Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creation...

[Squawk]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Nothing like refutting your own argument is there

We all recognize this value Those who don't are Locked up and Given Therapy.

We all, except for those of us who don't. And since "we" are in the majority, we must be right...

Let the logical fallacies commence, argument from popularity here. Creationist bingo 101.

Clearly I'm not arguing that life has no value, but rather that that value is subjective rather than objective.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

OK, let's see what I'll tick on my bingo card: NO MORALITY WITHOUT GOD (Reason: The Intangible yet Inarguable Value of life, DNA IS "COMPUTER CODE" (Reason: DNA: DNA is Information as much as ...), IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY (The Irreducible Complexity of life, RANDOM / CHANCE (Only an Immediately Helpful Mutation Can Be Explained by Evolution.), REPEATS DEBUNKED ARGUMENTS (Everything), EVOLUTION A "THEORY IN CRISIS (Evolution Cannot Explain these facts, So Either a Supplementary theory must be Constructed, Of it Must be Thrown Out.) and I'm very tempted to throw in MOLECULAR "MACHINES" "TRUCKS" "BUSSES"

That's seven out of twenty-four ticked off in one piece of text with 199 words or 1080 characters. Holy cow...
BTW, I've got three in a row!

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

I Guess I'll respond to your opening statement .

"Life is a fragile object. Just as easily as we are born, our life can be whisked away at something as simple as the push of a button or the pulling of a trigger. In the flicker of a light, in the twinkle of an eye - we can be reverted from this sentient being with friends, family, children, dreams, and hopes ... Into a hunk of matter - a corpse."

You Speak of death as if you're speaking of a Close Personal Friend,I find this Creepy.

:| This has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is about evidence that supports creation. Puppy - pro. Hy - con. I do hope that both debaters stick to the issue.

"We are now presented with two options. One, with an astronomical assumption of a Creator entity that made a creation capable of survivng in the harsh environment (that, unfortunately, is the result of the Creation designed by the Creator - a paradox within itself)."

It's not an assumption, It's the Necessary Conclusion based on Evidence. And The fact that People Make the Evil Argument is shocking. Please Read Genesis 3

(... a honest to goodness creationist... they do exist)

The problem here is genesis 3 needs to be supported by facts and not by the bible itself. Else, circular logic.

"In the following discussion, I will not do as the Creationists have done by nitpicking and playing word games - I will present evidence. Facts. Data (It is far too easy to pick apart a talking snake, light existing before a source of light, and explenation by magic and miracles anyhow)."

Wow, That's very Passive Aggressive of you. And Miracles Don't Contradict Science anymore then typing Contradicts My Computer.

The issue here is the analogy used. Miracles can't be tested. Science can be tested. Typing in a computer can be tested. You cannot assume that something that cannot be tested applies by analogy with something that can.

And as for your evidence I presented 3 Good Ones in my Opening Statement.

Where's the evidence. Y.Y

 

[Cephei]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

This is spectacularly terrible. It's just the same crappy arguments that have been debunked countless times. Didn't really expect anything else though.

Kinda disappointed that Hytegia referred to Creationism as a theory too.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

This is spectacularly terrible. It's just the same crappy arguments that have been debunked countless times. Didn't really expect anything else though.

I expect something grand like vesuvius grand. More pressure to them. ^-^

 

[Jebez42]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Strong out of the gate with an appeal to emotion (and an ad hom; savethedogf00t? Has tf00t been hassling dogs now?), and if we disagree we obviously should be "given therapy" :roll: Y

In an older YouTube video, I recall Thunderf00t saying that he would save his dog over a human stranger. I neither recall the video nor it's exact context.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

This is spectacularly terrible. It's just the same crappy arguments that have been debunked countless times. Didn't really expect anything else though.

Kinda disappointed that Hytegia referred to Creationism as a theory too.

They've yet to focus on definitions and specific questions. Maybe, in that instance, creationism is considered a theory when theory is used in the vulgar sense and not in the scientific sense. But if that's true, it makes the whole statement inconsistent as it allows toe under the ambit of theory in the vulgar sense. Y.Y

Anyway, let's see this through.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

:facepalm:

ThePuppyTurtle is not worth debating, he needs to have an education before he can be debated. I doubt ThePuppyTurtle could even define evolution correctly. This "debate" is just very sad for both parties.

However, I was not expecting anything special from ThePuppyTurtle after watching a few of his videos. It appears that he is also a fan of NephilimFree, so expect all the same arguments that micah1116 used (and were overwhelmingly debunked on this forum) to come back around.

 

[IBSpify]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

does the puppyturtle not realize that even if we were to assume ID is correct, and even if we were to assume that the designer was indeed a single all powerful deity this still does nothing to advance his position that the evidence supports genesis

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

does the puppyturtle not realize that even if we were to assume ID is correct, and even if we were to assume that the designer was indeed a single all powerful deity this still does nothing to advance his position that the evidence supports genesis

They personally argue, in a vague way, that the intelligent designer is the christian god. Therefore, it will support genesis since if ID is correct, then god did it.

We must be consistent since ID is a creationist argument. We learned this in the tsarp arc.

However, even if TOE is wrong, and ID is wrong, then it doesn't mean genesis is correct since toe doesn't tackle the issue of how everything came to be. ^-^

 

[Commander Eagle]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

:facepalm:

ThePuppyTurtle is not worth debating, he needs to have an education before he can be debated. I doubt ThePuppyTurtle could even define evolution correctly. This "debate" is just very sad for both parties.

This.

Hytegia hasn't responded yet. If I were him, I would call it here and now. Just walk out; there's no point.

 

[Proteus]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Strong out of the gate with an appeal to emotion (and an ad hom; savethedogf00t? Has tf00t been hassling dogs now?), and if we disagree we obviously should be "given therapy" :roll: Y

In an older YouTube video, I recall Thunderf00t saying that he would save his dog over a human stranger. I neither recall the video nor it's exact context.

I'm pretty sure Thunderf00t was joking considering the context. On a more pressing note this is really slow. When are the participants going to stop using poetry to describe life and the Bible and get to the actual science? Please make your move, pup.'

*edit for grammar

 

[kenandkids]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

It would be nice if it were more easily readable. The alternating colours are playing havoc with my eyes, it seems.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

The Only Scientifically Provable Aspect of the Genesis Creation itself. Is the Young Earth it Predicts. There's A lot Of Evidence, Here's a good sampling

1: The Moon: The Moon is Moving away from the Earth http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1282.html The rate at which it is doing so, Combined with the distance between the Earth and the Moon http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/space/how-far-moon-from-earth Mean that Even If we start the clock with them touching, And Ignore The Inverse square Law, We STILL Have the Moon Being Quite a Bit Further away then it is, Proving the Earth-Moon System is Young.

The Oceans are some 3.5 Percent Salt. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_salt_is_in_one_gallon_of_ocean_or_sea_water But are Getting Saltier. At the Rate at which they are now, Running back the Clock Gives us a Salt-less ocean 4400 years ago, Right around the time the Bible says the Flood Ended, Which Formed the Oceans

I Don't See How the Bible Gets it all right by coincidence. You're free to deny the Evidence if you wish, But if you care more about truth then The Theory of Evolution, I'd be Happy to Recommend a Church in Your Area.

Issue

1. Does genesis predict the age of the earth?

 

[scalyblue]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

It would be nice if it were more easily readable. The alternating colours are playing havoc with my eyes, it seems.

As are the grammar and spelling issues on both sides. Not running a spell check = you don't take your argument seriously.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

The Only Scientifically Provable Aspect of the Genesis Creation itself. Is the Young Earth it Predicts. There's A lot Of Evidence, Here's a good sampling

1: The Moon: The Moon is Moving away from the Earth http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1282.html The rate at which it is doing so, Combined with the distance between the Earth and the Moon http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/space/how-far-moon-from-earth Mean that Even If we start the clock with them touching, And Ignore The Inverse square Law, We STILL Have the Moon Being Quite a Bit Further away then it is, Proving the Earth-Moon System is Young.

The Oceans are some 3.5 Percent Salt. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_salt_is_in_one_gallon_of_ocean_or_sea_water But are Getting Saltier. At the Rate at which they are now, Running back the Clock Gives us a Salt-less ocean 4400 years ago, Right around the time the Bible says the Flood Ended, Which Formed the Oceans

I Don't See How the Bible Gets it all right by coincidence. You're free to deny the Evidence if you wish, But if you care more about truth then The Theory of Evolution, I'd be Happy to Recommend a Church in Your Area.

And with that I am done with this. I do not understand why anyone would want to "debate" someone who is so willing illinformed. It must be said again, ThePuppyTurtle is in need of an education, not a debate. In addition, this is just pathetic for both parties.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Well this debate is going to be as fun to follow as masturbating with a cheese-grater.

 

[kenandkids]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Well this debate is going to be as fun to follow as masturbating with a cheese-grater.

+1

 

[IBSpify]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

hurray talk origins for the easy to dispute 2 points he gives.

1: The Moon: The Moon is Moving away from the Earth http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1282.html The rate at which it is doing so, Combined with the distance between the Earth and the Moon http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/space/how-far-moon-from-earth Mean that Even If we start the clock with them touching, And Ignore The Inverse square Law, We STILL Have the Moon Being Quite a Bit Further away then it is, Proving the Earth-Moon System is Young.

The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 10^10 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.

The Oceans are some 3.5 Percent Salt. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_salt_is_in_one_gallon_of_ocean_or_sea_water But are Getting Saltier. At the Rate at which they are now, Running back the Clock Gives us a Salt-less ocean 4400 years ago, Right around the time the Bible says the Flood Ended, Which Formed the Oceans

This might be convincing if there were not natural mechanisms which remove sodium at roughly so close to the same rate that it's added that within the margin of error it stays in equilibrium

(Mind you if you were to use aluminum deposits in the ocean instead of sodium for his example it would show the earth to be roughly 100 years old)

I Don't See How the Bible Gets it all right by coincidence. You're free to deny the Evidence if you wish, But if you care more about truth then The Theory of Evolution, I'd be Happy to Recommend a Church in Your Area.

1. I don't see how you can trust any book to give you accurate answers when it states showing stripped rods to a pregnant animal will cause it to bear stripped young.

2. If the best evidence you have is either incorrect math (moon distance) or misrepresentations of natural processes (sodium in the ocean) then YES i will deny such evidence

3. I could care less about the theory of evolution, but it is currently the best explanation we have about the diversification of life on this planet.

4. Keep you churches to yourself please

5. Even if both of your pieces of evidence had held up this would not be proof that the earth was created as per Genesis, at most it would be proof that the earth was much younger then it actually is, but it says nothing about it came into being, thus telling us nothing other then an upper age of the earth.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Both debaters need to solve the following problems.

1. What does evidence mean in order to constitute as proof for or against creation.
2. What specific argument supports creation as supported by evidence or establish an authority that supports the same.
3. Toe should not be mentioned because it is not related to the topic.