Why Is It So? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
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 best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is a leading online debate website and is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Why Is It So?
in Religion

By SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
When one person has an imaginary friend he is a nutcase.

When a hundred people have an imaginary friend it is called a cult.

When ten million people have an imaginary friend it is called a religion.
PlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473Happy_KillbotJustAnAllMightFan
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Swolliw

    I tend to agree.  Evolution supporters are blind religious adherents to atheistic speculations which question the inability of the genetic code to preserve species characteristics in offspring.
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473
  • @marke ;
    Evolution isn't based on belief, it's based on rigorous scientific observation and study.

    Also, no one "supports" evolution, that's just silly. We don't get to decide what is and is not true, it is or is not true then we discover it.

    This is what religion does to your brain, it makes you unable to understand that faith doesn't make for truth.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @marke

    Evolution is fact , but I guess if you believe like you in a young Earth you believe anything once it’s unscientific 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    Evolution of alterations in the genetic code have never been scientifically observed or recorded.  Parents of offspring do not give birth to new creatures with new genetioc information not inherited by birth.


    PlaffelvohfenHappy_KillbotAlofRI
  • @marke ;
    Evolution of alterations in the genetic code have never been scientifically observed or recorded.  Parents of offspring do not give birth to new creatures with new genetioc information not inherited by birth.
    Do you know what selective breeding is?

    The process by which domesticated crops and animals can be altered from their wild counterparts to better suit our needs?



    None of the above common plants exist in nature. They were all bred by human hands.

    Evolution is selective breeding minus the humans and it proves genetic changes occur and can produce offspring which are both genetically and phenotypically (relating to the form) different.

    Here's a little tip for you: Stop trying to talk about things you are grossly unqualified to talk about.
    xlJ_dolphin_473
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    Cross breeding and speciation changes between large animal species are two different things.  Large life forms do not give birth to other species of life forms.  That is because of the genetic code.  The genetic code is not yet understood by evolutionists and may never be understood until they give up their blind devotion to erroneous speciation assumptions.  Claiming evolution has been proven while the mechanism for evolution of the genetioc code remains unknown is silly.

    The genetic code is nearly universal, and the arrangement of the codons in the standard codon table is highly non-random. The three main concepts on the origin and evolution of the code are the stereochemical theory, according to which codon assignments are dictated by physico-chemical affinity between amino acids and the cognate codons (anticodons); the coevolution theory, which posits that the code structure coevolved with amino acid biosynthesis pathways; and the error minimization theory under which selection to minimize the adverse effect of point mutations and translation errors was the principal factor of the code’s evolution. These theories are not mutually exclusive and are also compatible with the frozen accident hypothesis, i.e., the notion that the standard code might have no special properties but was fixed simply because all extant life forms share a common ancestor, with subsequent changes to the code, mostly, precluded by the deleterious effect of codon reassignment. Mathematical analysis of the structure and possible evolutionary trajectories of the code shows that it is highly robust to translational misreading but there are numerous more robust codes, so the standard code potentially could evolve from a random code via a short sequence of codon series reassignments. Thus, much of the evolution that led to the standard code could be a combination of frozen accident with selection for error minimization although contributions from coevolution of the code with metabolic pathways and weak affinities between amino acids and nucleotide triplets cannot be ruled out. However, such scenarios for the code evolution are based on formal schemes whose relevance to the actual primordial evolution is uncertain. A real understanding of the code origin and evolution is likely to be attainable only in conjunction with a credible scenario for the evolution of the coding principle itself and the translation system. ...
    As discussed above, despite a long history of researc

    h and accumulation of considerable circumstantial evidence, none of the three major theories on the nature and evolution of the genetic code is unequivocally supported by the currently available data. It appears premature to claim, e.g., that ‘the coevolution theory is a proven theory’ (103), or ‘There is very significant evidence that cognate codons and/or anticodons are unexpectedly frequent in RNA-binding sites […]. This suggests that a substantial fraction of the genetic code has a stereochemical basis’ (75). Is it conceivable that each of these theories captures some aspects of the code’s origin and evolution, and combined, they could yield a more realistic picture? In principle, it is not difficult to speculate along these lines, for instance, by imagining a scenario whereby first abiogenically synthesized amino acids captured their cognate codons owing to their respective stereochemical affinities, after which the code expanded according to the coevolution theory, and finally, amino acid assignments were adjusted under selection to minimize the effect of translational misreadings and point mutations on the genome. Such a composite theory is extremely flexible and consequently can “explain” just about anything by optimizing the relative contributions of different processes to fit the structure of the standard code. Of course, the falsifiability or, more generally, testability of such an overadjusted scenario become issues of concern. Nevertheless, examination of the specific predictions of each theory might take one some way toward falsification of the composite scenario.



    Plaffelvohfen
  • marke said:
    @Swolliw

    I tend to agree.  Evolution supporters are blind religious adherents to atheistic speculations which question the inability of the genetic code to preserve species characteristics in offspring.
    Evolution is one of the most tried-and-true scientific theories of all time. The Christian religion, among many others, is based on a single book, which does not cite its sources. Hmm..
    AlofRI
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @marke

    Claiming evolution has been proven while the mechanism for evolution of the genetioc code remains unknown is silly.


    Evolution is fact , you’re not in a position to judge what is silly as you believe in a young Earth despite all evidence to the contrary.

    You deny everything without investigating as it bumps against your narrow world views.

    You made a statement the other day regards abortion in the Bible and when I corrected you totally ignored the fact your own god approves of and sanctions abortions when it suits , how can anyone take you seriously when you do not even know the contents of your own bible which informs  your beliefs 
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Abiogenesis is based upon dozens of unproven assumptions, speculations and theories.  Nobody can explain how millions of molecules simultaneously appeared in precise arrangements at the same time in order for the first living creature on earth to have formed.  And nobody can demonstrate how the genetic code formed or show that billions of violations of the code took place over hundreds of millions of years in order to miraculoiusly transform that first speculative life form into the billions of life forms which exist on the planet today.
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • @marke ;

    Cross breeding and speciation changes between large animal species are two different things.  Large life forms do not give birth to other species of life forms.  That is because of the genetic code.  The genetic code is not yet understood by evolutionists and may never be understood until they give up their blind devotion to erroneous speciation assumptions.  Claiming evolution has been proven while the mechanism for evolution of the genetioc code remains unknown is silly.

    I just showed you a picture of it happening.

    How do you explain all these different plants, with a different genetic code, different shape, form, and taste?

    Just because you don't know something (you know nothing really) doesn't mean that it isn't true, and you have no other explanation for the creation of selectively breed anything.
    DeePlaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    I understand marke's position and I use to feel that way.

    I personally feel that the basic concept of evolution is true.
    The basic concept is life forms can change.
    We see this with viruses, they adapt and get stronger.
    You can graft just about any plant.
    It is not the same as animals.
    You can crossbreed animals that are the same species.
    You will get different looking animals.

    Nevertheless, the "Theory of evolution" has not been proven, I call this "evolution of the species".
    There are hard laws that prevent the "evolution of the species".

    Fish
    Amphibian
    Reptile
    Bird
    Mammal
    Human

    There is a huge assumption that with time and tries all the possibilities are probable.

    You learn from Stochastic and Feynman path that every probability although quantifiable it is not plausible due to the density of the event.

    So the Universe is not purely probabilistic and has hard laws in it places some limitations on what can or cannot happen in it.
    We may speak of a probability of something happening only if the occurrence is a possible outcome of some repeatable observation.
    So even though animals can evolve small things, it is impossible to evolve species to another despite the infinite possibilities.
    This will remain the case until someone is able to provide a "repeatable observation".
    This will never happen because the excuse is always it takes millions of years.
    Well, no one can observe millions of years.
    Not to talk about breaking the hard laws or barriers to the species.

    Somehow the laws disappear with the "evolution of the species".
    Gills turn into lungs.
    Fins turn into limbs, toes, wrists, then to wings, .
    Coldblood turns into warmblood and back again.
    Two-chamber hearts to three to four and back again.
    Eggs are not the same, a placenta is totally different.
    The list goes on and on!

    An organism cannot change or exchange these qualities.

    This whole process is looped in one word "evolution".
    So when atheists make statements as "evolution is a fact" or "evolution is true", they are referring to the small changes.
    But looped in that word is the "theory of evolution" or like I call it "evolution of the species", which is unproven.

    But then the smear campaign begins, statements of you cannot "believe" it, you either accept it or not.
    But that is false because until it is proven, atheists have belief, trust, faith, hope that evolutionists find a way to prove "evolution of the species".

    Plaffelvohfen
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    Plants are totally different than animals.

    Grafting or graftage is a horticultural technique whereby tissues of plants are joined so as to continue their growth together. The upper part of the combined plant is called the scion while the lower part is called the rootstock.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    Some people claim they have seen evolution happening with their own eyes.  Others say it happened but not in our lifetime.  I think those both are unproven opinions, not scientific facts.


  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    edited August 1
    @marke


    Some people claim they have seen evolution happening with their own eyes.  Others say it happened but not in our lifetime.  I think those both are unproven opinions, not scientific facts.

    Have you seen the very day a bald man goes bald or the day Latin turned into Italian?


    Yet it is happening before our eyes , what you think is irrelevant remember you believe in zombies as in people rising from the dead , you believe a man walked on water and a snake conversed with humans , you believe in a virgin birth , you believe in a young Earth and sadly I could go on .......You should be used as an example of what religious indoctrination does to humans who would sooner believe the words of a contradictory book of nonsense written by Bronze Age goat -herds over the words of peer reviewed mountains of Scientific evidence  


    Science review ......

    Thanks to the genomic revolution, researchers can actually track the population-level genetic shifts that mark evolution in action—and they’re doing this in humans. Two studies presented at the Biology of Genomes meeting here last week show how our genomes have changed over centuries or decades, charting how since Roman times the British have evolved to be taller and fairer, and how just in the last generation the effect of a gene that favors cigarette smoking has dwindled in some groups.

    “Being able to look at selection in action is exciting,” says Molly Przeworski, an evolutionary biologist at Columbia University. The studies show how the human genome quickly responds to new conditions in subtle but meaningful ways, she says. “It’s a game-changer in terms of understanding evolution.”

    AlofRIPlaffelvohfen
  • marke said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Abiogenesis is based upon dozens of unproven assumptions, speculations and theories.  Nobody can explain how millions of molecules simultaneously appeared in precise arrangements at the same time in order for the first living creature on earth to have formed.  And nobody can demonstrate how the genetic code formed or show that billions of violations of the code took place over hundreds of millions of years in order to miraculoiusly transform that first speculative life form into the billions of life forms which exist on the planet today.
    There were billions of years for it to do so, and it only had to happen once... it is clear that you do not understand probability.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Dee

    The evidence evolutionists think they see are interpretations of data, not actual observations of  macro speciation changes right before their eyes.  Humans are not turning into monkeys and monkeys are not turning into humans, no matter what evolutionists think they see.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    That is another argument which indicastes the flaws in abiogenesis speculations.  "It only had to happen once and it happened so long ago as to make the impossible a reality somehow."  If it happened once then why did it happen, how did it happen, why did it happen only once, and how do we know it happened if nobody ever saw it happen?

    Modern science cannot give us any explanation for how it could have been possible for millions of essential biological elements to suddenly appear from nowhere and miraculously arrange themselves in a very complicated exact manner in order to form just the first living creature on earth.
  • marke said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    That is another argument which indicastes the flaws in abiogenesis speculations.  "It only had to happen once and it happened so long ago as to make the impossible a reality somehow."  If it happened once then why did it happen, how did it happen, why did it happen only once, and how do we know it happened if nobody ever saw it happen?

    Modern science cannot give us any explanation for how it could have been possible for millions of essential biological elements to suddenly appear from nowhere and miraculously arrange themselves in a very complicated exact manner in order to form just the first living creature on earth.
    The chances of it happening, although very low, are not zero. And if they are not zero, they will happen at some point, given enough chances to do so. There were billions of years for it to happen, and it could happen at any point. If the chances of it occurring was 0.0000000000000001%, it would be expected to happen once in every quintillion chances for it to happen. It would only have to happen once in order to result in all life we see today, so it is a completely reasonable assumption that this is how life started.
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @marke

    Evolution is fact when you write a peer reviewed paper disproving what is fact people may listen ,how come none of you have managed that yet ?
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @marke
    "Modern science cannot give us any explanation for how it could have been possible for millions of essential biological elements to suddenly appear from nowhere and miraculously arrange themselves in a very complicated exact manner in order to form just the first living creature on earth."

    That's quite right.
    But science has never made such a ridiculous claim.
    Only those who (wish to) remain completely ignorant of the facts and poo poo science would ever make up something so preposterous.
    In other words....nobody ever said that, did they? You made it up.
    Back to the drawing board.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @marke
    "Some people claim they have seen evolution happening with their own eyes.  Others say it happened but not in our lifetime.  I think those both are unproven opinions, not scientific facts."

    Both are proven facts. I have even presented such proof to you.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @marke
    "Humans are not turning into monkeys and monkeys are not turning into humans, no matter what evolutionists think they see."

    And, you know very well that no evolutionist has ever claimed to have thought or seen such an absurd contrivance.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    The probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10^113. (1 followed by 113 zeros)
    That number is larger than the estimated total number of atoms in the universe! (10^79)
    "Impossible" is calculated by mathematicians as 1 in 10^50.
    Some 2,000 different proteins are needed just for a cell to maintain its activity and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 10^40,000.

    You are right it is not zero.

    But the chances for a miracle are 1 in 10^6.

    This makes the idea for God creating the Universe more credible than abiogenesis.
    More than 6000 times more credible.

    That is the reason Creation is more logical.

    xlJ_dolphin_473Plaffelvohfen
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    If you disagree, then look up the statistics yourself.

    But answer this question:
    Would you say mathematics is useful in the natural sciences?

  • Sand said:
    But answer this question:
    Would you say mathematics is useful in the natural sciences?
    Yes, mathematics is useful in the natural sciences.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 829 Pts
    I wouldn't disgrace the image of Jesus, even though I'm an atheist. I have respect for his image. I hate when people use other people's images in ways I don't think they'd approve of. I think Washington was a deist, wasn't he?? Not someone who would deny science.
  • Sand said:
    The probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10^113. (1 followed by 113 zeros)
    Could you please cite your sources for this piece of information? One theory is that the first branch in the tree of life was in fact not a protein molecule but a replicator molecule.
    Sand said:
    "Impossible" is calculated by mathematicians as 1 in 10^50.
    Wrong. Impossible means not possible, i.e. there is 0% chance of it happening.
    Sand said:
    Some 2,000 different proteins are needed just for a cell to maintain its activity and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 10^40,000.
    Yes, that's correct, but refer to my first rebuttal.
    Sand said:
    You are right it is not zero.

    But the chances for a miracle are 1 in 10^6.
    There is no such thing as miracles, only very improbable events. And improbable events can have any probability, as long as it is improbable.
    Sand said:
    This makes the idea for God creating the Universe more credible than abiogenesis.
    More than 6000 times more credible.
    Because the premises you used to get to this conclusion are false, the conclusion is false too. 
    Sand said:
    That is the reason Creation is more logical.
    Except that creation requires a creator, and you haven't included the probability of there being a creator (which is 0, as a creator would violate the laws of physics).
    Plaffelvohfen
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    I don't believe it is a scientifically verified fact that the impossible becomes probable given enough time, even though George Wald made thios quote famous:

    [Attributing the origin of life to spontaneous generation.] However improbable we regard this event, it will almost certainly happen at least once…. The time… is of the order of two billion years.… Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: time itself performs the miracles.
    — George Wald
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    Evolutionist Fred Hoyle.
    He is the source of the probability calculations.

    Miracle = 1 in 10^6


    If you would say mathematics is useful in the natural sciences?
    And you feel life came about without intelligence but by accidental convention.

    Then why does the natural world always, as far as we know, obey the laws of mathematics?


  • marke said:
    I don't believe it is a scientifically verified fact that the impossible becomes probable given enough time,
    The impossible does not become probable given enough time, but the beginning of life is not impossible. It is simply very, very, very improbable.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Dee

    Evolution is not fact and peer reviewers are not above being wrong because of ignorance or bias.  Most peer reviewed science journals will stick to what is accepted regardless of the facts, likely for logical financial reasons.  But occasionally their bias is exposed.  There was a Geology conference in 2012 at which a researcher from Germany presented a well-prepared scientific study showing young age results in age testing of dinosaur bones.  The conference was scheduled well in advaqnce.  The presentation was given at the predetermined time and was initially listed on the conference brochures.  After the conference was over, however, complaints were made about the presentation so the organization had the record of the conference removed from its brochures.

    I believe that is a dishonest attempt to erase from their program record the fact that the presentation had been approved on its scientific merits before complainers had it purged from the records afterward.  There are many examples of secular intolerance of scientific evidence which does not harmonize with existing secular assumptions.

    Here is a recording of the presentation: 

    Here is the program's listing on the conference schedule, and the time it was given:  http://newgeology.us/BG02-A012 Abstract.pdf 

    And here is what the record shows after the session was given: 

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160325235408/http://www.asiaoceania.org/aogs2012/mars2/pubViewAbs.asp?sMode=oral&sectionIdO=8&dayRank=3&submit=Browse+Abstracts ;

  • Sand said:
    If you would say mathematics is useful in the natural sciences?
    And you feel life came about without intelligence but by accidental convention.

    Then why does the natural world always, as far as we know, obey the laws of mathematics?
    Because... it does! Just because something happened by chance doesn't mean it violates the laws of mathematics!
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    I just posted an article about the Asia Oceana conference, but the references did not come out readable.  Here is the one which lists the presentation when it was actually given:

    http://newgeology.us/BG02-A012 Abstract.pdf   

    And the proof that the presentation was purged from the record:


  • markemarke 334 Pts
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Let's assume that the origin of life on earth was an unexplainable scientific miracle.  I see no reason for rushing to speculative causes while banning God from consideration.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 436 Pts
    edited August 1
    marke said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Let's assume that the origin of life on earth was an unexplainable scientific miracle.
    Why so? It was nothing of the sort. It is likely that the first forms of life were simply pieces of naturally formed proteins within layers of naturally formed lipids. It has been proven that these occur readily in the environment, so the odds of such life occurring is very high, certainly far higher than the odds of a 'miracle'.
    marke said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    I see no reason for rushing to speculative causes while banning God from consideration.
    I see no reason to take God into account without proving he even exists, or considering the odds of there being an omnipotent, omniscient being capable of procuring universes.
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Is there any possible way a dictionary can come by chance?
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @marke

    What a surprise neither of your links are work , also Evolution is fact the opinion of a young Earth loony does not change that .

    Your ‘evidence ‘ is a young Earth creationist who you cannot even name and two links that don’ work , I honestly think you’re in need of psychiatric intervention 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Dee

    This link worked:



    But even better is this excellent argument for what killed the dinosaurs:

    - Evidence of young age dinosaurs.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    edited August 1
    @marke

    The link did not work. What is the German researchers name? I notice only 6 people in the whole audience for this ‘groundbreaking seminar’

    Why do you assume I’m going to watch BS from a young Earthers site ? Where are your peer reviewed papers ? 

    Were the 6 attendees paid to attend ? 
  • Sand said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Is there any possible way a dictionary can come by chance?
    A good analogy is that if you gave typewriters to chimps and allowed them to type indefinitely, eventually they would type the entire dictionary. The amount of letters they would type before stumbling across that exact combination is a good indicator of the chance of it happening.
    So, to answer your question, yes there is. It's highly unlikely, but possible nonetheless.
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    So when you see a dictionary, do you consider the possibility that chimps took millions of years to make it. Or do you assume that a human wrote it, until proven otherwise?
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Dee

    I have other evidence that committed secularists refuse to look or consider also.  Did you like the expert video onn the dino extinction in North America.  I found the video excellent.  I don't think his points can be refuted.
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @marke

    I have other evidence that committed secularists refuse to look or consider also. 

    You don’t , you have no ‘evidence’ only what deluded young Earth creationists claim is evidence 

     Did you like the expert video onn the dino extinction in North America.  

    Why do you think I would watch a video by young Earth creationists it’s akin to watching a flat Earthers video 

    I found the video excellent.  I don't think his points can be refuted.

    Did any of the of 6 people who attended this lecture agree ?
  • Sand said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    So when you see a dictionary, do you consider the possibility that chimps took millions of years to make it. Or do you assume that a human wrote it, until proven otherwise?
    Usually, I assume that a human wrote it, because that is the most likely, but I still factor in other ways that the dictionary could have existed.
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    I believe that is a very logical way of dealing with things.

    So we have not observed how every book, house, every construction, and every technology came about, we make an assumption that it was created by man.
    We do not take the time to look up the details on everything.
    We do use "creation" to fill in the gaps theory.
    We do listen to the nursery rhymes, and fictitious stories, and internet information as a basis to believe that such things were created.

    Now we come to the biggest questions of the origin of life and the universe.
    Why should the first option be no creation and no intelligence?
    It would seem more logical to stay true to ourselves and assume creation.
    Even though you may want to break the mode and go highly improbable direction, why go against those who stay true?

  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @marke
    But even better is this excellent argument for what killed the dinosaurs:

    It's the most mind-numbing pack of lies and non-information that anyone could subject him or herself to.
    Trying to pull the wool by assimilating tectonic plate movement with "evidence" of catastrophic floods when Noah was 600 years old is the sort of tripe that only the profoundly naive and gullible would ever get sucked in by.
    How much more extreme nonsense are you going to quote; because I'll tell you this for nothing....it is not even funny any more.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Dee

    Scientific evidence for a young earth exists, but not everyone knows about it.


    Plaffelvohfen
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Swolliw

    I think you are wrong to dismiss the scientist's arguments, especially since you present no scientific refutation of his arguments.

    - Evidence of young age dinosaurs.



  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @marke


    Scientific evidence for a young earth exists, but not everyone knows about it.


    That’s not ‘scientific evidence ‘ it’s BS , the author is an as the below statement confirms from the same site you referenced  , you do know what that makes you?

    Rational Wiki 

    The text is a tour de farce of abuse of the uncertainty tactic in science dealing with the past designed to shore up the creaking epistemology of creationism. The author is a documentable in every field he names, including Biblical scholarship, and has the joined-up thinking skills of a creationist. So it's an illustrated (in crayon) catalogue of logical stupidities, internal contradictions and arguments against a young Earth, plus circular reasoning as most of the links are to articles of the same site, and those from far more serious sources are as usual misinterpreted. Well done.

    The list claims to have 101 points, because impressive numbers are impressive. So it repeats itself to get the numbers up, has several duplicates, and one item is even a copy of the preceding one. Yeah, it's a Gish Gallop, and a circlejerk as well: almost every reference link in the original article goes to creationist sources, usually on the same damn site.

    Plaffelvohfen
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch