Religion....... - 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!

Religion.......
in Religion

By SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
.....because the reality of evolution is too hard to understand.
Plaffelvohfen



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    Even if Evolution was disproved in the morning it still goes nowhere near explaining a god. 
    AlofRI
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Dee

    God cannot be seen with the human eye.  God cannot be understood with the human brain.  God cannot be found out by human investigation.  But He can reveal Himself to men in ways which science cannot measure.
    PlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @marke
    But He can reveal Himself to men in ways which science cannot measure.

    What "ways"?
    And how would you know anyway?
    There is no such thing and you simply made that up.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @marke

    God cannot be seen with the human eye.  God cannot be understood with the human brain.  God cannot be found out by human investigation.  But He can reveal Himself to men in ways which science cannot measure.


    Yes your god cannot be seen ,heard or touched pretty conclusive proof you worship a fiction 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • marke said:
    @Dee

    God cannot be seen with the human eye.  God cannot be understood with the human brain.  God cannot be found out by human investigation. 
    And you expect me to believe that he exists? Wow...
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    Yes, I believe it is hard to understand, why someone would build such an elaborate scheme to go against everything we know.

    Neither way could be proven. (please forgive me if I step on anyone's toes)
    Even though in the name atheist means no God, atheism claims antireligion, nevertheless, it performs as a religion.

    Instead of being who they are, they must advocate their position much as a new religion advocates their new teachings.
    Atheists push very hard to replace one belief that is unproven (creation) with another belief that is unproven (abiogenesis).
    This is similar to new religions who push new conclusions so hard in the name of "truth".

    Atheists have such a veneration for evolutionists, pass the point of anthropolatry.
    Atheists are constantly attacking the Bible as being fictitious and made up (which we have no proof of).
    Nevertheless, they put so much trust in scientific proof that we know for sure is a myth and made up (which is the nature of the word "theory").

    So yes, I believe it is hard to understand, why someone would build such an elaborate scheme to go against everything we know.

    Occam's razor essentially states that simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones.
    Creation is simpler than Abiogenesis
    Creation probability is exponentially higher than Abiogenesis

    This in no way make Creation more right than Abiogenesis.
    But it does make it easier to understand.

    Feel free to correct my viewpoint, I am open.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Sand

    Leaving God out of the discussion altogether, there is no scientific explanation or evidence to support the assumption that life somehow originated on earth by accident or dumb luck.
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    edited August 3
    @marke


    Leaving God out of the discussion altogether, there is no scientific explanation or evidence to support the assumption that life somehow originated on earth by accident or dumb luck.





    Again you’re guilty of using The Lottery Fallacy........

    Definition

    The lottery fallacy arises when we invalidly infer x must be designed because x is improbable.

    Examples

    1) I conclude that Bob must have cheated when he won the lottery because the odds of him winning were twenty million to one.

    2) Some argue the teleological argument commits this fallacy because it is argued the universe must be designed because the laws of the universe (or some things in the universe) are so improbable.



    Also you set up an attack on others where you accuse them of being irrational but neatly eliminate your god from the process of something that may exist that doesn’t need to justify the stipulations you require of others , to be consistent with your ( as always ) faulty reasoning why is your god exempt from the conditions you set for others?


    That’s the fallacy of Special pleading 



    Plaffelvohfen
  • marke said:
    @Sand

    Leaving God out of the discussion altogether, there is no scientific explanation or evidence to support the assumption that life somehow originated on earth by accident or dumb luck.
    By chance. Given enough chances, even the highly improbable will happen.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Dee

    Science has not yet provided an explanation for how life could have started on earth without God.  Crick did not believe in abiogenesis for scientific reasons, not for religious reasons.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Using that argument we could expect a jumbo jet to piece itself together somehow, given enough time in which the impossible supposedly becomes reality.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • marke said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Using that argument we could expect a jumbo jet to piece itself together somehow, given enough time in which the impossible supposedly becomes reality.
    @marke
    Yes, if a hurricane sweeps over a junkyard enough times, like in the quintillions, one of those times, a jumbo jet will piece itself together. Remember: there is a difference between impossible and improbable.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @marke

    Science has not yet provided an explanation for how life could have started on earth without God.  Crick did not believe in abiogenesis for scientific reasons, not for religious reasons.



    So what ? Scientists have made important progress in understanding the types of chemical processes that may have led to the origins of life.

    Also Science never mentions a god because there is zero evidence for such , you cannot provide a Scientific explanation for a god you’re special pleading .......again 


    BTW I couldn’t give a f—k what Crick says on the matter 
  • marke said:
    @Dee

    Science has not yet provided an explanation for how life could have started on earth without God.  Crick did not believe in abiogenesis for scientific reasons, not for religious reasons.
    What! LOL............yes it has fool. dumb luck. Science is just looking for a better explanation then the one it found first.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Dee

    Francis Crick received the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1962 for his advancement in the studies of DNA and that is all the thanks he gets from hard-core anti-creation Darwinists?  It was what he learned about the transfer of biological information and genes in DNA which caused him to reject the general idea of abiogenesis. 
  • Religion is just one the different lies people tell themselves, to cope with the inherent existential dread that comes with our level of consciousness, that's all it is... In  fact, every single thing we do are ultimately just fabricated distractions from that ever present subconscious dread. When religious people get all cranked up when presented uncomfortable facts, it's this existential dread that motivates such a virulent reaction, it's the same dread that will make people create alternate realities because they cannot deal with this one... But there are ways to deal with it without deceiving ourselves as much as with religion...

    Sand
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    A good question is why do we have so many atheists on the Religion site topic?

    Because this is more evidence Atheists perform as a religion.
    Although claiming to be antireligious, they believe and trust in more things that are not proven.

    The way atheists present themselves as persons that accept reality or things that are proven.

    If this is true then why believe in abiogenesis? It has not been proven.
    If this is true then why believe in "evolution of the species"? It has not been proven.
    If this is true then why believe in the big bang? It has not been proven.

    When you look deeply it is more about veneration for evolutionists than for reality.
  • Dee said:
    Even if Evolution was disproved in the morning it still goes nowhere near explaining a god. 
    Even if evolution were disproven, the facts which point to it would still exist and be unexplained by creationism.
    Dee
  • @Sand


    Occam's razor essentially states that simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones. Creation is simpler than Abiogenesis. Creation probability is exponentially higher than Abiogenesis.


    "Creation" would require a creator, and an omnipotent, omniscient, or any other omni-trait creator is infinitely more complex than a natural origin of life. Occam's razor would favor Abiogenesis.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @marke


    Francis Crick received the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1962 for his advancement in the studies of DNA and that is all the thanks he gets from hard-core anti-creation Darwinists? 

    You obviously have an obsession about Crick maybe that’s something you need to address 

    It was what he learned about the transfer of biological information and genes in DNA which caused him to reject the general idea of abiogenesis. 

    Well good for him , I’m glad information like this makes you happy 
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @Sand


    A good question is why do we have so many atheists on the Religion site topic?

    Because this post was put up by an Atheist not a religious person

    Because this is more evidence Atheists perform as a religion.

    You need to look up the definition of religion 

    Although claiming to be antireligious, they believe and trust in more things that are not proven.

    I’ve no time for religion that’s not to say I’ve no time for people who believe in a god , what things do I believe that are unproven?

    The way atheists present themselves as persons that accept reality or things that are proven.

    What things do I believe that are unproven?

    If this is true then why believe in abiogenesis? It has not been proven.

    The details of the process are still unknown that’s ok with me , your god is an unproven are you ok with that?

    If this is true then why believe in "evolution of the species"? It has not been proven.

    Evolution is fact 


    If this is true then why believe in the big bang? It has not been proven.

    The Big Bang happened there is observational evidence for the validity of the theory as in the expansion of the Universe 


    When you look deeply it is more about veneration for evolutionists than for reality.

    Why do you keep going around making the same accusations which have been answered 100 times or more are you expecting different answers? 

    Do you detest Atheists that much that you have to keep firing off the same questions?

    I note with amusement your fellow Christian @marke is a young Earther are you one also if not why not ?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Dee

    I also have an similar 'obsession' with every other famous person I mention, but my 'obsession' with Crick in this thread is that Crick was convinced abiogenesis on earth was not possible. 
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    I also have an similar 'obsession' with every other famous Person I mention, but my 'obsession' with Crick in this thread is that Crick was convinced abiogenesis on earth was not possible. 


    So what? I don’t care what Crick thought ? David Icke believes people in power are actually lizards do you care ?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    >>>Because this post was put up by an Atheist not a religious person<<<
    You are making my point.

    >>>You need to look up the definition of religion<<<
    No. Because I am not saying you are a religion, I am saying you perform as a religion.

    >>>The details of the process are still unknown that’s ok with me , your god is an unproven are you ok with that?<<<
    I believe you and I are agreeing.

    >>>Evolution is fact<<<
    True. But "evolution of the species" is not.

    >>>The Big Bang happened there is observational evidence for the validity of the theory as in the expansion of the Universe.<<<<
    Just because something expands doesn't mean it exploded, where is the proof, please show the demonstration.

    >>>I note with amusement your fellow Christian @marke is a young Earther are you one also if not why not ?<<<
    No, I am not a Young Earther, but there is a lot of supporting evidence.
    Because I think there is more supporting evidence for a different conclusion.

    Happy_killbot feels he can prove abiogenesis, do you think he can prove it? Why or why not?

  • SandSand 213 Pts

    Those are assumptions.
    Nowhere in the Bible does it mention any of those terms.
    The prefix "omni-" is not even suggested.

    So Occam's razor switches back to Creation.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 829 Pts
    marke said:
    @Dee

    God cannot be seen with the human eye.  God cannot be understood with the human brain.  God cannot be found out by human investigation.  But He can reveal Himself to men in ways which science cannot measure.
    So, what you are saying is, imagination cannot be measured. 

    It's SO nice when you can agree with someone you can rarely agree with. ;-)
    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @Sand

    You are making my point.

    No  I’m not


    No. Because I am not saying you are a religion, I am saying you perform as a religion.

    I do personally? How so? 


    I believe you and I are agreeing.

    Alleuia 



    True. But "evolution of the species" is not.

    I don’t know what you mean 


    Just because something expands doesn't mean it exploded, where is the proof, please show the demonstration.

    Do a tiny bit of research the evidence is there I suspect you’re trolling 


    No, I am not a Young Earther, but there is a lot of supporting evidence.

    Zero so far any peer reviewed papers ?


    Because I think there is more supporting evidence for a different conclusion.

    Peer reviewed papers?

    Happy_killbot feels he can prove abiogenesis, do you think he can prove it? Why or why not?

    I don’t believe @Happy_Killbot said he can prove it , did he actually use them words ? I believe he can make a strong case for it as can I 

    PlaffelvohfenHappy_Killbot
  • Sand said:

    Those are assumptions.
    Nowhere in the Bible does it mention any of those terms.
    The prefix "omni-" is not even suggested.

    So Occam's razor switches back to Creation.
    The Bible also doesn't mention the Trinity but the belief is there nonetheless. Occam favors simplicity.... which is about as far as you can get from an infinite creator.
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • @Dee ; @Sand ;

    Just to clarify here, what I said was that it is possible to prove that under the right conditions that abiogenesis can occur. If we can cause abiogenesis to occur under carefully controlled conditions, that would prove that abiogenesis does occur, and if these conditions could be reasonably shown to have existed on the early earth, it is reasonable to conclude that abiogenesis did occur.

    Would this prove absolutely that abiogenesis did occur in the early earth and this accounts for why we are here?

    No because that isn't the goal. We could argue for example that the universe just happened to come into existence exactly how it 26 minutes ago complete with all of our memories of our past, fossils, memories of seeing fossils, everything on the earth including our society and everything that was built, and in space, etc. meaning that everyone and everything which didn't exist 26 minutes ago never actually existed at all.

    Can we prove that this did not occur? Technically no, because no possible experiment could prove that this did not happen.

    Now let's think about another example here:

    Let's say you come home one day, a window is broken and all of your valuables are missing.

    We could claim: All our valuables got up, jumped out the window and ran away.

    Can we ever prove that this did not occur? Technically no we can not.

    Suppose a suspect is caught by the police and they find all your stuff in his truck. He could claim that all of this got up and climbed in to his truck and he is being unfairly blamed. He could then point out that it hasn't been disproved that this could have happened meaning it could have. If we can never prove that this far-fetched story didn't actually happen, how can we ever make a conviction of anyone?

    It is reasonable to assume that your stuff got into his truck somehow from your house. We have no reason to believe that stuff can get up and run away, but we do have reason to think that someone might steal your stuff. The same applies to abiogenesis/creation. Can we prove that a creation did not occur? Technically no. Can we show that alternatives, namely abiogenesis are more likely to have occurred? Yes.
    DeePlaffelvohfenxlJ_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.
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    The Trinity is not true.
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    Thank you for that , I dislike when others say someone stated something without posting exactly what they said it can be totally misleading to say the least 
    Happy_Killbot
  • Sand said:

    The Trinity is not true.
    No argument from me on that one, but my point stands. The typical Christian/Abrahamic conceptualization is a tri-omni deity, and that is infinitely more complex than any natural origin for life. Occam would favor the latter.
  • TKDBTKDB 621 Pts
    God is bigger than evolution.
    God doesn't need explanation.
    Being that God created everything, and some of man, and the anti God Science used to downplay God, shows how primitive man and his version of anti God science, still is?
    Being that true Science is a wonderful subject, which I admire for its purity.
    Dee
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @TKDB
    God is bigger than evolution.
    God doesn't need explanation.

    Well may you grandstand and make hollow rhetoric but God does need explanation and to date, nobody has ever satisfactorily explained or verified the existence of such a crude myth. 
    And, come on...there is no such thing as anti-God science....you made that one up.
    Spirituality and science are at completely different ends of the spectrum and the twain shall never meet.
  • TKDBTKDB 621 Pts
    edited August 7
    @Swolliw
    I'm not grandstanding.
    It's the truth.
    Swolliw, why do you deserve an explanation?
    Did God, do something to mess your life up?

    Or demean you, to get your attention?

    Why don't you go reach out to Richard Dawkins, and ask him how legitimate his anti God science is?

    Some go after God, like a one human harassing another.

    Some humans are an embarrassment to their own character.

    Like the Priests, who went after Jesus, and had him Crucified to make their point of view for them.

    Science ain't got a thing on God.

  • @TKDB

    >>Why don't you go reach out to Richard Dawkins, and ask him how legitimate his anti God science is?

    Let's just watch the video  B) 

    Richard Dawkins .... gets OWNED..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vJkGzbLkxY
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @Neopesdom

    Let's just watch the video  B 

    Richard Dawkins .... gets OWNED..




    Hilarious a totally edited debate from a Christian website where a balding teletubby spews nonsense for the whole video 
    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