- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Actually, I would add the debate is also whether the observance of changes in traits leads us to the conclusion that information is created through some natural mechanism. We know all traits are just code on our DNA. The debate is, where does new information come from? Have we observed nature to create new DNA code?
"I'm merely anticipating your coming argument and getting it out of the way so we won't have to waste any further time on that."
That's my definition of a straw man argument, you're welcome. Anticipating something, and attacking it, rather than answering the question. Which, you still haven't. Where did the laws of this universe come from?
muaguana, you keep creating straw men arguments. I'm not claiming anything about a God being complex or not, or who defines complexity. I asked questions. If you're up to date on the latest evolution thinking, especially along lines of the evo priest Richard Dawkins, its evolution that makes the claim about what is complex and what isn't, and uses the idea that only simple forms come from nothing, and then evolve to complex forms. I'm trying to follow such thinking, and you keep attacking the idea of God. I'm asking questions about evolution and you answer by attacking a God you don't believe exists. Hmm, sounds like, a fanatic.
I think this argument has been destroyed enough already, but since someone actually voted for it, I'll say it again. Von Lauder, add up the totals of what you mentioned, and compare it just to Stalin's atheistic regime. That's just one man. The agrument you make is worthless, and actually hurts your cause.
Are you serious? Is that your best shot? Do you see why throwing out there "so many contradictions" is so overused, and silly? Gen 22 happened BEFORE Gen 25. At the time of Gen 22, Abraham had only Isaac (BTW, in light of God's promise to Abraham about building a nation, He did not consider Ishmael his son). Then in Gen 25, Abraham got another wife and more kids. I mean, no offense, but if you call that reading comprehension, or reading in context, you have much to learn my young padwan. I can't believe this must even be explained. And someone voted it up.
About CreateDebateThe CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Sharing ToolsInvite Your Friends
RSS & XML Feeds
Basic StuffUser Agreement