CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:55
Arguments:46
Total Votes:55
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Since Evolution Finally Admits it Doesnt Know How Life Began ....??? (45)

Debate Creator

KNHav(1957) pic



Since Evolution Finally Admits it Doesnt Know How Life Began ....???

My question is, SINCE admittedly no answer exists in science, then by what reasoning and by what facts do you dismiss the possibility of a Creator? 

And by what reasoning and by what facts do you declare religion and faith as irrational? And without merit to explore and weigh as evidence of a Creator. Science has no answer! Yet all its minions think, it is actually confirmed as fact! How dare educators lie to children and treat speculation as facts!!!

It seems it is irrational to close of possibilities of answers and proof of their sourses without really being objective.

So therefore evolution admittingly doesnt know so it assumes. So then how is it scientific to dismiss weighing evidence of a Creator and dismiss proving validations of His Word. 

So evoluyion creationists expect faith in an unknown process, while refusing evidence of a Creator. 

The Bible is an authority yhat has as much if not even more confirmable evidence of validity as biology. Biology days this part is in this animal and also in another, and in a controlled experiment this minifact is confirmed, an eye can develope on a wing of a fly. So therefore evolution explaims creation. 

Yet we have proof the Bible is of supernatural origin, with facts unknown to the writers according to their limitations in advancements, yet it is not allowed to show evidence.

If we are debating origin then shouldnt we validate what is possible. And since lifed origin is unknown than why isnt a Creator possible? And since scripture 8s historical and closer to the date of origin to the first signs of mankind like us is about 6000 years ago, then shouldnt we add it to experiment also?

.
Add New Argument
2 points

Evolution has never claimed to know how life began.

then by what reasoning and by what facts do you dismiss the possibility of a Creator

Because no evidence in science supports the idea of a Creator.

DBCooper(2194) Disputed
1 point

But science supports the Global Chaos hoax does it not ! Now that is science to buy into because the government says so !

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2003/492/

In Bible Codes, some are far out and take it far out. But some are a signature of Divine Authorship. And these ones are definitely signatures as if He etched His Word with His own hand. Pi found in Genesis 1: 1 and adv math  e found in John 1:

1. These aren't spread out, found in difficulty, and  in need of twisting. These two adv math codes are found, each found using within one verse. And each one found separately in chapter one of two seperate books, written in two separate millennials, in written in two separate languages.

And the nature of interpretation works with what is there from the ancient text. And the odds of them occurring at any point at all within all 66 books of the Bible is in probabilities of unreasonable proportions. What do you think is the probability of a few of these together found coded in the Bible?

If just musing at first glance, wouldn't you say, " no way?"

I'm not even saying in the whole Bible. What is the probability all these are found in only six books out if 66?

As for me, I dont think a calculation is needed to tell me that is an unreasonable probability in calculations of a snowflakes chance in Hell! Even crazier, pi and e are coded in two different  languages, Hebrew for Jews and Greek was a time period of the Gospel's progression out to the Gentiles.

And both verses state "In the beginning," so they each speak of a time period of Creation and in Jesus as the Creator.

And advanced math equations not known yet for 1000s of years to come. In Genesis 1: 1 pi equation is encoded, in creation of the world and universe and in God stitching prophesy into appointed times to bring Creation full circle.And in John 1: 1 in Greek while the Gospel is propelled out to the Gentiles, you find in verse one the equation for e, which is compound interest, multiplying exponentially.

So even the equations found communicate the purpose of the event. And even the Bible Author God, divided these times by purpose as shown in the 1st verses of these two books, Genesis and John.   

Then to add to this timetables for dating history is BC and AD. So the Bible notes each beginning with a math equation. Then took the division of time line for dating history. And then add TORH TORH YHWY HROT HROT in the beginning of each of the five books of the Bible at intervals of Bible numbers of importance in the written text throughout every book of seven and forty-nine .

These singuarly are a stretch against reasonable probability, but for all to be right there on the top, not buried or crazy, together all these are proof of God and His Word. All of these together are impossible odds without Divine Authorship.

Together these are more than just an oooh wow, these are against odds of probabilities that are not even be conceivable. Now in contradiction beween the improbability of two faiths. A comparison between Christianity and Evolution as ecplanation of Creation.  

So on one hand, Evolutionism states strands of DNA self assembled and mutated and against all odds of occurance and against all odds of science principles and without any evidence of a physical example in front of our eyes, we are told to believe it.

And that it is factual.Then you take just these few pieces of many in evidence, tangible and  available to view in everyone's individual hands. With everyone having the ability to test it, and even count out the codes for themselves, and literally proving itself in person from the beginning and in person showing agsinst all odds He not only created, but He put it in writing against all odds to prove it!

You have to be evil or an idiot to at least not step back and say there is more to God and the Bible than I currently think. Maybe I should look further!

Cartman(18192) Disputed
3 points

The burden of proof is not on proving creationists to prove God exists

Every other claim has the same burden of proof. Why is this God claim not under the same burden of proof as all other claims?

Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

You cant dismiss a theory on the basis of skeptisism!

Again you claim that people aren't allowed to do the things that you do.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

They cant prove the other either, so why is it taught as though it were facts??

They can prove the stuff taught in schools.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Science has no evidence there is not a Creator!

You cant dismiss a theory on the basis of skeptisism!

Scientists and biologist and other educational studies should be objective.

Not filtering based on their beliefs, they are not the measure of accuracy since they dont know anything for sure either!! If anything God of the Bible as Creator has way more proof, and can be shown scientifically and mathmatically. Authenticating the Bible as an authority, reliable to interpret history by what was recorded.

Science should not be permitted to exclude evidence on the basis of unfounded critisism, or on individual skepticisms, or on the field specific bias with favor toward atheism or humanism or toward any bias reasonings or "isms."

Science should be neutral not choosing one theory over another because they feel skeptical or they can prove something! They cant prove the other either, so why is it taught as though it were facts??

And since both have no physical proof then both are possibilities. If both are possibilities then both should be investigated as open possibilities.

The burden of proof is not on proving creationists to prove God exists, before considering God to be an option as how creatures came to be as we see they are today. 

Because both evolution biology and creation have faith in the process of creation throughout the time period of origin. And proving adaptatation does not answer the presentation of many species.

There are only 20 amino acids building protien in multiple orders to present characteristics which are in common and coded with sequence with spaces as if it were written text. And even when needed code is taken like we see in Bible Code of equidistant letter sequencing.

So then could God who coded the Bible with hidden messages actually have digitalized our DNA and also wisdom and knowledge for living, rewards and consequences, right and wrong, and our days, times, persons, nations, and pre written history fullfilled line upon line, and appointed for specific times?

There is more evidence for Creation and for God , and also identifying Him as the Living God of the Judeo-Christian Bible/ Scriptures.

And the only reason you reject it is a closed mind that refuses to weigh the Bible with the same reasoning skills you would apply in anything measured by abstract data. Including biology evolution.

The reasoning is we see fossils, and dating. Well in dating time as we know it, the first full day recorded is day 5. And also there is a theory dividing 

Below excerpt taken from:

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2003/492/

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2003/492/

We live in a four-dimensional continuum properly known as "space-time." (This is what Paul seems to imply in his letter to the Ephesians 8) It is interesting that when one takes the apparent 1012 expansion factor involved in the theories of the "expanding universe," that an assumed 16 billion years reduce to six days!

Furthermore, the astronomical timetables now seem to be entirely overturned with the reluctant acknowledgments that the speed of light is not longer regarded as the constant that the high priests of physics had been previously convinced of.

AlofRI(3294) Clarified
2 points

Your statement has all the intelligence of O'Reilly when he said something like: "Tide comes in, tide goes out. You have no answer for that." (Only that gravity actually SEEMS to exist!)(In theory)???

2 points

Here are a few reasons:

1)The world would work exactly the same with or without a creator. So, a creator makes the world more complicated, and becomes less likely.

2) God doesn't act like I would in any way. I can't be convinced that God is intelligent if I don't see any intelligent actions.

3) The arguments that God had to exist because something has to create the universe unravels when you point out that something had to create God.

4) Theists reject facts. I would have to go against theists to accept facts. Makes it harder to be a theist.

5) I have no reason to believe in God, so I don't. The same goes for leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, etc.

2 points

Straw-manning evolution doesn't make your stance any more believable. You are attacking a construct that isn't representative of the sciences stance.

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with abiogenisis. Evolution has to do with the diversity of species.

If I see someone with a bullet hole, see the gun that was used, see the powder burns etc but don't know who pulled the trigger I can still see the evidence that suggests someone was shot. Your stance says despite all the evidence someone was shot, that conclusion can't be right because we don't know who pulled the trigger. Your stance is untenable. Your stance ignores what evolution actually says and you just make something up that is irrelevant.

You appear to be a troll or a crazy person. On the off chance you are neither; If you really want to discuss evolution try starting with something actually claimed by evolution and is relevant instead of your made up straw-man. Here is a link for you to start. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

1 point

Winklepicker says:

The long journey of the advancement of mankind and the expansion of the frontiers of knowledge as well as our awareness of the Universe, of which we are a minuscule part, would never have even started if no one had challenged the superstitious nonsense which forms the basis of all religions.

I agree, science has not produced a rational explanation for the ''beginning of life'', as the concept of the ''big bang'' is, in my opinion almost as fanciful a notion as the various man made religions.

However, science, and not hocus pocus religion will someday come up with the answer.

Let's hope there will a sufficient number of people able to recognise and understand the scientific proof and have the maturity to discard the of the mumbo jumbo which was spawned from the ignorance of the bronze age

Me - So then my question is, SINCE admittedly no answer exists in science, then by what reasoning and by what facts do you dismiss the possibility of a Creator?

And by what reasoning and by what facts do you declare religion and faith as irrational? And without merit to explore and weigh as evidence of a Creator. Science has no answer! Yet all its minions think, it is actually confirmed as fact! How dare educators lie to children and treat speculation as facts!!!

It seems it is irrational to close of possibilities of answers and proof of their sourses without really being objective.

So therefore evolution admittingly doesnt know so it assumes. So then how is it scientific to dismiss weighing evidence of a Creator and dismiss proving validations of His Word.

So evoluyion creationists expect faith in an unknown process, while refusing evidence of a Creator.

The Bible is an authority yhat has as much if not even more confirmable evidence of validity as biology. Biology days this part is in this animal and also in another, and in a controlled experiment this minifact is confirmed, an eye can develope on a wing of a fly. So therefore evolution explaims creation.

Yet we have proof the Bible is of supernatural origin, with facts unknown to the writers according to their limitations in advancements, yet it is not allowed to show evidence.

If we are debating origin then shouldnt we validate what is possible. And since lifed origin is unknown than why isnt a Creator possible? And since scripture 8s historical and closer to the date of origin to the first signs of mankind like us is about 6000 years ago, then shouldnt we add it to experiment also?

.

1 point

Thank you so much for this! I wish more people would look at the evidence for religion. Even if they do a lot of people will just turn a blind eye and say it is false : ( . But come on...how could anyone reject a creator. Nothing can come out of nothing so there must have been a supernatural being that has been there infinitely that everything came out of. I completely agree when you say that the Bible should be experimented on. Then we can finally show that it is logical. It's so sad how so many people don't realize how incredibly advanced the Bible was for its time. They need to start teaching the Bible and religion more and school. It is WAY more important to teach than evolution.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

I wish more people would look at the evidence for religion.

So do atheists.

Even if they do a lot of people will just turn a blind eye and say it is false : ( .

People who actually look at the evidence say religion is false and the people who never look at the evidence say religion is true and that they looked at the evidence.

But come on...how could anyone reject a creator.

We live in a world the behaves exactly like a world that has no creator.

Nothing can come out of nothing so there must have been a supernatural being that has been there infinitely that everything came out of.

You are acknowledging that you don't believe that something can't exist without a creator and using the idea that nothing can exist without a creator add your basis for believing in God. That concept does not work on the educated.

. I completely agree when you say that the Bible should be experimented on. Then we can finally show that it is logical.

Why hasn't it been important enough for religious to have already done this at some point over thousands of years?

It's so sad how so many people don't realize how incredibly advanced the Bible was for its time.

It wasn't advanced at all and the people who don't realize this are religious people.

They need to start teaching the Bible and religion more and school.

No, they need to start educating religious people.

It is WAY more important to teach than evolution.

One thing has lead to no advancement for the human race for over a thousand years and the other had only existed for over a hundred and paid off more than the Bible already.