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.
Human Being Psyche - Humans are allowed to choose, free will is key.
Evolutionary theory - Natural selection; DNA and Nature combined and human beings exist; the strongest and most survival techniques and biological adaptation survive amongst disease and death; mortal.
Complex nature; as aesthetically explained and experienced via Human Beings; pi, the golden ratio, the human mind, the human being, DNA in general, weather phenomena, ect.
Intelligent Design - SEE (Complex Nature)
Since the human mind (and human being) is one of the most, if not the most complex thing that we have encountered; humans obtain free will (more choice, as opposed to other animals and living organisms), dreams (deja vu and its proponents in relation to "getting a glimpse of the future ahead", not psychic telling, merely dream observation of future events and experiences), among others.
Music/Sound - Sounds, the aesthetics of the sense of hearing, to hear; to feel what you hear, Cymatics; proof that sound physically manipulates matter, including the brain and body. One of the most important aspects of the human being; communication, language, survival of the fittest.
Mankinds' Long Time Beliefs - Since the beginning of our modern humans we have long asked the questions of the universe and wanting to understand it more, and by doing so many cultures have believed in sun gods, or greek mythology, or buddhism, or judaism, hinduism, amongst many other gods, yet many people seek a god or gods, of many shapes and sizes. They are all seeking similar truths.
The human psychology is based on instinct and a preprogrammed personality, hence the reason people are so often similar, and so often biased or mislead. Despite the appearance of free will, how can it exist? All your choices are predetermined by your base psychology and environment. Everyone is bound to the same rules and physics and starting environment, thus forcing all people to think they are capable of "real" choice, when the reality is that the future is unknowable, yet still preset.
No idea what you are trying to say with evolutionary theory, but I think I agree.
Pi is NOT complex. It is a very random, unending and very unaesthetic number with very little "awe" to it, other than it's unending length. This is a bad thing for you. It proves almost the direct OPPOSITE of what you are saying. The golden ratio is ... the golden ratio. It is interesting, but it is really just a mathematical contrivance. Although a few other lifeforms use a similar, spiral shape, it is generally not any proof of a god or magic or anything besides the fact that spirals can be mathematically produced, as can many shapes.
The human mind is again, biased and very imperfect. It is prone to mistakes, but also to doing things correctly. It seems random enough to think that it is not based on magic or gods, but rather just natural human nature, as produced by evolution. The human body itself is absolutely horrible. Why can I choke while eating? Why do I piss out my baby maker? Why does blood constantly spurt out of a woman's baby hatch? These are large problems. The appendix can EXPLODE and kill you at any second. People's eye sight is often very bad. People can go insane and kill others. It is horrible!
DNA is not very interesting. Especially human DNA. It is filled with junk and unused sections, virus code inhabits many regions, and it's really not that efficient. Not to mention horrible genetic diseases.
Weather? I don't know how that proves anything other than weather. It's clearly produced by the tilt of the earth, the sun, the clouds and other factors that we can identify easily with modern knowledge.
-
Intelligent design?? wat
I don't understand this. We were clearly NOT designed, or our noses would be on the back of our head or someplace useful, rather than sprouting out like a beak. Teeth would be straighter and not prone to rotting away while we still live.
-
Music is quite interesting, but it can be easily explained. Although evolutionarily useless, music can serve as something to bond tribes together, with simple beats and rhythm. That makes it useful. It is also useful in that it provides entertainment and leisure, which is associated with pleasure, something that all animals strive for. That's why dopamine addictions occur, even in mice. Music is fascinating, but I play music, and I have no reason to think that it is caused by the gods or magic.
As for beliefs, humans are not that smart. That's why things like the holocaust happen. Group think. It gives an explanation for crazy things. Imagine 10,000 years ago. Lightning. Tornado. Earthquake. Without books or writing or any knowledge of science, how do you explain that? You NEED To explain it. You can't just ignore it. And so you invent a god. How would you explain it to a child if even you don't know? It needs to be a titan, a god, magic, until you know the REAL explanation.
Oh Mackindale, you believe the things you think and write and I believe the things I believe and write. You do not apply beauty to the things I apply beauty to and It doesn't bother me personally, yet it bothers you that I find these aspects of life beautiful.
So the list I put are definitely aspects of life that find to be true for the "best evidence for creation".
Again, you and others have your own opinion as I do. And even if you do not find these things beautiful and complex, I do. Nothing will change that.
I find them beautiful in different ways. I do not see the beauty of an unseen, magical god, but rather the beauty of the natural process of the universe.
I'm not your enemy, despite what you think. I dislike religion and supernatural nonsense, but I don't dislike you. You are a friend to me on this website, it is only our debates that indicate otherwise.
Evolutionary theory - Natural selection; DNA and Nature combined and human beings exist; the strongest and most survival techniques and biological adaptation survive amongst disease and death; mortal.
Not evidence of creation.
Complex nature; as aesthetically explained and experienced via Human Beings; pi, the golden ratio, the human mind, the human being, DNA in general, weather phenomena, ect.
Problem is that this is a debate site. So to come on to a debate called "Best Evidence's for Creation" (the grammar hurts my eyes) and then present nothing but personal conjecture is somewhat shifting the goalposts.
If you wanna talk about why you believe in God and all his glory, go to church, but don't do it on a debate site with no objective evidence.
That's my point, the evidence that I have laid out for the debate question are not only my personal conjecture, they're others as well.
And so the evidence is there, it's people like you who choose to disagree thats fine. However these beliefs are some of my evidence that I thoroughly believe in, as well as some others.
The evidence I state are in fact objective. Are people, mankind, not themselves with an objective to be subjectively bais; we are human beings after all? Lol you're funny ChuckHades. I do not take you seriously.
That's my point, the evidence that I have laid out for the debate question are not only my personal conjecture, they're others as well.
So why present it when you're not willing to defend it?
And so the evidence is there, it's people like you who choose to disagree thats fine. However these beliefs are some of my evidence that I thoroughly believe in, as well as some others.
So defend yourself.
The evidence I state are in fact objective. Are people, mankind, not themselves with an objective to be subjectively bais; we are human beings after all? Lol you're funny ChuckHades. I do not take you seriously.
I've gone over this over and over before, first with Mackindale, currently I am "defending" myself to Mark, now you want me to defend myself to you?
How about no scott. Perhaps you should go to our discussions and jump on in if you so choose. Either way, I'm tired of people like you who diss people then claim they should defend themselves. Like I said, you claim this is a proper debate site, then your methods of debating are pretty childish.
Oh BTW, you must be one of those elitest assholes. This website is a debate site, not a site for people to diss on those who believe in X, Y, Z god, or gods.
Oh the elitism of using latin phrases to describe someone saying they're being dissed, when really you get the point that was stated.
Hey guy, shim, whatever you are. Get off it mate. You claim that on this debate none can use evidence (as I have presented) because it is a "subjective opinion", when quite frankly EVERYONE has opinions that are subjective.
See at this point you're fucking with me. Fuck off ChuckHades, your words are feeble as an old woman.
Problem is that this is a debate site. So to come on to a debate called "Best Evidence's for Creation" (the grammar hurts my eyes) and then present nothing but personal conjecture is somewhat shifting the goalposts.
If you wanna talk about why you believe in God and all his glory, go to church, but don't do it on a debate site with no objective evidence."
This is insulting..
I presented evidence for the existence of creation, gave examples and you tell me what I presented was not valid for this debate.
Again, It was insulting for you to tell me that my answer was "not good enough" for your standards so I should simply not give my opinion, being a person who "believes in god" and "go to church" (I havent been to church is years btw)..
You insulted me, and I used "bad words" to express myself.
Hardly anger, mostly humorous. Do you not find this funny? I do.
If you take offense in being told that your answer in a debate is not good enough, then I honestly don't know what you're doing here. I said nothing about your character, no ad hom, ad nauseum, no anything. You're probably a liberal ;)
I presented evidence for the existence of creation, gave examples and you tell me what I presented was not valid for this debate.
Yes... that's what a debate is.
Again, It was insulting for you to tell me that my answer was "not good enough" for your standards so I should simply not give my opinion, being a person who "believes in god" and "go to church" (I havent been to church is years btw)..
I didn't say you shouldn't give your opinion. That was you misconstruing my words as to be some diatribe or vitriol.
Hardly anger, mostly humorous. Do you not find this funny? I do.
Oh, the only reason I'm responding is for a good laugh at creationists, something I haven't done in a while.
But the thing I find most humorous is you trying to pass off your insane, psychotic ad hominems not just to me, but now to Mark and Rice too, as "humorous".
Oh the elitism of using latin phrases to describe someone saying they're being dissed, when really you get the point that was stated.
The latin part is not important, it's the fact that you resorted to an ad hominem attack to devalue your opponents argument.
You claim that on this debate none can use evidence (as I have presented) because it is a "subjective opinion", when quite frankly EVERYONE has opinions that are subjective.
I don't think he said that you cannot use subjective evidence. It just appears as if you value subjective evidence as superior to objective evidence. Everyone has opinions but that doesn't mean those opinions should be taken as fact or even the basis for a credible argument. Disclosure would be better, for example "this is just speculation on my part but..." or "based on my experience, if I had to guess..."
First of all, fuck the term ad hominem, you people use these phrases as if they're fact, no, these phrases are used by english people (and others) when they have no other words to describe a situation. I dont give 2 fucks about the phrase. Lay off it, or rather, go ahead and use it, it doesn't mean anything to me.
For the record, all of mankind uses subjectivity because we're humans with our brain and emotion. It has nothing to do with whether or not I value subjectivity or not more than objectivity, I was merely stating a point, mk.
I agree not everyones opinion should be taken as fact, I AGREE WITH YOU.
Should I spell that out too mark?
Second, my point of any of these remarks about subjectivity and objectivity are that most things within the scientific realm are theories yet people, like myself, believe it to be truth.
So when people like you and Chuck say that I am being bias to my own opinion, OF FUCKING COURSE I AM BECAUSE I AM SAYING IT. This is obvious. What the hell is that about?
And again, I am far from being angry or mad. I am actually amused by this website and people like you.
You think I haven't encountered nor discussed the things we discuss about? You think I do not believe in science? You think I do not believe in god? You fucking people on this site are very funny, again, you're more humorous than I am pissed at anything.
This site is a new site to me, but the words I see written down are nothing new to me, nothing. And I learn something new everyday, but this site, nah, not one single person has said (or written) a single word that has not been already said before. No new theories.
And so, how many theories have I written that you probably have never heard before? Maybe 1 or 2?
That's still 1 or 2 more than anything I've seen on this site.
First of all, fuck the term ad hominem, you people use these phrases as if they're fact, no, these phrases are used by english people (and others) when they have no other words to describe a situation.
Logical fallacies are common tactics that people use when debating or having an argument or discussion that clearly illogical and only serve to falsely strengthen your position while falsely devaluing your opponents position. This is why they should be avoided if we wish to have an honest discussion.
For the record, all of mankind uses subjectivity because we're humans with our brain and emotion
People must learn to keep their subjectivity in check, for it has no bearing on the truth, it is subject to your personal feelings. Objective evidence is in most cases more reliable for it has no subjective bias.
Second, my point of any of these remarks about subjectivity and objectivity are that most things within the scientific realm are theories yet people, like myself, believe it to be truth.
Of course they are theories, science prides itself on not being absolute. Few things are worse than a dogmatic closed minded opinion. Science does not say "this is evolution, it is impossible to disprove it". The possibility to disprove any theory in science is possible, some are just not probable. Heliocentric theory is one of them, for it is unlikely to the point of near impossibility that we will find evidence suggesting that we do not orbit the sun. The same goes for the theory of evolution. They are theories, but you have a very good reason to believe them. It is a strongly justified belief.
You think I haven't encountered nor discussed the things we discuss about? You think I do not believe in science? You think I do not believe in god? You fucking people on this site are very funny, again, you're more humorous than I am pissed at anything.
I've discussed subjects such as this one many times before. You've told me you believe in science and that you believe in god.
And so, how many theories have I written that you probably have never heard before? Maybe 1 or 2?
Off the top of my head, the only thing you brought up was this creationism-evolution hybrid theory which makes zero sense. So in that sense, yes you brought up something new, but that doesn't mean it wasn't completely inconsistent and illogical.
I know what logical fallacies are, however they're only "logical fallacies" when both parties agree upon such things, I do not agree my position and words relate to the term. I did give an honest answer and opinion to a question and I was attacked once again stated my evidence is not good enough. Fuck that noise.
It's pretty interesting to me chuck that we give pretty sound explanations as to why a lot of these things are evidence to us, our perspective, and you continue to act like you do. Can you not take the heat?
What heat? These things are, as Chuck pointed out, not evidence for creationism.
The religious have always plugged the gaps with God, and when science has found an explanation as they do, then the God filler is moved back to the previous level.
Complexity is not evidence of design, it is evidence of complexity.
You're right it is evidence of complexity, and that means value, it is valuable, at least to me, and I'm sure others as well.
That's the difference between the two mindsets; One one side you say "it's not evidence for creation it's evidence for complexity" and on the other side you say "it's evidence for complexity and it is valuable and therefore to me it's evidence for creation".
You people don't believe.
And I believe.
So really we're on the same page, except for the fact that you do not believe.
So really it seems that you people who don't believe cannot FATHOM or "take the heat" that others do believe. You call us ignorant and absurd.
Well quite frankly, you non believers are being absurd for acting like our beliefs mean jack shit.
You're right it is evidence of complexity, and that means value, it is valuable, at least to me, and I'm sure others as well.
Evidence of complexity is not evidence of a creator.
one side you say "it's not evidence for creation it's evidence for complexity" and on the other side you say "it's evidence for complexity and it is valuable and therefore to me it's evidence for creation".
One is a poor interpretation of evidence relying on the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity and the other is a better interpretation of evidence relying on the scientific method and science. Take your pick.
You people don't believe.
And I believe.
So really we're on the same page, except for the fact that you do not believe.
We're not on the same page. You believe in something purely from a fallacious logical perspective. I and others on this site do not. You acknowledge that logical fallacies inherently don't make sense, but you fail to see that your own argument for a creator is itself a logical fallacy.
So really it seems that you people who don't believe cannot FATHOM or "take the heat" that others do believe. You call us ignorant and absurd.
Because it is ignorant and absurd to believe in intelligent design.
Well quite frankly, you non believers are being absurd for acting like our beliefs mean jack shit.
Do you really expect anybody to put value in your beliefs if you have no evidence to support them?
"Evidence of complexity is not evidence of a creator."
No shit, to you it's not. To me it is, NEXT!
"One is a poor interpretation of evidence relying on the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity and the other is a better interpretation of evidence relying on the scientific method and science. Take your pick."
One is being spoon fed everything so that it will think it has the best answer to all the life's questions and the other is a better interpretation of evidence relying on the belief and faith method. Take your pick.
See I can do that too.
"We're not on the same page. You believe in something purely from a fallacious logical perspective. I and others on this site do not. You acknowledge that logical fallacies inherently don't make sense, but you fail to see that your own argument for a creator is itself a logical fallacy."
You don't know how to read, lest read between the lines.
I believe in science, I DO BELIEVE IN MOST THINGS THAT YOU AND THE SCIENTIFIC REALM BELIEVE IN. How's that? Better? It's called caps, not logical fallacy capslock, BLAH.
I also believe in god.
Once again, please do refrain from using the term "logical fallacy" since I believe you now know not what it truly means.
"Because it is ignorant and absurd to believe in intelligent design."
Insults, fuck you very much, NEXT.
"Do you really expect anybody to put value in your beliefs if you have no evidence to support them?"
I do not care if any man holds what I have to say valuable. Really, I do not give 2 shits. I namely expect respect from most people, that's the way of social creatures, is it not? Generally speaking? Hm.... But I can imagine that is already out the window due to the obvious.
If you want to play this whole "it's not evidence to you but to me it is!" I could similarly say something like "well, evidence of poptarts is evidence that nyan cat exists". How is your argument different from mine?
You claim it's just an interpretation of evidence, and as you can see some interpretations of evidence are just plain idiotic. A fool might say that complexity is evidence of a creator, just as a fool would say poptarts are evidence of nyan cat.
One is being spoon fed everything so that it will think it has the best answer to all the life's questions and the other is a better interpretation of evidence relying on the belief and faith method. Take your pick.
Straw man. I didn't misrepresent your position, don't misrepresent mine. Tell me how your position is not a logical fallacy? Intelligent design is merely a pseudo science, I've already shown you a source saying it is. You want to be stubborn on the matter and be willfully ignorant. Belief and faith has no bearing on the truth, the scientific method gives you the tools with which to seek out the truth. Belief and faith therefore are inferior to the scientific method if one places any importance on the truth, to any rational minded person this is undeniable.
See I can do that too.
If you don't care that you're doing a straw man argument, which is another fallacy, then yes. You love these fallacies don't you?
I believe in science, I DO BELIEVE IN MOST THINGS THAT YOU AND THE SCIENTIFIC REALM BELIEVE IN. How's that? Better? It's called caps, not logical fallacy capslock, BLAH.
Lol. If you believe in science, then why do you have such a poor grasp or understanding of it? You believe that faith and belief are superior methods to the truth than the scientific method. This is simply false. How can you value science when you believe that no evidence is sometimes better than some evidence? This is inconsistent on your part. You say you value evidence, but on perhaps the most important question of all regarding god's existence, you say you don't need evidence. This is contradictory.
Once again, please do refrain from using the term "logical fallacy" since I believe you now know not what it truly means.
You're in denial. Perhaps if you stop committing them I won't bring it up anymore.
Insults, fuck you very much, NEXT.
It is statements of the truth. Belief in intelligent design is both ignorant and absurd. It is ignorant because you must choose to ignore science in favor of pseudo science. It is absurd because there is no evidence for it and yet you choose to believe in it anyways. If the truth hurts, that is not my fault, it is yours for believing intelligent design which has no evidence.
I namely expect respect from most people, that's the way of social creatures, is it not?
I have respected you. I have enough respect towards you to give you my honest opinion that some of your ideas are simply unsupported and absurd. Or would you prefer that I was "kind" and sugar coated my response?
The Golden Rule. I would rather someone tell me their honest response, even if that means they're calling my idea "fucking idiotic" and "retarded", rather than them sugar coat it by saying "well, idk that idea just doesn't make much sense to me...".
"Intelligent design is merely a pseudo science, I've already shown you a source saying it is."
And which source is this o architect of life?
"You believe that faith and belief are superior methods to the truth than the scientific method."
Once again Mark, I believe in BOTH methods to be the BEST method of truth, not one or the other! Get that into your fucking head mate.
"I have respected you. I have enough respect towards you to give you my honest opinion that some of your ideas are simply unsupported and absurd. Or would you prefer that I was "kind" and sugar coated my response?
The Golden Rule. I would rather someone tell me their honest response, even if that means they're calling my idea "fucking idiotic" and "retarded", rather than them sugar coat it by saying "well, idk that idea just doesn't make much sense to me...".
Calling me a child, ignorant, a fool, childish, absurd. These are not words of respect, Mark.
I would rather have you be honest than anything else, and I'm positive this can be done without insults.
First sentence: Intelligent design creationism (often referred to as intelligent design or "ID") is a pseudoscience that maintains that certain aspects of the physical world, and more specifically life, show signs of having been designed, and hence were designed, by an intelligent being (usually, but not always, the God of the Christian religion).
Once again Mark, I believe in BOTH methods to be the BEST method of truth, not one or the other! Get that into your fucking head mate.
Belief and faith do not rely on evidence, they rely on whatever "feels" the best to you. What you "feel" has no bearing on the truth. Therefore, it is not a reliable method to the truth. To use both methods would just mean you have more beliefs with no credible evidence, and some beliefs with credible evidence because of the scientific method.
Calling me a child, ignorant, a fool, childish, absurd. These are not words of respect, Mark.
I would rather have you be honest than anything else, and I'm positive this can be done without insults.
Look up the definitions for those words. They were not said with the sole intent to insult, but rather as adjectives for your ideas or your behavior.
"Look up the definitions for those words. They were not said with the sole intent to insult, but rather as adjectives for your ideas or your behavior."
Look up the definition for fucking idiot. Who do you think I am? You think I'm a fool, you think I'm ignorant. Fuck your words kindly, Mark.
You're right it is evidence of complexity, and that means value, it is valuable, at least to me, and I'm sure others as well.
Pointless.
That's the difference between the two mindsets; One one side you say "it's not evidence for creation it's evidence for complexity" and on the other side you say "it's evidence for complexity and it is valuable and therefore to me it's evidence for creation".
When you can prove that complexity means intelligence come back to me.
So really we're on the same page, except for the fact that you do not believe.
So, not on the same page at all then.
So really it seems that you people who don't believe cannot FATHOM or "take the heat" that others do believe.
Oh no, not caps, anything but caps, it is the atheist's only weakness.
Anywho, I can easily fathom that "you people" can believe, I just would like to see some evidence to back it up.
Well quite frankly, you non believers are being absurd for acting like our beliefs mean jack shit.
Well. they mean something to you and your contemporaries, so therefore they mean something to someone, I would be a hypocrite to make assumptions, and therefore I don't but I will say your beliefs mean Jack shit to me.
Oh yay, ANOTHER sensitive atheist. I do not care if you personally give a shit about my beliefs, for I do not care about your beliefs and it works out. Respect is one thing, atheists have little to no respect of any other beliefs, especially theists beliefs.
You claim there is no evidence of any existence, yet when people provide sufficient evidence, you claim it is nonsense and illogical and the rest is history.
No evidence is good enough for you nonbelievers until on that day when you can hold the hand of X, Y, Z god and SEE it for yourself; you need to be spoon fed by all the glory in the world, and then you MIGHT believe. lol
Respect is one thing, atheists have little to no respect of any other beliefs, especially theists beliefs.
More broad generalisation.
You claim there is no evidence of any existence, yet when people provide sufficient evidence, you claim it is nonsense and illogical and the rest is history.
What evidence is that? Scripture? That's a circular argument.
No evidence is good enough for you nonbelievers until on that day when you can hold the hand of X, Y, Z god and SEE it for yourself; you need to be spoon fed by all the glory in the world, and then you MIGHT believe. lol
Are you under the impression that I don't find wonder in this world, my thirst for knowledge about this world and life is why I became a scientist.
If you are arguing that these criteria are evidence for a creation, as in creationism, then you are mistaken.
I mainly take issue with intelligent design more than the other concepts. Intelligent design is merely an argument from incredulity. "Everything was designed so perfectly, the ONLY conclusion is that it had an intelligent designer, for I can think of no other way".
I really wanted to downvote you and say 'the Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away', but I decided to let you have your points in the end. But it would have been funny
Pah, this debate is bad for Creationists. I don't know whether the debate creator is an atheist fraud account trying to make a mockery of the creationist belief, or if he's some poor, naive new member who's about to be insulted by every atheist on the site.
Either way, it doesn't make the rest of us Christians look good.
Rather than debating the pseudo evidence for young earth creationism, how about we consider this?
We can observe things up to 13 billion light years away. Now for us to be physically able to see it, what we're looking at must be at least 13 billion years old. This is basic logic.
So doesn't that instantly disprove young earth creationism?
If you want to go asserting that the speed of light has changed, then please do so with evidence. Blind speculation will not strengthen your position, only weaken it.
Why do most of the people try to insert god in everything?? On one hand, your god created great things and then created man to protect his other creations. and everyone knows well how man is protecting his other creations. so either god must be a psycho who is not constant or he is a fiction. because only a lie can give birth to a plenty of lies. and these lies may be beautiful or not. but is a lie for sure......
See, I don't believe in creation, I believe in "existence". Creation is a very thinner concept while existence is very vast. Our mind cant be made understood if he insists that the thing he is saying is right. I say, If god is the creator, it becomes a great problem. He makes us a puppet, he makes us any time and can kill us anytime. We are his slave if you think of him as a person.... are you understanding what I am trying to say? Don't Consider some person with name god. This is a fiction. This existence has been always present, it was, it is and will always be. I know it is difficult to grasp but it is true. No one created world, it has always been there, just we weren't there. There is no god to create it....!!
That would be fine if we were discussing old earth (or, reasonable) creationism. But the OP is regarding young earth creationism, to which your response is not adequate.
No, you are wrong. If you had done a google search, you would have found that evolution can and has been tested for the last ~150 years.
You can test evolution. Just look at different dog breeds, this is micro evolution. Look at the different skin colors in humans, that is micro evolution.
We have already observed speciation as well. Macroevolution
Well if we are getting into the What If's then: Here's an idea
What if during the creation everything within the Universe was created (fully formed) quite close together and then stretched out from that point. The light that is here was here from the start. There's a couple different references within the bible that makes mention of God stretching out the heavens.
Just another note...sounds quite a bit like the good ol' "big bang" most people keep asserting. Except that I think everything was fully formed at a specific creation "beginning".
No, it would have been a code the same way Buckminsterfullerene is.
It would have been a very complex molecule or chemical, with advanced proteins forming parts of it, but I don't think it would use DNA or RNA during the very first few replications.
However, you are still generally correct, of course. It is nice how I can correct you and receive a reply that ....makes logical sense. Instead of "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT". ;D
Remember, you are not being quite fair. You are a christian, right? So you have to believe.
I don't get to simply "believe". I need evidence and real data, along with ideas that have to work WITHOUT godlike intervention. If the big bang could not happen by itself, if it was an impossible idea, then I, and all other scientists would discard it.
So when you say "Believe", you are being a complete dickfucker. You are mocking the scientific process and attempting to demean and insult my position by comparing it with your own. I MUST accept the facts. The facts point to the big bang and to evolution. If you wish to ignore those facts, then do so, but do not mock my evidence and logic based position.
It is important if you want to truthfully debate and find out what is actually real. It is clear you are not fully confirmed to your own beliefs. It's apparent that you already know how silly what you say sounds. "The big bang didn't happen. Magic did it". You call your magic god, but it looks like magic to any rational person. It's not a real explanation, it's just a placeholder for real knowledge. You already know this, but why do you mock my position? You need to try to reexamine your position and try to see why we are debating it. Creationism is not a logical or sensible position. Neither is quantum physics, but the problem is that quantum physics is REAL, because we have LOTS of evidence and tests behind it. Creationism has less than nothing. It is a dangerous and extremely harmful joke on society, and I pity you for thinking it's real.
Yes, and I will absolutely say that there is not 100% proof of God creating everything I have to have faith to believe in creation. I don't mind admitting that. I just wonder sometimes at how can the people that believe in the big bang and life resulting from evolution put so much faith in some of these things they believe happened. Yeah some evidence with explanation sounds good, but I find most of the time creation can explain the same things just as well.
I'd almost swear that I blasphemed your God or something by your statements there. It sounds to me like you'd be for anti blasphemy laws.
The whole mocking thing...I think that happens to christians and other religions all the time. Don't be so exclusive as to thinking evolution is above any other religion in this world. It's not, it's what you all believe. It's how you all interpret the evidence. Just as everyone else interprets it their own ways. As stated before in some of my previous posts on other debates: Evolution tries to answer the four basic questions of life as well. It is as much of a religion as the next. The only problem is that evolutionist will not admit this. They belittle creationist day in and day out for their beliefs when they fail to realize how hypocritical they are being. I also admit creationist get carried away at times also but its on both sides of the boat.
I believe that there's just too much complication for any of this to have happened on its own. The things we see have had to of come from somewhere, and here we are also...
I also believe that if there is an all powerful God, there would be some indication of him somewhere (just depends on how to interpret the evidence). Whether I am christian or not makes no difference. I'm not arguing which God created it, but yes I am a christian.
How can you say that you and all other scientist would discard it? You might, but you don't know what the agenda of these other scientists are...especially when their job depends on how they interpret the evidence. Forgive me for noticing that whenever a scientist comes out as a creationist he is pretty much academically hanged, fired, etc. So, what makes you so sure that evidence that might lead to the contrary of evolution or the big bang would not be tossed aside?
Besides, to me y'alls "big bang" looks and sounds and awful lot like what is mentioned in the bible a couple different times about the heavens being stretched out. Couldn't that also explain why the light got here from so far away in a short aged earth and universe? If everything was created then stretched out wouldn't that mean the light from these far away stars would be here the whole time? Just a thought...possible or not I don't know. I'm not saying that is evidence at all I'm just saying...
Please explain to me what you find to be "real data." From what I have seen, most of these "facts" for evolution are largely based on stipulations and circular reasoning (in order for x to be viable there had to be y). I am atheist so you may spare me the attacks on my non-existant beliefs in a god.
It sounds to me that you are confirmed in your own beliefs, so isn't it rather silly to suggest someone should disregard theirs in order to have a "truthful debate?" You condemn him for mocking your evolution and then have the nerve to mock his god in the same paragraph. You have to realize that you sound just as silly as he does.
Evolution continues to breed scientist who think they are going to find the origins of life. It is an utter waste of time as the only people who will ever believe in it are the people who currently believe. Those who have faith in gods, will always have faith in their gods. I pity you for thinking you are so enlightened.
"It promoted science and intellectual interchange and opposed superstition, intolerance and some abuses by church and state."
Compared to his medieval views, I am using information that I had to look up myself. I was raised Christian and found it to be false.
How I did this has been explained before in over 1000 debates of mine. I am not just randomly mocking his religion.
After a long process of research on my own, and on here, simply talking and comparing points, I am quite certain I am correct.
Because his Bible says "Kill people" in it, such as witches, or girls who were raped, and his god is completely and utterly evil, if it did exist, I feel that a person with such insane and violent beliefs can be attacked. He has no justification for his beliefs, and the beliefs he has are literally insane.
Do you really not see how you sound just like a religious nut-case? You say you have all of the facts and you know you are correct, but you have NOTHING. You just have your faith in what studies you believe. You might try to provide me with some "fact" that you like to put faith in, but in the end I would just point out the assumption it was based on. If you were actually objective, you would be willing to admit that evolution is not a fact, but a rather good guess. You're not going to do that though. You will just argue, name-call, judge and self-righteously tell me how correct you are over and over again.... just like a christian.
The theory of evolution is not absolute, for science prides itself on being open to opposing ideas and change. But the Theory of Evolution is about as close to absolute as you are going to get.
Evolution is a fact and a theory. Do your research next time.
Do you doubt heliocentric theory? The theory that states that the earth orbits the sun? By your logic, it's only a theory which means we might not be orbiting the sun after all.
You admit that evolution is just a theory, but then follow with "but it's as absolute as it's going to get." How does that a fact make? I'm not sure what your link was supposed to teach me. These scientist are widely accepting their assumptions as facts, just as you are. That is not something new, I hear and see it all of the time. In fact, it is what I am criticizing. Sending me that link is nothing short of a christian handing me a bible. You act as if it has all of the answers and truths. It means nothing to me.
Just because I do not share your religion does not make me ignorant either. I do in fact believe in the heliocentric theory. I also have no problems telling people that it is something I have faith in. If someone else believes something different, it is of no consequence to me. I'm not going to belittle them or act as if my faith is more factual than theirs. You can go ahead and spout off your "facts" hoping to convert me to your religion, but I already have my own faiths. I've not once said evolution is completely impossible. I've only tried to point out that it takes faith to believe in it, just as it takes faith to believe in a god. It all depends on who is looking at the "facts."
I know I'm wasting my time, which I why I will not post anymore beyond today. Christian's are too devoted to their religion just as you are too devoted to yours. You can only argue about which religion is supreme, and everybody walks away thinking they made some kind of prolific point on this site. In reality, you all just laugh at how clueless you find the other and do it all over again the next day.
You admit that evolution is just a theory, but then follow with "but it's as absolute as it's going to get." How does that a fact make?
Just a theory? Need I remind you what the definition is for a scientific theory? There is no "just a theory" about it.
Scientific Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
These scientist are widely accepting their assumptions as facts, just as you are. That is not something new, I hear and see it all of the time. In fact, it is what I am criticizing
They are not blind assumptions, as religious beliefs typically are. These explanations are justified through evidence, experimentation, and the scientific method.
You act as if it has all of the answers and truths. It means nothing to me.
The scientific method is the most reliable means to the truth. There is no known superior alternative. If you want to say that science and the scientific method means nothing to you, then why do you use things that rely solely on science to function? Nuclear power plants, airplanes, your car, air conditioning, electric appliances, modern agriculture, modern medicine, computers, the internet, the list goes on. And you say that none of that means anything to you? Please take some time to evaluate the idiocy of the statement you just made.
Just because I do not share your religion does not make me ignorant either.
I don't have a religion. Nor do I expect you to believe my beliefs. What I do expect is for you to have a justification for your beliefs, instead of just "well, it feels like its the truth to me".
I do in fact believe in the heliocentric theory. I also have no problems telling people that it is something I have faith in.
Heliocentric theory is both a fact and a theory, the same way that the Theory of Evolution is a fact and a theory. We are almost certainly never going to find any evidence that refutes the basic principles and ideas in these theories.
Belief in heliocentric theory does not rely on faith at all.
I'm not going to belittle them or act as if my faith is more factual than theirs.
Religious faith is by definition not factual.
You can go ahead and spout off your "facts" hoping to convert me to your religion, but I already have my own faiths
I have no religion. You can keep your religious faith, for it relies on no credible evidence.
I've not once said evolution is completely impossible. I've only tried to point out that it takes faith to believe in it, just as it takes faith to believe in a god. It all depends on who is looking at the "facts."
You try to imply that evolution is fairly likely to be wrong, and this implication is completely wrong. It is not likely at all that evolution is fairly like to be wrong. It is insanely unlikely that evolution is wrong.
It does not take faith to believe in evolution. It takes a rational mind to believe in it. Evolution relies on evidence, it in no way relies on any amount of faith.
It does take faith to believe in god, for there is no credible evidence supporting god's existence.
In regards to who's looking at the facts, some people simply choose to be in denial or willfully ignorant. It is not an interpretation of facts or evidence.
I know I'm wasting my time, which I why I will not post anymore beyond today. Christian's are too devoted to their religion just as you are too devoted to yours.
Again, I do not have a religion. You are too devoted to your religion, you are closed minded and dogmatic about your beliefs. It doesn't matter what evidence is proposed, you will continue believing in God and such. I on the other hand like to practice a healthy dose of skepticism along with an open mind. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and your claim of god is extraordinary with a complete lack of evidence.
You can only argue about which religion is supreme, and everybody walks away thinking they made some kind of prolific point on this site
I'm not arguing for any religion. I rather dislike all religions, or most of them at least.
In reality, you all just laugh at how clueless you find the other and do it all over again the next day.
Just pointing out...I'm a little confused at who your comments were aimed at here...I think you are confusing who you are talking to with these points. I think you need to go back and clarify...I don't particularly think they were christian nor a theist...
Just pointing out...I'm a little confused at who your comments were aimed at here...I think you are confusing who you are talking to with these points.
cvilleanon, is who I am talking to. I'm not confusing it with someone else. I addressed the flaws in his argument.
I think you need to go back and clarify...I don't particularly think they were christian nor a theist...
Since when does it matter if they're a christian, theist, or atheist? If someone is saying the things that he's saying, I'm going to correct them on a few things, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
How then could soft tissue last for millions of years? If man never walked with dinosaurs how then does it make sense that the depictions of dinosaurs found on artifacts show the skin markings? Back in the early 1900's dinosaur skin was found it even still had pigment left. How did it last this long? This is a perspective debate and from my perspective the things evolutionism feeds everyone about long age earth etc. Just does NOT add up.
A fossilized human skull was found in coal that was sold in Germany (mid-1800s). A jawbone of a child was found in coal in Tuscany (1958). Two giant human molars were found in Montana (1926). A human leg was found by a West Virginia coal miner. It had changed into coal
A woman, in Illinois, reportedly found a gold chain in a chunk of coal which broke open (1891). A small steel cube was found in a block of coal in Austria (1885). An iron pot was found in coal in Oklahoma (1912). A woman found a child's spoon in coal (1937).
In 1944 Newton Anderson claimed to have found this bell inside a lump of coal that was mined near his house in West Virginia. When Newton dropped the lump it broke, revealing a bell encased inside.
An iron nail was found in a Cretaceous block from the Mesozoic era (mid-1800s). A gold thread was found in stone in England (1844). An iron nail was found in quartz in California (1851). A silver vessel was found in solid rock in Massachusetts (1851).
The mold of a metal screw was found in a chunk of feldspar (1851). An intricately carved and inlaid metal bowl was found in solid rock (1852). An iron nail was found in rock in a Peruvian mine by Spanish conquistadors (1572)
A bronze coin was found 114 feet below the surface near Chillicothe, Illinois (1871). This means there were coins in ancient times in America! A paving tile was found in a "25 million-year-old" Miocene formation in Plauteau City, Colorado (1936).
Man-made markings on petrified wood.
Evolutionists declare that petrified wood is millions of year old, yet humans have worked with it.
Hand-worked petrified wood was found in India. It was shaped prior to fossilization.
Prior to mineralization, several petrified pieces of wood had been hacked with a cutting tool. The wood was dated to the Pliocene Epoch, before humans were supposed to have lived
Evolutionists declare that petrified wood is millions of year old, yet humans have worked with it.
Thats because you can still mark it after millions of years genius.
Hand-worked petrified wood was found in India. It was shaped prior to fossilization.
any proof for that?
Prior to mineralization, several petrified pieces of wood had been hacked with a cutting tool. The wood was dated to the Pliocene Epoch, before humans were supposed to have lived
Your point? There was plenty of hominids that used tools before humans.
A fossilized human skull was found in coal that was sold in Germany (mid-1800s). A jawbone of a child was found in coal in Tuscany (1958). Two giant human molars were found in Montana (1926). A human leg was found by a West Virginia coal miner. It had changed into coal
A woman, in Illinois, reportedly found a gold chain in a chunk of coal which broke open (1891). A small steel cube was found in a block of coal in Austria (1885). An iron pot was found in coal in Oklahoma (1912). A woman found a child's spoon in coal (1937).
In 1944 Newton Anderson claimed to have found this bell inside a lump of coal that was mined near his house in West Virginia. When Newton dropped the lump it broke, revealing a bell encased inside.
An iron nail was found in a Cretaceous block from the Mesozoic era (mid-1800s). A gold thread was found in stone in England (1844). An iron nail was found in quartz in California (1851). A silver vessel was found in solid rock in Massachusetts (1851).
The mold of a metal screw was found in a chunk of feldspar (1851). An intricately carved and inlaid metal bowl was found in solid rock (1852). An iron nail was found in rock in a Peruvian mine by Spanish conquistadors (1572)
A bronze coin was found 114 feet below the surface near Chillicothe, Illinois (1871). This means there were coins in ancient times in America! A paving tile was found in a "25 million-year-old" Miocene formation in Plauteau City, Colorado (1936).
How does that prove you points in anyway shape or form?
In front of all the speculation that coal takes millions of years to form; and also supposedly predates humans, how are these human artifacts within coal?
The Sahara Desert is only 1300 miles North to South and it is growing at the rate of four miles per year. Geophysicists announced recently that "the Sahara Desert is about 4,000 years old" based on extensive studies of growth patterns of the Sahara desert, (quoted from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. July 15, 1999 Geophysical Research Letters).
If the earth is billions of years old, then how come there aren't any older deserts?
This fits in perfectly with creation about 6k years ago and a global flood about 4400 years ago...
I'm still waiting for the best evidence for creation.
refuting different parts of evolution is not evidence.
The best evidence for creation should be presentable to the scientific community. So the whole world can be informed and educated. Good evidence can stand up to scientific scrutiny, thats the purpose of scientific method.
Live Frogs/Lizards coming out of the middle of rocks/coal.
A live Pterodactyl (10' wingspan) coming out of a giant limestone boulder.
Human artifacts within the coal seams and out of individual pieces of coal.
I realize none of this is "good" enough for the long earth/universe evolutionist but...all I've got to say...again is...from my perspective, this really makes me lean toward creation.
Its not me saying it so it's not me thats "stupid"
It's in: Reader's Digest: Mysteries of the Unexplained
The most amazing case of living fossils is one of a pterodactyl in France during the winter of 1856. Workmen were digging a railway tunnel through a layer of Jurassic limestone. They were startled to find a large creature stumbling out of a recently split boulder, flapping what looked like wings and croaking. It died immediately. The creature was identified as a pterodactyl by a local paleontology student who recognized the characteristic features of the extinct reptile. The stone in which it was found was consistent with the time period in which pterodactyls lived and formed an exact mold of the creature’s body.
Uhh, I was referring to the fact that you believed that. Just a little research, combined with a bit of LOGIC, would let you know that it was a hoax. A complete hoax. Like, it wasn't even supposed to be believed. You're a dumb ass. I mean, I wouldn't say it, but if you continue to support such an obviously false and ridiculous story, there is little else I can think of you as.
Seriously, debate good points. Not obvious bullshit like this. Sheesh.
Even on a single google search, I find CREATIONIST websites telling me that it was a hoax.
Do you see their logo? The pyramids with alien spaceships over head? It's just dumbfuck conspiracy shit.
You can do better than this. Do you seriously want to use this website as evidence for your claim? I mean, this is just going too far, isn't it? Seriously, you are looking dumber and dumber the more shit you post. THINK.
Seriously. Just THINK FOR A SECOND. WITH YOUR BRAAAAAAIN.
Look, we all have our own points of view in this life. We all have our own religion that try to answer the 4 great questions of life to the best of our abilities.
1 Who are we?
2. Where did we come from?
3. What are we supposed to be doing?
4. What happens after we die?
I'm not trying to sway you all from believing what you want. I post what I post because a lot of this stuff no matter where it comes from strikes me as some sort of evidence that this earth might not be as old as some say it is.
Quite honestly I couldn't care any less that you think I'm some "dumb fuck."
What I think is most amusing though. For all who are Christian, even if we lose. We win. That's probably what bites you and the rest of your lackies the most. You probably don't even understand that...
Those questions are great, but their answer can be found in a logical, consistent and evidenced based way. However, those are for another debate.
Right now, I am going to say: The most irritating part about the world being ruled by religion, especially the United States is how I can't say I'm atheist without getting dirty looks and being considered some horrible demon by Christians. I don't like how gay people are not allowed to marry. I don't like how politicians pander to religious people. I don't like how there is war in the name of religion. I don't like the pope telling people in Africa that condoms are evil, when AIDS is completely destroying them.
The good things religion cause can be produced with alternate activities, like clubs, friendship, love, volunteering and donating to a worthy cause.
What you are saying is completely insane and makes no amount of sense.
If you guys want to believe in the Macro-evolution religion and some old universe and earth thats fine with me. I just think it's dumb you all don't even consider the contrary. I used to be there too, but at least I could step back and see there could be another explanation.
So this stuff is not a myth, it is real. Only the willfully ignorant and uneducated do not believe it.
some old universe and earth thats fine with me.
Radiometric dating would disagree with you. As would the speed of light and the time it takes to travel across the vast distances of space. To believe the contrary is to ignore the evidence.
I just think it's dumb you all don't even consider the contrary.
I cannot speak for everyone, but I'm pretty sure most of us have! Myself included. Creationism is pure speculation, based on pseudo science and blind faith. I've looked at both sides, I used to be Catholic up until last year.
I used to be there too, but at least I could step back and see there could be another explanation.
I've done the same thing, and I and many others have come to the conclusion that the side with the most evidence beats the side with no evidence. That being the Theory of Evolution a well as the correct age of the universe and earth. As well as the fact that there is so far no evidence indicating a "higher power" of any sort.
As per your link: I don't dispute microevolution. We see the small changes, but I do disagree that it will lead to large changes leading to a whole new animal or plant. There are limitations within the genecode. It will get to a certain point and not change much more.
Radiometric dating starts with a HUGE assumption that c14 has always been the same.
Here are a few q's for you:
1.Do radiometric dating techniques always show that rocks lower in the geologic layers are older than rocks that are higher?
2.If radiometric dating on rocks known to be only a few years old yields dates of millions of years, why should we trust that the techniques can be used to accurately date rocks of unknown ages?
3.In radiometric dating techniques, how do we know how much parent material the sample started with? How do we know none of the parent or daughter isotope was added or removed? How do we know the decay rate is constant?
4.When items are carbon-14 dated, how do we know how much carbon-14 was initially present in the sample? Could the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 have been different at different times in earth’s history? How can scientists accurately adjust their calculations if the isotope ratios were never observed and recorded?
How do you know the speed of light has always been the same?
As per your link: I don't dispute microevolution. We see the small changes, but I do disagree that it will lead to large changes leading to a whole new animal or plant. There are limitations within the genecode. It will get to a certain point and not change much more.
You didn't even read my link. If you did, you would have saw that macro evolution has been observed. Speciation has occurred
A large amount of small changes equals macro evolution.
We are a long way from any limitations within the genetic code. New genetic information is created all the time. One way information is added is through mutations. Here is my source
Radiometric dating starts with a HUGE assumption that c14 has always been the same.
Why is that a huge assumption? Just because something is an assumption, does not mean it is automatically false. Nevertheless, this assumption is supported by evidence. Click here
1.Do radiometric dating techniques always show that rocks lower in the geologic layers are older than rocks that are higher?
Probably not in all cases, but in most cases rocks that are lower are older than rocks that are higher.
2.If radiometric dating on rocks known to be only a few years old yields dates of millions of years, why should we trust that the techniques can be used to accurately date rocks of unknown ages?
You are likely using the wrong method then.
3.In radiometric dating techniques, how do we know how much parent material the sample started with? How do we know none of the parent or daughter isotope was added or removed? How do we know the decay rate is constant?
There is a reason why radiometric dating is trusted so much by scientists. And there is a reason why only creationists or the religious distrust it so much, and that is because they are willfully ignorant, it is too complex for them, or they simply have not had the chance to learn about it.
4.When items are carbon-14 dated, how do we know how much carbon-14 was initially present in the sample? Could the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 have been different at different times in earth’s history? How can scientists accurately adjust their calculations if the isotope ratios were never observed and recorded?
Creationists/religious people have brought up the same issues you have so many times, that they've been cataloged. None of these arguments hold any weight scientifically. They only hold weight to people ignorant on the matter.
How do you know the speed of light has always been the same?
1. Speciation: what exactly is a species? BTW I did go to your link.
2. do you have any examples of mutations?
3. Dating: Why is it a huge assumption? Because it is! Why would you assume that C14 has always been the same or that you know what it was X number of years ago. If(IF) Carbon dating were true and accurate you could only go back 30-40k years anyways; but thats with making the assumption that you know what the C14 was back then.
So why don't you go ahead and tell people how you really date things. I'll just sum it up for them. By their location in the geologic column.
My next question is how do you know the dates of these layers of strata?
4. If you want to believe lots of small changes = Macro evolution then go ahead and believe that. It's not.
1. Speciation: what exactly is a species? BTW I did go to your link.
In my own words, a group of organisms with similar visual characteristics and biological systems/structures capable of reproducing with each other.
By definition: A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
And in case you were wondering what speciation was, it is when a species accumulates enough genetic change (microevolution) to the point where it becomes a new species.
Both sections offer 3 short paragraphs of examples of both beneficial and harmful mutations. The beneficial mutation lists resistance to bubonic plague as one mutation. The harmful mutation lists DNA repair gene mutations as increasing the risk of cancer as an example there.
3. Dating: Why is it a huge assumption? Because it is! Why would you assume that C14 has always been the same or that you know what it was X number of years ago.
Further down my response I responded to this. Where I replied with the "huge assumption" bit, I assumed you concluded that all radiometric dating methods were assumptions based on no evidence. I showed you in a link that was wrong, and that there was plenty of evidence to believe in the validity of radiometric dating. Radiometric dating does not depend solely on carbon 14. There are many independent methods that all operate through the same mechanism, that being radioactive decay. The link I sent you also listed why the radioactive decay has likely remained constant.
A small excerpt from the page: Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records
If(IF) Carbon dating were true and accurate you could only go back 30-40k years anyways
There are many different types of radiometric dating. Radiocarbon dating is only one of them. Each of the different methods of radiometric dating have different half lifes, so they measure different amounts of time.
