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.
I always thought the antichrist would pretend to be a Christian. I am not calling Christian. I am not saying that he will actually be a Christian, but I am saying that he will pretend to be one.
nice to see Atheism clarified as a religion ............... The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Atheists do believe God exists; Why else would they be opposed? The atheist's position appears to be broad cast that the tooth fairy in which they don't believe in doesn't exist. Kind of a pointless act to state that the supposedly non-existent God doesn't exist. God on the hand must be real enough to an atheist to post a claim against.
Thewayitis, atheists don't "oppose" god. You can not oppose that which you do not believe in. You, like many theists, are assuming that because they oppose the religion, they must oppose the god involved in the religion. The logic behind such a claim is quite lacking. Atheists can oppose the belief system without believing in the system itself. How about instead of trying to convince yourself that atheists have to believe the same thing as you, you instead recognize that they are actually opposing you, not your god?
Thewayitis, atheists don't "oppose" god. You can not oppose that which you do not believe in.
But you do believe in God or at least the possibility of God's existence. One cannot hold a view contrary to something that doesn't exist. Example: Being opposed to little green men driving cars. Since little green men don't exist, I am neither opposed to them driving or not driving. I do not go around saying that little green men do not exist. Atheists however go around telling everybody not to believe in a supposedly non-existent God. In conclusion you cannot be opposed to a God you do not believe in. Atheism is a religion.
But you do believe in God or at least the possibility of God's existence. One cannot hold a view contrary to something that doesn't exist. Example: Being opposed to little green men driving cars. Since little green men don't exist, I am neither opposed to them driving or not driving. I do not go around saying that little green men do not exist. Atheists however go around telling everybody not to believe in a supposedly non-existent God. In conclusion you cannot be opposed to a God you do not believe in. Atheism is a religion.
And you don't believe in evolution, correct? Or the Big Bang? Well, given that you can't hold a view contrary to something that doesn't exist, I suppose that evolution and the big bang must be real as well too, right?
This is really huge. You heard it here first, everyone. Don't believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, or Odin? Too bad- if they didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to not believe in them. Santa Clause, the Tooth fairy, Odin, and the Christian God all exist!
And you don't believe in evolution, correct? Or the Big Bang? Well, given that you can't hold a view contrary to something that doesn't exist, I suppose that evolution and the big bang must be real as well too, right?
I do believe in micro-evolution, just not macro-evolution. Since one cannot observe macro and science is supposed to based on observation, not fairy tales. This also applies to Big Bang as well. Besides this point, I put no other thought into that which only exist in one's imagination.
Santa, the Tooth Fairy, Odin, and the Christian God do exist; You made them real when you listed them. At least to you they are real. I hadn't put a single thought into them until you mentioned them.
Suppose you proposed such a definition before speciation was observed, would observed speciation have proved you wrong, or does your definition change all the time as to be purposefully unfalsifiable.
Speciation falls way short of proving evolution as defined by animal classification.
Example 1 - Tiger
Kingdom: Animalia (Animal)
Phylum: Chordata (Vertebrate)
Class: Mammalia (Mammal)
Order: Carnivora (Carnivore)
Family: Felidae (Cat)
Genus: Panthera
Species: Panthera tigris (Tiger)
Example 2 - Orang-utan
Kingdom: Animalia (Animal)
Phylum: Chordata (Vertebrate)
Class: Mammalia (Mammal)
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae (Great Apes)
Genus: Pongo
Species: Pongo pygmaeus (Orang-Utan)
There has to be evidence beyond speciation for macro-evolution to be true, such as a link between the class of mammals. Show that the tiger in example 1 and the orangutan in example 2 came from the same ancestor. If macro-evolution was true then these two grew from primitive Vertebrate mammals; Where is the evidence to support this?
Though it does show your definition of macro-evolution to be either false or a moving target, which was my intent.
Re: Tiger/Orangutan common ancestor
The latest common ancestor of Tigers and Orangutan would be a placental mammal (similar to Protungulatum donnae); All of the ancestors of the earliest placental mammals (therapsids, etc.) would also be common ancestors.
Still unanswered:
Does not being able to observe a human count to 1 billion disprove addition/multiplication?
Is your definition of macro-evolution fixed or an unfalsifiable moving target?
Though it does show your definition of macro-evolution to be either false or a moving target, which was my intent.
I do not see how my definition is false. I don't recognize a slight change in a species as a new species. Scientist may make this distinction, but they are attempting to prove evolution.
Still looking for a direct link between Tiger & Orangutan, with evidence to back it up.
Does not being able to observe a human count to 1 billion disprove addition/multiplication?
No, but this is counting and not evidence.
Is your definition of macro-evolution fixed or an unfalsifiable moving target?
It is a fixed definition and one that you haven't proved.
Macroevolution: major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.
Of course you don't, otherwise we wouldn't be debating.
Note, I said 'either false or a moving target'. If your same exact definition was in place before speciation was observed, then, once speciation was observed, your definition would be either have been proven false or would have expanded to include speciation. Therefore, it is either false or it changes as observation increases.
this is counting and not evidence.
It shows that absence of observability is not an argument against something that is not expected to be observed. If a process takes several lifetimes, requiring that it also be observable is nonsensical.
I don't recognize a slight change in a species as a new species.
How about slight change + slight change + slight change + slight change?
Still looking for a direct link between Tiger & Orangutan
They share characteristics with their common ancestors:
- warm-bloodedness
- mammary glands
- teeth covered with enamel and differentiated into frontal incisors, lateral canines, molars
- temporal fenestra behind each eye orbit
- secondary palate dividing the nasal cavity from the oral cavity
- legs positioned more vertically than splayed
- amniotic egg
- femur connected to tibia and fibula
- humerus connected to radius and ulna
- metacarpals/metatarsals
- brain with amygdala, medulla, hippocampus, hypothalamus, cerebral cortex, etc
- lungs
- bone skeleton
- bilaterally symetrical body plan with a head, torso and appendages
- eyes
- ears
- spinal chord
- vertebrae
- ribs
- jaw
- esophagus
- stomach
- intestines
- taste glands
- sense of smell
- sense of touch
- gonads (testes/ovaries)
- kidney
- bladder
- spleen
- liver
- pancreas
- skin
- red and white blood cells
- DNA
- etc. etc. etc.
And they show differences based on how their species diverged:
Tiger:
Pantherinae:
- specialized larynx
- floating hyoid
Feliformia:
- double-chambered auditory bullae (tympanic and endotympanic bones and a septum)
- digitigrade - walking on toes
- recurved claws (later retractable)
- no allisphenoid canal
- lessening of clavicle
Cetacea/Carnivora:
- canine teeth
- carnassial pairs
- well-defined mandibular fossa
Orangutan:
Simiiformes:
- four part pelvis
- fused mandible
- increased brain size
Haplorhines:
- postorbital plate
- less attached upper lip
Plesiadapiformes
- fingernails
That along with similarities/differences in DNA - homologous genes, meiosis & replication process, number & size of chromosomes, banding, retrotransposon markers, etc.
Macroevolution
If Microevolution is evolutionary change over a smaller timescale, what delineates Macro from Micro + Micro + Micro + Micro + Micro + Micro + Micro + Micro + Micro + Micro + ... ?
Also, see my more simplified debate specifically targeting the biblical use of "kind":
How about slight change + slight change + slight change + slight change?
It is this kind of thinking or not thinking which has led society to such theories as the Big Bang. When one wants to find a link to something, one can find one. The trouble is whether that link is really a significant link. All things are made up of atoms, molecules, protons, electron, and neutrons, so what? Does this mean that my third cousin on my mom's side was a tree?
Your problem in this exchange is conflating conceptual existence with concrete existence. It's true that one cannot believe or disbelieve in something that does not exist conceptually, lacking the concept to call into question- but such holds no implications re: their concrete existence, which the discussion is primarily concerned with.
Nobody is arguing that there is no such thing as the concept of a God- people are arguing that current observations are entirely in-line with natural processes, and that there is nothing that suggests direct interference by an actual concrete God on any level. Predictions made assuming natural processes that are observable and measurable tend to bear out. Predictions made under the assumption that a God is interfering on a level contrary to the observable process of cause and effect do not.
Also: Macro-evolution/Speciation has in fact been observed, both in nature and in controlled laboratory conditions, as well as in between domesticated species and the wild originals where such are still extant. Here is just one example.
Your problem in this exchange is conflating conceptual existence with concrete existence. It's true that one cannot believe or disbelieve in something that does not exist conceptually, lacking the concept to call into question- but such holds no implications re: their concrete existence, which the discussion is primarily concerned with.
Now apply this concept to Big Bang theory and and Evolution. Where is the concrete existence?
Also: Macro-evolution/Speciation has in fact been observed, both in nature and in controlled laboratory conditions, as well as in between domesticated species and the wild originals where such are still extant.
All you did was show that a plant can become a plant. Big deal most of us already assumed that a plant is a plant. Show where this plant has turned into a mammal and then I may buy into Macro-evolution. Until this day comes, keep watching "Plant of the Apes" and believing that man came from somewhere else.
Now apply this concept to Big Bang theory and and Evolution. Where is the concrete existence?
For evolution, the concrete existence is that which has been directly observed, both in the wild and the lab. We've already observed the fact that significant changes in the genome of a species, including speciation, can occur in response to natural selective pressure. Furthermore, not only the genetic diversity but also the genetic overlap between even the most disparate species lends credence to the theory of evolution. Predictions made assuming evolution hold true.
The Big Bang, well, fair enough- I'm not entirely certain that I believe in that specific theory for the origin of the universe. It is primarily based on what we are able to observe of the movements of various interstellar bodies, the state of radioactive decay, and the overall distribution of matter and energy in the observable universe; the big bang theory offers a model that these all fit into consistently. A creation event along the lines of instantly calling 'the heavens' into being, however, is not consistent with the observable state of the universe. The Big Bang theory fits the data better than a creation event as described by most religions, but you are correct in observing that it is not proven conclusively.
All you did was show that a plant can become a plant. Big deal most of us already assumed that a plant is a plant. Show where this plant has turned into a mammal and then I may buy into Macro-evolution. Until this day comes, keep watching "Plant of the Apes" and believing that man came from somewhere else.
This was just one example of many. I must point out here that the classification of several species as 'plants' as opposed to animals is based on lines drawn arbitrarily by man. Sure, there are firm criteria that we use to distinguish between the two, but that doesn't change the fact that we've chosen essentially arbitrary areas to distinguish the groups we classify life forms into. Understanding that, there is no need to show that a plant can turn into something that is not a plant; merely to show that a life form can change into a life form that fits into a different niche, has different traits, and is genetically incompatible with the original. You're always harping on man-made classifications, so it's rather hypocritical of you to set that, specifically, as a requirement for evidence. I'm not catering to your moving goalpoast.
You're always harping on man-made classifications........... I'm not catering to your moving goalpoast.
I just use them in the same way as scientist do. I didn't create them, they did. If one cannot use science; Then how does science ever prove or disprove anything?
All of science is man-made and this classification that I'm harping on was created in the name of science. If you don't believe in science, then; Why do you attempt to defend it?
And as usual, when you can't offer a rebuttal for actual points, you pick a specific line to try and harp on. And as usual, in error.
I just use them in the same way as scientist do. I didn't create them, they did. If one cannot use science; Then how does science ever prove or disprove anything?
You're twisting things as you're wont to do. You wanted an example of macro-evolution/speciation, and one of many was provided. You then moved the goalposts and declared that the burden of evidence was an instance of macro-evolution across arbitrarily-drawn classifications. I reject this assertion of yours, and maintain that the demonstrable cases of speciation is sufficient evidence. If you are unwilling to accept it, well- that's your problem. We don't need to demonstrate that one type of class of life form can become another to support macro-evolution. We only need to demonstrate that one species can become another, and that's been done.
Or, taking it another way: It has been conclusively proven that God is not responsible for directly creating every species in its current form. Even if creationism is assumed, evolution has taken place from that initial state. Such is undeniable without sticking ones head in the sand- again, as you're wont to do.
We only need to demonstrate that one species can become another, and that's been done.
Who is the we? Atheists? Who said this is enough evidence to draw undoubted conclusions? There exists far greater feats in the making of a frog (starts out as a tadpole), than what you have shown or the life of a caterpillar (caterpillar to a moth/butterfly). It is not unreasonable to require evidence of this kind of transformation between classifications when the whole theory is based on this type of transformation. The only reason not to provide evidence is that no evidence can be found.
The 'we' I was referring to was you, and I. The parties in this exchange. My apologies for not being clear enough.
It is enough evidence to draw the following conclusions:
1) It is possible for a species to change into another species (or divide into several other species) in response to natural selection, because such has been observed.
2) Species exist that evolved from prior species rather than being created as-is by a God of some sort, because such has been observed.
This combined with the fossil record and the huge genetic overlaps between disparate species lends a lot of credence to the theory that most (and very likely all) species owe their current forms to evolution. It's not quite 'origins of all life' type stuff- but that's not the exact topic we're exploring here.
The fact that some species undergo metamorphoses during their lifecycle is demonstrative of your ignorance on the matter. A dna sample taken from a tadpole and the same organism as an adult are identical, retroviruses notwithstanding. Same deal with caterpillars/butterflies. Evolution is not concerned with changes of the individual- it is concerned with changes of the genome from generation to generation.
And those changes are irrelevant as the changes in question are genetic ones. Please reread the entire exchange.
I have one question to ask of you; Was Neanderthal man a human being?
Was Neanderthal man a human being? Taxonomically, not exactly- neanderthal is quite physically and genetically distinct from modern humans, and is classified as homo neanderthalensis; a form of human, but not the same as what is referred to as a 'human being'- modern human beings are classified as homo sapiens, or more modernly homo sapiens sapiens. In more philosophical terms of whether I would consider a neanderthal man or animal, or a 'person,' well, I couldn't say. There is fossil evidence that suggests significantly less sophisticated mental capabilities in neanderthalensis than sapiens, but significantly more sophiscated mental capabilities in homo neanderthalensis than, say, pan paniscus (aka the bonobo, believed to be the closest related to humans of all extant species). The actual extent of those capabilities, though, is much harder to say. I wouldn't be able to make that call without more direct observations.
Homo is the genus of hominids that includes modern humans and species closely related to them. The genus is estimated to be about 2.3 to 2.4 million years old, possibly having evolved from australopithecine.
You did not ask if Neanderthal was human, as in a member of the genus homo. You asked if Neanderthal was a human being, which carries connotations of personhood and rights, and is overall far more nebulous than that.
My response does not make sense, contextually speaking, as an objection to its classification in the genus homo- in fact, I noted that classification specifically.
You asked if Neanderthal was a human being, which carries connotations of personhood and rights, and is overall far more nebulous than that.
I really don't believe that a biologist would define a human as having personhood and rights. A philosopher may and psychiatrist may as well, but since I'm talking about physical evidence I feel this is irrelevent to the discussion at hand.
A biologist wouldn't generally define a 'human being' at all, but rather a species of the genus 'homo' or the species 'homo sapiens.' 'Human Being' is a philosophically loaded term- particularly when used by you, as has been demonstrated in other debates you've taken part in. I feel it important when dealing with a person of your intellectual integrity to ensure that I am quite clear in my terminology. You will not find me using the term 'human being' as a substitute for 'homo sapiens' because of how I consider the term loaded.
Seeing as how according to the bible there won't be one singular Anti-christ, I would think theoretically they would (if they wanted to be effective) be of a variety of religions.
2 John 1:7 - For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
1 John 2:22 - Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:18 - Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1 John 4:3 - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Matthew 24:24 - For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Revelation 16:13 - And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs [come] out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. (Even in Revelations, "the Beast" is not the only anti-christ)
Revelation 13 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. 2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. 3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. 4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?2 Thessalonians 2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
I'm not denying that it is present in pretty much every bible, because it is. Revelations has a reputation for being heavily argued over as a reliable book of the bible. But, then again, I'm the atheist here. You should be able to research that on your own.
Not really, no. I have provided multiple texts from the bible claiming that there will be more than one anti-christ, where as you keep referring only to Revelations saying there will only be one (which isn't even true, as Revelations claims there will be three in different forms).
"Seeing as how according to the bible there won't be one singular Anti-christ, I would think theoretically they would (if they wanted to be effective) be of a variety of religions."
Your response: "You are wrong. The Bible does talk about an antichrist. You need to read Revelation 13."
Clearly not a straw man fallacy when I am responding to what you have actually said..
24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Nowhere in the bible are they described as "miniature antichrists" that will rule the rest of them. Now it is completely fine if you believe that, but at this point we have left biblical mythology.
In the midst of the Tribulation period there shall rise up two great world leaders .. one a political leader inspired by Satan himself .. the other religious leader to deceive the people with strong delusions and either lead them or force them to worship the anti-christ as the long expected world-ruler .. these two Satanic deceivers shall prevail upon all except those who risk all to boldly acknowledge their belief in the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world . . . . Rev 13: 8 salvation in the great tribulation is still based on the blood of Jesus Christ .. those who are then saved .. however .. must boldly confess their faith before a world of hostile witnesses .. which will mean nothing short of martyrdom .. except to those few sealed in Israel .. may God help every reader of these words to make sure their calling and election while the days of grace are still lasting ............ http://dadmansabode.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=733#p733
No religion. The opposite of Christianity, according to Christians, is Atheism. That'd be true of all religions. However if the Anti-Christ is real, it'd be silly and unreasonable for him not to believe in God, when he's fighting him, so he'd be more so an Atheist in the sense that he does not believe God is good, or something along those lines.
If this is on the assumption the Bible is real- then shit I guess there will be an Antichrist. His name being God of course- that's what it alllll points to ;)
It is obvious he will be a secular Humanist and he will be a leftist. Of course he would have compromised numerous people to help do his dirty work, and some of them would be Christians in name only and Republicans in name only
You are like a dog with a bone; completely stuck on the secular humanist thing. You are literally bringing it up every chance you get. You have resurrected several religion debates just to complain about secular humanism and assert that it is a religion.
Do you really think repetition will make your claims true?
