Illumination

Grafix

@JesusisGod777888 - What are the numbers prefixed with "G".  They appear to be links, but yet don't open a link? 

I agree that Evolution is a croc and it has already been disproven by science.  The discovery of DNA also disproves it in that our DNA is unique and a separate species with an entirely different DNA and no common DNA marker could not come from another species without sharing these.  If it shared common markers, then it would not be a new species, but simply a variation of the same species, so Darwin's theory is an impossibility.
.

xlJ_dolphin_473

Grafix said:

@JesusisGod777888 - What are the numbers prefixed with "G".  They appear to be links, but yet don't open a link? 

I agree that Evolution is a croc and it has already been disproven by science.  The discovery of DNA also disproves it in that our DNA is unique and a separate species with an entirely different DNA and no common DNA marker could not come from another species without sharing these.  If it shared common markers, then it would not be a new species, but simply a variation of the same species, so Darwin's theory is an impossibility.
.

What is an example of how evolution has been disproved by science? I think it is still the best theory.

Grafix

DNA is the best example, but Dr. James Tour has shown that the life of the basic chemicals which are initially necessary to create a basic molecule, are all interdependent upon each other and they in turn interdependent  upon the cell which they ultimately create, and the cell in turn is dependent upon the whole and the whole dependent on the life of the cell and it dependent on the life of these chemicals, which are the building blocks necessary to create a cell in the first place.  Therefore any "new" design of a new creature must all happen instantaneously, virtually at the speed of light, which is the speed at which all energy travels and cannot happen over gradual change, otherwise the cells will die before the whole is formed which they are interdependent upon.  Further, if they change and develop to such a degree that they become "alienated" from the system which they are dependent upon they would also die.  It's very complicated.  I could put up a video for you, but it won't be a short one.

Once you have your first "new" design of a creature, then offspring can grow slowly in the womb or egg, though, because it has access to all of the DNA and cells markers which life is dependent upon through its mother, but the very first of any species does not have that access or support to grow slowly.  If it grew slowly the cells would die having no DNA information or other cells support.

Happy_Killbot

I actually kind of feel bad for this 777888 character, he is delusional and a habitual , which suggests some kind of childhood trauma. The guy most likely needs professional help, not religion.

xlJ_dolphin_473

Grafix said:

DNA is the best example, but Dr. James Tour has shown that the life of the basic chemicals which are initially necessary to create a basic molecule, are all interdependent upon each other and they in turn interdependent  upon the cell which they ultimately create, and the cell in turn is dependent upon the whole and the whole dependent on the life of the cell and it dependent on the life of these chemicals, which are the building blocks necessary to create a cell in the first place.  Therefore any "new" design of a new creature must all happen instantaneously, virtually at the speed of light, which is the speed at which all energy travels and cannot happen over gradual change, otherwise the cells will die before the whole is formed which they are interdependent upon.  Further, if they change and develop to such a degree that they become "alienated" from the system which they are dependent upon they would also die.  It's very complicated.  I could put up a video for you, but it won't be a short one.

Once you have your first "new" design of a creature, then it can grow slowly in the womb, though, because it has access to all of the DNA and cells markers which life is dependent upon through its mother, but the very first of any species does not have that access or support to grow slowly.  If it grew slowly the cells would die having no DNA information or other cells support.

That is interesting, but interdependency doesn't mean that it would have to have been created at the speed of light. There could have been one part, then a second part which is dependent on the first, making the first depending on the second. Also, if you quote me, like this: '@xlJ_dolphin_473' then your comment will show up in my Notifications, meaning I can respond quicker, rather than having to search through for comments that reply to mine. Thank you.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You need to delete that comment mate, and fast.  It is very hurtful and wrong.  The worst demonstration of mental abuse by you.  Delete it, mate.  I do understand.  Don't think I don't, but compassion is the better part of valour and even error of judgement.  Your perceptions in no way provide any reason not to debate the topic.  It is a viable one, so get on board. There could be multiple reasons for the perception, which at the end of the day is all you have to go on.  He posts a lot and therefore is a member of the community and deserves a platform.  We cannot judge what we do not know.  As for calling someone a .  I see liars in just about every post that rebut my posts.

Grafix

@xlJ_dolphin_473 - I usually do click on the arrow to bring up the return notification.  Apologies.  I did forget.  

The work of Dr. James Tour, who is the world's leading synthetic, molecular chemist and bio-chemist, including the world's leader in the science of nano-technology, reveals that the four chemicals you need to start with to build a molecule "go off" very rapidly and die if the molecule is not built instantly.  Also for the molecule to live, it needs the cell and for the cell to live it needs the whole, so if it takes too long to build the molecule with its very building blocks, the chemicals die and the molecule dies with them.  If it takes too long to build the cell the same thing happens to the cell, the molecules die and the cell dies and so it goes like this all the way along the chain unless the whole is built instantly.

Further, he has proved that without DNA information, which is like a manual, an instruction book, the molecules don't know how to order themselves in the correct way in order to build what needs to be built to create each feature in a new species.  They don't even know to attach themselves to each other in order to correctly form a cell. This is because nature has no mind, no intellect.  Also nature cannot make DNA, for the reason that it cannot be replicated.  A cell replicates itself through the process of splitting and creating another identical cell.  DNA can't do that.  It can only be copied, meaning it can only be inherited by copying, not by replication.  So if nature cannot make DNA, where does it come from every time an egg is fertilised, given that each one of us has a unique DNA?  We inherit our parent's DNA, but then there must be new DNA as well, otherwise we would be an exact replica of our parents and we aren't.  No two people's DNA is the same, not even that of identical twins.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix What is wrong with you? You want to deny someone professional psychological help, in defense of your beliefs?

Do you really want to enable psychosis?

I have had a lot more interaction with this guy than you have, he has problems. He makes stuff up and is very condescending. When he gets pushed into a corner, he declares himself an expert on the issue. He is claiming that he has "... already met Jesus Christ God in Heaven, what atheists won't ever understand. And so have other Christians." That isn't healthy, that is delusion. People usually claim this kind of thing right before the shoot up a club or something because "God told me to" These types need actual help, not belief.

@JesusisGod777888
https://www.betterhelp.com/helpme/?utm_source=AdWords&utm_medium=Search_PPC_c&utm_term=%2Bonline+%2Bpsychiatry_b&utm_content=35881978023&network=g&placement=&target=&matchtype=b&utm_campaign=371722090&ad_type=text&adposition=&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIgK6SuaH35wIVS5yzCh0qtQ_zEAAYASAAEgJNhfD_BwE&not_found=1&gor=helpme

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Happy K, I don't think your hurtful remarks are going to bring any professional help at all, but only cause deep hurt to someone who is undeserving of your cruel remarks, possibly someone who has no defence against them and that's the point.  The difference is you can call me a and delusional and I can defend myself and give you a jolly good serve in return, but to do so in certain circumstances is just not on.  If you can't see what you have done, then there is no redeeming you from it.  I urge you to delete the text.  I realize you can't delete the dialogue box, so write something else.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Your remarks are unconscionable given the circumstances.  It is actually highly likely that he has experienced some kind of epiphany given the extremely clear, unadulterated and obvious devotion to the Lord and God, which is clearly deeply felt, and in the circumstances therefore the very reason for the high possibility of its truth, when taking into account that which  I don't need to describe but which you see no need for any tactful means to convey.  So, honestly, where is your humanity?  I strongly urge you now delete by overwriting with other text.  If you are too proud to make these retractions, then you DO need to reconsider who you are.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Am I talking about you? No, this guy, the OP, @JesusisGod777888 , probably has an actual problem.

It is therefore, a moral imperative that I leave the comment up, because if that individual needs help then they might need the help from someone else to get them to realize that need professional help.

Spiritual psychosis is a thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFq3TGa2Q9c

Would you rather take the risk and let this person live their lives without the help they need, or action and actually help them?

It is completely wrong for you to suggest that it is in any way wrong for me to suggest that someone might need professional help, and arguably immoral, because if they do need help and you don't support it, you are trying to keep them in their delusion.

Grafix

LOOK, mate.  The honourable thing to do is just debate the topic and leave off with the personal attack stuff, let alone repeating it over again.  The first measure of a humane and compassionate person is one who can put themselves in the shoes of others. Please give it a try and imagine if it were you.
.
Other commenters are not as dumb as you make out.  Why can't you behave like a decent adult when it is most needed?  No-one is going to take any notice of your remarks, particularly not in the way you have couched  them, so you are not achieving anything but cruelty and nor will they change knee jerk reactions to comments.  Besides, from what I can see, he is not intending to get into the debate, anyway, so can we just drop this, as this discussion in and of itself is not helpful either and likely to do more damage than good.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Personal attack?

This isn't a personal attack!

This guy might have an actual neurological condition if he seriously believes that he has been to heaven and met Jesus.

If you saw someone having a seizure on a subway would you tell anyone they were personally attacking the bystander who points it out?

No! That would be immoral, but for some reason I point out that there is most likely psychosis here in the OP and it's a "personal attack" This guy needs professional help.

Religious psychosis is a real thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atf8cIUmE6E

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Let's change the subject.

How about you debate me on the question of your claim that the occurrences of supernatural experiences where people claim to have had visions of a religious nature - such as interacting with Mary the mother of Jesus, which is the most common - do not and cannot happen, according to you.  Give me your arguments why you don't believe these visions are possible, worse that you believe it always signifies someone is on the edge and about to go out and shoot up a club or something, as you put it.  I am aghast that this is your very narrow knowledge of the world. 

I can give you examples, credible examples, researched for over a hundred years and verified to be factual visions and factual interactions with the supernatural.involving children whose lives were threatened if they refused to retract their claims.  They stood by their claims in spite of being threatened with being boiled to death in drums of boiling oil - the oldest 13 and the youngest 6 years old.  Who do you know at that age who would defend a lie with their life?  .

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix How about we start another timed debate on that, with a third party to set it up?

 3 rounds 30 minutes each, title something like: "Are all supernatural experiences delusions?"

How does that sound? I don't like going in to these sub-comments and it is slightly off topic anyways.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - OK I am more than willing to do that, but because I have clients and occasional time constraints, I cannot always get to the forum, and as I don't know how the time restriction works, I need to understand that before I can agree to that style of platform. 

Does the 30 minute bracket begin once I open the response mechanism, meaning I have 30 minutes in which to complete my reply OR does it mean that I must respond within 30 minutes of your posting a response?  If it is the latter, then I can't accept that as a platform, given my possible inability to get to the forum.  I would also have to think about the title of the debate topic.  How do you get a third party to set it up.  Why can't we just agree on the terms and set it up ourselves?

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix It is from the time of post. If you are busy right now, we can postpone it for the time being. The way it works is that after the designated time the next round starts. The rounds happen at the same time, so for 30 minute rounds it would end in 1 hour and 30 minutes.

To get a third party we ask someone else who happens to be online, It's more to guarantee fairness than anything else, and it isn't required.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot -  Can you clarify what happens in each 30 minute time bloc, i.e. is that designated to allow one party only to post their argument in that 30 minute bloc OR do we go back and forth in that time bloc?  Why three time blocs and why are they separated?  Am fine with the third party suggestion, but think we should have two third parties, one from each camp - one who expresses views aligned to yours and one who expresses views aligned to mine. That would mean two adjudicators, instead of one. 

Grafix

I feel really dumb now.  LOL!  I just realized what the numbers are in the OP.  They are Strong's Concordance numbers.  Big Oops!  I had forgotten all about that.  I wonder why the platform won't link to each translation.  Maybe the links need to be set up.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix There are N number of rounds, each lasts however long the set time is. for a formal-ish debate, It isn't back and forth, it is synchronous. So it would look something like this:

Debate: Are Apples or Oranges better?

Rules: No harassing the other debater

first round: state position,
second round: cross examine interlocutors position
third round: final remarks and closing statement

Round 1:

Jane: Apples are better because they are sweeter.

Jill: Oranges are better because they have more vitamin C

(t minutes elapse)
Round 2:
Jane: Apples also have lots of nutrients, and contain more fiber than oranges.

Jill: Oranges are also very sweet and make a better juice.

(t minutes elapse)
Round 3:
Jane: Apples can also be made into juice and cider, which some may prefer over orange juice.

Jill: While apples also contain lots of nutrients, an orange is better because it can give you an immune boost.

(t minutes elapse)
Voting period starts, everyone can vote on the winner, who was was the most civil, persuasive, spelling, and a few others.


For the other types of debates, it is turn based however I think that the formalish is probably the best format to use for this debate, because there is no back and forth.

Grafix

Great.  Sounds good.  So am I to understand that the 1 minute you used in the example, you are proposing be instead 30 minutes?  And how long between each round in reality?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Elsewhere in another discussion, You proposed for our debate topic the following Title ...

Title: Are supernatural and religious experiences delusions?

I think that would prove far too broad.  The topic is expansive.  There are literally thousands, if not millions, of supernatural experiences claimed and published in the public domain, in news reports, religious documents and history.  Evidence, subsequently, could wander all over the shop in the citation of these and every one of them different with varying properties and considerations, demanding enormous research to effectively rebut or defend them.  Also many are not religious experiences. The parameter in my challenge to you was religious. I propose we limit it to just one specific religious experience.

That would mean that the Title might instead read something like this:  "Prove that this claimed religious supernatural experience is delusional or is a real experience".  In your suggested ground rules, you've put together a good basis to work from.  I have a few amendments I'd like to propose for you to consider ...

GENERAL FORMAT OF ROUNDS  

1.  That there be 4 rounds spread across four days with each round lasting 1 hour - one round of 1 hour per day.  (We'll have to synchronize our time clocks - I'm currently in Australia). 
2.  We nominate the hour for the next day's debate at the end of each debate..(This allows more flexibility to fit with my time constraints.) 
3.  Arguments be itemized and numbered and as best as possible correspond with the numbers used by an opponent whenever made in reply.
4.  Editing of posts made in each round will not be permitted after the expiry of each round.  The time ea. round begins and closes be noted in the opening  post of each round, e.g.:  "This is Day 1. This round began at xxx time and           closed at xxx time.", with the closure time edited into that opening post at the end of the debate.
5.  Extensions of debate may be requested and agreed with the amount of time of the extension reflected in the opening post.

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 

1.  Grafix will open the first round's argument by nominating the religious experience to be argued. It must be one that has received wide news coverage in order that the debaters can readily access info' on it.
2.  The party who opens the round cannot end the round.  The other party reserves the right of the last reply for that round.
3.  The party who opened the previous round's argument, cannot open the next round's argument.  These must alternate.
4.  Any argument claimed to be a fallacy, should be apparent from the outset, already stated in the position or the evidence.  It is up to the opponent to prove it is a fallacy and to discredit it as evidence.
5.  Harrassing and name calling is a breach of Rules of Engagement and is grounds for forfeit.
6...Evidence must be from credible and authoritative sources with no obviously vested interest in bias against faith-based philosophies, such as Communist or Marxist sources.  George Soros-funded and owned sites are       Marxist and not permitted.  He owns over 250, which are propaganda sites and their Agenda is anti-Christian.  These cannot be considered in this debate.
7.  Video evidence such as youTube or Vimeo may not have a duration longer than 10% of the round time (6:00 minutes for a 60 minute round time)
8.  Any deviation from the procedure provided in steps 1-4 or failing to follow the rules in steps 5-10 will result in a forfeit of the debate.
.
Round 1 - Define and State Positions - As Grafix issued the original challenge, Grafix would like to reserve the right to nominate the religious experience to be debated, which must be declared at the beginning of the 1st round.  Then.each state his position and provide any evidence in support, which can be found during the duration of the first round, but with no argument in support to be made in that round. This will provide each opponent with time to research the nominated experience and also the other's submitted evidence before the next round.  

Round 2 -  Final Position & Evidence Stated + Clarification -  Position can be reviewed and re-stated with new evidence added, subsequent to the now completed research.  Final position to be now declared, followed by any questions to clarify opponent's stated position.  All communications be limited to the format of questions and answers, pertaining only to each one's stated position.  This will allows opponents to research any new evidence posited before the next round when the debate begins. No further evidence may be submitted, nor edits made to the stated position after the time expiry of this round.  

Round 3 - Conduct Debate - .Each must now posit argue their position, together with rebuttals of opponent's stated position based upon only the evidence on the table, provided by each side.  No new evidence in support can be introduced into arguments.  Only the evidence submitted can be used in argument rebutting or supporting each argument, including whatever is declared in each stated position.

Round 4 - Summaries -  Each opponent draws together a succinct summary of the strengths in his argument and a summary of the weaknesses in his opponent's argument.
.

Dee

@Grafix

*****  - You need to delete that comment mate, and fast.  It is very hurtful and wrong

It’s actually spot on and I would go further the guy like you is a habitual and like you mentally unstable, maybe if you both approached a competent psychiatrist he would do a deal on the pair of you seeing as you’re so similar 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - Elsewhere in another discussion, You proposed for our debate topic the following Title ...

Title: Are supernatural and religious experiences delusions?

I think that would prove far too broad.  The topic is expansive.  There are literally thousands, if not millions, of supernatural experiences claimed and published in the public domain, in news reports, religious documents and history.  Evidence, subsequently, could wander all over the shop in the citation of these and every one of them different with varying properties and considerations, demanding enormous research to effectively rebut or defend them.  Also many are not religious experiences. The parameter in my challenge to you was religious. I propose we limit it to just one specific religious experience.

That would mean that the Title might instead read something like this:  "Prove that this claimed religious supernatural experience is delusional or is a real experience".  In your suggested ground rules, you've put together a good basis to work from.  I have a few amendments I'd like to propose for you to consider ...

GENERAL FORMAT OF ROUNDS  

1.  That there be 4 rounds spread across four days with each round lasting 1 hour - one round of 1 hour per day.  (We'll have to synchronize our time clocks - I'm currently in Australia). 
2.  We nominate the hour for the next day's debate at the end of each debate..(This allows more flexibility to fit with my time constraints.) 
3.  Arguments be itemized and numbered and as best as possible correspond with the numbers used by an opponent whenever made in reply.
4.  Editing of posts made in each round will not be permitted after the expiry of each round.  The time ea. round begins and closes be noted in the opening  post of each round, e.g.:  "This is Day 1. This round began at xxx time and           closed at xxx time.", with the closure time edited into that opening post at the end of the debate.
5.  Extensions of debate may be requested and agreed with the amount of time of the extension reflected in the opening post.

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 

1.  Grafix will open the first round's argument by nominating the religious experience to be argued. It must be one that has received wide news coverage in order that the debaters can readily access info' on it.
2.  The party who opens the round cannot end the round.  The other party reserves the right of the last reply for that round.
3.  The party who opened the previous round's argument, cannot open the next round's argument.  These must alternate.
4.  Any argument claimed to be a fallacy, should be apparent from the outset, already stated in the position or the evidence.  It is up to the opponent to prove it is a fallacy and to discredit it as evidence.
5.  Harrassing and name calling is a breach of Rules of Engagement and is grounds for forfeit.
6...Evidence must be from credible and authoritative sources with no obviously vested interest in bias against faith-based philosophies, such as Communist or Marxist sources.  George Soros-funded and owned sites are       Marxist and not permitted.  He owns over 250, which are propaganda sites and their Agenda is anti-Christian.  These cannot be considered in this debate.
7.  Video evidence such as youTube or Vimeo may not have a duration longer than 10% of the round time (6:00 minutes for a 60 minute round time)
8.  Any deviation from the procedure provided in steps 1-4 or failing to follow the rules in steps 5-10 will result in a forfeit of the debate.
.
Round 1 - Define and State Positions - As Grafix issued the original challenge, Grafix would like to reserve the right to nominate the religious experience to be debated, which must be declared at the beginning of the 1st round.  Then.each state his position and provide any evidence in support, which can be found during the duration of the first round, but with no argument in support to be made in that round. This will provide each opponent with time to research the nominated experience and also the other's submitted evidence before the next round.  

Round 2 -  Final Position & Evidence Stated + Clarification -  Position can be reviewed and re-stated with new evidence added, subsequent to the now completed research.  Final position to be now declared, followed by any questions to clarify opponent's stated position.  All communications be limited to the format of questions and answers, pertaining only to each one's stated position.  This will allows opponents to research any new evidence posited before the next round when the debate begins. No further evidence may be submitted, nor edits made to the stated position after the time expiry of this round.  

Round 3 - Conduct Debate - .Each must now posit argue their position, together with rebuttals of opponent's stated position based upon only the evidence on the table, provided by each side.  No new evidence in support can be introduced into arguments.  Only the evidence submitted can be used in argument rebutting or supporting each argument, including whatever is declared in each stated position.

Round 4 - Summaries -  Each opponent draws together a succinct summary of the strengths in his argument and a summary of the weaknesses in his opponent's argument.
.

I will not agree to these terms for the following reasons:

The title is too specific. I will not argue on a single instance of religious or supernatural experience. My position in this debate is "All religious and supernatural experiences were delusions or caused by natural means" However, my proposed title does allow that a single instance of religious or supernatural experience be used to demonstrate that not all are, so you will still be able to use your example.

1. I will not agree to this because debate island's format doesn't allow for it. All rounds are open for the set time limit per round, so increasing duration to one day will allow anyone to post a thesis within that day, which is why I proposed 30 minute rounds to begin with. I will agree to a round time of 24 hours, although I would prefer it to be less than an hour. I will agree to addition of a 4th closing round given that no new constructive arguments are to be made. The purpose of the 4th round is as a closing remarks and to answer any questions by spectators in the comments.
2. I will not agree. See above.
3. I will not agree, because the purpose of a debate is not to make points and counter arguments against the others thesis.
4. I will agree to no editing after the round has elapsed.
5. I will not agree to round extentions because debate island's format doesn't allow for this.

Rules of engagement:

1. I will not agree to a non-synchronous debate (the purpose of each round is satisfied in the same round) I will not agree to a debate where I do not know and have not agreed to the topic.
2. I will not agree because this doesn't work within debate island's format.
3. I agree because the debate island's format makes this a requirement.
4. I agree because the debate island's format makes this a requirement.
5. I agree to this term.
6. I do not agree that specific websites can be banned, unless it is countered by a ban in Christian biased websites. This means any Christian run website such as answers in genesis, any explicitly Christian media outlet, and any self-run sites such as blogs and small church run pages from explicitly Christian sources.
7. I will agree to a 10% maximum video time.
8. I will agree that each round deviation from the procedure will constitute a forfeit.

I will not agree to this round format unless it is synchronous. Simply put there is no way for me to argue my position under this format so there is no reason for me to engage. On top of this, even without knowing the topic ahead of time (which I disagree with the most) There is no debate here, this is an argument.

Having two rounds for stating evidence is unnecessary redundancy. This can all be accomplished in round 1.

There is no round for cross examination of the the opponent's thesis.

There is no round for rebuttal to the cross examination.

I will accept there be a fourth round for closing statements which would serve as a summary of all arguments and rebuttal provided that no new constructive arguments are made at this time.