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.
Yes, in many ways if you take the bible literally word for word, however if you follow the bible as a spiritual guide book of faith then not so much as evolution does not mean there is isn't a God, I think this is why a lot of Christians get bent out of shape over evolution because they seem to think it means "See no God" but that's not true at all, I know quite a few Christians that support evolution.
Who is the one believing in magic? 'yes kids, billions of years ago a piece of pond scum magically became alive contrary to all scientific laws on the subject. Then by natural selection (an often misunderstood idea that was invented by a Creationist) here we are!'
"according to modern science" you mean "according to discovery channel" right? Apparently, if your not on discovery channel, your not a real scientist.
For one thing, everything coming from nothing is a scientific impossibility. Life coming from non-life is a biological impossibility (law of biogenesis) and DNA codes becoming more complex with each generation using a process that in reality degrades, not upgrades, the genome is impossible.
Fallacy in your logic there. You seem to think that it has to be published in a magazine you lime for it to be science.
everything coming from nothing is scientifically impossible - Law of conservation of mass and energy is enough proof for you.
Life coming from non-life is biologically impossible - like I said, law of biogenesis.
DNA codes becoming more complex - law of conservation of information, look up Dr. Warner Gitt.
It is a logical fallacy to appeal to a specific science community for science. Most scientists who made any major contribution to science had to learn this. You want peer reviewed proof? Go to the links below:
No, Casmir's effect does not produce energy from nowhere (not knowing where energy comes from is not the same as it coming from nowhere.
There you go with your logical fallacy again. "not recognized" by who? the scientists you happen to like? Give me one example of a hoax they've produced.
I did my final project on Casimir's effect and it's my research area. The energy is coming from empty space, nothing is in there.
Recognized like Nature, NewScientist, ...etc.
Creationist are using misinformation and if you want to correct them they ban you. They "research" methods are simply wrong. They are not qualified, often having fake online degrees but they always have white coats on them in videos ... even if not in lab :D They are really comical :D
"Nature and NewScientist" here, let me use your logic...
ahem these magazines are unrecognized by the scientists I like to listen to so they must be junk. Furthermore, they are full of hoaxes and contradictions and are actually quite entertaining.
"Nature and NewScientist" here, let me use your logic...
ahem these magazines are unrecognized by the scientists I like to listen to so they must be junk. Furthermore, they are full of hoaxes and contradictions and are actually quite entertaining.
Wow, I'm learning logic from Nox0 :D
pointless reply from redneck, try it again with some argument.
"Nature and NewScientist" here, let me use your logic...
ahem these magazines are unrecognized by the scientists I like to listen to so they must be junk. Furthermore, they are full of hoaxes and contradictions and are actually quite entertaining.
Wow, I'm learning logic from Nox0 :D
pointless reply from redneck, try it again with some argument.
I was pointing out your fallacy, look, make a logical argument and I'll respond with a logical argument. If your going to continue using fallacies like you did in your last post, I'll simply point them out.
You pretty much said "creation scientists are all bad because I said so" You didn't base your argument on fact but personal opinion, which holds no weight in logical discussion.
I'm sorry but pseudo-scientists that are religious fanatists and present them self just only on webs run by other religious fantasists and do not allow any review of their "work" are not recognized not only by me but everyone in scientific community.
You just repeated your fallacy. How do you expect to have a logical discussion when you don't use logic? Everything you just said is unsupported opinion. Also, you fall back on authorities instead of facts when you say "scientific community", that is the type of fallacy Galileo had to deal with in many of his discoveries.
I do understand logic, and everything you type seems to be a fallacy. Let me explain this simply; You said creationists are pseudo scientists yet you backed it up with no tangible facts. This is a fallacy because it is based on your opinion, and I could just as easily do it with any scientist you cite.
"what is your qualification"
Authority appeal fallacy again.
"systematic scientific research or magic"
Another fallacy, you are appealing to emotionalism now. "he believes in magic, but I believe in science" you are trying to win the debate with labels.
My advice: take a coarse on logic, because I know they didn't teach it in your school.
Again you have not presented anything here. this node started as a reply to your wrong statements about energy conservation and genetics. As a support you've used unrecognized source. I told you that it's broken as a whole thing and since then you have not made a single comment with any internal consistency what so ever. if your next reply will not contain anything more reliable than those three previous blobs. I will not reply. .
Another logical fallacy. I brought up arguments, you criticized my sources, but your logic was false. The use of the term "unrecognized" is a fallacy because you presume on what you think is recognized. Your pretty much saying "I like these scientists, they don't like your scientists, therefore your scientists aren't really scientists" this fallacy is commonly known as the 'real scotsman fallacy.' In Galileo's day, people did this with Greek philosophers, Galileo disagreed with them, so everyone thought he must be wrong.
"more reliable"
Logic is not reliable? Then why are you debating?
"any internal consistency"
This is a fallacy unless you specify.
"I will not reply"
Maybe I can find a more logical debator. If you logic is wrong, your whole argument is destroyed.
I guess that argument contained something more reliable.
Why would I debate someone when there is something wrong with the other's reasoning. This is why am not addressing the topic, because your answer to one of my points was a logical fallacy, and it's impossible to argue like that. So you can either start using logic or stick to the fallacies and go argue with someone else.
When I cited creation scientists, you replied with an authority appeal and a 'not real scotsman'' argument, both logical fallacies (I hope this isn't flying over your head)
How that can even be logical fallacy... "Creation science" is logical fallacy on it's own. It uses word Science yet it refuses fulfill it's meaning/methodology.
So if you do not want to look like a retard try not to use sources that have Creation in their name.
I said give me the evidence you gave me, not give me a website. Please state what evidence you gave me. Since you didn't give any, it brings us back to the point- if you can use evolutionary sources, I can use creationist ones. And get away from the fallacy of authority; it doesn't matter who said it, it only matters what was said.
"You are just empty cunt playing with words. You don't even know what is logical fallacy, you just use it wherever you want."
Umm, yes I do know what a logical fallacy is, I am not playing word games because every time you use a fallacy I specify which one it is. You obviously don't know what logic is or you wouldn't say such ignorant things.
Nice trick, he is talking exclusively about JFC (comets from around Jupiter) those have about 10,000 years cycle. Others can vary somewhere between 2000 to 25000 years. Depends where they originate,etc...
The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
This is lot about the dynamo theory (magnetohydrodynamics) and it's really maths heavy. To keep it really very simple earth magnetic field seems to be cycling. It's going up and down like a wave.
Other are not from physics so I cannot answer them.
Author of this "article" is Russell Humphreys (physicist), that means that he knows what I do, so he is not wrong, hi is deliberately lying!!
I've answered three that were in my area of expertise.
1. link is to abstract of a study based on observation that disproves that crank. To have full access you have to be a full member.
2 ""he point is there is no evidence that they originate anywhere."" we know exactly where they have originated. He picked a collection from JFC that fits to his delusion, there are many others ...however that would not fit, am I right? :D
3 "Theories, I'll give you that." Same group of theories that allowed you write this reply in a first place...
Yes he is lying or he had a stroke that damaged exactly the part of his brain where his undergraduate physics is stored :D
He is intentionally skipping information, cherry picking. For example with those comets cycle that can be from few years to 100 000 years but he talks only about 10000 years old comets because they fit into his favorite myth. It's like pointing on car from 1995 a saying that it's a proof that all cars are from 1995... He is a lying and you are an idiot for following him.
This video is so ignorant it is actually quite funny. It assumes everyone except religious people use the scientific method to come to a conclusion, therefore pretending that evolutionists have no bias whatsoever. Nice try, but weak. I am convinced that if atheism didn't exist, neither would evolution.
And you say that because you know its a panda and you know what it eats. Look up a fruit bat skull. Just because something has sharp teeth does not automatically mean eats or was meant for eating meat.
Just something to point out. When God said it was good, it was just that. It meant it fit his purpose. When God that they would die the day the eat of the tree, they did...spiritually. People try to say they started to die physically that day but that's a stretch. If God made lions and other carnivores with teeth the way he did on day 6 how would they eat? The bible doesn't specify how long the fall happened a day after creation, probably longer. Did he starve the lions until the fall?
Lions ate plants before the flood. Read Genesis 1:30
Seems like a pretty messed up God, calling a world with death and suffering "very good" and then deceiving the church for thousands of years until Darwin came along and showed us the light.
Genesis 1:30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
So lets go by your reasoning. They are given plants to eat after all creation is created. How do the lions eat? They don't molars, they have canines to tear and eat meat. so your saying God designed his creation wrong and gave lions plants when he designed them for meat?
God showed us in the Bible God's relationship to man and vice verca. By your explanation, God has been "holding back" every recent scientific advancement. We had to wait thousands of years for someone just to realize what gravity was!
1. Evolutionists don't believe we evolved from monkey, they believe monkeys and man had a common ancestor.
2. Because they don't need to breath fire in order to survive. They do need poison. The evolutionist could turn around and ask you the same question, "why didn't God create fire-breathing dragons instead of poisonous snakes?"
3. They don't believe anyone created it, they believe it is a natural process.
Better questions to ask might be "what did the first living organism eat?" or "how did the first organism learn how to reproduce and how did it know it needed to?"
When we argue against evolution, we need to make sure we use logical arguments, or else our position gets a bad rep.
1. Why did "natural process" give to us intelegient to deny itself?
2. If i can trasform into everything why i should choose poison to survive? Why? Furthemore, how can "natural process" know what is poison? I mean how it works.
3. We have a brain that's why it is imposible to accept things which exist just because they exist. If policeman finds somebody's body he will launch investigation to find a murderer but he wouldnt pass by in silence because all people die.
Some christians teach that evolution DID happen, and after mankind evolved after billions of years, a man named Jesus was born who was the messiah and all that shit.
Some christians believe the bible 100%. Those people are insane and cannot be taken seriously.
Their is a possibility of evolution. The bible says "after their kind" and that could mean many things. It does not say that for man however but have we found a link between man and any other species that is close enough?
The bible says "after their kind" means nothing! Just 200 translated phrase catted out from context. There is no evolution in bible. According to bible all creatures were created by wizard using magic.
Not at all and it depends on who is teaching it and what that person believes. It depends on what they include. Many many many people take the bible word for word which is a mistake. The authors of those books use different rhetorical skills and literary devices. They may not parallel with our writing styles. Also evolution cannot answer the origin of life, well not yet at least. So evolution does not change much for most Christians.
God is light. You should know that so what light would he need. Also before that heaven existed too and light was in heaven. Light existed. Dont you think light can exist in anything that emits heat? Also if we ignore the bible and say light wasnt here before the sun that makes zero sense. I am sure other stars existed before our sun did. Also we know how our solar system can form yes starting with the sun. Who is to say we know exactly how it was created and it what way it was formed? They could be both starting their creation at the same time. You are just going "word for word".
I do. I've read that in multiple languages, same stuff each time. Simple phrases and sentences. Genesis is obvious nonsense ...so how much more stuff from bible is total crap?
If it was simple you Athiests would not ask questions that already have an answer or ones you already answered. I highly doubt you actually took the time to study the rhetoric of the bible.
So all those editions I've went trough were misprints? So bible actually tells us that after the big bang there were protostars that blew up and formed sun and later planets? Do you have an edition that says so?
You only take the bibe word for word and dont actually think for a second and realize that it never gave a distinct formation of everything. It said God created Earth. How did he? I dont know. Maybe science can figure that out. Oh yes they sort of did.
No ot really doesnt. Not at all. You didnt study it. Just as I thought. Well for one lets follow the order of events. Heaven and Earth are the first to be seen by the author right? Now remember the author is human so follow along. Then there was light......I am positive light shines through the clouds. Very positive that it can. So from the authors perspective light came next. Then when a cloud moves there is a big burning orangish yellow thing in the sky and at night there is a big white and grey circular thing. Authors perspective does alot in literature. So no order of events are truly out of place.
Nope. As I expected you would say that. These messages where supposed to come from God. God put it in human perspective. So nope. Try again. You should know this. You read it right?
I would have to disagree with you there Lizzie. The Hebrew in Genesis 1 is written as a historical document, not as poetry (compare with Psalms). Also, on close examination, many of the core teachings of Christ are undermined in 'Theistic Evolution'
I really don't think so. Evolution took billions of years. Creationism involves magic. Making stuff in wrong order. Making modern human dirt (literally) ...so where is the common?
The funny thing is that my mom is in the Shinto faith. My dad is an Athiest. What brainwashing occured? and I don't think so that any of that is truth :D
Talking to you is like talking to a little child. Completely
logic-free arguments, asking same stuff over and over again, even on stuff already answered and not just once or just replying complete nonsense. I thought that you are trolling but it seems that you are really so dumb. Yes you are creatard, no matter how much you pretend that you are not. i can see that in your pseudo-arguments, your simpleton English, close-mindness.
Don't even bother with replying. It wouldn't make too much sense anyway.
