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.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
Then you claim that I said atheism is based on science. Quote back to me where I said that. I didn't and never have. I say that the atheism cabal C O N T R O L S the narrative, controls the misinformation still printed in the texts of academia and teaching institutions. It does, otherwise they would've moved on from an outdated science that's over100 years old, the very science which atheists cling to. It makes atheists ignoramuses, as they are.
.
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: intolerant hubris of atheism    lot of claims   outdated science   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is on you to prove that atheists deny facts or use 100 year old science.
Until then, atheists are innocent. I don't have to disprove anything, that isn't how it works...
How about this, to prove you are right why don't you show me a graph of Nobel prize winners by religion?
That would be evidence that: "no-one else except atheism has the authority to do science." Would it not?
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.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
Another lame dodge with another classic atheistic whine, the typical whine of "you're shifting the burden of proof". LOL! You're the only one in here who is trying that little caper. How can you even make that ridiculous claim? From where I sit, all I am asking is for atheists to prove that they don't deny DNA is an intelligent code, to also prove that they don't deny that science has proved that evolution from one species to another is impossible, that they don't deny that there is no evidence to support the BBT, prove that they don't deny these two hypothesis are based on extrapolations and conjectue with reverse reasoning and no solid chain of evidence to support either, that they don't deny the facts on the historical record which point to Christ's divinity. The denial by atheists of the factual record in all of these subjects just goes on and on and on ad infinitum.
What's very obvious is the common denominator for this blanket denial. All of these facts point to the possibility of a Creator. That's the common thread and that is the very reason and is the only reason why atheism must deny this factual record. If it does not, then it will be compelled to deny atheism itself. OH! No! It's all about the survival of atheism and nothing whatsoever to do with S C I E N C E. That's the kicker for atheists, but do you think they will ever admit to that. Of course not. Consequently, they took control of the narrative with their multi-billion dollar influence peddling and propagandist campaign against Christianity. Just take a look at these comments of yours, quoted below.
A truckload of hubris and wild claims not supported by any evidence, signed off by you. These statements prove nothing. They bristle with anti-Christian hatred by you, however, which only serves to prove my case even more so. Your obvious arrogant, self-righteous and intolerant hubris that only atheists can do authoritative science is brimming over here.
What you deliberately ignore and side-step is the P R E D O M I N A N C E of atheists in the institutions which control the education syllabi, the teaching texts, the academic texts, the mainstream media's narrative, the establishment's narrative. Merely pointing to a minority of Christian entities among a plethora of non-Christian entities does not disprove the control by atheism of the misinformation narrative at all. Dumb.
.
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
So let me get this straight, you want us to prove that we don't deny that DNA is intelligent code, evolution from one species to another is impossible, that there is no evidence to support the BBT, and the historical record points to Christ's divinity?
So I have a question for you, what would it look like for you to be wrong, just as a hypothetical here?
As it stands, there is overwhelming evidence that DNA is not intelligent, evolution from one species to another is possible, there is lots of evidence to support the BBT, and the historical record seems to suggest that a real person named Jesus existed but there is no evidence he was divine.
If you need evidence for any of these claims, go back through this thread and read all of it, we have provided so much evidence that you would have to be crazy to ignore it. You seem to think that science proves your points, but you have no idea what science says.
TheraminTrees actually did a video on this, it is mostly about narcissism and narcissistic relationships, but the religious parallels and the double-bind are to strong to ignore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnSiJOOdo30
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.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.3  
  Sources: 3  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: historical record points    historical record   real person   intelligent code  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
I rest my case. You just confirmed it. Another confirmation. Thank you again.
Doubling down in denial of the factual evidence and claiming there is counter-evidence, but providing none in support is not a rebuttal . It is an admission of defeat. Where's this evidence in support, which you claim is in this thread? I don't see any evidence at all. All that I can see on this page is a reliance by atheists on extrapolations and conjecture, a reliance on reverse reasoning, a diversion about sea eagles and a reliance on a guy who thinks he's a bunch of Trees, but who is apparently an accredited psychologist, waxing lyrical about science and theology, two disciplines he has no scholarship in, using them to bash Christianity. That's evidence?
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: historical record points    lots of evidence   evidence   historical record  
  Relevant (Beta): 63%  
  Learn More About Debra
***** Your obvious arrogant, self-righteous and intolerant hubris that only atheists can do authoritative science is brimming over here.
Show us even one peer reviewed paper that proves a god exists? Zero , Nada , Zilch
Show us one peer reviewed paper that disproves Evolution? What’s that ? Oh right you still have none but “you’re working on it”
You have still nothing to back any of your up except conspiracy theories and appeal to an assortment of religious nuts who are so “highly regarded “ they’re reduced to posting content on You Tube Christian loony sites ....Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha
  Considerate: 24%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: conspiracy theories    self-righteous   nbsp   assortment of religious nuts  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
***** Your obvious arrogant, self-righteous and intolerant hubris that only atheists can do authoritative science is brimming over here.
Show us even one peer reviewed paper that proves a god exists? Zero , Nada , Zilch
Show us one peer reviewed paper that disproves Evolution? What’s that ? Oh right you still have none but “you’re working on it”
You have still nothing to back any of your up except conspiracy theories and appeal to an assortment of religious nuts who are so “highly regarded “ they’re reduced to posting content on You Tube Christian loony sites ....Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha
  Considerate: 24%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: conspiracy theories    assortment of religious nuts   nbsp   self-righteous  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
So here is how it is:
If I say that I don't agree with your stance on the ground that it is a misconception and affront to reality, you claim that I am wrong and the science proves it, despite the fact that I can show you were you are wrong.
If I say I do agree with your stance, than you run off with your head held high because you will think you won.
If I point out that you will never accept that you could be wrong, then you claim it proves your point.
Classic double bind.
Where is the evidence in support of your claim?
The first two and a half pages are filled with evidence which runs contrary to your stance, yet you don't acknowledge it, because no matter what, you are going to say it proves nothing.
I'm not going to continue talking to you until you answer this question:
what would it look like for you to be wrong, just as a hypothetical here?
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.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: support of your claim    double bind.Where   half pages   stance  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
ATHEISTS MUST DENY THE FACTS, BECAUSE THE FACTS DON'T SUPPORT THEIR POSITION
  Considerate: 48%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Why don't you answer my question?
what would it look like for you to be wrong, just as a hypothetical here?
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.
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 56%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: 100th time.Why    OP   facts   evidence of god  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
There you go again, vindicating and validating the topic title. How lame is that? It wouldn't be lame, if you had the cojuns to admit that the evidence does not support the atheistic position at all, given the advancement of modern science and the facts already on the table, with particular reference to DNA and new understandings of bio-chemistry and molecular behaviour, which prove that evolution of species to species is an impossibility. You are basically trolling the top scientists in the world, like James Tour and others, and telling them and us that you are the be all and end all of science and that they are all fools. Yeah right, Einstein.
You can keep on denying it, but for how long? Only for as long as the atheism cabal controls the official narrative and spends billions on "buying off" those in charge of diseminating the narrative. Nevertheless, honest science and scientists abound, who show us the stupidity of the atheist narrative. The truth can never be erased, only hidden by evil people. That's all that is occurring here and you buy into it. For how long can you and why do you even want to deny scientific facts and the historical record? It makes no sense at all. Einstein even said it makes no sense in these statements ...
Your actions are easily explained as simply a victim of inculcation, a victim of brainwashing but how do we explain the actions of those who run the anti-God, anti-science inculcated narrative? It is to protect their inordinate income streams obtained from the most filthy and diabolical practices on earth, such as the support of abortions and buying the aborted babies alive for their sacrifices and the selling of baby body parts for an income stream, of trafficking in children, in paedophilia and sex slavery, of using these children whom they keep in cages for abominations, impregnating the young girls to obtain infants for their sacrifices to their God, Satan.
They can only protect these activities by coralling a significant "army" of followers to defend their belief system - the worship of Satan. That requires destroying all faith in Satan's Nemesis, the Christian God. That's your job. The claim by atheism that a belief in no God defines it, is really a double blind, a croc. You can't believe in Satan and not in God. We only have to look at the Satanic rituals CERN gets involved in, (which by its own admission communicates with the Fourth Dimension through quantum mechanics and obtains information from it), to know that they DO believe in the supernatural. You're being duped big time, Sunshine.
.
  Considerate: 38%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.8  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 71%  
  Learn More About Debra
what would it look like for you to be wrong, just as a hypothetical here?
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.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Answer    question      
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
What would it look like if the Agenda of atheism were properly exposed so that it became widely accepted general knowledge and atheism had to 'fess up that modern science is right?
Answer: Atheism would be compelled to deny itself. That would mean, not only the end of atheism, but also end this odious battle for hearts, minds and souls which atheism perpetuates and promulgates.
.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Agenda of atheism    general knowledge   modern science   very science  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
what would it look like for you to be wrong, just as a hypothetical here?
I want you to describe what things would be different if you were wrong.
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.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.74  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: question    nbsp   things    
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: status quo    false narrative   things   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
So that means that if you are wrong, everything would be exactly as it is. Is this what you are saying?
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.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp    statement   science   God  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
If everything would look exactly the same, regardless of if you are right or wrong, then there is no way to tell if you are right or wrong!
Consider this:
Jimmy tells Bobby that all Unicorns have pink fur.
Bobby asks Jimmy if he has ever seen a unicorn with pink fur.
Jimmy says to Bobby, he hasn't seen any unicorns, but it doesn't matter because the lack of seeing Unicorns with anything else except pink fur means that it must be true.
Bobby seems puzzled by this.
Jimmy then goes on to say that since Bobby can't prove that not all unicorns have pink fur then it must be true.
You are Jimmy, just replace "unicorn" with "atheist cabal/satanic cult/billionaires/CERN/Whatever other nonsense you think" and "pink fur" with "well funded/Christian hating/pedophiles/science denying"
The point is that if what we believe isn't based in evidence, just being "not disproved" is insufficient to say that it is true. You can not disprove that unicorns, pixies, faeries, god, gods, or other mythical beings are not real, but that doesn't mean they do exist.
That is your argument in a nutshell.
There is no further need to continue this discussion because I think I have thoroughly eviscerated your worldview to the point that anyone who reads this should get a good laugh at your expense.
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.
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
No. That is not what I said at all. I said the O P P O S I T E. Where do I say that the status quo would remain were atheism properly exposed, if it lost control of the narrative? I say the opposite, i.e. that the atheists would be compelled to 'fess up and have to deny atheism itself as a possible reality. That's precisely the reason it invests billions in keeping the lie alive. Go back to school for comprehension lessons.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.64  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: P P O S    status quo   were atheism   control of the narrative  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
Right here, just 2 posts ago loser!
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.
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 45%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 77%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: status quo    false narrative   posts   things  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
So, the logic is this. As we are already living the narrative which you claim is the true narrative and which I claim is the false narrative, then how could anything change if the narrative we are now already living were proved to be true and I and the science which I back were proved to be wrong? Nothing would change apart from the fact that we would have to swallow our pride, because the establishment and everyone in all halls of learning are ALREADY complying with your narrative. Get it?
Let me ask you this. You have stated many times that you are an atheist. Right? You and every other atheist on this channel has stated that means either you don't have a belief in God OR that no God exists. Right? So given that is your position ... then how do you explain this comment of yours made today, just 7 hours ago ....
So, I reckon I am right on the money when I say atheists worship Satan and know that there IS a supernatural fourth dimension. They use the double blind that "There is no God" OR "I have no belief in a God" as a cover for what they are really up to. You see, you cannot believe in Satan and Satanic supernatural powers, if you do not believe in the existence of a God, now can you? Atheism is a deception, a very deliberate one with an Agenda, otherwise it would make no sense for it to invest billions of dollars in fighting that which it claims does not exist, now would it?
  Considerate: 59%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 70%  
  Learn More About Debra
How much integrity does your argument really hold then?
This discussion has been over for a while now, I bring up the "Jesus is the devil" thing as an extra little "F U" to the Christian establishment.
It is very much a trap which you have fallen for, in this case the trap is just to show how little you can really know.
Suppose the Devil really was Jesus, everything would look exactly the same, the same as when you say that the world would look exactly the same if there was no "false narrative"
They really are the same thing, you can not tell if Jesus was the son of god or the devil in disguise, now can you?
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.
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: little experiment    DNA      
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.36  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: chromosome count    lab tests of Christ   blood samples   lab technician  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
You were not really supposed to know, I wrote that story, I could get in a lot of trouble...
How about this, you forget about it and I will tell you a real secret? How does that sound?
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.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 34%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: lot of trouble    story   sound   real secret  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
.
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: single word    tiny mind   first opportunity   deal  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
Then I'm afraid what has to be done must be done...
sorry buddy.
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.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 22%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: sorry buddy         
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 60%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Delusion    steroids   nbsp    
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.64  
  Sources: 17  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: flaws    chemical reaction   big bang   whole theory  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 59%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.04  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp    chains of self-replicating cells   E N C E   S C  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
Absolutely. However, that can be apparent in all things, without the need to invent fairy tales. The logic of it justifies itself, with no other scientific apparatus needed to be hitched to it.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Unstable things    fairy tales   special case   stable things  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.18  
  Sources: 17  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: flaws    chemical reaction   span   big bang  
  Relevant (Beta): 36%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.08  
  Sources: 17  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: flaws    chemical reaction   span   big bang  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp         
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
On to my points:
How is it not science to use information and current understandings to make a theory where its proof outnumbers the proof against it about 40:1?
How is it not science to make an assumption which is one of the only logical assumptions to fit several statements and experiments?
How is it not science to conclude theories?
You claim I have no evidence whereas I have posted about 20 links in previous arguments. So that statement of me having no evidence is an utter lie.There is much more evidence which I have not posted. You want me to start posting documentaries now?
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: evidence step    rigorous methodology of scientific testing   Big Bang   logical chain  
  Relevant (Beta): 15%  
  Learn More About Debra
You don't seem to be able to separate hard and material evidence from conjecture, extrapolations and opinion. The conjecture, extrapolations and opinion are FINE, all based on what science knows today, but nvevertheless they aren't evidence. The are assumptions, presumptions, conjecture and extrapolations based on what science knows today WITHOUT evidence in support. In other words although chemicals, gases and the universe are behaving in a certain way now and observable now, none of this observable activity PROVES an occurrence which is not happening now, has never happened in the ages of humankind and was never observed, can never be observed and evidence of which can never be found, which all means it is conjecture, extrapolations, assumptions and presumptions, none of which constitutes evidence of that particular occurrence, the Big Bang.
Same answer as above. Science has a rigorous methodology of testing E V I D E N C E and which evidence must stand up and support the theory. If there is no evidence that can be tested, then there is no theory, only an hypothesis.
It is science to conclude theories. It is not science to pretend an hypothesis has met all of the rigors of scientific testing of evidence when it has not and then turn around and call it a theory. Until evidence is tested to prove the theory it must remain and is only ever regarded by science as an unproved hypothesis. That's the difference between the two. I am saying both BBT and TOE are hypothesis and that TOE has already been disproved, so should not even be on any school syllabus.
Again, what you are calling evidence is not evidence. It is all of the above. So, at the end of the day you should be asking, how come science and the Dept. of Education are still teaching both hypothesis as factual theories? Good question. Ask Dr. James Tour. "It's a lie" "They lied to you". He is not the only scientist who says this. About 40,000 others agree with him. So what is going on? What all of those who disagree with the establishment fake science tell us is going on. The atheist cabal has control of the narrative, control of the information disseminated and so the public is fed junk science, with scores of thousands of scientists calling it that.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
Mate, when scientific papers write "We think", "We can therefore expect", "It is logical to deduce", "Due to science knowledge of this reaction, it is probable that", "As we have evidence of this gas and that chemical interacting in this way, science can make the assumption that such and such would have reacted with such and such and therefore it is likely that ....", etc. etc. etc. are N O T evidence-based conclusions. They are extrapolation-based conclusions. There is a hug difference.
Evidence-based conclusions would reads like this, "The results of three independent rigorous tests of the material obtained from the samples show that they're the result of an explosion. Further testing of the composites of wxyz and of abcd via rigorous testing for evidence of pqrstu showed evidence that the samples were defg positive which corrororates the evidence that....", OR "In testing the samples obtained from the core, science was able to show it was dated at wxyz period and in that period the presence of abcd composites were evident in the core samples, which supports the theory that ... etc." OR "By placing the samples taken from the site of the explosion and testing them using three different scientific methods, (with an explanation of these three), for the active presence of the substance of wxyz, the results show that the activity of abcd on the matter of wxyz caused the combustion of ....." OR "The samples of materials were tested and provided evidence that they could be dated at such and such a period. The other evidence of wxyz, was then also tested and together each supports this theory to lead science to conclude that these samples are the result of abcd. With that result in evidence, science was then able to test for wxyz to establish whether or not abcd, was also dated in the same time period. Testing all three composites and dating all three to the same period, is evidence that all three are a result of the activity of wxyz and therefore it can be concluded that these samples are evidence of an occurrence of qrstuv"
There's no mention of any testing of evidence and more testing to build on that evidence with that evidence building on that evidence until a solid collection of tested evidence is on the record. There is nothing of this science on the table at all. As I said, there is no material or hard evidence possible to be tested from the actual Big Bang itself to prove that it actually occurred. There is no observable evidence to test at all. There are no eye-witness accounts, no historical records either which attest to its occurrence. There is nothing only opinions based upon what science knows today and reasoning it backwards to suggest a P O S S I B I L I T Y. That is an hypothesis.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.16  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 7%  
  Learn More About Debra
This is the meaning of evidence: If you do not want to see the link then I will copy onto here:
ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
noun
verb
(The bits in italic are irrelevant to this topic.)
That is used in scientific papers.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.04  
  Sources: 7  
  Relevant (Beta): 22%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 51%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: big bang    evolution theories   facts   theory  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: big bang    Atheism   solid scientific proof   Believers  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
You can claim that Christianity has no solid, hard and material evidence of Christ, of His divinity, of Hs miracles and of who He said He was, but that does not make you correct. I've put a plethora of real hard and material evidence on this channel in several long and exhaustive posts, under this topic and others, proving the existence of that evidence, citing all of the historical sources for the recorded historical accounts in documents authoried by real and notable historians, government officials, government records, the official record of scholarship, the empirical evidence, archaeological evidence. Denying evidence because it is inconvenient to your argument is not debating. It's putting you head in the sand and pretending the world is not real, that there is some other different world out there which you want it to be. That's just not living in reality, son.
The facts are the facts and they cannot be denied. What we have are two out-dated hypothesis over 100 years old, which atheists refuse to progress from. They cling to them to validate their own world view, because modern science does not validate their world view. It disproves one of their hypotheses and bags the other one as unable to ever be proved and very unlikely. Why cling to out-dated science?
.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: hard evidence    real evidence   government records   government officials  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: scientific papers    big bang   super powers   god theories  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: bible    fantasy character   new testament   contradictions  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your penultimate comment does outline a process, but that is not the argument alone. The material that we read on these two hypotheses shows quite substantially and unequivocally that the rigors of scientific methodology haven't been followed regarding evidence and any appropriate compiling of a record of evidence. That is perfectly understandable for the BBT, due to its supposed and proposed timing - occurring long before the existence of mankind, so it is only to be expected there is no material or hard evidence, no records historical, empirical or testimonial. The best science can do then is use reverse reasoning to try to support the possibility of a hypothesis. That's what they have done. I don't decry that. I don't knock that. I don't even disagree with the adventuresome exploratory spirit of it. I simply understand that there will never be any hard or material evidence to ever prove it, for the simple reason it is never going to be available. That's fine too. What is not fine is the pretence that it is a factual occurrence and that it is an approved and accepted scientific theory by the science community. It isn't. It is not accepted by scores of thousands of scientists as an acceptable theory with evidence in support, let alone agreed there is sufficient evidence to claim it as a fact.
I understand that for you, as an atheist, there is no compulstion to try to establish the factual record upon which Christianity most certainly can claim that there is evidence of a God and that Christ Himself also provided much evidence of the existence of a God. There is no requirement for you to do so.
What I don't understand is how people who have no scholarly-based knowledge, no research-based knowledge or intellectual understanding of a subject then think they can make statements like yours above on such a subject and expect someone like me, who is a researcher and who has researched quite a number of subjects, including the viability of the Christian record, would think that you can persuade me to your opinion, particularly when I can see it is quite uninformed, unacquainted with and has no familiarity with the entire Christian history, no knowledge of what we call the "God" proofs, science proofs, archaeological proofs, historical proofs and a plethora of evidence generally that Christianity can very well and does lay claim to have and with approved and recognized scholarship backing those claims.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: real evidence    appropriate compiling of a record of evidence   god theories   intellectual understanding of a subject  
  Relevant (Beta): 65%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religion         
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 15%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 50%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
THE GLARINGLY OBVIOUS QUESTION HERE IS - HOW WOULD A 515 FOOT MASSIVE SHIP COME TO BE 6,000 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL IN A RANGE OF MOUNTAINS. IT CLEARLY VALIDATES THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE GREAT FLOOD AND NOAH'S ARK. THE ARTEFACT'S MEASUREMENTS AND STRUCTURE ARE EXACTLY AS THE BIBLICAL TEXT DOCUMENTS THEM TO BE.
ELEVEN SUMERIAN CLAY TABLETS, DISCOVERED IN EBLA, SYRIA, WITH CUNIEFORM WRITING ON THEM AND EACH SIGNED BY THE AUTHOR HAVE BEEN DATED. THEY RECORD THE FIRST 37 CHAPTERS IN GENESIS, THE FIRST BOOK OF THE BIBLE, WORD FOR WORD AND ARE DATED IN THE CORRECT CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, WITH EACH AUTHOR THE ANCESTOR OF THE NEXT AUTHOR. THESE CLAY TABLETS ARE KNOWN AS THE SUMERIAN EBLA TABLETS AND THE TRANSLATIONS CO-INCIDE EXACTLY WITH THE TEXT OF THE CHRISTIAN BIBLICAL BOOK OF GENESIS. IT IS KNOWN THAT MOSES COMPILED THE FIRST FIVE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE AND IS CLEAR THESE TABLETS WERE HIS SOURCE, THE FIRST ONE SIGNED BY ADAM AND THE LAST ONE SIGNED BY JACOB'S SONS. SEE BELOW.
THERE ARE LIBRARIES FULL OF EVIDENCE SIMILAR TO THIS. IT JUST GOES ON AND ON AND ON, INCLUDING THE DISCOVERY OF GOLD PLATED CHARIOT WHEELS FROM THE PHARAOH'S CHARIOTS WITH AXLES AND HUBS, LYING ON THE BOTTOM OF THE RED SEA IN HUNDREDS OF FEET OF WATER AND THOUSANDS OF SKELETONS OF AN EGYPTIAN ARMY AND HORSE BONES TOO. WHY WOULD AN EGYPTIAN ARMY ATTEMPT TO CROSS THE RED SEA ON FOOT AND IN CHARIOTS IN WATER OF THAT DEPTH? THE BOOK OF EXODUS EXPLAINS THIS EVIDENCE. ON EACH OPPOSITE SHORE OF THE CROSSING SITE IS A STONE PILLAR ERECTED BY KING SOLOMON, EACH WITH INSCRIPTIONS COMMEMORATING THIS HISTORIC CROSSING BY THE ISRAELITES, AS THEY FLED THE EGYPTIAN PHARAOH'S ARMY.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.78  
  Sources: 14  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE GREAT FLOOD    FIRST BOOK OF THE BIBLE   SUMERIAN CLAY TABLETS   Biblicl Texts  
  Relevant (Beta): 9%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 45%  
  Learn More About Debra