the premises (not everything needs a creator? we have established beyond conjecture that we are in a multiverse?).
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

Evolution Fails to Predict the Genetic ComplexityAny scientific theory, which evolution is purported to be, has to be able to predict to be a good theory. But evolution in its’ need to connect mutation in the genome to the massive change needed for evolution incorrectly predicted the direct gene to morphology connection. Only with this connection can small mutations actually have the ability to make massive morphological changes necessary for evolution to be plausible.The Darwin concept:One gene – One Protein – One FunctionBut we are learning more about the genetic package and are finding that contrary to the evolutionist’s wish’s the genetic structure has always been surprisingly resilient. I must mention again the accelerated fruit fly experiments and the extraordinary resilience of the fruit fly genome. I believe that this would be a great falsifiability test for evolution. What evolutionist say is that evolution is a theory that can absorb all new data and take it in and make it part of the theory. When they say that they are not describing a scientific theory, but a philosophy.We have recently discovered the incredible complexity of the genome and how it reacts and moves its’ instructions to create the morphology or the phenotype of the organism. It is not a one to one correlation, but the complexity is much beyond that.http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#Reason1
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

That is a valid point. But that one point does not derail the whole theory simply because we do not yet understand some of the natural processes that drove it forward. Also I must point out that in scientific terms, the word theory refers to a hypothesis that has been continually tested and proven accurate. As of now, there is an enormous amount of evidence supporting evolutionary theory. If an equal or greater amount of evidence should be presented contrary to evolutionary theory, we would strongly question it's validity or drop it altogether. Obviously that hasn't happened, and to be completely objective (as all scientists should be) we must lean on the side of greatest evidence which at the present time is for evolution. You will have to do more than point out a few inconsistencies to derail the whole theory.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

It is hard to debunk that everything was created. What created the substance to create the earth? What created man? Science is a tool created by man.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

Just to reinforce what I am saying, everything had to be created, it did not just happen. People are not 100% accurate, they make mistakes. If people make mistakes and scientist are people, that means scientist make mistakes.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

Science is simply a study of how God did it. So all those theories like the big bang are simply explaining how he did it not completely throwing him out the window even if intellectuals think so. (except for evolution that's completely false)
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

God without science is blind, Science without god is lame!
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

so what do you conclude...........................................
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

God is always first, however, you cannot deny that science has been a true attribute to the life we live today. We wouldn't have computers to debate, glasses to see, and thank God for allowing man the gift of curiosity, or else we would never have discovered penicillin. Science in definition is "The study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment." Now I can say along with anything the devil can be found in it as well.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

without god, there would be no science. THerefore, surely God is greater than science.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

And you have some evidence for this? That science cannot exist without god?
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

If science created the world who created science? It is obviously a supreme force called GOD who started the world. Please use some conman sense.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

Science is all based around theories, but they may not be true. God was the founder of science
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

Are you going to provide any factual support for your claims or are you just going spew religious claims with no foundation?
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

all science has to be based on a religion, and so without christianity, science would not be as it is today.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

God created all animals,on which is based science. Also, there has to be one big thing out there that creates all rules of science.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

god created all animals?????????so what about the other living things....was it created by you......
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

God is what undoubtedly proves science wrong. God is the only thing that has broken the laws of physics
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

Yep, looks like you're just going to make wild unfounded claims with no shred of evidence whatsoever.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

What is the probability of the earth beginning by chance? All of the detail and life that was put into the world did not happen by chance.The fact that this Big Bang "THEORY" (meaning not prove or fact) is ruling what we believe is ridiculous.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: SCIENCE

Sorry I dont usualy get involved in these sorts of debates, But Quantum Mechanics and multiverse theorems show that this universe is not here by chance. All accepted scientific theories are based on facts, thats what makes them scientific theories duh. When all probabilities are exhausted, all eventualities will occure. Our big bang is not unique, only in our universe is it unique.Vacumes are not empty, as experiments show that particles come in and out of existance all the time.one final point to all the people who ask what happened before the big bang, I ask "What happened before time?"
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: GOD

You knw, science is made by humans. God created this world a long time ago, before human was born.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: SCIENCE

dats true first god came..than science ......science can be harmful sometimes...but god can nvr be harmful for anyone.....
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: GOD

No one know who created this world......and how can one man says that creation this is god.......did he saw while creating ? no. its a belief frnds not more than that...man just talks his assumption dats all......empty mind think a lot...so their is nothing like this god VS science..they both are one...if u think deeply u all will get answer.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: GOD

Science does not have any proof because you need to have fact before believing a religion .
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: GOD

God is real because all people in Isreal were slaves for eygptions and now in this day they are not slaves anymore
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: GOD

Science does not give the true essence of nature. Science is just a language that was created to be able to predict the future and understand the natural world better but not its authentic essence. Theories are devised from models, and not from the true units of nature. When theories are devised, assumptions are made, and hence those theories are not universal. They only aim to understand a specific pattern of nature and not the whole. If we still have not seeing a true picture of an atom and not models, then we still do not know the true essence of nature. Science aims to get the patterns of God but for as long as we use our man-made mathematics and not the mathematics of God, we will never understand Him nor derive an equation to model his workings. The bottom line is He is God of power and nothing can go beyond Him.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: GOD

False dichotomy...............................................................................................................
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

God can change, as he made them, the rules which science follows.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

Yea! More religious bile!! First you must prove god exists, then that he is capable and indeed break the laws of physics. Good luck. But from what I've seen so far from you, I'm not going to hold my breath. Evidence and support are words beyond you it seems
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Both

Why does it always have to God VS Science? Or Faith VS Evidence? I feel that Science could explain God and creationism, but most people don't like that idea because God is supernatual and the world is natural. God cannot necessarily be proven by worldly evidence, rather, by supernatural evidence. If God is there, why doesn't he just show himself? Because then life would be pointless. This life on earth is short, and we can choose to live in ignorance and deny him, and forever be sorry, or, we can accept him and be eternally thankful for what he has done for us. I honestly feel terrible for Atheists. They are using logic to prove that God can't exist. But in the end, it is their ignorance and obstinance that ends up costing them. I have no interest in hearing you Atheists tell me how stupid and foolish I sound.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

God! he created us! Science is important but God is much more!
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

When monotheistic religions were created, it really had nothing to do with monotheism. Behind every religion, not just monotheistic ones, there are moral values. The "God" comes in to keep people from thinking "Why should I do all this stuff that they're telling me? What's keeping me from running of and being a bad person?" God is how the religions answer, and keep people from doing bad things by saying God will punish them. It's time that we let go of our belief in a God and be good to others because we care, not because we have to. Moreover, science is more beautiful than anything in the bible. As Ann Druyan said, the Garden of Eden was more like a super-max prison with 24-hour surveillance. The cosmos, however, is pure beauty. Instead of turning to a god for amazement, just look around you. It's all really there, every planet and every star. You have to stop and think about it; about the vast complexity of space. Every living thing is a triumph of evolution. Each of us is a product of 400 million years of natural selection. Knowing all of this, there is no need for a god. We have the cosmos, and we have our moral values that can exist without bribery. There have been thousands of confident religions and theologies on this planet, and they all contradict each other. There are also many sciences, but they coincide perfectly and are all unified. Science created us, we created our vision of god. Now we must let that vision go, and pay our respects to the truth.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

how can GOD be more important when there is no evidence of GOD........It is just an imaginary figure created by the HUMANS
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

What do you consider evidence? Are you claiming that science is 100% accurate? Well, who created science? Are humans who are scientist perfect? Do scientist make mistakes? So is it possible that scientist can lie about what they found? Afterall, they are human.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

I don't think anyone is claiming that scientists are perfect, but science itself is by nature a self correcting process in that if a scientist does make a mistake (or straight out lies) the error will be caught by other members of the scientific community long before it becomes an accepted and well supported theory. (such as evolution or the big bang). These are not some crackpot ideas dreamed up by some nerd in his mom's basement. They are have been tested time and time again and consistently have been proven to be accurate.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

everything around us is an evidence......................ya sure i claim it 100% accurate........science was not created by someone the humans gave just the name SCIENCE............Science existed even before our existence...............
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

Yes, everything around is evidence which clearly states that there is a creator. Scientist are not 100 % accuarate because they are people who make common errors. Science could not exist before anybody's existence because it is a tool that man made and man discovered. THIS DOCTRINE OF DELUSION HAS BECOME THE GENERAL THEME OF MODERN SO-CALLED SCIENCE, and is therefore no longer true science, but pure, imaginary, evolutionary bunk! Evolution is now referred to as the "great principle" of biology. But a principle, according to the dictionary, is a foundation truth, or fact, the basis of other truths. And if you know anything about evolution at all, you know it has never been proven to be either a truth or a fact, much less the foundation or the basis of other truths. Everything on this earth or universe had to be created, it just did not happen.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

so conclusion..................GOD or SCIENCE??????????????????
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

"What do you consider evidence?"Something that can be tested to be accurate and is the foundation for proof and therefore belief."Are you claiming that science is 100% accurate?"No one has ever claimed that science is 100% accurate. However, when discrepancies are found in a theory, they are tested as false and the theory improved upon. You seem to found a lack of belief in scientific methods because those methods were created by fallible people. The very same can and should be said of your bible.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

Spot on . Science can not be in conflict with God because science is what he used to make the universe function. We as humans study his work without knowing every single aspect of it. For we are incapable of seeing every point in time and examining every single point in the universe we live in.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

hui!this is crazy how can you make it sure that god created the world and science is just a tool???????????
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

What created everything? he is everything you dont see.if you think science is better then you must consider this.how was the world made?is there anything like heaven or earth?is there eternity?
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

Bent proteins have had much interest in science for a couple of decades. Many first heard of them in some rather strange diseases such as the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or the Mad Cow disease that was caused by a prion or a badly bent protein. We all wondered how could a bent protein cause morphological change in a brain?As researchers dove deeper into this issue and looked a past research going back into the 1970s they started seeing that there appeared in cells an incredibly complex dance between the genes and protein and RNA folds to transmit data to assemble extremely complex protein machines in the cell as well as transmit data to assemble cell structures as well as create the macro morphology of an organism. This answered some questions that arose in genetic research where it appeared the genes didn’t always have a one to one correspondence with morphological structure. In fact some genes seemed to be connected to multiple structures and some genes seemed to be unconnected. As it turns out the bent proteins provide another layer of highly organized information in the cell. The appear to be bent in non-random ways based on the molecular structure and the bends are actually a function of physics and not biology. We have discovered around 200 of these protein bends and have seen how they actually provide more information to the cell than the genes themselves.The folding process has been found to be absolutely necessary for the protein to function in the cell and occurs right out of the ribosome. The folded shape is determined by several factors.1. Internal covalent bonds such as disulfide bridges between cysteine units in the chains.2. Hydrogen bonds.3. Hydrophilic and hydrophobic interaction with the surrounding solvent.4. The interaction with other with other molecules large and small that help carry on cellular function.In fact two different proteins can fold into similar shapes and perform the same cellular function. But this is all made possible by a process that is guided. Random folds wouldn’t work. The prions of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease prove that. There are protein complexes that provide a chaperone that help the proteins to bend in the proper way, and there are chaperones that help the protein to stay in its proper bend. These chaperones are also responsible for metal ions movement in the cell.This is something evolutionists may claim as “part of the great universal acid” of their theory, but evolutionary theory actually prevented researchers from discovering these protein machines because of the assumptions built into evolution. Another failure and another nail in the coffin. Scientific American. Everything in this world had to be created and I believe it has a creator.
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

They're not really using the information to find out about our private lives, they are just counting types of words to determine what interests are for ad purposes.
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

Google is just using an algorithm to pick up key words. It's similar to your email provider "reading" your emails to detect spam. A real person isn't actually reading your emails.
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Unethical

That argument would not hold up for any other category involving privacy. For example "Im going to look through all of your internet history, I'm not going to tell anybody what I saw, I just want to check it out" or "I'm going to go through your house and touch everything you own, I won't take anything, I just want to". Both of those, especially the second would be a big invasion of privacy, and regardless of the reasons for invading privacy in this manner it imo is unethical
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

Good point, but Google is not going to do that. Most likely there will be a system that filters out words and phrases that share similarities to the type of thing Ads would say.
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

It still feels a little sketchy for them to be parsing through emails. Even if their intentions are solely for ad purposes what determines if they can be trusted or not?
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

I agree with this, also how can we verify they are only doing this? I feel as if we need some evidence or proof that this is all they are doing.
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

While they aren't having someone explicitly look through them, the emails are still being searched, and could contain private info, even if it is only used for ads.
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

there is a fundamental difference between "parsing" and "reading". The computer parses the email and chunks it into relational data that is associated with marketable phrases and relevant ads.Since it isn't read by a human and the data is transient, i don't see a problem with it.
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Unethical

Maybe its the way the question is worded, but I don't want Google "reading" my emails even if it is by a computer.
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

your email that is being sent (and even this webpage) has to be "read" by a computer at some point.
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

But by them being read does that necessarily mean they must have a record of what was said?
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

No-one is forcing you to have a gmail, you could cancel it... or you could opt-out of part of their ad service. Although that requires figuring out how to :(
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

This is a good point. Taking this logic further, Google posed the counter-argument: “Automated scanning lets us provide Gmail users with security and spam protection, as well as great features like Priority Inbox.”If you don't want Google examining the contents of your emails, then how would you justify any other automated services based on email content? That might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but it's a compelling argument.
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

Although it may hurt their source of information, more information on opting out would allow them to provide the services as well as giving the privacy people might want at the same time.
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

Before signing up for gmail, you agreed to their Terms of Service. If you weren't comfortable with the statements outlined in this document you shouldn't have created your gmail account. In fact, if you are so outraged by the situation, gmail is a free service offered to the public... don't use it.
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

You also have the ability to opt-out of interest based ads if you are unhappy with it.
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

Exactly, if you aren't comfortable knowing google will use the content you access to display ads >>> cancel your gmail account. Enough said.
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

Exactly. There are plenty of competitors, and it is a user's right to "speak with their wallet" and pick a competitor.
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

The privacy statement of gmail's TOS explicitly states they will use content of gmail's service which you view to display ads. The policies explain that content you access over gmail's service is not your own. This can be extended to incloude emails from non-gmail users that you view while signed into gmail. See below for the exact language used by google.---http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ Using our Services does not give you ownership of any intellectual property rights in our Services or the content you accesshttp://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/ Information we collect We collect information to provide better services to all of our users – ... to more complex things like which ads you’ll find most useful or the people who matter most to you online.---It is not explicitely stated 'how' gmail will use the content to provide customized ads but the legal requirements permitting them to do so is in their TOS.Furthermore, consider ads are a major source of revenue for google, how they determine what ads to show you can be considered a trade secret. In this case, of course they are not going to tell users how they perform this act because if they did competitors could follow suit and steal their idea.Thus it makes logical sense such an explicit definition of how the information to display ads is not part
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Unethical

What statement in the Terms of Service (http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/ terms/) says that Google plans to parse the content of emails?
Debate: Google is Ethical reading our Emails
Side: Ethical

Read closer. You give up your rights to privacy in no intensive terms when you click agree.