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.
Actually, the more I think about it, I think it might actually have just been a hack that made you Andy's enemy...I don't remember for sure, there was a lot going on here and in my life at that time. Either way, I do remember that avoiding his links is a wise precaution.
This is the first time he's been copying and pasting people's arguments, but he has been trolling this site for a very long time. He's been banned countless times and has cost Andy $1000 in trying to clean up his mess. Last I heard Andy was pursuing legal action against him.
This is the first time he's been copying and pasting people's arguments, but he has been trolling this site for a very long time. He's been banned countless times and has cost Andy $1000 in trying to clean up his mess. Last I heard Andy was pursuing legal action against him.
$1000 dollars? Also I don't think trolling and spamming is illegal just annoying. Also he is leading the leaderboard by a landslide*.
I'm pretty sure if you violate the terms of use the owner of the site can pursue legal action, especially if their trolling costs you money. He's done more than trolling and spamming. He's found exploits in the site and used them to delete everyone's arguments, posted links to viruses, posted a picture of two guys having sex as his profile picture and countless other things. Debate.org has threatened him with legal action too.
I'm pretty sure if you violate the terms of use the owner of the site can pursue legal action, especially if their trolling costs you money. He's done more than trolling and spamming. He's found exploits in the site and used them to delete everyone's arguments, posted links to viruses, posted a picture of two guys having sex as his profile picture and countless other things. Debate.org has threatened him with legal action too.
This is the first time he's been copying and pasting people's arguments, but he has been trolling this site for a very long time. He's been banned countless times and has cost Andy $1000 in trying to clean up his mess. Last I heard Andy was pursuing legal action against him.
Is that how he has 500 points or so on the leaderboard currently?
Yes, if you look through the debates from the past few days he's been copying and pasting everyone's arguments. Plus he creates private debate communities and just posts garbage in them to rack up points.
Yes, if you look through the debates from the past few days he's been copying and pasting everyone's arguments. Plus he creates private debate communities and just posts garbage in them to rack up points.
You don't. Besides, the way this debate is worded it could go either way. You could be asking to prove the Earth is less than OR older than 6000 years old.
How do you prove the Earth is older than 6,000 years old? If Creationists and Scientists have the same evidence how do you determine that the Earth is older than 6,000 years?
Most creationists get their data from sites like answersingenesis and similar organizations. They don't give them the evidence. They redefine things, they toss out red herrings, they appeal to scripture, they quote mine, they use outdated or non-peer reviewed studies, and from time to time they straight up lie. And the creationists who follow them rarely check up on the actual science.
So they might have access to that data, but it normally gets filtered through a very biased and duplicitous lens first.
I guess your right. I had Ken Ham's argument in mind when he was talking about how creationists and scientists had the same data, but disagreed with each other.
Ham has straight up admitted that if science conflicts with the scripture, you are supposed to ignore the science. He and his organization also claim that there are two types of science "observational and historic", which is not a view held by any mainstream academic or scientific organization and ignores the fact that, whenever possible, scientists use multiple lines of independent data when determining the geological age of things or other such projects just in case one line is compromised or presently misunderstood. He's great at preaching to uneducated folks, but not so good at honestly evaluating the evidence.
He and his organization also claim that there are two types of science "observational and historic", which is not a view held by any mainstream academic or scientific organization and ignores the fact that, whenever possible, scientists use multiple lines of independent data when determining the geological age of things or other such projects just in case one line is compromised or presently misunderstood
What did he even mean by observational and historic science?
He basically seems to believe that anything that you can measure and study right in fron of you is "observational", while drawing conclusions about past events would be "historical", and that historical is naturally inferior. This gives him carte blanche excuse to dismiss the fields of science he contests such as old Earth geology and evolution (failing to realize that evolution as properly defined does fit into his definition of "observational" since we have observed sepciation and changes in allele frequencies.)
I think he might be trying to delineate between measured principals (facts and laws) and explanatory ones (hypotheses and theories), but even if that is his goal, it shows he has completely misunderstood how and why science works.
He basically seems to believe that anything that you can measure and study right in fron of you is "observational", while drawing conclusions about past events would be "historical", and that historical is naturally inferior. This gives him carte blanche excuse to dismiss the fields of science he contests such as old Earth geology and evolution (failing to realize that evolution as properly defined does fit into his definition of "observational" since we have observed sepciation and changes in allele frequencies.)
I think he might be trying to delineate between measured principals (facts and laws) and explanatory ones (hypotheses and theories), but even if that is his goal, it shows he has completely misunderstood how and why science works.
Couldn't by his own logic defeat himself? I am saying such as you could say that the universe is 300 years old and the fossils just got that way as that is "historical science"
Everyone knows that evolutionists and creationists dispute how the universe began. And regardless of which side of the battle line you’re on, most people harbor strong feelings about the issue of origins . . . Yet there are a host of important questions at the core of the battle that relatively few in either camp have bothered to ask—much less answer . . . Why is the issue of origins so universally controversial? ... How can creationists support biblical claims that so obviously seem to contradict modern science? .. Whose side of the argument does scientific evidence support? .. What roles should science and the Bible play in a person’s beliefs about the physical universe? .. With the curiosity of a student and the precision of a veteran Bible teacher, John MacArthur takes you to the heart of the battle in his study The Battle for the beginning .. Based on an in-depth examination of Genesis chapter 1, The Battle for the Beginning takes you on an instructive, fascinating journey into the Bible’s own claims about creation, evolution, and the vital issues at stake ....... http://www.gty.org/products/Audio-Series/255/The-Battle-for-the-Beginning
You'll only burn in hell is the Earth is 6,000 years old. If any religion, which religions throughout history say different times, says another time other than 6,000, is true, then you won't burn in hell. If science is true, then you won't burn in hell. You'll only burn in hell if the Bible is strictly true. Technically, you could argue that you can't prove (I'm going by different religions), that earth isn't 155.5 trillion years old either. That's apparently how long it is in Hinduism, according to this site. If that was the case, then Allah wouldn't do shit right, because he most likely wouldn't exist? Most religions say different time periods. And frankly, if christianity can be right, why can't Greek mythology be right, or Hinduism, or another religion?
I'll intellectually acknowledge that some believe that all religion is true. But according to the math on this website, as I just stated, earth would have to be around for different time periods, which would make no sense.
I would just make the claim and point to some things and explain how those things mean that the Earth is that old. I mean, no one alive today was the 6000 years ago so who's going to dispute me ;)