CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS DisputedByMe

Reward Points:32
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
100%
Arguments:30
Debates:1
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.

Actually, they don’t contradict themselves. Here are the two verses in question:

And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. (Matthew 27:5)

(Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.) (Acts 1:18)

They are simply told from two different perspectives. Judas was given the money, was he not? The priests refused to receive the money back. The money was still Judas’, so legally he bought the field. As far as the actual circumstances of death, the second account only omits the actual hanging. It’s possible (and even likely) that Judas didn’t quite get it right, and the rope broke (hence the fall).

There are no necessary contradictions there.

I believe in a Supernatural God. I believe that He loves us and wants to reach us to get us to heaven. My argument starts from a fundamental premise of existential uncertainty. For, given my premise, and assuming the best, I have shown that a God exists. I have shown that if you believe God doesn’t exist, then you are certain to go to Hell. But if you believe God does exist, then my argument gives a reason to believe in Him and His love for us, which is what any loving God would want. We all know that we exist. We can use the five senses to prove to ourselves that we exist. One of the ways that we can use our sense to validate the world around us is touch. Touching things like a marble floor or the leaves on the trees just outside the front door can lead us to believe that we are real and the world around us is real. We base our sciences on the five senses as they are the tools that lead us to understand the world around us through experiments. We have named that very practice Observational Science. A fundamental law in the physics realm that we have discovered using Observational Science states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. It only takes a different form. For example, when you burn wood in a fireplace, the wood is not disappearing, but turning into oxygen, carbon dioxide, and many other gaseous chemicals. We can also apply this principle to origins. What we have discovered regarding the Conservation of Matter contradicts that of what we have speculated through Historical Science: The spontaneous creation of the universe as a result of the Big Bang. All throughout history science and theory have been changing as a result of new discoveries that either prove or disprove a certain hypothesis, but the one thing that seems to stick throughout all the contradictions is The Big Bang Theory. If The Big Bang Theory cannot explain things like how the universe was created if matter cannot be created or destroyed or the faint sun paradox, then why aren't we discarding it and looking for another solution to the issue of origins? This is what leads me to the existential uncertainty part that makes my argument unique and strong. Evolution argues that we are all just animals that have evolved slowly over millions of years. Our species came out on top as a result of what many secular scientists call Natural Selection. If we came out on top when we allegedly emerged from Africa, then why is there still more powerful animals out there like gorillas and lions that could easily wipe out a human? Our existential crisis lies there. The lions and gorillas should have wiped out the human race assuming we were a more primitive and less evolved species back in that time period.

First of all, one can prove a God or Creator exists, just using the universe and logic. You do not need any other explanation. For example. Since the universe is revolving, there has to be somewhere for it to revolve. Since everything is in some form moving, then there has to be a mover for this motion. Therefore, there has to be some divine omnipotence that is constantly doing all the things in the universe.

Secondly, why do we need billions of years to discover or evolve? A short time ago, scientists said that mankind is only a few hundred years old. Now they think that the humans started in the Ape-like form, 6-7 million years ago. Do you think those scientists will continue finding more and more humans fossils for the next 10-20 billion years? Most likely they will stop discovering any "humans" fossils in the next 5 billion years. Will you complain? I doubt it.

Thirdly, why does there have to be one ultimate Creator? If the physical world is all one - yes, it revolves - it is moving - what about all those atoms? Are all those atoms moving? What forces do those atoms have to move by themselves? Can it be one material, flowing physical world without an ultimate divine essence that is the energy behind it all?

Also, what do you mean by "why would God wait about 200 000 years before he revealed himself to humans"? Is religion created in one day, or God in one day? Do the trees just grow big one day, or do they have to grow day by day? Do they grow bigger with each passing day? Do they have a certain age limit? They might have 50-70 years, but not much more, because that is all that is given to them. Why should our religious ideas be any different? Why should a God has to reveal himself to humans in this specific time frame? Did He needs to wait until we became more intelligent, or until we learned to speak or ...?

When Adam ate from the tree, does that mean God lost something? Then what? And does this mean that God now owes us anything? Is that why we are praying? Is that why humans want to please Him, or should we please Him just because of the fact that He is the Creator and He deserves that?

Also, you should not need to rely on other religions for your argumentation, because each religion has the right to persuade a person to believe in its ideas. That is the difference, rather than the fact that one religion believes in the existence of God and the other one doesn't. Like Judaism, Islam and Christianity were at war with each other hundreds of years ago, they are now spreading the same message: "God exists". Since you are using the Bible to argue, then you have to accept that the Bible is an absolute truth and you have to believe in God and accept Christianity. The Torah is for Jews, the Qur'an is for Muslims, and the Bible is for Christians.

And about the other religions: they are talking about the same Creator. Although you might believe they are talking about some God that is not talking about the same God as the one in the Bible, yet they are talking about the same God. That's why they are divided in so many different religions, because all those people might be saying something different, but nevertheless they are speaking about the same thing, and they are all speaking about the same Creator, same Maker, and same Master.

Dear friend, you are very wrong, and you need to stop giving those false ideas, because only God knows what is good for you.

Yes, evolution is a good explanation of how our morals arose - groups could outperform individuals but required trust, cooperation, etc.

Naïve evolutionists think that everything evolved because it benefits survival. This is simply false. The reason is deeply rooted in biology and is called inclusive fitness, or fitness in relation to others. It can be explained like this:

Human females preferentially choose a mate who shows evidence of health and good genetic quality. A primate with strong, muscular arms, teeth, and feet is a more attractive mate.

If a primate has offspring, each offspring receives half the genes from the male and half the genes from the female. Biologists call this passing on genes from parent to offspring.

Thus offspring can receive genes from their father that make them healthy and well-adapted for living, passing genes to their offspring, but they can also inherit genes from their mother that make them sickly and maladapted.

The fittest offspring will survive and pass their genes on to the next generation, whereas the sickly and maladapted offspring will die, which cancels out their passing their genes on to the next generation.

The moral argument for evolution is not about selfish genes. It is about altruistic genes. The genes that allow for a person to take care of his children and make sacrifices to raise them, which are the same kind of genes that allow a person to protect the weak and helpless.

Inclusive fitness describes genes that promote survival, health, and reproductive success in relation to others. Morals are necessary for groups to operate effectively.

Evolution better explains our blend of cooperation and competition than a morality derived from an all-good, loving god.

Morality, as we use the concept, could not have resulted from the process of natural selection.

Natural selection did not create the higher order processing that allows us to reason about justice, mercy, right and wrong, or about the kinds of complex emotions that lead to moral judgments and prosocial behavior. The biological mechanisms required for such reasoning are qualitatively different from mechanisms like vision, hearing, or digestion.

If I throw a bucket of sand up in the air and then try to calculate the odds that each grain of sand would land exactly when and where it did - at what digit number would we conclude that I never threw the bucket?

Accepting the conclusion (never threw the bucket) is one that derilects the evidence (the way each grain of sand is randomly distributed in mid-air).

The odds of each individual grain of sand landing exactly as it was intended to when it escaped the bucket, given the evidence, is one.

Complexity alone is subjective

Naïve evolutionists believe that every evolutionary phenomenon occurred through random mutations which transformed species or trait frequencies (or which inhibited or increased some harmful or beneficial trait). However, this is not the case. Evolution has not occurred simply through the accidental accumulation over time of random mutations in our genomes.

Trump is NOT a moron. He has accomplished so much more stuff than you would have ever done. He's not perfect, he's not a saint, and he is human, so sometimes he says things he shouldn't.. but think about it.

Trump worked to bring back all jobs that had been moving overseas - that your competitors have enjoyed being able to have a job, but that YOU were UNABLE to have one because your boss moved all his jobs overseas so that he could make MORE MONEY!!

Do you really think a moron would have the guts to tell Apple "pay your taxes!"?

Do you really think a moron would have the guts to tell Google "stop lying about your numbers!"?

Do you really think a moron would have the guts to tell Boeing and Lockheed and all of those aircraft companies how useless their products are.... and how much they make on each plane, and how much money that's costing us as a country?

Do you really think a moron would have the guts to have the guts to overhaul our Military from top to bottom - and bring our boys home, and let Germany and Russia and Japan and Germany pay for THEIR defense???????

I don't think so..

BUT, a moron - probably would have...

Trump is NOT a moron, because most Americans share his concerns. And they're scared.. and rightly so...

Trump is vogelfutter..... and he's a very rich man..... and thank God, he's on our side....

THIS is ALL about 'we the people', and getting together, and making our country great again.

It doesn't have to be about Hillary.

It doesn't have to be about anyone.

It's about US.... just "US"... THE USA.

I think you got just a bit confused here.

Take Paris Hilton for example, She single-handedly increased employment opportunities and entrepreneurial activity in the economy. Therefore, she must be intelligent. Equally, Kim Kardashian is a genius for creating a job for someone to airbrush her butt in photographs.

In fact, if you multiply the activities of Paris Hilton by the 0.00001 percentile of Kardashians, and the 99.9999 percentile of the rest of the population, you'll realize that Kardashians are more "intelligent" than Paris Hilton.

What you are saying is:

"Does Paris Hilton's organization employ 10 people? No. Therefore, she's stupid."

NO. She is smart, and the fact her organization employs 10 people is equivalent to a retarded person spelling "She is smart." And saying "spells she smart, dude". Meaning that, if Paris Hilton says "she is smart", she is still smart, just like if she employs 10 people she is still smart.

See?

So, to clarify, Bernie's plans to give people free education and healthcare matter because they will cost too much money, but your plans for building a giant fascist wall around Mexico don't?

You are wrong. See, Bernie is a socialist, who are well known for wanting to socialize America. However, that brings up a big problem: America is capitalist. See, socialized medicine, as Bernie is proposing, effectively amounts to having the government give you money and then you pay for your own insurance, or the government pays, which ultimately is taxpayer money. Now, what makes America so great is the rich decide how much they earn, and the government is just a figure in the background, ensuring that their citizens and businesses are secure. Socialized medicine and other "socialist" reforms are bad for the economy, so no wonder the market disagrees with Bernie.

Regarding Bernie's free education: since there is already free public education in America, how is Bernie's free education different? Oh, it isn't. His is just the free public education in America plus a mandatory government internship. Now, I have issues with that. Internships are for people who aren't ready to work full time, and forcing people to work full time at a company, in addition to doing their schooling, just feeds them propaganda. Oh, and do you really think the average high schooler can find a job that suits them? In a country where the average person's parents have at least a bachelor's degree, that tends to not be the case. Oh, but you're still young, it doesn't matter. What happens if you do get a job that pays well? You can't do anything with it because your time must be devoted to the government, because public schools in America teach kids to be good and obedient citizens (which is why young people support Bernie and why so many hate America).

Now, you bringing up a double standard is funny. Why am I not surprised you're a hypocrite as well?

Any more absurd double standards you want to share with us today you boring Nazi fuck?

Ah, the classic Ad Homiem that you bring to the table. It will always be a logical fallacy, and you will always use it, no matter how much it devalues your argument.

That is blatantly, objectively what you are doing.

You deliberately mislead your audience in an attempt to persuade them to favor big business and the Democratic Party. That is not an honest approach to public debate. That is, by definition, trolling.

Nothing about Donald Trump suggests that he is intelligent.

Tell that to all the intellectuals who adore him and that cannot stop talking about his intellectual prowess. Trump has repeatedly said, and repeatedly said, that the Republican Party is full of intellectuals. That's how dumb you clearly are, that you think that because you're not bright he must be dumb.

He is widely regarded as probably the most stupid world leader in history, with the possible exception of the last Republican president.

You mean Hitler. Trump is smart, and Trump knows he is smart. Just because you are a true believer who can't recognize anything intelligent unless it is from a CNN news anchor, that doesn't mean everyone else has the same limitations.

You are a partisan idiot who wants to believe Donald Trump is intelligent because you have a partisan political bias.

You ignore evidence that contradicts your agenda. That is why you are a partisan, propaganda, and that's why you are an idiot.

That's the only reason.

No. You are being a dishonest partisan.

You know it and I know it, so I'm not interested in your false protests of innocence when the evidence convicting you is splashed across every corner of this debate.

That's false. All the evidence shows us is that you worship Joe Biden and that you always ignore anything Donald Trump says that might cast a shadow on your beliefs, because that suggests you're not as smart as he is.

A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.

No.

[A] A theory is an unsubstantiated conclusion, aka a hunch or a guess based on incomplete facts.

[B] Unless you have testing to back up your claims, nothing is a "theory" according to scientific standards.

[C] A theory cannot be confirmed or rejected unless it has been tested. If testing does not take place, all you have is an assumption or a conjecture.

The definition of theory is this: "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena"

But what makes something scientifically acceptable? I'm gonna guess that it means what scientists decide is acceptable whether or not they have a substantial amount of evidence. The Big Bang Theory and The Theory of Evolution reflect this. Since many subscribe to these theories, here's why:

The Big Bang theory is based on the concept of the observable expansion of space, which is not very highly supported by observation and experiment as you cannot measure a lot of the things asserted. They fall into the category of Historical Science rather than Observational Science.

The theory of evolution, on the other hand, has no strong evidence to support it. The fossil record shows a lot of animal change, not the complete variety as proposed. Plus, many scientists still have issues with the theory.

the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals, some very similar and some very different, exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record.

Using the fossil record to show evolution relies on carbon dating or radiometric dating, which is extremely flawed as it rests on three big assumptions:

1. The original number of unstable atoms can be known

Scientists assume how many unstable atoms existed at the beginning based on how many parent and daughter atoms are left today.

2. The rate of change was constant

Scientists assume that the radioactive atoms have changed at the same rate throughout time

3. The daughter atoms were all produced by radioactive decay

Scientists assume that no outside forces, such as flowing groundwater, contaminated the sample.

The fossil record cannot show or even act as evidence that The Theory of Evolution is true.

Theories, unlike the fact or the law, explain things. They seek to

account for their being and to explain their nature. In this sense,

scientific theories are of necessity, uncertain. They can never be

certain, for they can never be complete. They imply the existence

of unobservable entities. The theories are, therefore, themselves

objects of investigation. Their validity and applicability must be

determined by experiment.

To those who may be unfamiliar with the term, theory, I shall

give a brief explanation. A theory, in the scientific sense, is a

system of ideas, statements, and laws that attempts to deal with

a specific subject. A scientific theory is not a mere set of

propositions. It is a system of ideas, statements, and laws which

attempts to deal with a specific subject. The theory, therefore, does not exist apart from

its subject matter. The subject matter determines the theory. The subject matter of any theory is physical. The subject matter of any theory is physical, and the subject matter of physical theory is physical substance. The subject matter of physical theory is matter.

To explain a theory as something that can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt is to call it a fact, not a theory. A theory still has some degree of uncertainty. Whether that be 5% or 95% uncertainty, it is still uncertain.

A fact, on the other hand, is an assertion that has a degree of certainty. Facts are statements that have a degree of certainty.

A theory is a scientific assertion. A theory is an assertion. It is an

assertion which attempts to account for a specific experience. A

theory explains what is observed, and is, therefore, an explanation.

Theories are thus both explanations and assertions.

Scientific theories are tentative because they are uncertain. They

are thus distinguished from scientific laws. Laws, unlike theories,

are absolute. They are, therefore, not subject to verification or

falsification by experiment. They are, moreover, unalterable. They

are, furthermore, certain. There is no degree of uncertainty in laws.

A law, in the scientific sense, is an explanation of a specific

phenomenon. It is a generalization. A law is an explanation. Laws are

absolute, in that they are derived from direct observations. Laws

Therefore, are not derived from theory. Theories, in the scientific

sense, are partial. They are incomplete. Theories are explanations.

They are explanations of a portion only of the observed phenomenon.

They are explanations of the part that has been so far discovered.

Laws are certain. Laws, unlike theories, are not tentative. Laws are absolute. Laws are

immutable.

Many scientists try to defend theories such as The Theory of Evolution and The Big Bang Theory by saying that theories are not incomplete or uncertain. This is false, and one of the biggest cruxes for those who do not support any theory. Theories are always tentative, and must always be falsifiable. What sets a theory apart is the degree of uncertainty that it has. The more uncertain the theory, the less acceptable it is in science. The amount of uncertainty varies. Some theories are fairly robust. But there are times when scientists go against the norm and try to defend theories that do not have a good degree of certainty like the Big Bang Theory. It is highly improbable that the Big Bang Theory can be true because it does not have a good degree of certainty in explaining the origins of the universe.

A theory is good if it has a good degree of certainty, but there is always the possibility that it can be false, which means that no theory can be completely certain. The Theory of Evolution, as stated in the above reference, is one of the most uncertain theories out there, but this does not mean that every theory is false. For example, the fact that there is no observable "life force" does not mean that scientific explanations which speak of "life force" are false. Such explanations do not describe observable phenomena, but that doesn't mean that their explanations are false. The Scientific explanation "life force" simply does not describe anything observable, but is plausible enough to stick with in order to explain the biological phenomenon.

Facts do. They are statements that have a degree of certainty. Facts can, therefore, be asserted with certainty.

Theories are scientific assertions. They are assertions that attempt to

account for a specific experience. Theories explain things. They are

therefore explanations. Theories are, therefore, objects of investigation. Theories

are, therefore, tentative and uncertain. Uncertainty is an essential

characteristic of theories. Uncertainty must be admitted as one of the characteristics of theories of science.

To deny, therefore, that scientific theories are uncertain is to

misconstrue their nature. The nature of the theories is relative

certainty. Theories can, however, never be certain. All theories are

uncertain to some degree. Some theories are more uncertain than others.

The uncertainty inherent in all theories may be qualified by a number

of adjectives, such as probable, likely, plausible, reasonable,

acceptable, accurate, acceptable, or inconclusive. There ate no exact

methods of determining the degree of uncertainty of a scientific

theory. It can only be determined as compared to other theories.

A theory that has a high degree of certainty in relation to another

theory, has a higher degree of certainty than the latter. But the lower

degree of certainty does not lessen the value of the theory. If that were

the case, the value of scientific theories would be reduced.


Winning Position: Theories are Uncertain

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here