CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS N0thin65

Reward Points:48
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
86%
Arguments:28
Debates:5
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

The bacteria mutated. They did not evolve into a new creature, granted that would take millions of years to witness. But, I agree, mutation would be a driving force behind evolution. However it isn't evolution itself. Mutations happen all the time in nature that never lead to a new evolved state in.

Now the article about the lizards is pretty amazing. I had not seen that. I have never said that evolution or adaptation or what ever someone wants to call it does not happen. These lizards may adapt through a from of evolution to acquire what is necessary to survive in a new environment but there is no evidence of them changing into a completely different creature to survive. Still, that is pretty amazing. Now, if they grew feathered wings I'd be convinced.

4 points

The aftermath of evolution has been witnessed but never the actual process itself. Its pretty good evidence but not concrete. With that said I never once stated that I don't believe in evolution personally.

You said my understanding of the field is lacking. Well, I am not a scientist but I have researched this on both sides. If I am lacking I am open to learning more about it. But in this case I don't believe you are correct. You're are right about one thing though. There are thousands of fossils showing what look like steps but there is no gradual change. Your examples of a defined developmental line are actually examples of a fragmented developmental line. And there are a ton more you could list. What you are talking about is macro evolution. These are changes within a species but there is no evidence of micro evolution. There should be millions if not billions of transitional phases between species but we have yet to find them. Therefore, I suggest that the fossil record is incomplete.

And I was being ironic when I made a comment about evolution being faith based. What I mean is, there is just as little, or as much evidence to support both sides. It always seems to me that Creationists are open to science but science is never open to creation. It comes across as incredibly close-minded. You say that evolution is observed. Well, intelligent design can be observed by the same definition. I even gave an example of it. But all you had to say was "And if you just knew--simply knew--what you are talking about, you wouldn't have to go to some ridiculous, undefined, designer using undefined terms like "information" and talk about chemistry as if it's a computer program." That isn't debating that is childish arguing which I don't participate in. I am also pretty sure its obvious what I meant by "information". And calling what I believe a "fantasy" and trying make me look like a fool is also a terrible way to approach a debate. Its just immature and proves that you are close-minded, not to mention it makes you seem incredibly unintelligent. You didn't even try to disprove the argument you just called it, in other words, stupid and left it alone. I typically don't debate with people that are immature. It just doesn't seem fair to them.

3 points

Evolution has actually never been observed. The aftermath of it has been observed. But there is no concrete evidence. Now mutations have been observed but mutation and evolution are two different things.

2 points

The flu virus doesn't evolve, it mutates. Mutation and evolution are two different things. Evolution has never been witnessed happening. Scientists in support of evolution even state that. Evolution is a theory with a good argument, but it is a theory none-the-less.

3 points

There is no actual absolute proof of evolution as some of the people here have stated. Before people post things, they should really do their research first. And for those reading this I implore you to do your own.

Here are three basic reasons for why evolution is only theory and not a proven fact:

1.) Evolution has never been witnessed. Dawkin's even states that, "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He goes on to say that its like coming upon a murder scene after the murder has already taken place. It seems pretty obvious but there is no concrete evidence. Just obvious clues. "It might as well be spelled out in words of English." Well, it might seem obvious, but its not concrete evidence. It seemed pretty obvious that the world was flat once too.

2.) Science is constantly trying to prove the theory of evolution with suggesting that life itself was generated in a pool of amino acids and proteins by complete chance. However, so far all experiments to attempt to manufacture a self replicating DNA based Molecule have failed. If you don't believe me, look it up. Now, there is evidence supporting RNA based molecules. But, even if that turned out to be successful, it would still pose an interesting paradox being that science created the self replicating molecule, it did not create itself as theory of evolution suggests.

3.) The last point is the fossil record is incomplete. We do share similar bone structures with other animals but there is no defined developmental line. Not even slight mutations within each generation to warrant there being evidence of evolution. Though, I will add they are getting closer and closer every year to finding that missing link but closer and closer does not equal found.

Now speaking about creation. I have read a lot of the arguments that are saying that creationism is faith based. Well, its just as faith based as evolution is. And there is just as much evidence, if not more, supporting intelligent design as there is supporting evolution. In all fairness there is no absolute proof for intelligent design as well. However, there is more substantial evidence for it. Here is one example:

Patterns occur naturally without the need for a 'designer'. For example: snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers, ocean waves etc... These patterns are a natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos. Science, in support of evolution, also uses chaos to describe what was before the "big bang". These things are well-understood and there is no debate in the scientific community. Now, take codes. Codes do not occur without a designer (programmer). Some examples of these include stuff like music, blueprints, languages, computer programs, and even codes of DNA. The basic difference is what happens between patterns and codes. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes. Codes store information which is pretty good proof that DNA just might have been designed (programed). DNA is not a molecule with a pattern. It's a code, basically a language, and a storage device for information. All codes that we know of were created by a conscious mind. Therefore, evidence dictates that DNA was designed by a mind of sorts. The language and information of our very own DNA is proof of some sort of intelligent design.

I for one believe that elements from both evolution and creation, working in tandem, is more likely that one or the other. But if I had to pick one I would say creation.

2 points

I doubt that there are any that only make a living doing weddings. But if I am wrong, I am sure there aren't that many and definitely not enough to refuse wiccans the right to be married according to their beliefs.

oh and fyi, you disputed me and gave a point to the opposition by doing so. You do know that I am actually in overall agreement with you don't you?

2 points

You think its ok to murder Bush and Palin just because, in your opinion, they are dumb? I am going to assume you are being sarcastic. I don't really know where I stand on this topic but I have to say I disagree with that. They may not be the most palatable people on the planet but murder seems a little harsh.

1 point

Nope. If you want evidence just watch the movies. But, young Anakin was worse.

1 point

"Yep, you can assert that BS just as well as you can assert the BS that you weren’t trying to get your Japanese wife pregnant when your intention was only to get your rocks off." I have no idea where you pulled this from. But, I generally stop debating someone when it becomes apparent that they are immature. It just seems unfair to them.

1 point

Let me begin by saying, how do you know I have a desire to marry outside my race? "...you are seeking an argument to excuse your desire to inter-marry." How do you know I am not married to a white girl? Maybe, I am most attracted to white people. Could be that I don't have a desire to inter-marry. My arguments are in support of those that do and not on a personal level. And yes, your previous argument stated that "love" is the justification I am presenting. Well, I don't disagree but that is not the point I have made if you read my arguments. And to add, I am not justifying anything or anyone. I am simply stating that just because two people or differing races get married that doesn't mean they are racists. It simply means that they have connected on a social level rather than on a racial/cultural level.

"No man needs a reason to marry a woman of his own race, he however needs a justification for inter-marriage." No one needs to justify themselves either way. Why does this have to be a political debate rather than a social debate?

Displaying 5 most recent debates.

Winning Position: yes
Winning Position: Space
Winning Position: Summer/Spring
Winning Position: Legal

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here