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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
The problem with evolution
OK, so once the very first representative of a species is born, he will have to find the second representative of that species. I suspect there can't be many representatives because, after all, it is a new species. Now, by definition, a new species cannot mate with the old species. So..., if the first representative can't find another representative of the opposite sex to mate with, then that new species will die out.
Let's say a new species of human is born. He has great, big, feet. That's his evolutionary advantage. His great, big, feet allow him to surf the oceans' waves without a surfboard. This is an advantage for when a tsunami hits, he can surf to safety. Now, with his great, big, feet he can con women who believe the big-feet-myth to sleep with him. But alas, he cannot get them pregnant. So he gets a post-grad degree in biology and finds out that the reason he can't reproduce is because he is the future of man-kind, a new species and living proof of the evolutionary theory. But he can't tell his professors because they will out him in order to get fame and glory (University of Whatever professor discover the next evolutionary link). And he knows that humans have a history of killing anything that is different from them so he decides that it is best to keep his condition a secret. Plus he has read a lot of comics and decides to become a super hero and call himself "Super Surfer". So he sews 2 big 'S's on his wet suit (because he still gets cold, like everyone else) while surfing. This dislike for the cold is his weakness. He is specifically susceptible to ice. So, he can't play hockey, for example, because his great, big, feet get cold. His job as a super hero is to educate people on the virtues of evolution so that he can someday come clean and let the world know that he is a new species. But as luck would have it, the masses rise up and clamor for Trump to be president. This is a threat to his existence so he becomes a Hillary supporter. And in order to spread his message far and wide he joins a popular social media group with a propensity to debate.
Meanwhile, on the opposite coast is the female representative of their species. But she is shunned because she has great, big, feet and when she walks barefooted they make a slapping sound so they call her Slappy. She too is unable to reproduce. They need to find each other so that they can create the next generation of great, big, feet babies or their species will die out. Maybe if there were a tsunami on both coasts at the same time they can surf towards each other but what are the chances of that? Nature has played a cruel joke on our hero.
Disclaimer:
Any similarities to actual species, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
His nemesis is also a member of the social media group. He's no average joe and he deduces SS's true nature. He thus sets multiple traps meant to get SS to incriminate himself. He does this by posting debates of dubious value discrediting evolution; which SS is unable to ignore and is thus forced to come the rescue of evolution and set the record straight. ;)
What drives this nemesis? Why does this nemesis like to torment our hero? He does it for the lolz ;)
Hey, I have big feet, I mean I have my shoes made at Harland & Wolff's shipyard, and I have been successful at multiplying the human species for decades. The secret to having a successful, ''KNEE WOBBLER' is to have a chopper bigger than your feet.
As for water sports, well in Belfast Lough you don't really water ski, you just go through the 'motions'.
I just noticed that you were on my enemies list as well. I just removed you from that list. It appears that enemies are treated as hostiles. So, maybe if you upgrade me to enemy, you may be able to remove me from the list.
"upgrade me to enemy" sounds like an oxymoron to me ;)
You have now been officially removed from my enemy list and joined up with the rest of my enemies floating around helplessly in cyberspace.
I have no allies, no hostiles nor any enemies. Surely someone must hate me, I mean, I'm a real 1st class dirty, double dealing, lowdown scoundrel, and I have a certificate to prove it.
The problem with your hypothetical question on a "first member of a species" is that, well, technically, or should I say, Biologically, there is no such thing as a "first member."
Doesn't work that way. There was no, for example, first human. Or even, first homo sapien, or first homo habilis, or first homo erectus.
Rather, these sub-species "transitioned" into one another, in a mode of evolutional and biolgogical ascension. It was was a gradual transition. Powered by subtle genetic changes that were inherited by the species. And then passed on little by little to their offspring. Providing, of course, that said genetic mutations, or changes, proved to be advantageous to that species for living and thriving in its specific environment.
This is why we have all those so-called "transitional fossils." And no..there is no missing link. It is a subtle, gradual, very lengthy, transitory biological process.
An example I sometimes like to use for laymen to help illustrate the idea of there being no distinct, concrete, indisputable "first" or "original" of a species (or a sub-species) is my salt water metaphor.
Say you have a big-ass 200-gallon container of fresh water. That container is an original species and its DNA genome.
Now....take a single teaspoon of salt. Dump it into the container.
This step represents the first in a process of inherited genetic mutations that are "selected IN" as we say. Rather than "selected out" in the case of non-desirable mutations.
So...you dump in a single teaspoon of salt into a 200-gallon container of fresh water.
Is it Saltwater now? I mean, REAL, indisputable, legitimate, "salt water?" No....not compared to what will in time become real, full-fledged "species" if salt water.
So you after a few hundred or thousand years, dump in ANOTHER teaspoon of salt water. And three hundred years later, another teaspoon.
When is it "The First Species of Salt Water?"
See? It never really is. It is always evolving into a "higher form" or more concentrated form of salt water. You are slowly transitioning that fresh water into salt water. Step by step. Without a pre-determined definition or parameter of what exactly constitutes Salt Water--say, what percentage of salt need be present in the water--you can never really term it to be "The Very First Moment of Salt Water Species."
This of course is a drastically over-simplified metaphor for the process of genetic evolution, but I hope it at least illustrates my point that there is no "First" of an evolving species.
I stopped being able to read your boring posts half way through the second paragraph of the debate description. There are 0 laughs or anything remotely approaching a laugh. Why would I keep reading?
Hell, I can save you even more time! If you click on a debate and it has my picture on the right, don't even bother reading. Just hit the back button ;)
I never claimed they were debates. Quite the opposite. Which is why I asked you, what in our history makes you think that I debate, look for a chance to debate and/or create debates ;)
As a of matter fact, in this very post, I stated above, "When will you stop taking my posts seriously..." (i.e., stop treating them as debates).
Me? Harassing you? You are the one who is always complaining about my posts. Not funny enough. Extra/unnecessary wording in the title. Not understanding evolution. etc.
I don't know what to do here. First it's "When will you stop taking my posts seriously" now you are saying "seriously". Do you actually mean it this time?
No, I want you to explain to me how it is that I am being a prick when it is you who is telling me that:
1. I have too many unnecessary words in the title of my post.
2. My posts are not funny.
3. I have no understanding of evolution.
etc.
It's like I'm in some weird alternate reality where you bash me and I'm the prick?
Maybe you're in a Sharia controlled part of the world where it is the women who are raped that get punished. If I don't accept your bashing, I'm the prick. Is that how it works in your world? ;)
No, I want you to explain to me how it is that I am being a prick when it is you who is telling me that:
You are sending mixed messages. You are saying "No I don't mean that I am being serious this time", and "I want you to explain". If you aren't being serious, why do you keep asking for explanations?
It's like I'm in some weird alternate reality where you bash me and I'm the prick?
I am sorry that you are a liberal and don't understand the concept of being told you are doing something wrong.
If I don't accept your bashing, I'm the prick.
You are a prick for assuming the answer to the question you are asking me to answer.
"Why is this a problem with evolution and not your ability to understand?"
That is a personal attack. And it bothers me because you, of all people, should know better. You should know better because you, of all people, are supposed to be my friend. My "so called" debates are for fun and entertainment. They are not meant to be taken seriously. You are not meant to believe that I do not know how evolution works.
To tell me that my "so called" debates are not funny, is another personal attack. And calling me a prick, is yet another personal attack. All coming from my "so called" friend.
I hope that clarifies any mixed messages I may have sent.
Now, why don't you go back and find where I attacked you personally. Then come back here and take a second chance at explaining to me how it is that it is I who is being a prick here.
OK. So, no apologies for calling me a prick. No acknowledgement of my concerns. And a hint that nothing will change and will instead continue against my wishes. That's fine. I'm easy. Just don't let that get around. ;)
You are confused because what you think is one species immediately turning into a new one is actually one species turning into many at once. Chimpanzees didn't turn into humans, the same ancestor turned into many kind of hairy primate an humans were the least hairy that is all. At the beginning everyone could mate with everyone, like different breeds of dogs can with each other, but eventually each sect stayed to itself. the neanderthal had 2 subspecies, the humans actually wiped out the shorter stouter one with out intelligence, some of the other species became Inuits and the Asians or native Americans we know today. The other party of humans originated as blacks and while blacks dominated in tribal wars, they had a disadvantage at long distance warfare as the aim of Asians was far superior and so the shorter species again found a way to maintain itself. Over the years, the blacks mated with the yellow Asians to form Malays and Mongols who then split up further and some very brown factions again mated with the shorter Asian side of 'humans' which led to the Indian race we know today. Whites were the result of light skinned Indians realizing their skin helped them camouflage and survive better in snowy conditions so the lighter skinned ones mated with each other over and over again. The reason why Indians are shorter than white people on average is because they first evolved into Arabs, and in the desert you want height but the Arabs evolved into Jews towards colder conditions and Jews are again short (easier to hide in snowy conditions if you are short, being tall and thin is bad insulation). Ten the Jews and the light skinned Indians because to mate and make what we call Caucasians today. The original whites were more like what Albanians look like.
Rather...we homo sapiens only share a distant common ancestor. Period.
Please, please take three minutes to read this link. It is high time you Creationists at least have some remote idea of the Theory that you seem so fond of mercilessly and cluelessly bashing every fucking day.
The Neanderthal was our closest relative. We all (apes) evolved from the same ancestor. This ancestor was the 'brother' or relative of the other species that had tails and became monkeys.
Giants, cannibalism, and other unrighteous atrocities are the contributions of shape shifters who saw the daughters of men were beautiful and took them as wives.
And the core of man grew out of its darkness.
I'm not saying this as fact, or doctrine, just possibility.
Job and Genesis touch on this, and the Book of Enoch may have purposely been held back as Divine Inspiration for later explanations of mysteries, man wasn't ready for, but it may be a book to review in the last days. Jude in the new testament refers to quotes from Enoch.
And there are a few mentions in the Bible to knowledge sealed till the end.
Above is on a shelf for me, so I'm stating it as mere thought.
What if fallen angels did enhabit a form like man, before Adam? Creatures who formed in darkness. Demons have been known to take form of man, beast, and angels of light.
What if dinosaurs also, the lizard type, not mamal nor fish? It would make sense with my theory of interpretation of Creation Days.
Day 1 light
Day 2 Firmament
Day 3 Growth of plant and bugs, and lower forms of cell mutations, and possibly lizards and amphibians, maybe even Neanderthals.
Day 4 Time and Photosynthesis, where sun light effects growth
Day 5 - first 24 hrs day - Fish and Birds
Day 6 Man and Mammals
Genesis 2 is Garden specific, man made from dust outside of the Garden, then put into the garden, God made animals and brought to man to name. Possibly these are what was known as "clean" animals, yet none suitable as a partner to Adam, not from the ground of the Garden, Woman taken from the rib of man.
Making man neutral between the Garden and the World, with free will to live according to either.
God enriched the earth fossil fuels, maybe just enough for the number of our days on the earth.
What if explanations are greater than religion and science?
Is it possible by Day 5 Dinosaurs like lizards and amphibians became extinct and neanderthal also mutated to counterfeit and mimic the image of man in the image of God?
Is that why The earth so quickly filled where God had to destroy it by flood. Genesis says the Nephilim were before and after the flood. What if before it was so heavily saturated by corrupted seed we wouldn't have lasted for the 6000 years?
What if the flood was a needed reset, all in His plan.
And again the Nephilim came upon the earth but at a more slowed down rate?
Bronze Age Hebrew Fables and Superstition have no place whatsoever on a debate about the science of Evolution. Or on a debate regarding any sort of science or realism.
On any other debate site I have ever participated in or moderated, you would be banned from this debate and probably even suspended from the site for a few days at least for hijacking it with such nonsensical and laughable tripe.
Your post here is no more than trolling. While I usually admire Andy's hands-off approach and his insistence on hardly ever banning trolls here, sometimes--like now--I DO wish he would at least make some efforts to stop people from hijacking debates with pure unadulterated bullshit like your bible fables.
Oh well......every site has its downside and I guess that here on CD it is this sort of crap. I would love for you to try this shit over at a more structured site like Debate.Org, however. You wouldn't last two days.
I'm still waiting for your responses. You haven't given one argument at all undoing the Prophetic and Historical credibilty of "Bronze Age God"
You really don't have a good answer, your obviously stumped.
And my post was very fitting the debate is discussing Neanderthals and the beginning, so this is not trolling. It angers you because you don't have a good answer.
Why does God anger you?
And I'm still waiting for your arguments on Credibilty of History and Prophesy. Don't break a blood vessel!
I'm still waiting for your responses. You haven't given one argument at all undoing the Prophetic and Historical credibilty of "Bronze Age God"
Really? Are you still on that old bit? I dismissed it days ago and truthfully, forgot all about it.
The reason is because there is NO instance of one of your bible prophecies coming true in the real world. Not with any degree of certitude or credibility. All of those so-called prophecies are so vague and nebulous that they could have referred to anything. It's like the old Nostradamus crap about an evil man--or the anti-Christ, I forget--"rising from the East."
And then people try to say he was referring to Stalin. Or Bin Laden. After all, what the hell does "east" mean, anyway. It's all context. Same deal with your Torah fables.
If there is a prophecy in the Torah or your OT that is as specific and provenly accurate as say, "A man named Obama will be the first Nubian American Leader" than I wou;d give it some credence.
But unless I missed something. none of the bible's tripe comes remotely close to being verifiably accurate. Instead, all of your alleged prophecies are open to many many interpretations and definitions.
And anyway, what about all those that did NOT come true. Like the ones JC made? All of his broken promises. Lies. Like how I can move a mountain by praying for it. LOL. See...you are once again engaging in Cherry Picking.
And as far as claiming a 3000 year-old fuzzy and vague prophecy actually came true? That is what we call "Confirmation Bias." You find a small possible even that just MAYBE fits the bill of the old prophecy and say "Aha! that's it. God made it happen!"
I also notice you can't provide any proof of a biblical prophecy coming true from a secular source. So once again, you engage in circular logic. "It's true cuz my bible says so!"
Gee....good job, genius. You managed to break THREE rules of accepted debate and rhetoric rules here: Cherry Picking....Confirmation Bias...and Circular Reasoning. WTG!
Please.....I don't wish to wast any more time on this nonsense. It's crunch time for my Thesis and I don't have the time or patience for your silliness. It's like asking me to disprove the Unicorns that are also in your bible. Or those giants.
I feel my IQ dropping every time I read your stuff. So if you want to take my withdrawal from any further discourse on this topic as a victory, then go ahead. Lord knows you guys need one once in awhile, so badly and thoroughly has science and reason dismantled most of your claims over the past decades.
Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex.
However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite.
The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder.
Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work.
The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.
Thus, in the long term, there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe.
Ultimately, when all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded, all molecules will move randomly, and the entire universe will be cold and without order.
To put it simply: In the real world, the long-term overall flow is downhill, not uphill.
All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run.