Is evolution true or false?
True
Side Score: 69
|
 |
False
Side Score: 99
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
There is mountains of evidence for evolution. The scientific consensus is that evolution is true. To believe otherwise would need a massive conspiracy or belief in a hyper reality like the Matrix or Inception. "67 percent—of public high school biology teachers are presenting evolution forthrightly, emphasizing the broad scientific consensus on evolution" By Glenn Branch and Ann Reid on September 12, 2020 A grand conspiracy is mathematically unfeasible. Due to inconfidence alone an insider would accidental leak details of the conspiracy and the public would know. There is no evidence for a hyper reality. Side: True
1
point
More evidence of the scientific consensus on evolution. "Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity" wikipedia Original source pew research: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/ Side: True
0
points
Multiple lines of evidence proving evolution. A. Fossils. B. Molecular evidence. C. Radioactive dating. D. Everyday evolution A. How do you explain the dinosaur bones if you don't believe in evolution? B. The genes under a microscope, how can you explain the differences? C. How about Carbon 14 isotopes and other isotopes used for dating? D. What about antibiotic-resistant bacteria evolving in a petri dish? Side: True
0
points
I'm going to assume the debate is about whether the THEORY OF EVOLUTION is PROBABLY true based on all the evidence we have collected. If that is the debate, evolution is scientifically MOSTLY true. The people who have studied it the most would probably say 99.9% true. I want everyone to understand why it is mostly true and think i sorta have but then i should be also able to figure out how to explain why they should believe it is mostly true and i can't seem to do that. The best i can come up with for the opposing argument is that we don't know 100 which means it could be false and the next most likely, in my opinion, is some entity that created us and wants us to think IT didn't. It would be much more intelligent because duh and at the same time i like to fantasize about what it really wants. If it revealed itself we would arguably be a species at peace and create a utopia. It would unify us and we'd probably be pissed and work together to get some payback, at least americans would... Side: True
1
point
So far evolution is the most plausible explanation for our own existence and the ever unfolding mysteries of the cosmos. However the weakness of this highly respected, but nevertheless theoretical hypothesis, is its starting point which relies on the dubious supposition of the BIG BANG THEORY. This postulation has never explained from where the energy came to cause such an enormous explosion and how the space was conveniently available to accommodate the matter created by the expediently named;- '' THE BIG BANG''. Until the aforementioned unexplained starting point of evolution can be clearly illustrated beyond a doubt and without wilfully using baffling scientific jargon/gobbledygook this THEORY must remain no more than an elaborate THESIS. Side: True
1
point
A big 10/4 on that good buddy, but the operative word in your post is THEORY. The danger always exists that hypothesis such as evolution will, eventually be accepted as fact by those who feel it necessary to have the existence of mankind and the Universe explained. Throughout history so called scientific FACTS have been proven wrong. For instance, well into the last century the scientists of their day stated that THE UNIVERSE consisted only of our Galaxy, THE MILKY WAY. That along with countless other SCIENTIFIC FACTS have since been trashed and replaced with other SCIENTIFIC FACTS. KEEP AN OPEN MIND AND INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGE EVERYTHING YOU READ AND HEAR. Side: True
|
Bill Nye argues subjectively that creationism is bad for kids. How? Is it demeaningful to humans overall? Nope. Creationism is all about God's creations and how they all came to be. It is a wonderful part of life. Darwinian evolution is bad for children due to these reasons: It doesn't support our intellectual development It puts us on a wide scale of "morphing" beings when humans are not changelings. Darwin's evolution is a mere fantasy and theory. It's been debunked and will continue to be debunked. It shows that we cannot control ourselves when we definitely can make the effort. We are not uncapable to do so. We learn quick and we can think for ourselves. Animals communicate differently then we do. Whereas they have an animal kingdom/hierarchal system of a food chain, we do not necessarily need it and it's actually harmful when we do. Humans don't eat each other unless they are cannibalistic and that is morally wrong. Yes. Cannibalism is evil. Anyone who defends cannibalism will be debunked and arrested as it is against the law and will always be against the law. Some animals are asexual. Humans are not asexual. Biology states that males need a female partner and females need a male partner. Why? Because of the sperm and egg combining to make an infant. Evolutionists are aware of this, yet they think we evolved from apes? Nope. They may argue, "apes have that similarity of birth", well I can argue back and say, "That's only because we are mammals but that doesn't mean we are the same." Yes, I wage war against bill nye and his subjective lie to control schools. Liberty shalt not die to believe in Christ. I AM NOT ASHAMED. Side: False
1
point
2
points
0
points
The theory of Darwin's evolution is certainly uncertain. It was never proved. Even Ken Ham has explained that there is no such thing as being evolved from a mere ape to a human. Otherwise, wouldn't apes be humans today? And wouldn't newborn babies be more hairy? Except human babies are not apes eh? Exactly and apes are still not humans too. Therefore, Darwin was wrong about that part. The part about survival of the fittest was taken from the observation of animalistic behavior within the animal kingdom. Darwin believed that we are similar in that light and claimed that we have animal origins. But it's revealed, there is just no evidence to support that. Rather, it's been fabricated and called "fact". Although animals of the mammal sector can sometimes mimic human behavior, it doesn't mean they are about to become human. It is humorous to see talking animals these days on tv. But it doesn't make them real humans. Now, just because humans can mimic animals, does this mean we are animals? No. Same process. It's just part of humans and animals forming a bond...sometimes. We do not have sex with animals because it is wrong and harmful. This is why bestiality is outlawed and will continue to be outlawed. The goal of evolutionists these days is to discourage believers in creationism. They believe that humans are suppressing their hidden "natural animalistic behavior". What they are actually trying to do is cause anarchy of sexual and violent behavior without self ownership of one's own individuality. Animals do not talk and instead growl, yap or sit there looking at you with cute eyes for a reason. While humans have been created by God to be more intelligent in communication, self control and being civilized. Are naturalists going for civilized behavior? No. They want everyone to be naked and that is what I call inappropriate NSFW content. If you cannot handle these truths and facts I have just written down, you are marked as a truthphobe; irrationally in fear of the truth and facts presented. Gender theory, a most popular issue we have today, fabricated by subjective toxicvists(Toxic activists) and hypocrites claim that it is "factual" that we can change our gender. Biology says otherwise. Our chromosomes cannot be changed nor altered. To mess with our own biological structure can mess up alot of things. We may end up looking distorted and ugly. Gender theory can never be proved either, just as Darwin's evolution has already been debunked many many times. Gender and sex are the same. The reasoning behind the different use? Well, kids used to laugh when they heard the word "sex". Gender is meant to reflect upon your biological sex features. This either means manhood or womanhood. Penis or vagina + boobs. Men do not have boobs and if you argue "man boobs", that's another subjective opinion. There is no gender spectrum. Why? It is simple. You are either male or female. There is no in between. Do birth defects determine a new gender? No. Toxic subjectivists will claim "yes". For a fact? No. Intersex isn't a new gender. It is in fact, a birth defect due to chromosomal disorder. People who are born with a male and female genitalia mixed together is still male or female otherwise. You can tell by the voice of the individual. Eunuchs are males without a penis. Hermaphrodites are females with both and no, it's not normal and no, it does not make them special enough to promote rights for them to be of a "different' gender. No, you do not get to promote men to be women because men are men, women are women. Should we have gender neutral bathrooms? No. It will make boys and girls uncomfortable. People need privacy. Theories are often uncertain because there is little to no evidence to support them. Side: False
Wrong. Apes are not humans. We, who are humans in the human race are not apes. We are above all animals. That is how God created us. DNA disproves Darwinian Evolution. Your arguments are invalidated. Henry M Morris disproved Darwin's Evolution as it was just a theory, pseudoscientific view and it's become an atheistic religion around naturalistic pseudoscience and philosophical beliefs. It is nothing factual nor scientific. Creationism has proven to be universally correct and absolute objective truth. There is no evidence of evolution from the past, present nor future. The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all. Evolution Is Not Happening Now First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution. Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind." A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that: . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1 The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action. Evolution Never Happened in the Past Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving. Side: False
1
point
0
points
By the definition of a hypothesis, a hypothesis cannot be proven to be true. Only reinforced with evidence. Same goes with any other scientific hypothesis for example gravity. Yet, we can say it is extremely likely that gravity exists. "Otherwise, wouldn't apes be humans today? And wouldn't newborn babies be more hairy? Except human babies are not apes eh?" Dr_Batman I know there is a logical fallacy in there, but finding the exact fallacy is surprisingly difficult and time consuming. First, humans, chimpanzees, gorilla are all great apes, so humans are apes. Second, there are still at least one species of dinosaur around, the cockroach. This is proof that a species can be around for a very long time, while other daughter species split off from the parent. I am going to guess an oversimplification fallacy and false dichotomy. There is a whole bunch of now extinct intermediates between humans and the first hominids. For example Orrorin tugenensis lived about six million years ago. Both chimpanzees and humans evolved from Orrorin tugenensis with a bunch of intermediates in between. Side: True
Pure absolute evidence that debunks evolution: https://education.nationalgeographic. Your arguments remain invalidated. There are no transitional fossils. None at all. Therefore, disproving Darwin's theory of evolution. That is an absolute fact. "Sciencerules" fails to bring truth to the table. Side: False
6 Reasons why evolution isn't real. It isn't supported by DNA analysis done by professionals and ofc several sciences. Genetics, Biochemistry, Paleontology, Taxonomy, Chemistry. Detailed explanations are for highly intellectual human beings who can take the time to read instead of ranting on about his own subjective opinions. "Sciencerules", that means you. One more word and you will be going to the principal's office! https://www.businessinsider.com/ Side: False
1
point
In light of the end of the Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate on Creationism vs Evolution, why did Bill lose? Simple. He failed to answer "Who created us", he failed to provide reasons why he believes in evolution. He fails to realize that there is barely any evidence to support it because it was indeed a theory. He dehumanizes everybody into animals when we aren't animals. He gets applauded for doing so and attempts on youtube most recently to control people in thinking that evolution is better rather then creationism. Yet the Bible has foretold of people like him who think they know better than God. The pride, the vanity, the wrath, the hubris etc, yea, all of that contributes towards what Senator Padme Amidala had said from Star Wars, "Liberty dies with an applaud." So who is controlling who? Bill Nye and every subjective evolutionist seeks to control institutions by degrading people into mere apes. Yet apes aren't humans today and neither did we start off from there. "Sciencerules" has lost every argument and has failed to defend science for it's true meaning. Therefore, he or she is a fake scientist and a fraud just like Bill Nye. There are only 2 genders. Christianity is the one true faith. Corruption within church communities are caused by humans not by God. The devil has influenced many to think he doesn't exist and has also influenced them to deny God and the existence of His Son, Jesus Christ. However, I stand here, fearless in the face of growing opposition. My faith is undying and unbreakable for I have built it upon the rock of Christ. All opposing arguments are subjective, toxic and debunked in an absolute manner. Side: False
0
points
A who created us is not necessary. One example is God could have created the first microoganisms, animals, and plants in lieu of abiogensis. Then, evolution could have taken its course from there. Your argument seems to conflate abiogensis and evolution, and thus is an argument from ambiguity. There is lot and lots of evidence for the theory of gravity. Just because something is a scientific theory doesn't mean there is no or little evidence to support. This is an argument from ambiguity conflating scientific theories with somebody's opinion. We are animals, we belong to the animal kingdom. Just because you personally are offended by evolution and think it dehumanizes everybody doesn't matter, this is a red herring. Side: True
Who created the world? God did and you obviously have zero knowledge of that because you are indenial, stupid and uneducated of the Bible. You probably claim you know more than God but you don't. You know jack sh*t. You are also a hypocrite and an ignorant snowflake. Cope about it. Side: False
Was Charles Darwin a racist?Yes. Evolutionists are racists because they believe that humans are divided into different races. There is only one race, the human race. No, we did not develop from animals. Apes are not humans. Humans are not animals. Our intelligence was never so low compared to animals. But evolutionists demeaningfully dehumanized humans to dumb apes. Teaching this lie in schools is unacceptable. https://www.youtube.com/ https://www.youtube.com/ Continued resistance against Darwin's theory of evolution will march onto atheists. You stand zero chances. Anyone who denies it are truthphobes. Your irrationality is your downfall. People who blindly agree with evolution do not understand it has flaws. We are not apes and apes would be humans today if it were true but it isn't. That's why people who argue against me have lost and will continue to be debunked. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/ https://www.theguardian. Ken Ham won: (Watch the debate to further understand why evolution is flawed. Hijackers of science claim creationists can't be scientists. They are wrong. Secularists have indeed hijacked it.)(Evolutionists love to force it onto people, especially the newer younger generations and yet when creationists do the opposite in saying, "you are not a dumb ape", you are called out to be problematic? or worse a Nazi? Evolutionists are nothing but hypocritical traitors of science as a whole who want to corrupt our civilized world, encouraging you that you are not above an animal but animals are above you. Since when? God created humanity to oversee all creatures of the land, the water & the air. Let me ask you this evolutionists, is this how you certify yourselves as highly intellectual, degrading everybody INCLUDING YOURSELVES TO MERE APES? Because reality check, you're not as smart as you think following that logic. In fact, you are hypocrites. In scientific research across the medical locations etc, DNA has proven that we are NOT descended from apes. WE DO NOT SHARE THE COMMON ANCESTRY OF THE NEANDERTHRAL.) A human embryo compared to a fish embryo in the earliest of stages are FAR from the same. FAR AND I MEAN FAR.) Let me ask you this, evolutionists, why do you dehumanize humanity, including yourselves without you being aware of it? Do you really think we are as ugly as you? You are no better than moral relativists such as Joker who thinks he can prove a point BY CAUSING THINGS TO EXPLODE, CAUSING DEATH ALL OVER THE PLACE. It is unreasonable for evolutionary pseudoscience to be taught into schools as it places the idea into the minds of students that "they are as dumb as animals." Animals cannot have morals. We humans do and that's why creationism is reasonably precious and valued in education. It is only dangerous towards evolutionists who seemingly will discover that people will find God fascinating and loving. Are you so hateful that you can't recognize your own conscience dropping like flies? https://www.youtube.com/ Creationist science is focused on how God created us. It is the absolute truth of how everything began. Darwinian evolution is also the fallacy behind racism between different human beings from different ethnic backgrounds. We are not animals and "survival of the fittest" exists only in the animal kingdom. Humans learnt a similar thing but it is not the same. As higher intellectual beings, we are able to think about preventing such violence and to talk instead of constant yapping at eachother like apes do. Fossils have been discovered that never crossed with each other. But evolution states that apparently, humans developed from apes to what we are today? OBSERVE THE APES TODAY. They aren't humans and we aren't animals. All fools who oppose the absolute objective truths have an IQ of zero. Any further uphill attacks will be silenced. Subjective opinions and toxic retardation will not be tolerated. I have won every debate and my efficiency is 99%. Creationism is absolute. Many today will use the common strawman failed argument that "We are wrong for believing". Your hypocrisy has already been exposed and I will not hesitate to debunk all who deny God's existence. Evolutionists love to push the idea of anti God evolution onto kids and lie to them. We are not animals and for thinking you are dumb animals, you really do not see the truth that we are not them, neither are they us. In defense of the faith, more and more links will pop up. God exists and God prevails. https://answersingenesis.org/ Ken Ham explained in his debate against Bill Nye that Darwin believed in multiple races of humans. Who's the real racist here? You and every evolutionist in existence. Your hypocrisy will continue to be exposed. You stand zero chances. Bill Nye had nothing, NOTHING to debate back about evolution. He only could talk about ties. He admitted that Ken Ham was right and then backtracked because he refused to surrender. Who is the idiot in the room? Bill Nye. Bill Nye The Indenial Guy. Evolution has never been proven: https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/ "If the world hates you, it hated me first." - Jesus to the world. More proof that evolution is BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. https://www.icr.org/article/ Jesus is my Lord & Saviour. God created the world. God prevails. It is very clear that I am explaining macro evolution being a fallacy. Micro evolution exists. There are two types. For those of you downvoting, you are invalid because you have failed to read. Darwinian evolution=anti God macro evolution. The opposition who has used "That's not how it works" have been debunked and will continue to be debunked. You hold no facts. It is clear, I am dominating this debate and all opposition have lost in failing to present evidence. There is no evidence of Darwinian evolution. It has and always has been a theory. That is an absolute objective truth. More evidence that humans are not descended from monkeys: https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/ I see so many idiots down vote me which means I am doing something right. The resistance will continue and soon, reddit will be retaken by those who have common sense. I testify in the name of our Lord & Savior, Jesus Christ, AMEN! Side: False
1
point
1
point
1
point
Creationism is absolute. Go on with your rants about how wrong I could be. You can never win because there is sufficient evidence of Christianity being supported by several sciences; Biology, Archeology and Creationism. You might want to take a course or if you wish to continue this uphill battle, you will find yourself surrounded by truth. Scared? Then you are irrationally fearful of Christians, Christophobe. You are no supporter of science because you clearly deny facts. Facts about Christianity: https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/world/ Your slander will continuously be destroyed. Side: False
0
points
0
points
Expert manages to debunk Darwin's evolution under five minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oyuonzGE "Sciencerules" once again fails to support scientific fact. Side: False
1
point
Intelligent design is even more unscientific that creationism because it cannot be falsified. The irreducible complexity argument is a false dichotomy. A mutation can be beneficial, neutral, or negative. Just for starers there are redundant genes, a neutral example. Also there can be multiple uses for the same organ. For example half a wing could be use to glide rather than fly. Feathers could be used to keep warm. The same can be said with the cell's machinery that Behe mentions. Side: True
It is false and will always be an unproven theory. Darwin never knew the true Foundation of Life. He tried but he never found that answer. God created us and that's simply a fact. Why evolution is wrong? (The foundation of life did not begin with humans starting off as an animal or an organism.) Side: False
0
points
This is attacking abiogensis and then jumping to conclusions that this defeats evolution. First, God could have been responsible for the origins of life. Second, Panspermia life could have came from an asteroid, microorganisms hitchhiking. Third, aliens could have seeded our planet. Not only that but I am pretty sure those mathematical calculations are simply incorrect. Otherwise the scientific community wouldn't bother to mention abiogensis. Side: True
There is no attack except your constant trolling about how evolution is real when it isn't. DNA disagrees with your conflict of producing enough hormones. Seriously, hypocrite, gtfo. Embarrassing yourself is a pitiful move every time you think you've debunked me while I have the sources to prove otherwise. You are unfit to be a debater. Side: False
For someone who claims to support science, you do indeed contradict yourself. Using wikipedia and false sources does not support you. You do not use any reliable sources, you have no facts on your side, there is no evidence in our DNA. That's a scientific analysis and your hypothesizes have failed. Your arguments are fully invalidated everytime you speak. Side: False
Darwin's evolution is flawed and bill nye is a false scientist. Anyone who supports him are equally ignorant and stupid. Side: False
Another expert explains how "The theory of evolution" is not our story. Side: False
A mathematical challenges the theory of evolution: Side: False
Humans never evolved from apes. If that were true. today's apes would be humans. The logic doesn't fit for evolutionist supporters. Therefore, all evolutionist supporting snowflakes have lost this debate. https://www.youtube.com/ I am absolute and right all the way. Opposition will be shot down by truth and facts. Side: False
No one has ever claimed that humans evolved from apes. However, along with other primates such as monkeys and lemurs we have a common evolutionary ancestor with the great apes. I feel at this point anyone submitting a counter-argument to the theory of evolution should provide details of how and when LIFE ON EARTH started. The Biblical story of ''Adam and Eve'' has long since been spurned and debunked by most people including THINKING CHRISTIANS. Side: True
Wrong. Adam and Eve is a true biblical story and that's an absolute fact. You are debunked and will continue to be destroyed in your arguments. People have claimed that we started off as apes. Yes, Darwin did so. https://www.youtube.com/ Creationism has long been supported and the Bible is 100% valid. The Bible has 100% connections to how life originated and you obviously do not have the truth within you. You will be debunked and you will lose. Side: True
The top five misconceptions of evolution: https://www.youtube.com/ Evolution affects all species not just the human race. Darwin only thought that chimps were somehow interchangeable into humans? Yeah, we never began as apes, otherwise apes today would be humans in cages. In other words, Darwin came up with a theory where "evolution only affects humans". That's a misconception. It affects everybody and I will say that doesn't mean that humans evolved from apes. Side: False
I must emphasis that Darwin never claimed that humans were interchangeable with chimps. To repeat;- evolutionists theory is that all primates, including humans have a common ancestor. How can this be proven to be a false statement? Not with the simplistic story of Adam & Eve. Side: True
Oh but he did. Watch these videos and you'll see there are misconceptions of Darwin's theory of Evolution. Side: False
It's a funny thing. Evolution can never explain how life began nor originated. That's the whole point of creationism existing and being against Darwin's theory of evolution and ofc not going against how evolution did affect all living organisms, humans included. Though again, humans did not evolve from apes and that is a fact. Creationism is 100% good for kids to learn how life originated and how it began. It will connect towards the evolvement of all living beings; that includes how animals were so unique and how humans stand out from the animal kingdom. Although all species may have similarities, it doesn't mean they are all ancestors, especially between the flawed theory that apes are related to humans. Apes would be humans today and it would get rid of the point of women giving birth to children. Therefore, once again, Darwin's evolution is only a theory and has been 100�bunked. This lecture will continue until all subjective snowflakes surrender. Side: False
Once again, and with respect I would ask you to explain your assertion that all life on Earth was created. By whom and when was the mind boggling diversity of LIFE ON EARTH created? By a creator? Where was the creator and what was he/she doing prior to the creation of the Universe? Where is THE CREATOR now? Due to the evolutionary practices of mankind countless species of living creatures have become extinct and if we continue on our present course we will eliminate ourselves. Is this what THE CREATOR had planned along? Did THE CREATOR create LIFE ON EARTH solely for the entertainment value of watching mankind destroy his creation? Blind faith or fanatical blustering wouldn't answer these questions. Side: True
Once again I will deny you that right because you have sided with those who believe we began from apes. Side: True
Destroying evolution with 5 key points: (This is destroying the theory of Darwin's evolution not the evolution that affected everybody as God intended) Side: False
Continued debunking of evolution will not stop. https://answersingenesis.org/ Both "sciencerules, and Norwich" stand zero chances. Side: False
1
point
Answeringensis is a questionable source and Ken Ham is racist, young Earth creationist, and a climate change denier. You do seem to have more energy that both of us combined, you may be correct that we have zero chance. Is there anything that could change your mind? Side: True
Fun facts that Darwin never knew about evolution: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/ Side: False
More evidence against evolution: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ Side: False
Norwich's false claim on Adam & Eve being debunked has been eradicated with one simple question: "Who created you?" God did. Evolutionists cannot ever answer that question. Bill nye failed. "Sciencerules" failed. Norwich has failed as well. Side: False
1
point
Hmmm, I may have to click on the answeringensis link and debunk line by line. I wonder if that would be convincing. Who created me? Nobody created me, I am an atheist. The tides of the ocean can create changes to the beach. Nobody created those changes. A mountain can be created via volcano. Side: True
The search for God and why the evidence just does not support evolution: Side: False
Adam and Eve have a long history of being scoffed at by skeptics. Almost from the beginning, opponents of Christianity have dismissed the opening chapters of Genesis – including the story of our first parents – as pure myth, on par with other creation myths from the Ancient Near East. Over the past century or so, with the advent of Darwinian naturalism, these assertions have grown more insistent, buttressed with bold claims that “science has proven” Adam and Eve could not have existed. In recent times, even believers in growing numbers have come to question the historicity of the first human couple. They’ll insist Adam and Eve weren’t real people, just metaphorical stand-ins for humanity. At most, they’ll allow that perhaps God may have plucked a pair of hominids from the evolutionary stream, named them Adam and Eve, and infused them with souls and with his image. These efforts can stem from an earnest desire to resolve an alleged conflict between science and Scripture. Or else, they may be an attempt to avoid looking ignorant in the eyes of secular culture. Whatever their motive, they wind up undermining the actual pursuit of science, to say nothing of the Gospel narrative of Scripture. The genre of Genesis When approaching a text, especially one as significant as the creation account, it’s vital to get the genre right. Genesis is not a modern textbook of history or science. It was written in elevated, stylized language, the first chapter in particular built around an artful pattern of repetition. However, that first chapter isn’t Hebrew poetry per se, any more than the rest of the book is. There’s none of the two-line parallelism that’s a defining feature of Hebrew verse found in Psalms and elsewhere in Scripture. Rather the text is in the form of historical narrative, composed to recount actual occurrences, even though its style is in keeping with the literary conventions of its time. As apologist Alisa Childers points out, “Although the story is told in a poetic way, the Genesis account mainly exhibits the characteristics of narrative prose, which describes a series of events.” To be sure, the proper name “Adam” is also a general term for humankind, as “Eve” is for “life” and “Eden” is for “pleasure” or “delight.” Nevertheless, the text presents Adam and Eve as actual people in a specific place and time. And they do actual people things like marrying, having children, making choices, tending a garden, giving names to animals, and conversing with each other and with God. Moreover, Adam’s genealogical record lists his exact age when his son Seth was born, the fact that he had other sons and daughters, and the exact age when he died. In fact, the entire book of Genesis is built around a series of genealogies that connect Adam to Noah, and then to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and ultimately to Moses and the people of Israel. Moses, who wrote the book, treated Adam and Eve as real historical figures, no less than anyone else in that family tree. Blurring the Imago Dei The first chapter of Genesis states that God created humanity, male and female, in his own image. The second chapter provides more detail, describing how God formed Adam directly from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him. God then created Eve, also directly, from one of Adam’s ribs. It’s difficult to square an honest reading of this narrative with the idea that Adam and Eve were metaphorical, or else a pair of hominids elevated to human status. The text says that when God breathed life into Adam, the man became a nephesh chaya, Hebrew for living creature. That same expression is used throughout the account to describe other living creatures, like birds and animals. So, if Adam were a divinely mutated hominid, he would have already been a nephesh chaya before God ever breathed life into him. Beyond that, the story of Adam and Eve is essential to a proper understanding of the nature of humanity. As God’s unique image bearers, created by him for that express purpose, human beings possess a dignity and value distinct from the rest of creation. And because all people are descended from that first couple, every individual, male and female, has an equal share of that value and dignity. If Adam and Eve were pre-existing hominids transformed by God, then humanity’s unique reflection of the Imago Dei is blurred at best and may not even be present to the same degree – or at all – in every individual. And if our first parents never existed, then any objective basis for inherent – and inherited – human worth doesn’t exist either. Scripture after Genesis Adam and Eve are mentioned only sporadically in the rest of Scripture after Genesis. But when they are, they’re always presented as actual historical figures. The first book of Chronicles opens with a genealogy of Israel, starting with Adam. In similar fashion, the Gospel of Luke traces the ancestry of Jesus all the way back to Adam. In the book of Acts, Paul tells the skeptical Athenians that God made all human nations from one original man. And when writing to Timothy, the Apostle again refers to Adam and Eve as historical people, as does Jude in his short letter when he quotes Enoch, a seventh generation descendent of Adam. Jesus himself, while teaching about marriage and divorce in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, alludes to Adam and Eve as real people. Later, as recorded in Matthew and Luke, the Lord also speaks about the literal murder of Abel, Adam and Eve’s second son. And along the same lines, the writer to the Hebrews describes Abel’s sacrifice as an actual event, and places Adam’s murdered son at the head of his list of heroes of the faith. It would be hard to deny that the authors of Scripture – and the Lord himself – read the Genesis account as historical narrative and viewed Adam and Eve as historical people. But that hasn’t stopped critics from trying. They’ll argue that these authors and their original readers knew they were talking about ancient myths to convey spiritual truth. Or else they’ll claim that the apostles and evangelists – and even Jesus – were simply wrong. Such claims, however, don’t bear up under serious scrutiny. Reading these texts honestly and in context makes it clear that the authors intended their audience to know they were talking about real people and real events. In each case, the spiritual truth they were trying to convey falls apart unless rooted in historical fact. It’s hard to imagine a rigorous thinker like Paul or a careful historian like Luke getting their facts wrong and using myths to make their case. It’s harder still – in fact impossible – to think of Jesus, the divine author of all truth and reality, making the same mistake. Dire Gospel implications From a Gospel perspective, the most significant discussion about Adam and Eve outside of Genesis is found in Paul’s letters to the Roman and Corinthian churches. In the fifth chapter of Romans, Paul presents Adam and Jesus as the two representative heads of humanity. He spells out in detail how sin and death entered the world through Adam and spread by inheritance to the entire human race. But through Jesus, who took on human nature, Adam’s fallen descendants can receive grace, righteousness and eternal life. The Apostle reiterates and distills this core Gospel truth to the church at Corinth via a series of vivid contrasts: “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. . . . Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. . . . Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45, 49). There can be no doubt that Paul understood Adam to be just as real as Jesus. But if in fact Adam never existed or was just a hominid plucked from the evolutionary tree, then Paul’s entire case for the Gospel makes no sense. There’s no fall of humanity, no original sin, and no need or possibility of redemption. Tim Keller addresses the inconsistent idea that Paul’s argument holds up even if he got his facts wrong: “[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the biblical authority. . . . If Adam doesn’t exist, Paul’s whole argument – that both sin and grace work ‘covenantally’ – falls apart. You can’t say that ‘Paul was a man of his time’ but we can accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you don’t believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul’s teaching.” Old Testament scholar Richard Belcher adds: “If all human beings are not descended from Adam, there is no hope of salvation for them. Christ does not and cannot redeem what he has not assumed. What he has assumed is the human nature of those who bear the image of Adam by natural descent. If there is no redemptive history that is credible, then redemptive history is lost in any meaningful sense. Thus the historicity of Adam has implications for the Gospel.” And theologian Richard Gaffin is quite blunt in summing up these dire Gospel implications: “The truth of the Gospel stands or falls with the historicity of Adam as the first human being from whom all other human beings descend. What Scripture affirms about creation, especially the origin of humanity, is central to its teaching about salvation.” The frontiers of science Naturally none of this has deterred skeptics (and sadly many believers) from assuming that “settled science” has ruled out the possibility of Adam and Eve ever existing, never mind being the progenitors of the entire human race. But science – which at its heart is about discovery and not consensus – has done nothing of the sort. In reality, these bald assertions aren’t based on objective investigation, but on materialist assumptions that dismiss out of hand any non-natural explanations for the origin of life. Science, of course, can neither prove nor disprove whether Adam and Eve existed, nor does it need to. But studies of genetics, linguistics and the spread of pathogens at least suggest the likelihood that humanity arose relatively recently, in one location, and from a small population, perhaps even from a single pair. From the field of population genetics, cutting-edge research published in the journal BIO-Complexity has lent strong support for the possibility that humans descend from a single couple, despite frequent claims to the contrary. The authors of the paper, biologist Ann Gauger and mathematician Ola Hössjer, used sophisticated computer modelling to trace the diverse branches of the human genetic tree back to a statistically probable point of origin. Their findings indicate that humanity could easily have originated from a single ancestral couple, as recently as the time when Neanderthals are commonly believed to have appeared on the scene. Once again, this doesn’t prove the Genesis account, and that was never Gauger and Hössjer’s intention. What they set out to do – and accomplished brilliantly – was to show that contrary to materialist orthodoxy, Adam and Eve are indeed a scientifically feasible explanation for the origin of humanity. Both researchers were forthright about why such a study as theirs had never been pursued before. Hössjer explained: “Well, the reason is philosophical rather than based on empirical facts. Modern science is very secular. Typically, only those hypotheses are allowed to be tested that can be framed in purely natural terms (i.e. methodological naturalism). A model with a first couple implicitly requires an Intelligent Designer or a Creator in order to answer how this first couple was generated in the first place. Modern science will therefore rule out a first couple model from the start (even if one leaves it to the reader to answer how the first couple originated), before data has been analyzed.” Gauger was even more to the point: “First of all, who gave scientists the right to interpret Scripture? Why should they care if we believe that we came from a literal first couple? They stuck their noses in where they didn’t belong. Second, they actually didn’t test the thing they were claiming.” Concluding thoughts To paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of Adam and Eve’s non-existence have been greatly exaggerated. As one might expect, nature and Scripture are never at odds with each other. God is the author of both, so there can be no hidden secret, lurking in the natural world, waiting to come to light and prove God’s Word wrong. Of course, it’s vital to interpret both correctly, a principle worth remembering by scientists and theologians alike. But the historicity of Adam and Eve reaches far beyond drawing proper lines between science and metaphysics. The question impacts the truth of the entire Gospel narrative of Scripture. The creation, fall, redemption and restoration of humanity, the intrinsic value of human life and salvation through Christ, the second Adam, all hinge on the literal existence of the first Adam and his wife Eve, created directly by God in his own image. Adam and Eve may have borne the shame of plunging humanity into sin and death. However, believers need not be ashamed of the existence of our first parents in the face of skeptical opinion. Quite the contrary, a literal Adam and Eve give us a sense of grounding, humility and assurance for our faith. Their story forms the opening chapter of God’s real, historical narrative through which he’s redeeming his people as well as his entire creation. Source: "Sciencerules" debunked. Norwich debunked. Continued resistance will be countered by more evidence being posted against evolution. Side: False
https://academy4sc.org/video/ Side: False
Ken Ham is absolute. Bill Nye is a fraud. https://answersingenesis.org/ Side: False
Why creationists are facing opposition from subjective evolutionists and why evolution is bad for children: Side: False
Creationists make a comeback against bill nye the subjective guy: https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/ Cope and cry me a river. You can never win against God's eternal truths. Side: False
1
point
Again with the psuedo-science links. Given the scientific consensus on evolution saying Darwinism is false is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think this is becoming an addiction for me. I am logging off, bye. Side: True
The real truth of how media wants to use propaganda to brainwash people into believing they started off as apes: "Sciencerules" once again will be silenced and demoralized. You stand zero chances against the truth and once again, your hypocrisy might expose itself because of your truthphobic, heterophbobic and Christophobic tendencies. Side: False
DNA destroys and debunks evolution: "Again with your ignorance" - "Sciencerules" the hypocrite DNA debunks evolution to the fullest: https://genesisfile.com/ I have won the argument. You clearly need to be re-educated. There are only 2 genders and there is no gender spectrum. Sooner or later, "gender theory" will be banned from all schools as it is subjective toxic opinion being taught to children. You will not gain an inch because you hold zero facts. Side: False
The mathematical impossibility of Evolution: https://www.icr.org/article/ Side: False
1
point
ICR has very low factual reporting and quackery level psuedo-science. I found an interesting article on Snopes and why I am having so much trouble. I've never encountered a creationist as determined as you. How old is the Earth Batman? Side: True
1
point
Creationism was omitted because under some belief systems evolution and creationism are compatible. For example deism and many Christians. This is about whether evolution is true or not. Creationism is not omitted and will not be ignored for it is part of which why evolution is disapproved. "Sciencerules" is nothing but a hypocrite who claims he knows all about science. Yet when facts are presented in front of him, he denies biological facts of gender and sex being the same, he denies that there is no gender spectrum and claims there is one when there is in fact none in factual truthful science and never will be, and lastly, God created all things. Darwin's evolution has been debunked over a million times. It's hilarious to see "sciencerules" get addicted with this kind of thing and to be super contradictive in his words. "Claiming to support science yet going against biology and supporting pedophile lusting snowflakes in a dystopia made up of proud sinners who will be annihilated. Ah yes, the pinnacle of hypocrisy. God created us to be smart and we are intelligent beings. However, the stupidity and ignorance of evolution is that "humans evolved from apes". Creationism will continue to be used as an absolute source of destroying evolution. God prevails. Batman wins. Norwich trips over his own words and "sciencerules" will find no light in ignorance and in-denial. Factual approaches will now be taken. Side: False
DNA as evidence against Evolution: (Oh my!) Side: False
In recent research, it is finalized that evolution affects all living beings but DARWIN'S EVOLUTION of RELATING HUMANS FROM THE ANCESTRAL NEANDERTHRAL IS INACCURATE. THE DNA DOES NOT MATCH UP!! Animals, insects etc are different compared to humankind. https://www.youtube.com/ https://greggbraden.com/ Again, I AM STATING THAT EVOLUTIONISTS WHO SUPPORT DARWINIANISM ARE MISTAKEN!!! BILL NYE IS WRONG! KEN HAM WAS RIGHT! HUMANS ARE NOT DESCENDANTS OF THE NEANDERTHRAL! There are DIFFERENT SPECIES; REPTILES, MAMMALS, AMPHIBIANS AND OFC THE BIRDS! NONE ARE INTERCHANGEABLE. EVEN GOD IS NOT INTERCHANGEABLE. BUT IN GREEK MYTH AND THE ANCIENT BABYLONIAN RELIGION, THEY BELIEVED THAT THEIR SO CALLED "GODS" WERE INTERCHANGEABLE. YET WE ARE NOT CHANGELINGS. THE VERY LIE THAT SOME SUBJECTIVE DARWINIAN EVOLUTIONISTS STILL SUPPORT IS ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT AND UNACCEPTABLE. IT IS A MERE FANTASY AND AN UNPROVEN THEORY. Side: False
Within the animal kingdom, you have a food chain. Within human society, we have civility, morality, laws and ofc a different way of communication. Animals don't talk like us. Can humans try though? Yes! We were made to hunt animals for food! Animals can't control themselves and by nature, have to hunt if they are predators and have to run/survive if they are prey. That's just how it works for them. Humans can be cannibals yes but humans can choose not to do that. Animals though hardly have morality. God separated man from all creatures and set us above them to rule over them. It's explained in the Book of Genesis. Side: False
Darwinian evolutionists are subjective and liars as Jesus prophesied there would be liars and false prophets etc. DNA never proved that Darwin was right about how humans have a common ancestry of the neanderthal. DNA in fact, proves we are linked directly to Adam & Eve: https://source.wustl.edu/2020/06/ Side: False
More evidence to support that our ancestors are directly in DNA, linked to Adam & Eve: (Norwich will be supremely debunked in a nutshell) https://www.focusonthefamily.ca/content/ Side: False
0
points
Focusonthefamily is a questionable source extreme right source. Your argument style shows immunity to evidence a key hallmark of a conspiracy theorist. I am concerned for you. While I cannot see the direct harm in creationism, I worry you may pick up a dangerous belief. Do you believe in the Bible literally? Side: True
I worry you may pick up a dangerous belief. Hello S: Worry no more.. Although I didn't read every screed, I did pick up on his/her belief that Jews killed Christ.. Believing that, the German people supported the murder of 6,000,000 people.. The recent rise in antisemitism worldwide, leads me to believe they'd like to do it again.. Is that dangerous enough?? excon Side: True
More evidence that macroevolution never occurred. If you don't know the difference between the two types of evolution, not including Darwin's unapproved theoretical version, then you are not a true knowledgeable science nerd:(Norwich is such a snowflake who doesn't realize the differences and same with "sciencerules".) https://www.icr.org/home/resources/ Side: False
Professional medical members have dissolved Darwin's theory of evolution. We are indeed not apes and we do not have a common ancestry to the neanderthral. All of "sciencerules" so called "proof" are debunked and destroyed. Bill Nye is not a real scientist, he is a paid actor and a con man. https://www.icr.org/article/ The bash and march of truth continues against the hypocritical left without mercy. Side: False
0
points
Bill Nye is a science communicator and a good one at that. We are all in the great ape taxonomic family. Institute for Creation Research, ICR.org has very low factual reporting. Ken Ham is a huckster. Side: True
DNA does not support evolution: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ Opposition has zero evidence to prove that marco-evolution aka Darwin's evolution ever occurring. I will say once again, there is a large difference between the two. Side: False
Evolution is still debated today and that is a factual event ongoing. People who deny this are blind and are not true supporters of science. For example, "sciencerules" is such a snowflake. Viewer discretion is advised because this contains sensitive truths which exposes a hypocrite who knows nothing except to simp for a false scientist named Bill Nye. Side: False
More research is being done by the real scientists today: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/ Side: False
More evidence to suggest that DNA has all the answers: Side: False
ICR research has discovered reasons behind "Why Evolutionary Origins are impossible". Science is about facts. Theories are theories and it is absolute fact that Darwin's evolution was flawed from the very beginning. He obviously did not know any better. https://www.icr.org/article/ I have won every debate even from the scamevangelist debate. "Sciencerules" will be banned on every site henceforth. Side: False
Fun Fact: One day I was waiting by the bus stop and I saw ants attempt to carry their dead into the grass. But then, is this signs of evolution within God's creations; the insect kind for now? It's unknown eh? Anyways, fun thing to know is that there are no signs of evolution within humans right now too. Side: False
1
point
As many already stated, evolution is a theory. The question is whether evolution is a supportable explanation of the scientific evidence, and if so whether it is the most probable one. The term "evolution", in its most commonly understood form, is adaptation from one genus to another via the cumulation of naturally selected mutations. Most proponents of evolution also submit that the same environmental pressures on otherwise random chaos are responsible for the conception of the first proteins. Science is the only communicable tool available to test a theory's validity. Evidence must be repeatable and reproducible before the scientific process considers it as usable. A theory is judged on whether A) it accounts for all current evidence, and B) it accurately predicts future evidences. If only one theory satisfies those conditions in an abundance of evidence it is considered scientific "law". However, if multiple theories equally satisfy those conditions they remain theories until new evidence is found that eliminates all but one option. Much has been said about the improbability of evolution. Nevertheless, incomprehensibly small odds do represent a possibility. Thus, anyone using this argument must then show that an alternative theory is more likely. However, evolution runs into more fundamental problems. As previously suggested, the probability of a theory is irrelevant if it fails to explain the evidence. All observed cases of natural selection represent the net loss of genetic diversity. At best preferred adaptations out compete the rest for resources until the less specialised population is extinct. At worst, environmental shifts cull all but small specialised sections of the population. This fits with information theory, and with the theory of entropy. Literally no evidence exists of a natural mechanism which generates additional information, order from chaos, or increasing chemical or energetic instability. Only one mechanism has been observed that is capable of organising random information in beneficial ways. That mechanism is intelligence. The theory of evolution excludes intelligence, yet by definition it requires the creation of, and organisation of, increasing amounts of information. If the statements in this argument are true, then evolution does not fit the scientific evidence. Arguments based on evolution being "the best guess" are irrelevant, as are demands for functional alternatives. Even if it was the only guess available, it could still be wrong. "We don't know," is a perfectly valid scientific statement. I propose that we don't yet have enough evidence for the scientific process to conclude on our origins. Perhaps future evidence will prove the law of entropy wrong. Perhaps future evidence will show repeatable, reproducible evidence to the contrary. Until then, all science can say with certainty is that evolution is not supported by today's evidence. Side: False
1
point
Hi Dan_Blayde "Literally no evidence exists of a natural mechanism which generates additional information" There is a mechanism, it is called random mutations or mistakes when copying genetic material. This is how additional genetic information is generated. Too many mutations is why cancer exists. Side: True
You are weak and invalidated. You as always do not hold the truth. Dan blayde is a hypocrite just like you are. Both of you are offended by facts. Darwinian Evolution is not supported by science, especially DNA. Ken Ham has disproven bill nye on infinite levels. Bill Nye is in fact a snowflake and a fraud. You are a definition of a hypocritical snowflake who is infinitely ignorant on all levels. Not only do you support child abuse, you support pride, lust, greed, sin and anti Christ views that are Satanic. You are hereby charged with treason and executed on sight. Transgenderism does not exist. Transgender individuals do not exist. They are just males and females who refuse to be who they were born as. Men are men. Women are women. Boys are boys. Girls are girls. All of your arguments are sickening, insane and criminalized in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. You are a degenerate and you will be destroyed on all fronts. Your trolling has gone far enough to the point where there is no more tolerance for retards such as yourself. You have zero evidence to support your claims because your claims are inferior and subjective. Side: False
1
point
|
