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.
1. There is very strong evidence that all DNA is connected and it descended from a single cell.
2. Fossils show that there were very basic organisms that changed into more advanced organisms.
3. Humans have about 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, 90% with cats, 80% with cows, and 75% with mice, proving that we all have a common ancestor.
4. Humans share common traits as embryos with other species in our phylum Chordata, including dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, and eels, like gill slits and tails.
5. Bacteria grow resistance to antibiotics because they evolve after they are killed.
The beginning of the clip is life emerging out of non-life...abiogenisis. There is no evolution without it. The supposedly original single cell somehow emerged out of non living things.
The beginning of evolution is life emerging out of non-life which is an absurdity.
The root of evil ootion airy belief is absurdity, the whole family tree of evil lotion is absurdity. It's a joke, an April fools joke.
The beginning of the clip is life emerging out of non-life...abiogenisis.
Yes, that's not evolution, that's abiogenesis.
There is no evolution without it.
So, you understand that it isn't evolution, you just refuse to admit you are wrong.
The supposedly original single cell somehow emerged out of non living things.
Just like the Bible story.
The beginning of evolution is life emerging out of non-life which is an absurdity.
No one has presented anything less absurd. Adam coming from dirt is the same thing. Plus, discrediting abiogenesis only discredits abiogenesis, not evolution.
The root of evil ootion airy belief is absurdity
The root of your god is absurd as well.
the whole family tree of evil lotion is absurdity.
Molecules are created all the time. It just so happened that the right elements (hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, sulfur, and phosphorus) came together to form biomolecules, like DNA, and cells.
Should I ban you from the debate because you didn't take the side I wanted you to?
Also, I said actual proof. All you did was find some preachy videos by religious nuts like yourself.
Ok, you win. Comfort makes an even worse attempt to discredit evolution than that first post of yours. What part of what Comfort says to you want me to debunk first?
There is no possible way that you watched that video in the few seconds you responded after I posted the link. Atheists are big chickens at heart, and big mouths full of hot air in practice. They are afraid to listen so the keep spouting nonsense and changing the subject any time their silly logic is exposed as absurd.
You linked to a bing search of someone that has been thoroughly debunked over and over again. I can refute whichever video you want. Some of those videos are 5 years old.
Atheists are big chickens at heart, and big mouths full of hot air in practice.
I offered you a chance and you are running from it like a chicken.
They are afraid to listen so the keep spouting nonsense and changing the subject any time their silly logic is exposed as absurd.
Interesting. I just offered you the truth and you changed the subject to me being a chicken.
so watch the videos, and refute them responsively, not sitting there on your pretend pedestal announcing you have debunked God and everybody who speaks of Him, and respond to the preacher in the video and show where he is wrong in what he says...and don't pretend like you are responding to him if you are not quoting him. You are just a big mouth chicken and your brain so overflowing with clutter that you can't sit quiet without the clutter spewing out of your mouth like spit out of a rabid dog. Prove me wrong, watch the videos, and respond like an adult conversationally.
not sitting there on your pretend pedestal announcing you have debunked God
Ray Comfort is your god? Does the real God know about this? You are going to be in some big trouble when He finds out.
and don't pretend like you are responding to him if you are not quoting him.
This is awesome. I ask you to quote him, and now you made it a requirement for me to do. You are the one claiming that he said something important, quote it yourself.
You are just a big mouth chicken and your brain so overflowing with clutter that you can't sit quiet without the clutter spewing out of your mouth like spit out of a rabid dog.
This is a classic case of projection.
Prove me wrong, watch the videos, and respond like an adult conversationally.
You want me to respond to your childish response like an adult?
You haven't debunked (I hate that stupid word, debunked, but I'll use it for you since you seem to think it's use equals a mountain of intelligence) anything I have said. The only think you are "debunking" is your right to live which you never had. Every moment of your life is a gift from God, not a right which can be secured or sued for. God has the right to stop giving you time at any moment. God has the right to end your lifetime now, you do not have the right to keep it apart from God. The only way you can have it that way is to be confined in Hell where your anti-God poison won't pollute His creation any more. You really don't want to push God to that point but you think you are smart and strong in tempting Him moment by moment. You're just a fool and it's a crying shame because you could be something for God. I hope you learn to fear God before it's too late, and trust Him for all He wants for you is good but you can't have it your own way. Your way is the way of death for crying out loud and you can be saved from it.
It's hard for me to watch a fool going down in death when I know God is throwing them a lifeline and all they have to do is reach out to God in faith and believe on Jesus Christ in His resurrection and be saved from Hell.
There comes a point with people like you that I give up and leave your future in God's hands, considering myself unable to help you......but I am writing these things for others who are reading as much as for you.
You haven't debunked (I hate that stupid word, debunked, but I'll use it for you since you seem to think it's use equals a mountain of intelligence) anything I have said.
That's because you haven't said anything.
God has the right to stop giving you time at any moment. God has the right to end your lifetime now, you do not have the right to keep it apart from God. The only way you can have it that way is to be confined in Hell where your anti-God poison won't pollute His creation any more.
Is there anything more anti-God than saying that he will kill other people at any moment?
You really don't want to push God to that point but you think you are smart and strong in tempting Him moment by moment. You're just a fool and it's a crying shame because you could be something for God. I hope you learn to fear God before it's too late, and trust Him for all He wants for you is good but you can't have it your own way.
All he wants is for me is good, but I need to fear Him. Interesting.
It's hard for me to watch a fool going down in death when I know God is throwing them a lifeline
He hasn't thrown me one.
and all they have to do is reach out to God in faith
Uh, that's the opposite of Him throwing me a lifeline. If I have to throw the lifeline for Him to catch it then God didn't throw the lifeline for me.
but I am writing these things for others who are reading as much as for you.
God says to stop so that you don't scare away future real believers.
Ray Comfort thinks that anybody who has broken the commandments is a bad person and he freely admits that he has broken all of the commandments. Why do you believe a guy who doesn't believe in himself?
You think you have debunked God (debunked is a stupid word anyways) debunked Comfort, debunked me, debunked Jesus Christ, debunked Hell, debunked anything that refers to an intelligence and power greater than you. Death debunks you and in reality that is all you have and you can't debunk it. Everything you are and have amounts to death and you deserve it the same as every other sinner...oh yeah, you debunked sin too I guess, even though you can't get out of the death it caused. Quit abusing God's air and use the ears He gave you and maybe He can get through your darkened mind with the glorious light of the gospel, the good news of God in Jesus Christ.
No, I think I can discredit Ray Comfort attacking evolution. Try to stay on topic. You never gave me the chance to though.
Death debunks you and in reality that is all you have and you can't debunk it.
It is weird that you accused me of being an Atheist because I had a death fixation.
Quit abusing God's air and use the ears He gave you and maybe He can get through your darkened mind with the glorious light of the gospel, the good news of God in Jesus Christ.
If you can't stay on topic you shouldn't tell other people they should stay on topic.
He has not. He merely has provided evidence to support his beliefs that there is no god.
debunked Comfort
yes he did
debunked Jesus Christ
Jesus is easy to debunk.
debunked Hell
Easily refuted logically and my beliefs on the subject are more powerful than heaven or hell combined. Cuz my belief serves to me what I truly want in life. To live in the here and now. How I believe is for another day.
debunked anything that refers to an intelligence and power greater than you.
I believe DNA is more intelligent than I could ever be as the product of its genius.
Death debunks you and in reality that is all you have
No, death is what happens when my heart stops beating and my body rots. It doesn't have debating skills it cannot refute anything.
you can't debunk it
No, I can't prove death to be refutable, but your logic is.
Everything you are and have amounts to death and you deserve it the same as every other sinner
Well, I take that as a compliment.
yeah, you debunked sin too I guess,yeah, you debunked sin too I guess,
Well, I don't believe in sin in the same context as you, but im pretty sure I discussed that knowledge of good and evil was original sin therefore we should all probably just forget about it. We're clearly not supposed to know what good and evil are.
Quit abusing God's air and use the ears He gave you and maybe He can get through your darkened mind with the glorious light of the gospel, the good news of God in Jesus Christ.
What about the glorious light of the sun? I like that way better. Never said a nasty thing to me, doesn't tell me I need to be saved. Treats you an I as equals and quite merciful on a galactic scale. We haven't been burned to a crisp yet. :) I like my god better.
that sounds interesting, could you explain, or link where you discussed it?
Okay, I'm going to try not to spend too much time on a real in depth explanation.
so, here we go. In there book of genesis after much of the early creation had happened and adam and eve were around, god commanded adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Now, I'm going to stop there for a moment and assess the tree.
By the symbology of the bible this is a tree of thought and very neatly fits as such. Starts as a small seed and grows its many appendages and branches of said thought.
Now, I've read some priestly definitions of this and they actually claim that the bible is real and that this tree was a real tree and the fruit was tangible. I'll tell you it must take a genius to figure out that a talking snake and a woman made from a rib is not in anyway practical and is totally symbolic so just bear with my assessment, but I digress.
Continuing on; in the bible God specifically demands that Adam not eat of the tree lest he would surely die. (btw adam was apparently immortal before eating of the tree too)
and for a long while adam and his new sex toy eve were frolicking around the garden of eden having a gay old time when the devil or "advisory" as the old jewish text stated, slithered up in all his serpentine glory and proceeded to nag at Adam and eves thoughts and manipulate their desires. Pausing here a moment.
At this point I like to think of Adam as a mildly retarded redneck who thought talking to a snake was legit. Continuing on!
Adam and eve decide to eat of this fruit from THE TREE OF KNOWLEGE OF GOOD AND EVIL due to the devils reluctant skill at quick talking and God already knows and is angry (Where the divine plan fits into all of this is well beyond me, you're just going to have to figure that shit out on your own) so angry that he kicked adam and eve out of the garden of eden all for the disobeying of god in the learning of the secrets of good and evil which was coined the original sin.
Swinging to Christianity. Jesus died saying forgive them father for they know not what they do has just become contradictory to what the creation story preaches.
Seeing as we ate from the fruit are descendants of Adam and eve we should have some inclination of what good and bad are given the time frame of the creationists theory. By forgetting about good and bad we would essentially be repenting for our original sin because any and all sin was a direct result of original sin, the knowledge of it in the first place as sin is synonymous with an evil/wicked act. That act was disobeying god and thinking about what was good and was bad for ourselves.
Now, to the mathimatics of it all. Good and bad by todays standards are quite literally a balance scale (yes the Egyptians had the right symbology) You have the pros and cons and you weigh them out based on "does it help"/"does it hurt" and the more it helps the more "good" it is and the more it hurts the more "bad" it is. Destroy a 100k people in a blink of an eye? Well here's where it gets interesting because good and bad are completely subjective and abstract. Each person has their own scale and weighs everything out accordingly based on their own personal factors. For example That bomb going off looked good to the military industrial complex, looked pretty bad to the japs, but all were weighing there own scales. Thus, this makes any solid objective definition of good and bad obsolete and doesn't exist for real in the real world. That being said, since good and evil doesn't exist in anything more than a thought and the way it seems to me is that good and evil are things we are clearly not supposed to know about. We should just dump the concept and start thinking about what is life cuz that tree was also in the garden and it was very neglected.
thank you for taking the time to write that, good intro too ;)
if you view it the way you have written it, it's as if you sin by using your moral compass from the forbidden fruit, but you also sin when you don't and go against god's moral compass on judgement day when you die.
anyway
i think i understand most of what you said, but can't fully agree with this mathematics analogy you employ, nor the conclusion you come out of this with. i agree that any notion of an objective morality does not exist and that our categorisations of good or bad are subjective and not entirely real.
however morality isn't a concept that should be dropped, as it is essential. although admittedly mostly ever used for blame, it is also used in foresight prior to an action and that is an essential process in society.
i think your mathematics idea is a good one and sort of makes sense, but if you were to continue that idea, you'd have to incorporate many more things into it. there are some thought experiments that challenge our ideas of morality such as the rather well known trolley problem. additionally, what the trolley problem doesn't mention is the uncertainty involving some of these actions, which further complicates things. there are hundreds of morally ambiguous dilemmas floating around that require much more consideration than just 'does it help +/- does it hurt'. to further use your analogy, you might add multipliers based on the sort of person they have been in the past, translation corrections for mental disorders that would displace their tendencies from a normal response, multipliers for the % something increases for the chance of something good/bad happening?' and so on with many more complicated functions, each function holding a varying effect depending on who is judging, which would be subjectivity, as you already mentioned.
were our really screwed up views of morality not actually very useful despite being disorderly, i'd be more inclined to agree with you that it has no place in our minds.
I actually really enjoyed that trolly problem and here is what I have to say about the first dilemma presented.
In the case that you could pull a lever and save 5 people, but kill one in the context of the trolly dilemma I'd have to say, that given this man is not deaf (was not clearly stated) the most positive thing you can do is pull the lever.
If this man is within earshot you can yell for him to move out of the way. giving him a 100/0 chance of surviving
If not there is a 50/50 chance that he will hear the trolly and move out of the way himself as you pull the lever.
given that there is enough time for you to pull the switch, before it reaches the turn off there will be a loud audible transition of the tracks. A warning sign for anyone within earshot of the transition area. decreasing the chances of dieing to 25% and the chances of surviving to 75%.
Considering this trolly was maintained properly by the city if in a city at all it would have a gong.
"Gong – streetcars traditionally used large bells mounted under the car and activated by the motorman’s foot as a warning signal. They typically did not have horns or whistles installed unless operating outside of cities."
A gong would be able to alert the man to the impending doom raising his chances of survival 20% to 80% chance.
now there are probably many more variables to consider, but I'm pretty sure this mans chances of dying were rather slim.
Oh! bit it is a thought experiment. The second scenario where the trolly is runaway has no alternative round and you are standing beside a big fat man who is big enough to stop the trolly provided you push him in front of it is even better. Assuming logic is the prime determiner of the moral compass the best option here is not to push the man in front of the trolly because you are directly forcing the persons death in order to stop the trolly. Further more, this action of pushing the man into the trolly has an extremely high chance of being a misadventure anyway because like a train, a trolly is on tracks. Trains are easily derailed by larger objects on the tracks. Provided it is speeding it is more likely to use the man as a ramp sending the trolly into a crash course with the ground which is likely to kill the 5 passengers anyway. So instead of 5 people dying you directly forced up to 6 people to die because you decided you needed to be a hero and took the dumbest route you could possibly take which will lead up to 5 counts of manslaughter, 1 count of murder and 1 count of assault. The best option here is to remain neutral and look on in helpless horror as the trolly makes for that misadventure anyway.
These philosophical questions need to be looked at logically because in a realistic scenario the philosophical moral question is rather bland and obvious. Now, lets consider that the mans body did stop the trolly dead in its tracks, provided it was a rock the same size as the trolly; and stopped it dead in its tracks, we'll be conservative here and say it was only going 100mph, you'd result in 5 very dead people because there are no seatbelts on trollys and momentum would be their demise.
i agree entirely with your assertions that in the second scenario all people aside from the fat man would die in reality. it's quite a nice answer really.
however what you are solving is not a thought experiment, but a rather linear problem. in a thought experiment you assume certain things to be true even when realistically they are not. a moral thought experiment is not designed to test your ability to think realistically or outside the box, but invents a moral dilemma representing a confliction of morality that creates a divide of opinion.
These philosophical questions need to be looked at logically because in a realistic scenario the philosophical moral question is rather bland and obvious.*
these philosophical scenarios are only representations of conflictions. how about if i remove some options?
a nuclear warhead is incoming towards the country you run. do you return fire with another nuke and claim retaliation and justice or sit and die? you have a small country entirely projected to be consumed by deadly radiation and only a minute before it hits.
you are flying in a hot air balloon. the burner sends up a plume of flame and burns a hole in the parachute valve before running out of fuel. you are descending despite the heat coming up from the volcano, but the hole is small enough that maybe if there was less weight the volcano's heat might carry you up. there are 4 passengers. you, a very fat banker weighing twice as much as the others, a celebrity, and a doctor. the total weight of 3 people or an equivalent must be removed. the burner won't detach from the basket. the balloon won't detach from the basket.
a person with a gun has entered your house and shot your partner in the head. you rush upstairs to call the police and grab your gun. you come back down a few minutes later to see the person begin to aim at your 5 year old child who is unaware of the intruder. do you shoot the intruder or hide? the police are on their way and you can hear the siren a little down the street.
you are captured by jigsaw. 4 people are lying on the floor unconscious. a thick titanium collar on your neck is rigged with explosives set to explode in 20 minutes. there is a blunt blade on the floor in front of you. in the intestine of one of the 4 people is a key they were made to swallow that unlocks the collar around your neck. what do you do?
i agree entirely with your assertions that in the second scenario all people aside from the fat man would die in reality. it's quite a nice answer really.
I suppose, I should be thankful.
however what you are solving is not a thought experiment, but a rather linear problem. in a thought experiment you assume certain things to be true even when realistically they are not.a moral thought experiment is not designed to test your ability to think realistically or outside the box, but invents a moral dilemma representing a confliction of morality that creates a divide of opinion.
I never said that I was solving a thought experiment.
You have to assume certain things for example in the trolley scenario, you are not given enough information to know anything more about the man standing on the tracks other than he is there and in a blink of an eye from the time you pull the lever he is dead which of course makes these scenarios abstract ideas and open to interpretation.
Which is why the trolly problem is still debated today because of all the variables that can reasonably be put in place. Without the sense of realism the man is no different than a plank of wood standing on the track with a supposed heartbeat. Also, without reason accompanying this factitious scenario you can't truly make a reasonable choice. For example, I myself probably couldn't push the fat man in front of the trolly even if I wanted to.
these philosophical scenarios are only representations of conflictions. how about if i remove some options?
Not sure what you mean by this.
a nuclear warhead is incoming towards the country you run. do you return fire with another nuke and claim retaliation and justice or sit and die? you have a small country entirely projected to be consumed by deadly radiation and only a minute before it hits.
Okay, so a nuclear warhead is coming to my country and I run... I live in a small country which will inevitably be consumed by deadly radiation and I only have a minute before it hits.
There are a few things wrong with this whole scenario. 1 I don't know if this nuke is going to hit right beside me or if it's going to explode 10 miles off and I have to contend with the blast radius.
So, I cannot make a reasonable choice because there is to little information. Considering my choices are to return fire or sit and die there are a few questions that need solving (if I was really in this situation they'd be things I know)
If the nuke is over top of me and I have one minute to run, I'd most likely sit and die. there is no point in trying to outrun an inevitable death.
Am I the leader of this country? certainly I cant return fire if I don't have the launch codes.
If the nuke is a ways off and I catch the blast radius and live and I'm nothing more than a peasant or slave I'd probably sit and die as well. If I was the leader of the country I'd most likely return fire.
you are flying in a hot air balloon. the burner sends up a plume of flame and burns a hole in the parachute valve before running out of fuel. you are descending despite the heat coming up from the volcano, but the hole is small enough that maybe if there was less weight the volcano's heat might carry you up. there are 4 passengers. you, a very fat banker weighing twice as much as the others, a celebrity, and a doctor. the total weight of 3 people or an equivalent must be removed. the burner won't detach from the basket. the balloon won't detach from the basket.
This is an interesting one. One I can probably relate to quite easily. Without a question I'd toss the banker and the doctor.
a person with a gun has entered your house and shot your partner in the head. you rush upstairs to call the police and grab your gun. you come back down a few minutes later to see the person begin to aim at your 5 year old child who is unaware of the intruder. do you shoot the intruder or hide? the police are on their way and you can hear the siren a little down the street.
Shoot the intruder
you are captured by jigsaw. 4 people are lying on the floor unconscious. a thick titanium collar on your neck is rigged with explosives set to explode in 20 minutes. there is a blunt blade on the floor in front of you. in the intestine of one of the 4 people is a key they were made to swallow that unlocks the collar around your neck. what do you do?
My will to survive trumps all choices. I'd start hacking away.
i found some of it worth listening to, he presents some interesting ideas. although i wouldn't agree with it all and the idea's sort of stop when he starts talking about the commandments.
I was looking for information on evolution. He is preaching about the Bible. I was just trying to figure out which part of the video actually talked about evolution.
although i wouldn't agree with it all and the idea's sort of stop when he starts talking about the commandments.
I skipped to several different spots and couldn't get anything useful. I skipped to a part where he talks about an archaeological dig he went to where he got called a trouble maker.
A specific part of anything you are saying against God that is worth listening to? No. You are saying nothing of value unless you love death and only care how much you can enjoy your dying before it's finalized. Why don't you just shut up. Obviously your brain capacity is too cluttered for listening to logical reasoning from and for God which desires your restoration to have eternal life.
firstly, evolution and creationism are not entirely mutually exclusive. nor are they particularly great to compare as they don't explain exactly the same thing or in the same way. evolution is a theory of change across species proven fact by surviving numerous attempts to disprove it. creationism is a philosophy of how the world was formed with no credible evidence or people bothering on the inside to attempt to disprove it.
evolution is the most viable candidate for explaining how life changes over time from one form to another. evolution is virtually a fact. most (scientist) creationists even accept evolution. however it is not known how the process of evolution has worked throughout all time. it covers, with evidence, our development from monkeys to humans quite well, and with suggestive evidence covers transitions even between genera, families and classes. evolution only seems to have trouble with a few steps near the origins of life. the Miller-Urey experiment seems to cover the assimilation of amino acids from basic molecules, but from that point onwards you get a few failures to explain what happens. main issues include: transition from amino acids to proteins. proteins to single celled organisms. endosymbiosis. and the leap from single celled to multi celled. any conclusions i've seen seem ridiculously unlikely and although there is a little evidence albeit with wishful thinking, it isn't enough to take as fact and is not taught accordingly.
creationism suggests that the world is less than 10,000 years old, suggests dinosaurs and humans lived together, that there was a flood that killed everything on earth except those on an impossible ship, nevermind repopulation. all of this using the bible as a source
