frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Evolution?

124



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • thereptherep 61 Pts   -  
    Evolution is real. The process documents the beings today.
  • ImbsterImbster 149 Pts   -  
    Yeh look at the 30 year dog experiment 
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    Words cannot be evidence of anything. Words are simply tools we use to describe things - in this case, the evidence. 

    The evidence consists of a fossil record (and there are no gaps, by the way) as well as DNA. It also consists of direct observation. Evolution is a fact. It is something that can be observed and tested. It is a fact that given enough time there can be changes among species and it is also a fact that there is diversity within the life on this planet. Evolution by natural selection is the theory used to explain this fact. 

    I know a lot of creationists like to argue they're okay with micro-evolution, but have an issue with macro-evolution, but the only difference between the two is time.
    I can only say that evolution sounds like a reasonable theory.  I however have never seen any evidence of it, just a bit of circumstantial evidence that I have not been able to verify.  If you have actual evidence for evolution please provide that evidence that I might be able to validate that evidence.  
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason - I'm not sure why it would be difficult to find examples. I did a quick search for evidence and the first example was this


    My question is what gauge are you using to validate the evidence? 
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    @Sonofason - I'm not sure why it would be difficult to find examples. I did a quick search for evidence and the first example was this


    My question is what gauge are you using to validate the evidence? 
    Okay, I went through it.  Is this the statement that you consider evidence for evolution?  
    "There were periods in the past when three or four early human species lived at the same time, even in the same place. We – Homo sapiens – are now the sole surviving species in this once diverse family tree.'

    Or was it this statement?
    "From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals."

    Lets start over.  On that website, there is not one piece of evidence for evolution.  Lots of claims, but no evidence.  Now I'd like to see some actual evidence for evolution if you don't mind.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Oh right, the gauge I'm using to validate evidence is based on the discernment I receive from God.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Question, where did the first life form get it's RNA?
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    Sonofason said:
    Oh right, the gauge I'm using to validate evidence is based on the discernment I receive from God.
    And there's the problem right there. You're not using science to validate the evidence, just whether or not it makes sense to you. This means that your claim that the evidence you have seen is not valid, is simply an argument from ignorance.  I am quite confident there is no evidence that will convince you of anything that might go against your preconceived ideas. I don't know why this seems to be a problem since Genesis was not written as a scientific document, nor does it address the beginnings of the universe, earth, or man (at least not from a scientific standpoint). Even when I was still a Christian I had no problem accepting the Big Bang, or evolution, because I had no reason to think it couldn't be true. The evidence is right there in front of you. We have conducted tests using various methods for dating fossils and each method comes to the same conclusion.  We have ran DNA tests that show a link between the life on this planet, as evolution would suggest there is. We can even directly observe evolution. 

    I'm not going to take any of my time to do your research. I already have a feeling you have likely looked at the various sources of information, but again, you're one of those people that think Genesis was meant to be taken literal.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Oh right, the gauge I'm using to validate evidence is based on the discernment I receive from God.
    And there's the problem right there. You're not using science to validate the evidence, just whether or not it makes sense to you. This means that your claim that the evidence you have seen is not valid, is simply an argument from ignorance.  I am quite confident there is no evidence that will convince you of anything that might go against your preconceived ideas. I don't know why this seems to be a problem since Genesis was not written as a scientific document, nor does it address the beginnings of the universe, earth, or man (at least not from a scientific standpoint). Even when I was still a Christian I had no problem accepting the Big Bang, or evolution, because I had no reason to think it couldn't be true. The evidence is right there in front of you. We have conducted tests using various methods for dating fossils and each method comes to the same conclusion.  We have ran DNA tests that show a link between the life on this planet, as evolution would suggest there is. We can even directly observe evolution. 

    I'm not going to take any of my time to do your research. I already have a feeling you have likely looked at the various sources of information, but again, you're one of those people that think Genesis was meant to be taken literal.
    Science is knowledge. I most certainly employ knowledge each and every time I scrutinize unsupported claims. You have cited a website which contains nothing but claims. There is actually no evidence of evolution to be found on those pages, just lots of unsupported claims, and unsupported conclusions. I have asked you to show evidence, and now, in this latest response of yours, you have failed to show the evidence that you claim exists. I will for the moment assume that you either don't have any evidence of evolution, or you don't actually understand what evidence is. I am indeed a Creationist. I know that this universe was created, yet contrary to your beliefs, I have no preconceived notions with regard to how God created stuff, including living beings, and mankind. And so I'm not quite sure where your false sense of confidence comes from in asserting that I will not be convinced. What you fail to recognize, despite the fact that I have already made my position clear, is that I believe that  "It is certainly possible that evolution is true.  But even if it is true, that in no way discounts the veracity of the Bible." I have read and reviewed many scientific assertions and claims with regard to evolution. I have understood and pondered the conclusions that biologists, evolutionists, and geneticists have drawn, as well as the claims and conclusions of faithful uninformed atheists like yourself. Show some evidence, and perhaps we can put this to rest.

    You say "The evidence is right there in front of you." yet you refuse to include it in your post.
    You say, "We have ran DNA tests that show a link between the life on this planet", yet you refuse to include the evidence that would support such a claim.
    You say, "We can even directly observe evolution" yet you make no effort to reveal the evidence that any such process has been observed.

    If you already know what the evidence for evolution is, than it shouldn't take you that much time to find it, and I don't see why you should have to do research in order to simply show me the evidence that has already convinced you that evolution is true.  Or could it be that you don't actually have any evidence, that you have never actually seen any evidence, and your entire atheistic worldview is faith based?

    Lol
    I believe in scientists, and I have faith in the scientific method, so evolution must be true.


  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Perhaps you'd like to talk about talking snakes.  I assure you Genesis is literally true.  I am convinced.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    I am an atheist, but I'm going to answer this one as I would have before rejecting Christianity, as I find this was a rather interesting take on Genesis. If you haven't already done so already, I would suggest reading a book called "The Lost World of Adam & Eve" by John Walton. Walton is a Christian Old Testament scholar, with a proficiency in ancient Hebrew. He makes an excellent case that allows the evolution of man to be true and still allow for Adam and Eve. 

    I won't be able to do it justice in the space of a response, but the general idea is this. Yes, mankind evolved over millions of years, however, approximately 6,000 years ago, God decided to create a people. He chose a man and woman and placed them in Eden, and the story goes from there. It's not that Adam & Eve were the first people ever, but rather the first people chosen by God for a purpose. 

    Again, I'm not doing the book justice and I encourage you to look it up. There's even a presentation of this on YouTube if you'd rather check it out that way.

    And of course we can perhaps take that idea one step further.  If evolution is true, not only did mankind evolve from dust, at some point in time there had to be a first human being.  We do not have to go by modern definitions of what it is to be a human being.  The definitions and meanings of words change over time.  Since mankind has been using words, they have been modified to suite the needs and perceptions of the people who employ the use of those words. Certainly, Moses cannot be held accountable to today's scientific definition and understanding of homo sapiens when He speaks of God creating mankind.  For Moses, or for whomever it was who originally recorded or spoke of the Genesis account of Creation, a man was a man according to his own perceptions of what it took to be a man.  

    What indeed is a man, and who gets to decide?
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Fr3ak said:
    There is plenty of evidence to suggest evoloutino is real, whereas there is only fairy tales and and a really old old book to suggest god is real.
    Yes, of course, especially if you discount the evidence of millions upon millions of eye witness accounts of people who have experienced God.
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    Sonofason said:
    Fr3ak said:
    There is plenty of evidence to suggest evoloutino is real, whereas there is only fairy tales and and a really old old book to suggest god is real.
    Yes, of course, especially if you discount the evidence of millions upon millions of eye witness accounts of people who have experienced God.
    "millions of eye witness accounts of people who have experienced God"
    Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and much worse when you consider their "eyewitness account" is nothing but a personal experience. 
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    "What indeed is a man, and who gets to decide?"
    Fair enough, but if I were this god and I was choosing to lay out my words for all people at the that time, to the present and into the future,  to know and believe that it is truly my word, I wouldn't write it in a way that only means something to those at the time. I also wouldn't trust it to multiple people over thousands of years to end up getting lost, with what actually remains to be translated into different languages and versions which would forever be debated as to which version is most accurate.@Sonofason
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason ;If you believe Genesis is literally true, you are admitting you have no desire to actually understand science. If you can take the word of an old fable of unknown origins to be truth, but can't accept the evidence of evolution, I can't help you. Yes it would require me to do research, because despite my knowledge of the various tests that have been performed, I don't keep my own records to be able to quickly provide evidence for others. Again, I'm not going to waste my time. You claim to have seen evidence and have not been convinced. Either you are a and haven't looked at anything, or - because it goes against a literal interpretation of Genesis, it cannot possibly be true. Well guess what? All evidence for evolution disproves a literal Genesis account. 
    Erfisflat
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    Sonofason said:
    Question, where did the first life form get it's RNA?
    There is no clear answer to this, but it's also irrelevant. This debate is about evolution, and the origins of life is not something evolution addresses.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Fr3ak said:
    There is plenty of evidence to suggest evoloutino is real, whereas there is only fairy tales and and a really old old book to suggest god is real.
    Yes, of course, especially if you discount the evidence of millions upon millions of eye witness accounts of people who have experienced God.
    "millions of eye witness accounts of people who have experienced God"
    Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and much worse when you consider their "eyewitness account" is nothing but a personal experience. 
    Then I suppose I will have to throw out ever single testimony of every single scientist who claims to have witnessed results of every single test that has ever been performed in the name of science.  And without their results, which is their testimony, no conclusions can be drawn.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    Sylynn said:
    "What indeed is a man, and who gets to decide?"
    Fair enough, but if I were this god and I was choosing to lay out my words for all people at the that time, to the present and into the future,  to know and believe that it is truly my word, I wouldn't write it in a way that only means something to those at the time. I also wouldn't trust it to multiple people over thousands of years to end up getting lost, with what actually remains to be translated into different languages and versions which would forever be debated as to which version is most accurate.@Sonofason
    If God wanted to write a book, he wouldn't need 40 different authors to write it.  It would be written, it would be published, and it would be sitting on ever single bookshelf in the world and it would be written in their native language.  No, the Bible never claims to have been written by God.  And that is quite apparent when authors use words like, "and God said".  The Bible was written by men.  The historical accounts that were written in the numerous pages of the various books of the Bible by 40 different authors were written because someone witnessed the events and either told the story to someone who perhaps wrote it down, or they wrote it down themselves.  When the authors wrote about their experiences of God, they quite simply wrote down their experience of God.  If they wrote about their experiences with other people, it is because they felt compelled to sit down and write about their experience with other people. If they wrote down direct quotations from God, it is because they believed that God was speaking to them, and they were compelled to write down what they heard, or what the imagined they heard.  The Bible was not written by God, and it doesn't claim to have been written by God.  It was written by men who were inspired, perhaps for numerous reasons, to write what they wrote.  That inspiration in some cases, if we choose to believe that the authors were at least being honest, came from God.  But that does not mean that God wrote anything.

    When a painter sits beside a beautiful landscape and is inspired to put that beautiful landscape on a canvas so that others might have the opportunity to see and appreciate that beautiful landscape, as the author of that painting saw it, it was the beautiful landscape that inspired him to put it onto canvas.  The landscape didn't make the painting.  It was the author, the painter who put the landscape onto canvas, because the landscape inspired him to do it.
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    Sonofason said:
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Fr3ak said:
    There is plenty of evidence to suggest evoloutino is real, whereas there is only fairy tales and and a really old old book to suggest god is real.
    Yes, of course, especially if you discount the evidence of millions upon millions of eye witness accounts of people who have experienced God.
    "millions of eye witness accounts of people who have experienced God"
    Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and much worse when you consider their "eyewitness account" is nothing but a personal experience. 
    Then I suppose I will have to throw out ever single testimony of every single scientist who claims to have witnessed results of every single test that has ever been performed in the name of science.  And without their results, which is their testimony, no conclusions can be drawn.
    If an individual scientists's results cannot be replicated or verified, yes they should be thrown out. That's how the scientific method works. We don't just take a scientist at their word.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    @Sonofason ;If you believe Genesis is literally true, you are admitting you have no desire to actually understand science. If you can take the word of an old fable of unknown origins to be truth, but can't accept the evidence of evolution, I can't help you. Yes it would require me to do research, because despite my knowledge of the various tests that have been performed, I don't keep my own records to be able to quickly provide evidence for others. Again, I'm not going to waste my time. You claim to have seen evidence and have not been convinced. Either you are a and haven't looked at anything, or - because it goes against a literal interpretation of Genesis, it cannot possibly be true. Well guess what? All evidence for evolution disproves a literal Genesis account. 
    That is incorrect.  I believe in science when I see convincing evidence that the science is true.  I believe in God when I become convinced that God is real.  I believe in the Bible when I am convinced that the Bible is true.  I am open to someone disproving the Bible.  But if you are going to do that, you better show more evidence than you have so far shown that evolution is true. Because I have been shown by many atheists numerous supposed inconsistencies in the Bible, claims that I have so far proven all false, simply by employing logic and reason.  Now that I see no inconsistencies in the Bible, why in hell should I believe it's false.  That along with the fact that I believe that I have experienced God, why ought I not be compelled to believe the Bible is true?

    Trust me, I knew that you would not be capable of providing evidence for evolution.  You do indeed have great faith in your science.
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason The difference in your Bible/painting analogy is the landscape isn't expecting others to worship it, follow it, and obey it, nor is it threatening eternal damnation for failing to do so.

    So if you claim the Bible is nothing but various, unknown authors who wrote their experiences down (curious how anyone experienced creation prior to humans existing, or who was with Jesus when he was in the desert being tempted, but I digress), and later had a group of people decide which writings should be put together to form a religion...why should anyone care what it says? At least other religions claim their book is from their god. I'm not basing my life decisions based off anonymous, ancient writings.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Question, where did the first life form get it's RNA?
    There is no clear answer to this, but it's also irrelevant. This debate is about evolution, and the origins of life is not something evolution addresses.
    I'm sorry, it is most relevant.  If the first life forms got their RNA from the environment, then it is possible that all DNA comes from the environment as well.  Animals that God created with similar dust particles would produce animals with the greatest similarities.  No need for evolution.  I'm not saying evolution is not true.  But if you can't prove it is true, why should I believe it is true?

  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Fr3ak said:
    There is plenty of evidence to suggest evoloutino is real, whereas there is only fairy tales and and a really old old book to suggest god is real.
    Yes, of course, especially if you discount the evidence of millions upon millions of eye witness accounts of people who have experienced God.
    "millions of eye witness accounts of people who have experienced God"
    Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and much worse when you consider their "eyewitness account" is nothing but a personal experience. 
    Then I suppose I will have to throw out ever single testimony of every single scientist who claims to have witnessed results of every single test that has ever been performed in the name of science.  And without their results, which is their testimony, no conclusions can be drawn.
    If an individual scientists's results cannot be replicated or verified, yes they should be thrown out. That's how the scientific method works. We don't just take a scientist at their word.
    I experience the holy spirit.  Christ told me how.  And I replicated and verified his method.  That's how faith works.  We don't just take the Bible at its word.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    @Sonofason The difference in your Bible/painting analogy is the landscape isn't expecting others to worship it, follow it, and obey it, nor is it threatening eternal damnation for failing to do so.

    So if you claim the Bible is nothing but various, unknown authors who wrote their experiences down (curious how anyone experienced creation prior to humans existing, or who was with Jesus when he was in the desert being tempted, but I digress), and later had a group of people decide which writings should be put together to form a religion...why should anyone care what it says? At least other religions claim their book is from their god. I'm not basing my life decisions based off anonymous, ancient writings.
    You are clearly confused.  The Bible is a book, it is not a religion.  Many proponents of the Bible do believe that it is the literal word of God. Maybe it is.  I do not believe that to be the case, yet I believe that it is 100% accurate.  At least, I have not been able to discount any part of it.  Believe me, I've tried.

    It is possible that God spoke to Moses and told him about creation.  It could be that Genesis wasn't even written by Moses.  It could have been written by someone who knew Adam for all I know.  
    It could be that Genesis is nothing more than a cute little story parents told their children throughout the ages.  I don't know.  But I cannot show that it is false, and neither can you.

    I honestly don't care if anyone cares what the Bible says.  I have been convinced that it is true, and that is all it takes for me to believe it is true.  I couldn't care less what you and others believe. Well, I care a little, but I understand, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    Sonofason said:
    @melanielust I might be able to be persuaded if your arguments for Creation are good enough (which would be challenging, since evidence for a God, let alone Creation, is lacking). Also, is there evidence that Adam and Eve existed, let alone made from mud and someone's ribs?
    The very mention of Adam and Eve is evidence of Adam and Eve.  This clearly is weak circumstantial evidence, but it is evidence, which of course is what you asked for.
    Don't know how I missed this ridiculous comment. By this logic, the very mention of Gandalf is evidence of Gandalf. The very mention of Harry Potter is evidence of Harry Potter. Do you not see how fallacious that idea is? Just because something is mentioned, doesn't make it true.
    melanielust
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    "yet I believe that it is 100% accurate.  At least, I have not been able to discount any part of it.  Believe me, I've tried."
    No, you haven't tried. The creation account is not 100% accurate, neither is the story of Adam and Eve, the story of a global flood - and that's just the first book of the Bible. Why do you believe it's 100% accurate? Have you found any evidence to actually support the stories? Or do you believe it's accurate because it says it is?

    "It is possible that God spoke to Moses and told him about creation."
    Perhaps, but first you'd have to prove Moses ever existed. There's no evidence to support this idea.

    " It could have been written by someone who knew Adam for all I know.  
    It could be that Genesis is nothing more than a cute little story parents told their children throughout the ages.  I don't know.  But I cannot show that it is false, and neither can you."
    It has been proven false. We know the universe is older than 6,000 years old. We know people have been on this planet longer than 6,000 years. We know there was no global flood in the past 4-5 thousand years. We know the Jews were never enslaved by Egypt.

    "It could have been written by..."
    It could also be completely untrue...as the evidence against it would suggest. 

    "I have been convinced that it is true, and that is all it takes for me to believe it is true.  I couldn't care less what you and others believe."
    Then why are we having this discussion? How do you know it's true? Your discernment from God? If that's all it takes and no evidence to the contrary can convince you otherwise, this is simply a waste of time. I'm interested in debates with people who at least try to come up with some evidence to support it, not just, "this is what I believe because I said so."
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    Sonofason said:
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Question, where did the first life form get it's RNA?
    There is no clear answer to this, but it's also irrelevant. This debate is about evolution, and the origins of life is not something evolution addresses.
    I'm sorry, it is most relevant.  If the first life forms got their RNA from the environment, then it is possible that all DNA comes from the environment as well.  Animals that God created with similar dust particles would produce animals with the greatest similarities.  No need for evolution.  I'm not saying evolution is not true.  But if you can't prove it is true, why should I believe it is true?


    @Sonofason ;Let me make myself quite clear. Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the origins of life. You can insist it should be able to answer the question all day, but that is not what the theory is about. You may as well ask how does a carbonated beverage produce life. It's just as relevant as evolution.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    @melanielust I might be able to be persuaded if your arguments for Creation are good enough (which would be challenging, since evidence for a God, let alone Creation, is lacking). Also, is there evidence that Adam and Eve existed, let alone made from mud and someone's ribs?
    The very mention of Adam and Eve is evidence of Adam and Eve.  This clearly is weak circumstantial evidence, but it is evidence, which of course is what you asked for.
    Don't know how I missed this ridiculous comment. By this logic, the very mention of Gandalf is evidence of Gandalf. The very mention of Harry Potter is evidence of Harry Potter. Do you not see how fallacious that idea is? Just because something is mentioned, doesn't make it true.
    Of course not.  You see, I have done my research, and I know that J. K. Rowling, the author and creator of Harry Potter, and Gandalf "conceived the idea of Harry Potter in 1990 while sitting on a delayed train from Manchester to London King’s Cross."  No author of any book of the Bible has ever admitted that their narratives were fictional, but clearly believed that what they wrote was true.  You may not find this significant, but it is significant.  Not everyone can be as reasonable as I.  And so I understand where you are coming from...I truly do.
    https://www.jkrowling.com/about/
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Question, where did the first life form get it's RNA?
    There is no clear answer to this, but it's also irrelevant. This debate is about evolution, and the origins of life is not something evolution addresses.
    I'm sorry, it is most relevant.  If the first life forms got their RNA from the environment, then it is possible that all DNA comes from the environment as well.  Animals that God created with similar dust particles would produce animals with the greatest similarities.  No need for evolution.  I'm not saying evolution is not true.  But if you can't prove it is true, why should I believe it is true?


    @Sonofason ;Let me make myself quite clear. Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the origins of life. You can insist it should be able to answer the question all day, but that is not what the theory is about. You may as well ask how does a carbonated beverage produce life. It's just as relevant as evolution.
    Naturally, the pair are mutually exclusive. Unless you have convinced yourself that evolution has creationist origins. How does that work? Is there an alternative to big bangism?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    "yet I believe that it is 100% accurate.  At least, I have not been able to discount any part of it.  Believe me, I've tried."
    No, you haven't tried. The creation account is not 100% accurate, neither is the story of Adam and Eve, the story of a global flood - and that's just the first book of the Bible. Why do you believe it's 100% accurate? Have you found any evidence to actually support the stories? Or do you believe it's accurate because it says it is?

    "It is possible that God spoke to Moses and told him about creation."
    Perhaps, but first you'd have to prove Moses ever existed. There's no evidence to support this idea.

    " It could have been written by someone who knew Adam for all I know.  
    It could be that Genesis is nothing more than a cute little story parents told their children throughout the ages.  I don't know.  But I cannot show that it is false, and neither can you."
    It has been proven false. We know the universe is older than 6,000 years old. We know people have been on this planet longer than 6,000 years. We know there was no global flood in the past 4-5 thousand years. We know the Jews were never enslaved by Egypt.

    "It could have been written by..."
    It could also be completely untrue...as the evidence against it would suggest. 

    "I have been convinced that it is true, and that is all it takes for me to believe it is true.  I couldn't care less what you and others believe."
    Then why are we having this discussion? How do you know it's true? Your discernment from God? If that's all it takes and no evidence to the contrary can convince you otherwise, this is simply a waste of time. I'm interested in debates with people who at least try to come up with some evidence to support it, not just, "this is what I believe because I said so."
    No.  I said, "I believe that it (the bible) is 100% accurate".
    You do not know me in the slightest degree, and therefore you do not get to decide what I have or have not done.  Nor do you have a clue what I am capable of doing.
    You telling me, without any evidence whatsoever, that the story of Adam and Eve, and the story of a global flood is not accurate means absolutely nothing to me.  I have seen a great deal of evidence which supports both stories.  I have so far dismantled every single argument that I have ever seen constructed for the purpose of discrediting or refuting the truth that is contained in the Bible.  And now I will destroy yours as well.

    The Bible never claims that the age of the universe is only 6,000 years old.  
    The Bible never claims that people were not present on this planet more then 6,000 years.
    And even if the Bible did make such a claim, the people who lived 6,000 years ago were under no obligation to define mankind as mankind is defined today, and it could be very well true that by their standards, no man existed prior to 6,000 years ago, because Adam was the first man.

    You do not know there was no global flood.  Try providing evidence for this unsupported claim of yours, that is if you care to get my attention.

  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Question, where did the first life form get it's RNA?
    There is no clear answer to this, but it's also irrelevant. This debate is about evolution, and the origins of life is not something evolution addresses.
    I'm sorry, it is most relevant.  If the first life forms got their RNA from the environment, then it is possible that all DNA comes from the environment as well.  Animals that God created with similar dust particles would produce animals with the greatest similarities.  No need for evolution.  I'm not saying evolution is not true.  But if you can't prove it is true, why should I believe it is true?


    @Sonofason ;Let me make myself quite clear. Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the origins of life. You can insist it should be able to answer the question all day, but that is not what the theory is about. You may as well ask how does a carbonated beverage produce life. It's just as relevant as evolution.
    Your right, evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the origins of life.  We are in agreement then.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason
    The age of the universe is 13.8 billion years ago and has been confirmed by direct observation of the cosmic microwave background as well as the expansion rate of the universe.

    "no man existed prior to 6,000 years ago, because Adam was the first man."
    We have fossil records proving homo sapien man has existed far longer than just 6,000 years. What evidence do you have to back up your claim?

    "You do not know there was no global flood."
    Actually, we do. Take a look at this list of ancient buildings and how many of them had been built during the time of the flood as well as immediately afterwards.


    Had there been a global flood, some of these ancient buildings would have been destroyed, and those built just after the flood wouldn't have had enough people on the entire planet to pull it off.

    Fortunately we do understand population growth rates, and by around 2,000 BCE there were approximately 27 million people on this planet; something that would not have been possible had there just been a flood within the past few hundred years.

    There are also many calendars that predate the flood. For example, the Chinese calendar predates the flood by over 2,000 years. Again, had everyone except Noah and his family died, this calendar would have stopped at that point. Even if someone managed to find this calendar, no one would be able to understand it to be able to start it again. The same can be said of the Yazidi calendar, which also happens to be older than the 6,000 year universe young earth creationists like to cling to. Again, how would these calendars have continued on when no one would have been alive to understand the language they were in?

    This leads me to languages. We have many languages and writing styles that existed prior to this flood, and still somehow continued on afterwards. For example, Egypt's hieroglyphics predate the flood by hundreds of years, and had there been a global flood, they would have stopped immediately...but they didn't. There is clear documentation of many cultures around the world that have existed for thousands upon thousands of years, and show no sign of ever having been killed off.

    Lastly, something many creationists like to jump on are the stories from around the world the are claimed to corroborate the story of the flood. First of all, every story takes place at different times, in different places, and all involve floods that began by different means. Secondly, how would these stories be complete had the people who were writing them been killed? 

    So what's the big issue with the claim of a global flood? The rest of the world didn't notice and couldn't be bothered. 

    melanielust
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason
    "I know that J. K. Rowling, the author and creator of Harry Potter, and Gandalf"
    You haven't done much research if you believe Rowling came up with Gandalf. Either way, who's to say the idea didn't come to her from a supernatural origin, and that the stories were actually true?

    "No author of any book of the Bible has ever admitted that their narratives were fictional, but clearly believed that what they wrote was true. "
    The same can be said of most other religious texts. The thing is, I don't care what they believed to be true, I care about what actually is true. You're also making a claim on the character of the authors. Just like you want to point out I don't know you, you don't know the authors. You've never met them or spent any time with them, so how can you know (let me stress the word, "know" not "believe", that they actually believed it? And again, why should I care what they believed was true?
    melanielust
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    @Sonofason
    The age of the universe is 13.8 billion years ago and has been confirmed by direct observation of the cosmic microwave background as well as the expansion rate of the universe.

    "no man existed prior to 6,000 years ago, because Adam was the first man."
    We have fossil records proving homo sapien man has existed far longer than just 6,000 years. What evidence do you have to back up your claim?

    "You do not know there was no global flood."
    Actually, we do. Take a look at this list of ancient buildings and how many of them had been built during the time of the flood as well as immediately afterwards.


    Had there been a global flood, some of these ancient buildings would have been destroyed, and those built just after the flood wouldn't have had enough people on the entire planet to pull it off.

    Fortunately we do understand population growth rates, and by around 2,000 BCE there were approximately 27 million people on this planet; something that would not have been possible had there just been a flood within the past few hundred years.

    There are also many calendars that predate the flood. For example, the Chinese calendar predates the flood by over 2,000 years. Again, had everyone except Noah and his family died, this calendar would have stopped at that point. Even if someone managed to find this calendar, no one would be able to understand it to be able to start it again. The same can be said of the Yazidi calendar, which also happens to be older than the 6,000 year universe young earth creationists like to cling to. Again, how would these calendars have continued on when no one would have been alive to understand the language they were in?

    This leads me to languages. We have many languages and writing styles that existed prior to this flood, and still somehow continued on afterwards. For example, Egypt's hieroglyphics predate the flood by hundreds of years, and had there been a global flood, they would have stopped immediately...but they didn't. There is clear documentation of many cultures around the world that have existed for thousands upon thousands of years, and show no sign of ever having been killed off.

    Lastly, something many creationists like to jump on are the stories from around the world the are claimed to corroborate the story of the flood. First of all, every story takes place at different times, in different places, and all involve floods that began by different means. Secondly, how would these stories be complete had the people who were writing them been killed? 

    So what's the big issue with the claim of a global flood? The rest of the world didn't notice and couldn't be bothered. 

    I don't know if the earth is 13.8 billion years ago...that's your claim.  Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong.
    The expansion rate of the universe is not likely a constant.  And I have never observed background radiation.  Why should I believe it even exists?
    I don't know if you have any homo sapien fossils, let alone whether or not you know how old they are.  What evidence do you have to back this claim up?

    You don't know there was not a global flood.
    And your link doesn't work.

    I understand population growth rates, and I know you can reach 150 million people in less than 400 years easily.  

    The Chinese calendar did not begin at year zero.  The beginning was estimated based on the estimated true age of the earth, likely based on real and valid information, probably from Noah himself lol..

    Again, calendars don't mean anything, unless you got the guy in your pocket that created it.


    You have nothing of anything that even resembles evidence.  Thus I will continue to believe in a literal translation of the bible...thx.

  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    @Sonofason
    "I know that J. K. Rowling, the author and creator of Harry Potter, and Gandalf"
    You haven't done much research if you believe Rowling came up with Gandalf. Either way, who's to say the idea didn't come to her from a supernatural origin, and that the stories were actually true?

    "No author of any book of the Bible has ever admitted that their narratives were fictional, but clearly believed that what they wrote was true. "
    The same can be said of most other religious texts. The thing is, I don't care what they believed to be true, I care about what actually is true. You're also making a claim on the character of the authors. Just like you want to point out I don't know you, you don't know the authors. You've never met them or spent any time with them, so how can you know (let me stress the word, "know" not "believe", that they actually believed it? And again, why should I care what they believed was true?
    I have a tendency to believe what people say, until they prove themselves to be liars, like those pseudo scientists that keep talking about all this evidence that every single one of them seems incapable of providing.
    Erfisflat
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Question, where did the first life form get it's RNA?
    There is no clear answer to this, but it's also irrelevant. This debate is about evolution, and the origins of life is not something evolution addresses.
    I'm sorry, it is most relevant.  If the first life forms got their RNA from the environment, then it is possible that all DNA comes from the environment as well.  Animals that God created with similar dust particles would produce animals with the greatest similarities.  No need for evolution.  I'm not saying evolution is not true.  But if you can't prove it is true, why should I believe it is true?


    @Sonofason ;Let me make myself quite clear. Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the origins of life. You can insist it should be able to answer the question all day, but that is not what the theory is about. You may as well ask how does a carbonated beverage produce life. It's just as relevant as evolution.
    Naturally, the pair are mutually exclusive. Unless you have convinced yourself that evolution has creationist origins. How does that work? Is there an alternative to big bangism?
    Definitely not mutually exclusive.  Evolution could be true.  Irregardless, God is the cause.
    God said let there be light..."Bang" And by God, there was light.
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    I'm not sure why the link didn't work, but we'll try it again.


    As far as your "argument" is concerned, it's based on ignorance. First off, I didn't claim the earth is 13.8 billion years, I said it's 4.5 billion years. Just because you don't want to take the time to investigate the claims doesn't make them false. Just because you don't understand how these things work, doesn't mean they don't. Just because you can get from 8 people to 150 million in just 4 years, doesn't mean it happened; and it certainly didn't if you consider the actual growth statistics, not those you have to make up to make it work. 

    With regards to the Chinese calendar, my point is that people were using this calendar before the supposed flood, and after, but had the flood actually occured, those who used it and understood the calendar would have died off. 

    You can keep claiming I don't know there was not a global flood, but I do know it, because the rest of the world didn't even notice it. 

    Rather than trying to poke holes in my arguments, what evidence do you have to back up your claim? What evidence do you have to validate the Bible as truth? This is where all conversations with Christians lead, to the point in which their only argument is, "you can't prove it didn't happen", and when we do prove it, "well, I don't care what scienctists say. It makes more sense to trust ancient goat herders rather than those currently alive who have made it their life's work to understand our universe and our planet."
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    I'm not sure why the link didn't work, but we'll try it again.


    As far as your "argument" is concerned, it's based on ignorance. First off, I didn't claim the earth is 13.8 billion years, I said it's 4.5 billion years. Just because you don't want to take the time to investigate the claims doesn't make them false. Just because you don't understand how these things work, doesn't mean they don't. Just because you can get from 8 people to 150 million in just 4 years, doesn't mean it happened; and it certainly didn't if you consider the actual growth statistics, not those you have to make up to make it work. 

    With regards to the Chinese calendar, my point is that people were using this calendar before the supposed flood, and after, but had the flood actually occured, those who used it and understood the calendar would have died off. 

    You can keep claiming I don't know there was not a global flood, but I do know it, because the rest of the world didn't even notice it. 

    Rather than trying to poke holes in my arguments, what evidence do you have to back up your claim? What evidence do you have to validate the Bible as truth? This is where all conversations with Christians lead, to the point in which their only argument is, "you can't prove it didn't happen", and when we do prove it, "well, I don't care what scienctists say. It makes more sense to trust ancient goat herders rather than those currently alive who have made it their life's work to understand our universe and our planet."
    Nothing I say is based on ignorance.
    You're right, you didn't say the earth was 13.8 billion years old.  But it doesn't really matter, as you neither know the age of the universe, nor the age of the earth.  You have various dating methods but no hard evidence that any of them are accurate.

    Do tell me what the actual population growth statistics were 4,000 years ago again?  Please show your work.

    I have already shown valid reason why you cannot count any calendar as valid evidence in any regard to whether or not there was a great flood that covered the earth with water.

    Name the person who started the Chinese calendar please.

    I haven't claimed anything other than the fact that none of your claims can be considered valid evidence that there was no global flood.  You made the claim.  And therefore its up to you to support your claim.  I have already shown why your previous reasons, or evidence as you called it, cannot be considered valid evidence by reasonable persons.

    It's quite a fantasy that you live in if you think you have proved there was no global flood.  
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Sonofason said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Question, where did the first life form get it's RNA?
    There is no clear answer to this, but it's also irrelevant. This debate is about evolution, and the origins of life is not something evolution addresses.
    I'm sorry, it is most relevant.  If the first life forms got their RNA from the environment, then it is possible that all DNA comes from the environment as well.  Animals that God created with similar dust particles would produce animals with the greatest similarities.  No need for evolution.  I'm not saying evolution is not true.  But if you can't prove it is true, why should I believe it is true?


    @Sonofason ;Let me make myself quite clear. Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the origins of life. You can insist it should be able to answer the question all day, but that is not what the theory is about. You may as well ask how does a carbonated beverage produce life. It's just as relevant as evolution.
    Naturally, the pair are mutually exclusive. Unless you have convinced yourself that evolution has creationist origins. How does that work? Is there an alternative to big bangism?
    Definitely not mutually exclusive.  Evolution could be true.  Irregardless, God is the cause.
    God said let there be light..."Bang" And by God, there was light.
    and your general idea is that Adam came from:

    1. 
    As evolution proposes?
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    If you look for evidence of a great flood, you find evidence of a great flood.


    If you seek evidence that no flood occurred, you must fabricate your own evidence, and ignore the available evidence.
    Evidence
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    @melanielust ; Actually, there is plenty of evidence for a being which exists outside of our universe, although for this post, I'll stick to the strongest, which is the nature of time and causality. All modern physics is based upon the Principle of Universal Causation, which states that a) everything must have a cause, b) a cause must precede its effect) and c) a cause must be sufficient for its effect (ie. you can't move a 20lb weight with 10lbs of force). This principle is considered to hold true for everything in our universe. However, if we assume that nothing exists outside our universe, we get a paradox. Either at some point there was a first cause, which would, by definition (see "first") would not have a cause. OR we have a never ending chain of causes which goes backwards in time infinitely. If the first is true, then something exists outside of the observable universe, which proves my point. The second option is impossible. First off since time can be observed and measured, it would need a cause, and since a cause must precede its effect, and that which has no beginning cannot be preceded, time itself had to have a beginning. Furthermore, the idea of an infinite backwards chain in time is mathematically impossible. Negatives cannot be physically expressed. You cannot have negative fingers or negative toes. Money can only be expressed as negative when viewing a balance, however negative bills worth a negative weight in Gold cannot be found. Since time is physical (its a factor in several physics equations such as distance divided by time equals speed)
    and can be observed, measured, and calculated, it cannot be negative (it can be expressed in a negative in the same since that if you have 10 fingers and add negative 2, you now have 8. Its really just taking away, not dipping below zero which is what I mean when I say negative). And even if negatives could be physically expressed, the number line is still problematic in a world with no beginning. In such a world, the number line begins at negative infinity, and ends at infinity. On a number line to get from negative infinity to infinity, you must cross zero. Zero is a unique number, and its considered the starting point of numbers. Its the only number you can't divide by, its the only number where you get the same result when you multiply by it by other numbers(0) or use it as an exponent (1). Its the only number that has no effect when its added or subtracted. Its pretty easy for a trained mathematician to look at a graph and see where zero is in the place of a variable because many graphs display weird behavior at this point (for instance a standard parabola starts to go from a negative to positive slope at this point). All number lines have a point zero, and in a universe with no beginning, where would point zero be? And most importantly, infinity is not a true number but a concept. Numerically, infinity can never be reached. So if the universe were infinitely old, the it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present. Since infinity cannot be reached, we shouldn't have been able to reach this point if the world were infinitely old. Its not as problematic on the positive side of the line, as its understood as an idea, and true numbers can be used to describe any point, infinity is only used as a shortcut so that we don't spend an eternity expressing simple ideas. An infinite chain of causes going back in time is impossible scientifically and numerically, and therefore there was a first cause. Since nothing in our observable universe can happen unless caused, something must exist outside the observable universe, it must have preceded time, and must have more force and energy than what can be found in our universe, otherwise the cause would not be sufficient for the effect. Science is the study of the observable universe, and Science hasn't proven God for the same reason that math hasn't proven the that ain't is considered grammatically incorrect. Entirely different subject. Anything which exists outside of the observable universe is outside the domain of science, however when deeply analyzed science does provide us with plenty of reason to believe that something exists beyond what can be observed by science.
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    @therep What the 30 year dog experiment proves is that rapid change can occur. This actually favors young earth creationism as micro-evolution is not denied by young earth creationists. The word kinds implied a broader category than the modern term species. The fact that evolution can happen so fast fits within the 6,000 year time frame and explains how all the animals were able to fit on the ark as well, as there are far less "kinds" than species." The Theory of Evolution suggests that all life came from a single bacteria millions of years ago, which is known as macro-evolution, and that is what is denied by young earth creationists. The fact that wolves will start acting like dogs shows that dogs and wolves probably had a common ancestor, which is logical given how similar the two are other than features which can logically be explained as adaptations to the wild as opposed to domestication. However, it doesn't suggest that humans came from bacteria billions of years ago, which is less logical to assume given that bacteria are except for the common presence of few key chemicals found in all life, which can just as easily be explained by a common creator as it can a common ancestor, unless you do what modern scientism has done and rule the existence of God out a priori, and base the way you interpret your data based on an a priori fallacy.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    @melanielust ; Actually, there is plenty of evidence for a being which exists outside of our universe, although for this post, I'll stick to the strongest, which is the nature of time and causality. All modern physics is based upon the Principle of Universal Causation, which states that a) everything must have a cause, b) a cause must precede its effect) and c) a cause must be sufficient for its effect (ie. you can't move a 20lb weight with 10lbs of force). This principle is considered to hold true for everything in our universe. However, if we assume that nothing exists outside our universe, we get a paradox. Either at some point there was a first cause, which would, by definition (see "first") would not have a cause. OR we have a never ending chain of causes which goes backwards in time infinitely. If the first is true, then something exists outside of the observable universe, which proves my point. The second option is impossible. First off since time can be observed and measured, it would need a cause, and since a cause must precede its effect, and that which has no beginning cannot be preceded, time itself had to have a beginning. Furthermore, the idea of an infinite backwards chain in time is mathematically impossible. Negatives cannot be physically expressed. You cannot have negative fingers or negative toes. Money can only be expressed as negative when viewing a balance, however negative bills worth a negative weight in Gold cannot be found. Since time is physical (its a factor in several physics equations such as distance divided by time equals speed)
    and can be observed, measured, and calculated, it cannot be negative (it can be expressed in a negative in the same since that if you have 10 fingers and add negative 2, you now have 8. Its really just taking away, not dipping below zero which is what I mean when I say negative). And even if negatives could be physically expressed, the number line is still problematic in a world with no beginning. In such a world, the number line begins at negative infinity, and ends at infinity. On a number line to get from negative infinity to infinity, you must cross zero. Zero is a unique number, and its considered the starting point of numbers. Its the only number you can't divide by, its the only number where you get the same result when you multiply by it by other numbers(0) or use it as an exponent (1). Its the only number that has no effect when its added or subtracted. Its pretty easy for a trained mathematician to look at a graph and see where zero is in the place of a variable because many graphs display weird behavior at this point (for instance a standard parabola starts to go from a negative to positive slope at this point). All number lines have a point zero, and in a universe with no beginning, where would point zero be? And most importantly, infinity is not a true number but a concept. Numerically, infinity can never be reached. So if the universe were infinitely old, the it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present. Since infinity cannot be reached, we shouldn't have been able to reach this point if the world were infinitely old. Its not as problematic on the positive side of the line, as its understood as an idea, and true numbers can be used to describe any point, infinity is only used as a shortcut so that we don't spend an eternity expressing simple ideas. An infinite chain of causes going back in time is impossible scientifically and numerically, and therefore there was a first cause. Since nothing in our observable universe can happen unless caused, something must exist outside the observable universe, it must have preceded time, and must have more force and energy than what can be found in our universe, otherwise the cause would not be sufficient for the effect. Science is the study of the observable universe, and Science hasn't proven God for the same reason that math hasn't proven the that ain't is considered grammatically incorrect. Entirely different subject. Anything which exists outside of the observable universe is outside the domain of science, however when deeply analyzed science does provide us with plenty of reason to believe that something exists beyond what can be observed by science.
    Actually, if the 20 lb. weight is at rest in the weightless environment of space, you most certainly can move it with only 10 lbs. of force.  In fact you could move it with even less than .10 lbs. of force.

    But, I digress...in general, I agree with the point you are trying to make.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    "Actually, if the 20 lb. weight is at rest in the weightless environment of space, you most certainly can move it with only 10 lbs. of force.  In fact you could move it with even less than .10 lbs. of force."

    Where is the evidence for this? @Sonofason
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason Actually, the "space" you reference is supposedly a weightless environment. Nothing would weigh 20lbs in space, or have any weight at all for that matter. 
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason Actually, the "space" you reference is supposedly a weightless environment. Nothing would weigh 20lbs in space, or have any weight at all for that matter. 
    True...and there is no such thing as a 10 lb. force either.
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    Yes there is. Lbs is a measure of force, not weight, and force can still be exerted in space. Weight refers to the force of gravity, which isn't supposed to  be present in space. Other forces however would still be potentially present. So a 10 lb force would exist, however weight in any form would not.
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 279 Pts   -  
    @RollTide420 ;

    Pounds can refer to both a mass (weight) and a force.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)

    Using it to refer to weight is FAR more common. The usual unit of force (and the SI unit) is the Newton.
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    Weight is not the same as mass. The scientific formula for determining weight is mass times the force of gravity, or W=mg. Weight has a separate Wikipedia page page than mass.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight

    The First sentence reads "In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity"

    Weight is a force, this is why lbs, the unit for measuring force, is used to describe weight.

    The reason scientists use Newtons to measure force is because Newtons is the metric systems standard unit for measuring weight. Scientists have adopted and international standard for measuring things so that data is more easily viewed across multiple countries. The international standard for measuring things is the metric system. The reason lbs is used more in reference to weight is because non-scientistsare more likely to measure weight than other forces. However, the international scientific standard unit for measuring weight is the Newton. To verify this, please visit the Wikipedia page on weight, and in the blue box, look for "SI unit" and it will say Newtons.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch