CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
No, but they indoctrinate you with that nice story called creation. Look.. I've been there.. I KNOW what they tell you.
What's MISSING from your science education in church, though, is scientific CONTEXT.. Given your post, you seem to think we've discovered EVERYTHING there is to discover, and since we DIDN'T discover links in the fossil record, to you is PROOF that they don't exist...
But, I say... HOLD on, right winger.. We HAVEN'T discovered everything. In fact we're just at the BEGINNING of discovering stuff. Indeed, it was only a few years ago when we thought the Milky Way galaxy was the ONLY one.. Now, we know there are BILLIONS of them... So, I say to my right wing Christian friend, if you wanna see a link in the fossil record, just wait a few days..
You do know the Bible tells us that the gospel goes to every nation (it has), and once the world starts becoming atheist (the great apostasy, which is happening now), the world ends in a region called Syria and Israel right? Might want to reevaluate.
Show yourself on a map where Syria is located, then show yourself on a map where Armagedfon is located. Then go watch the news.
Every species is a transitional species. Every single one. We right now are a transitional species between what we were a few million years ago and what we will be in a few million more. Every fossil is a transition.
But if you want more intermediaries we have a pretty extensive record of humans and some other species. But fossils arent very prevalent things. Conditions have to be just right to preserve these creatures so its possible that entire species evolved and then went on to become other species and when the parent species dies out its possible that no fossils from that entire species are left behind. Lost entirely to history. Plus the record is dependent on us finding them.
So it took 3 million years to get to us. The Cambrian was 300 million years ago...
300 hunrded million divided by 3million is 100. So you are saying that we got from simple organism to humans in 100 evolutionary changes. Anyone with a brainstem want to point out the fallacy and the lie?
3 million years to get to us from what starting point? If your starting point is when ape-like mammals developed bipedal motion then it took about 4 million years from that point to now to get to modern humans. But if your starting point is the first multicelled organism to us then thats obviously in the hundreds of millions of years range.
Evolution is a valid theory .. It is being consistently refined. We don't refer to it as Darwinism. Isms are way too 20th century. The refinement is referred to as "punctuated" evolution. Essentially allowing for faster transitions than "common-sense" would dictate. You might think of it as adding just a smidge of design intelligence to dead matter, or you might see patterns as living and evolving in more than 3 simplified material dimensions, or you might see fractal and chaos math .. or tell me what .. (sell you a giraffe ?)
AveSatanas tells us it took 3 million years to transition from the intermediary to human. The Cambrian was 300 million years ago. 300 million divided by 3 million equals 100 intermediary transitions. So you are telling us that in 100 transitions you got from simple organisms to humans? I rest my case.
He wants more transition fossils than individual fossils ever found. That's a ridiculous burden of proof he is asking for. By orders of magnitude it is ridiculous.
Not really. We aren't asking for all one billion intermediaries. Let's go with 45. That'd be a good start. Fish, to pseudo fish, to pseudo pseudo fish, to pseudo pseudo pseudo fish, and so one. Not a hyena that transitioned into a whale in 5 steps.
It would take more than 2 intermediaries to prove anything. Otherwise the first and the second would be almost identical with just some minor adjustment, and that's what the fossil record should show somewhere. Many intermediaries of gradual change. But nope, we get notta.
You are asking for transitional fossils where no fossils exist. You aren't asking for transitional fossils where regular fossils exist. That is just an unreasonable expectation from you.
A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms have developed from other species, primarily through natural selection.
And as if by some magic voodoo, creatures "hundreds of millions of years old", trapped in amber, haven't changed one iota in "hundreds of millions of years". Isn't that a daisy?
There are no dinosaurs. What are you smoking? Darwinism doesn't make any claims about the age of dinosaurs and the amount fossils decompose. You have refuted paleontology.
Nope. The dinosaur bones have blood vessels in them. Blood vessels decompose fairly quickly, within hundreds or a few thousand years at best. (Study Carbon 14) The point? The bones are either not dinosaur bones, or they are dinosaur bones, proving dinosaurs weren't around all that long ago. And the main point? Somebody's lying, so you pick who and about what. And if they've lied about this, how much more of it was a lie to make money and keep scientific positions?
Oh? So tell us. How much money did Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchensmake on those books and movies? Dawkins is financially invested into being a militant atheist. Militant Atheism made him rich beyond measure.
Oh, so your argument is "reality is represented by whoever makes the least money on it". Congratulations. I didn't think your belief system could get dumber, but it did.
Nope. Another strawman. Ya see, I actually have to say that to have... actually said that. What you are accusing me of is the equivalent of the logic you used in the post before..
No. You made the argument implying that religion was wrong because it made people a lot of money. When I pointed out that Atheism made people lots of money, you lost your nerve and became indignent because you know I'm right. Your cognitive dissonance is what is giving you that hateful, aggressive feeling right now. I used to feel it to until I proved the Atheist apologetics sites never represented what theBible actually says. I felt the betrayal too. It passes, and you'll find peace like I did. I know that it is hard.
You did. You said "there is a lot of money to be made off of God". You got pissy when I pointed out "there is a lot of money to be made from atheism". Are you now claiming atheism is a religion?(It is) or are you just being hypocritically pissy?
I said that because you said " And if they've lied about this, how much more of it was a lie to make money and keep scientific positions?" You brought up money. You can't even admit that.
A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms have developed from other species, primarily through natural selection.
Did you develop from another species primarily the primate SouthPark LMMFAO !
You act like every thing that ever lived would leave a fossil. Only a tiny fraction of everything that ever lived and died ever becomes a fossil. And furthermore, since full mineralization cannot happen in as short a times span as a few thousand years like the time scale of the Bible then your mere act of discussing fossils disproves the Bible version of reality.
A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms have developed from other species, primarily through natural selection.
Let's look at that were you developed from other species primarily the ape through natural selection !
No, I believed humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor (try to understand it before arguing it)
But then you say it is not true !
I said, "even if", meaning I don't believe it isn't true, but for the sake of argument I'll go with it. Not only do you need to understand the topic of the debate, you should also try to understand the English language.
What we have is another confused Progressive
I typically don't agree with being called a progressive, but since it upsets you so much, I'm starting to take it as a compliment.
Seriously? You don't even need millions of years of evolution to explain that; it can be explained in just one generation. A man and woman have two children - a son and a daughter. Both kids come from the same parents, but neither are exactly the same as their parent. Yes, they're the same species, but given enough time that can change. Another example, a baby mule and a baby horse share a common ancestor, but are in fact different species.
Now what we have here is what Sylynn said -"I believed humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor"
So with what you said was it "prevalent" that humans had sex with apes or apes had sex with humans ? If you "found" that to be true then show what you know !
Found and Prevalent are derived from the word common
that humans had sex with apes or apes had sex with humans ?
No, that's not at all what it means. You're clearly demonstrating you don't understand even the most basic concepts of evolution. I'm done with you. Go back to your political tantrums.
Yep, it's called speciation. Given enough time, through natural reproductive processes, the offspring of a given species over many generations will change so much to the point it's a different species. This doesn't mean it's a different species from it's parent, but is distinctly different than one that perhaps lived 1 million years prior to it. They demonstrated this on a smaller scale in the lab with viruses. It has nothing to do with hybrid species or cross breeding, just simply that the changes that occur over time can eventually change to a different species.
Okay so sex between humans and apes or apes and humans are a natural reproductive process LMMFAO ! 1 million years ago all the cross breeding was taking place ROTFFLMMFAO !
This is a non-argument, and it shows that you don't actually understand "Darwinism" never-mind evolutionary theory (evolution by natural selection is different, semantically, from Darwinism, but if you can't understand simple speciation I'm not going to attempt to explain the difference between Darwinism as a philosophy and evolution by natural selection as a scientific theory regarding the proliferation of life).
More importantly, what you're asking for is ridiculous. It's like asking a photographer to take a snapshot of evidence every ten minutes for a year, and when he comes back to you with photographs proving his assertions, you say "no, take a snapshot every five minutes", and again he returns and you say "no, every two minutes". At a point, the technology can no longer keep up with the demand. That doesn't mean the photographer's conclusions are wrong: it means that you are asking an absurd demand.
Scientific investigation has shown us time and again that evolutionary theory can make predictions and that those predictions have been validated. As AveSatanas points out, every fossil is an intermediary. In fact, every specimen that has ever existed on Earth, is an intermediary to another.
The problem you have is that you assume taxonomic classification to exist separate from the people who apply it. Taxonomic classification is a human ascription to physical and genetic characteristics of like-specimens. We apply it to animals and plants in order to make distinction, analyzation, collation, determination and differentiation simpler. "Species" are static entities only in the sense that we have defined them as specimens which share biological & physical similarities to the point that differentiation between individual specimens of that "species" would defeat the purpose of taxonomic classification in the first place: the simplification of the study of evolutionary progression.
In short: the fossil record DOES show millions of intermediaries.
Exactly. What's being asked for is ridiculous. If God exists we can't take a snapshot or show all of His movements. It's a ridiculous request. I rest my case.
