In this debate we will keep track of points to see who is winning.

Here is the system: (use quick reply to see it better)



                                      Evolution                                                                                                                                    Creation


defeated notions             notions against                                                                    notions against                           defeated notions                                              
                                        why aren't there more                                                                        transitory fossils?                  
                                         bones in the ground?                                                                      (link still won't work)   


                                     why are comets still around?

                                  why are Saturn's rings still intact?


Hear are the rules:

Each side may make four attacks before the other side replies, but they may answer as many questions as they want.
No slandering, if you disrespect the opposition, you get a penalty card, get two penalty cards and you are out of the debate.


rcarter2 :



Traduweise : having a learning attitude is two way street.
I have tried to be nice and I will try again. just because evoluion is popular opinion does not make it fact.
Darwin and theory that he made popular (he didn't make it himself) was the minority once.
Just because this is a four vs one debate does not make me wrong.
My education does not make me unable to understand evolution, and if you know both sides of the debate then answer this: 

Where does the Bible record that Noah's ark landed?

Please just answer it.

I think that you are bluffing a bout the canopy theory.

If you won't answer the questions then please leave the debate.



thenumberone : What do you think of these rules? Would you tweak them in any way?
I would like you to be the one to point out anything wrong with my tally please. Thanks.


smotpoker 86:
darthyoda :
alsonic :
Saunter77 :


MegaRevolution1 : About the two light sources:

The moon reflects the moons light, there are a few Hebrew words for light. 
A notable difference between two words is the difference between the light and the light itself.
Hebrew doesn't translate into English very well.

About the ark: First of all, how big was the boat? and how many animals did Noah have to take on the ark?
Who says that Noah took adult animals? Why not take younger animals that are old enough to support themselves
but take less space, and why get ahold of the biggest Dinosaurs that you can find when you can get much smaller ones?

They took plenty of supplies on that ark to last long until plants grew back.
Seeds can survive a flood. 

Please don't tell crude jokes

I'm sorry to hear that you haven't been getting enough sleep lately, I hate it when that happens to me.




rcarter2 : nessie is pretty big plus the fact that many people believe that she isn't real so they won't try to catch her.
Human artifact found in coal means that coal couldn't have taken millions of years to produce, Scientist say that humans came into existence 20,000 years ago. Coal forms with a lot of presure and a little bit of time, they are doing that today in Europe to turn wastes into
useful fuel. Water does not form coal, the pressure that it put's on the rocks is what forms coal.

I'll finish this later.
 

Hate to do this to the mods, but I'm going to not discuss the subtle issue, but instead go to the TRUE issue here.

There is no "winning" or "losing" in debates like these. Simply because, despite the belief of thousands on either side, neither are proven to the point where it is LAW. As such, one can only speculate and study either side in hopes of decoding history.

Also, I know what the intentions were, but creating this entire thread is pretty unnecessary. You could have just added it onto your last thread, if anything.

That said, so this post can be somewhere near the topic, I'd just like to say that, as said a million times before, the only thing supporting creationism is Religion, specifically the Bible. In return, all sorts of Science backs up and supports evolution.

It's nice that you have faith in an omnipotent creator, and you can keep those beliefs. I have no problem with that. As many know, I only have an issue when they force it upon everyone else and restrict others rights, though I may have snapped once or twice in the past demonstrating otherwise.

Also, I know the boat wouldn't be small enough to create. I also know that he couldn't board dinosaurs on the boat, because Dinosaurs and humans never coexisted. If they did, I can guarantee you we wouldn't be here today.

Also, the flood, if it had captivated the entire globe, really wouldn't have gone away. It would have no where to go, really. That's why people fear about the melting of the ice on the north and south poles, because it WOULD result into flooding due to the raised sea levels. And like I said, once it's there, that water can't just "go away". There's no magic drain like in a bath tub. Instead, this would be a plastic cup. A very sturdy plastic cup. And the only real way for the water to go away... *looks up and points dramatically*... Is if the sun dries it up. I'm sorry. Very sorry. I just had to, really

Also, I have no idea what "notions against" and all that other stuff means, but if it's somehow meant to argue Evolution, then allow me to explain.

"why aren't there more bones in the ground?"
Ok, I want you to go and get a cookie. Now place that cookie in a giant bin full of rocks. Now, i want you to shake those rocks around as much as possible. What happened to the cookie? It got crushed into an unnoticeable pile of crumbs. Now, think of the same process, but the cookie being bones, rocks being the Earth, and pretend that half way through that bucket, it gets to a boiling point where nothing can be retrieved.

"Why are there still comets?"
How does this have to do with evolution?... Comets are basically frozen clumps of rock and dust, really. I've never heard an argument about comets before, so this makes little sense.

"why are Saturn's rings still intact?"
Again, that really has no correlation with evolution. At all. Do you really understand yet, even?... To answer your question, it all has to do with the size of Saturn, which contributes to its gravitational pull. Since it's quite large, it can sustain the rings it has without having them collapse. Think of it like how we have our moon, or how other planets have their moons and rings, and with how suns have planets orbiting around them, even.

Also, I didn't make any crude jokes, I used an example of how something like that can get passed around so much...

Sword legion : There are no facts in science. Even the most well-respected theory is falsifiable, which is to say it can be disproven. On the other hand a claim like "God exists" is not falsifiable because there is no way to prove God does not exist. And if we accept that God does exist, all these other claims, such as Canopy Theory, suddenly become plausible despite having no empirical evidence whatsoever simply because God is supernatural and can thus be used to explain anything. As a result, anything becomes possible regardless of how likely it is, and it is impossible for the knowledge of humanity to progress. Science seeks concrete answers, not supernatural ones.

Of course Noah's Ark is possible-if we allow for a supernatural deity to break dozens of rules of the universe we have been observing and testing for hundreds of years. In other words, the tale of Noah's Ark is only possible if we suspend our belief in reality. The story of Noah's Ark is flawed in so many ways that explaining them all would take hours. It doesn't matter if some guy found a boat on a mountain and claimed he found Noah's Ark; just the idea that you can shove two of every animal in the world onto a little boat for fourty days and then have them happily reproduce their respective species (apprently incest is never a problem in the Bible) is ludicrous.

As for Canopy Theory, a quick Google search shows it was debunked 30+ years ago. It hasn't been relevant in this millenium.

These debates never go anywhere, but I will say this: For those (even a very few university scientist) who do believe life did not evolve in the model the majority use, but was created in diversity by God, "why does Saturn have rings" really won't get you any respect.

There are some who may have well founded beliefs including creation and no macroevolution, but honestly Sword legion, it is based on much firmer reasons.

As older Vizzed members know, I believe in creation with certainty, but I agree that many of those who speak out trying to disprove evolution don't really know what they are talking about.

If you are to start a debate, get some better ammo.

I don't understand why this was made into a separate thread from the previous one. If this is going to be a debate that actually explores and discusses the truths in the creation/evolution controversy, you need to seriously try a different approach of doing this, because this looks more like you trying to win a debate rather than furthering truth. Making it a point system really seems like an immature way of debating this: trying to keep score and making the sides with the most points the "winner." If you want to get people to discuss about this, you should make a better effort in understanding both sides and addressing the points while avoiding unreasonable arguments.

I dont really know why you didnt just edit this into the original thread.
But really, I dont think you can have a point system for debates. The best that can be done is vote on the winning argument.
But honestly, I dont think people would vote objectively.
And so far the table is just pro creation questions. There were plenty of pro evolution points in the previous thread

I dont really know why you didnt just edit this into the original thread.
But really, I dont think you can have a point system for debates. The best that can be done is vote on the winning argument.
But honestly, I dont think people would vote objectively.
And so far the table is just pro creation questions. There were plenty of pro evolution points in the previous thread

thenumberone :

I made the new thread so that anyone who posts here will have to have consented to the rules.
This is basically a restart.

We need to keep a tally because people have been ignoring it.

You can't win a debate by playing defense the whole time, which is what some people were trying to do last time.

Anyone who dislikes these rules are welcome to leave.

Yeah, I probably messed up on the tally, sorry I was tired last night. =_=

I would like you and me to keep tally

Should get a third party to be the judge?
I was thinking of Georgee.

Or possibly play4fun?

He could hand out the penalty cards and also keep the tally, he could also be the final judge.

Light King: If the earth is millions of years old, then Saturns rings should not still exist because of the complex braiding process.
I am much more studied as of now.

The points just serve as an indicator of which side is winning

I find it funny that they decided to attack me as an individual over the argument.
That is bullying tactic, and they have no idea about me as a person in real life.

Traduweise :

How is the ark impossible? What do you know that shows that it's impossible?
If you're not willing to put time in this debate then that's fine, you don't have to debate

Just don't hover around here saying: You're not able to debate this stuff, you're not even through highschool.

" A quick google search reveals that it was debunked thirty years ago"

How does that explain it? I can't show you why that's wrong if you won't tell me why it's debunked.

You din't answer the question about the arks resting spot. I doubt that you are interested in this debate at all.
I've put in the time to explain things, why haven't you?
You have decided that I am not far enough in school to debate this and that I am not really worth your time.
I have a debate to do, all you have done is look down on me.
I am not upset, but you did not answer the question about the arks resting spot.

I am asking you to leave.

play4fun :
MegaRevolution1 :

It is very important as to who is the winner in this debate. This is not a no win argument.
Truth is not relative, there is one truth.


There is plenty of science supporting creationism. We do not fight science, we use it.

We do not restrict other's rights, we warn of the danger that comes from doing what's wrong.
Or we pass laws keeping them from doing what's wrong.

The flood water is still there, it's in the ocean now.

Comets can only exist for 10,000 years max we should have run out of comets by now.

Any reference to human wastes in a joke is crude if not done correctly.

Sword legion : Sword legion : I may have been a little rude. I meant no personal attack;
I will leave you with your debate, enjoy. (BTW the earth being millions
of years old does not contradict Genesis)

Sword legion : I've already given you several reasons why the story of Noah's Ark is not possible. How about you do something you haven't done over the course of either thread and back up your claims with some substance, hm? Or outline your own points with supporting arguments instead of demanding I do all the work for you? Take this Canopy Theory. I don't see why it's even remotely relevent. If you want to have any sort of a formal debate, you need to explain why I should care about it; the burden of proof rests firmly on you, not me.

Incidentally, you don't set the rules as to who can and cannot post. By making this thread, you are inviting people to discuss the topic you have laid out, which I am doing. I don't care about who gets points, but I would like to see you actually back your initial statements up instead of finding yet another way avoid the topic. If you want respect, you have to earn it. You can earn my respect by defending your claims against the various posts I've made with logical arguments backed by valid sources, and by demonstrating that you are at least willing to learn what evolution is and how it works.

1) You have an extremely obvious bias towards your own opinion, so you should not be the one keeping the score.

2) Because of your bias, you have so far proven fairly unwilling to actually consider the opinions and facts of others that have posted (my observation).

3) As even members who side with your position have pointed out, your arguments and evidence are juvenile and would not be taken seriously in a true debate.

Conclusion: Debating with you is pointless until you have actually performed serious academic research on BOTH points of view and can therefore form more concise and logical arguments with a solid basis in factual evidence from multiple sources. Many have done it before you, so it is not like it cannot be done.

My advice: Sword Legion should head to the library while other members should cease feeding his ego by responding to this farce of a debate.

We are going to do things orderly and keep track of what is going on.
Here is what your posts should look like in this debate:

     Questions     (not to be confused with attacks)

thenumberone : Am I forgetting any points for evolution?

     Raising the defense


Elara: (although maybe everyone hear should read this)


I try to post more stuff but I keep running out of time. I just end up answering everyones questions and don't get any attacks in, then I run out of time. And I asked thenumberone to keep a tally of the points as well, I even suggested a third party.

1 score keeper for creation

1 score keeper for evolution
 
1 score keeper and judge that is supporting neither side

I realize that I'd have a hard time being fair, so I asked thenumberone to also keep tally.
Did you read my second post?

We're keeping a score to see who is ahead, if anyone is afraid of losing the debate then they may leave.
Earlier they where ignoring my questions and thought they were winning.

I'll edit my original post and redefine the rules, making them more clear and exact.

I have much better information now. Some of my attacks have been defeated, and I have defeated most all of their attacks.


Light Knight: Don't worry about it, and I know what you mean about Genesis and the age of the earth.
It's an interesting topic, but I haven't looked into it enough to be sure. 


     Attacks

    1
Charles Lyle, a lawyer who scoffed at the Bible, erected the geological column.
He used no dating methods to decide the age of the columns.
The column doesn't any where on the planet except the school text books and probably other written documents.
If it did exist, then it would be one hundred miles thick.
The geological column lists index fossils used to date the layers. . .
But the layers also date the fossils.

This is circular reasoning.


One evolutionist said that the layers do date the fossils, but the fossils date the layers more accurately.
Niles Eldridge said that the problem can be ignored 



You can't base something off of circular reasoning.
   

     2
Fossils have been found that show that creatures supposedly dead millions of years ago lived with humans.
Human hands where found with dinosaur bones in the same rock strat.
Human footprints where found engraved on trilobite fossils.
So how can trilobite fossils be used as index fossils and how could they have gone extinct millions of years ago?
Petrified trees have been found standing up  in the ground sometimes even through multiple layers of coal.
This is devastating to the theory of evolution, does a tree stand for millions of years while the layers build up
around it? Trees don't stand up for that long before they fall down. Sometimes the trees are even found upside down.
Coal does not take millions of years to form, it can be formed with a lot of pressure and a little bit of time.
Things do not take millions of years to form. Have you ever heard of stucky?
Stucky was a dog that got stuck while chasing something through a hollow tree.
The dog appeared in Ripley's believe it or not.
They've found a petrified fish giving birth (it doesn't take millions of years to give birth).
They've found petrfiedsacks of flour in a mill.
They've found a petrified pickle in an old house.
One time a child put some acorns in a bucket of water, hoping that they would sprout and maybe make some seeds.
He forgot about them. Some other day, his mom found them, and would you look at that-they had become petrified.

    

                                                                                

                                                                                 

Can i be brutally honest here... 

This thread is completely pointless.. If anything i'd say that this thread will only cause arguments and won't prove anything at all.. 

Like many others the host of this thread seems to be biased..... and no matter who you appoint as score keeper... they will have an opinion.. Unless somehow they have not been subjected to either theory... 

It seems as most of your points for Creationism seem to be... Science cant prove it 100% so therefore it's creationism... but that's just my opinion... 

Personally i believe that a giant pink pony gave birth to us all...  +1 to ponyism... 

With what Elara said...

I decided to read the forum guidelines. This thread, if you really consider what has been going on, breaks two things so far.

1) "Be Open-Minded - this goes for EVERYONE! Even me and QuietChaos. If anyone feels that we(the mods) are being grossly unfair or biased in a thread then let either us or an admin know, and adequate action will be taken."

That could be taken into interpretation, but really, you're kinda being way too biased to your opinions, to which it's just unfair, thus the need to mention that.

2) "Be Diplomatic - what I mean by this is simple. When you make a point, do not act as if you are the supreme ruler on the situation and that your opinion supersedes all others. This is probably the second worst thing after flaming that ruins debates. Every viewpoint is valid, as long as it is being presented seriously, and should be treated accordingly. You have every right to disagree with someone, but again, respond in a way that makes it seem like you know all, because you don't."

You kinda crossed that line when you decided that you'd make this a tallied debate between two things that could not be proven at this current time. That, and the fact that you made yourself the tally keeper. And made this almost as if it were some competition.

But, then again, I'm not a mod, so I can't really declare these rules broken, just a bit of what I kinda gathered now.

soxfan849 :
hypermonkey : Thoughts?...

MegaRavolution1 is right. This is a debate forum, not a contest forum. Unless you happen to be participating in a debate as a member of a debate team, you don't keep score and there is no winner. Please remove the score tally (and ALL notion of scoring this debate) from this thread, or, if you prefer, you can ask soxfan849 or myself to close this thread reopen your previous one. Thank you.

Sword legion : Except that is not how a debate forum works. Each side gives a viewpoint, provide support, and counter the opposing side's point while clearing up misconceptions. Whether any side is convinced or not (or even choose to switch sides, cuz some people can be stubborn about it) is their own decision. There is no such thing as winning or losing in debate forums, but just people trying to provide the best support they can on their side. If this WAS about winning or losing, are you trying to say that if your arguments that you currently know does not "win" the argument, you would switch to the other sides by yourself? You put that burden on yourself? No you don't.

You just provide your support, exam each other's support, and then reason among the rest of us. If someone gets convinced, great. If not, move on. No debate is done with a point system. There are only good arguments and bad arguments, but no "wins" or "losses".

Sword legion : Sorry, but this thread is pointless. You are still trying to prove a side to be right and wrong,a you can't do that on a forum. You have to get yourself out there and get real evidence, not everything you can pull off the Internet. Your coal idea is a common argument on the Internet. You know why it is difficult to find the scientific explanation online? Because REAL scientists don't spend their time posting explanations on the Internet. if you want the explanation, find a University, head over to the science department, and spend the time to read through copies of the original published studies on the topic. I will warn you though, published research is not a short read. But it is not legal for me to post things from our archive here, and just as illegal for me to give you access. That particular concept requires more explanation than I find worth putting on a gaming website. Besides, if you seriously believe that 40 days of deep water is enough time and pressure to make coal, I don't think you would understand it. Take an organic chemistry coarse to get a better understanding of the behavior of carbon atoms. That alone is a semester of study that, again, is pointless to try to sum up on a forum. 

Overall, this whole score thing is just stupid. What are you trying to prove? Creationism/Evolution is right/wrong based off of how people who are spending some time on a gaming website can Google information? Unless you get a real degree in either of those fields and goes out and tests the concepts they are researching have a legitimate place to argue here. Anyone else who simply read a few articles here and there are just people arguing other people's points when they don't have a thorough understanding. 

You need to learn to look at this from a completely unbiased point of view. I'm a religious person, but this is why I prefer to not argue with other religious people on their religious points of view. 9/10 times, they are completely closed minded and only want to disprove other sides. Any credible scientist's job is to not prove or disprove anything. Their job is to explore ideas and test them to see what they find. 

You can count me out because nothing gets accomplished here and you have shown time and time again that your understanding of any non biblical text reaches about as far as google searches made by any bloke who knows how to make a web page and a little bit of high school biology (which only barely begins to scratch the surface to introduce the idea of the concept). Sorry, but if that offends you, but that is what I have observed.

Sword legion : As pretty much everyone else has mentioned I believe the tally or point system is , well,  pointless. Most debates I've seen that determine a "winner" don't have the debaters pick the winner but by polling the audience instead. Often they will poll the audience before the debate to see what side the audience is intially on and then another poll after the debate finishes to see if there was any significant sway in the audiences position. Since this is a forum debate with a lack of a traditional audience where any one can participate I would say that there isn't a very reliable way to govern the debate or gauge the non-participating members opinions. A debate of this fashion is more of a formal discussion.


I am going to try to answer the questions or give my opinion for the questions you asked and mentioned in the first post (even the ones you've seemed tallied up allready).

  why aren't there more  bones in the ground?
It's great that you have sifted through the entire landmass of the Earth and determined that there is a lack of bones as this is something unachievable for the average person. Let's all give thanks to your God for giving you this miraculous ability. On a less sarcastic note I am not sure how the amount of bones discovered can support creationism or evolution. Most bones (and fossils) found are the ones that are easily accessible. Just because humans haven't dug up the entire Earth in search of old bones doesn't mean that there aren't bones down there.

  transitionary fossils?
For many creationists it seems like it doesn't matter how many dinosaurs with feathers or fish and snakes with limbs are found. They usually just say it isn't a biological change but just some different creature that their God placed on Earth. Honestly, I don't know what creationists expect or want out of "transitionary fossils".

  why are comets still around?
I'm not sure why you think comets existing has anything to do with life forms being a static creation or evolving but I will answer anyways. I can think of a couple ways (there's probably other ways) a comet might be destroyed. 1) Melting from a heat source like a star or atmospheric entry. 2) Colliding with another large object.
A comet that hasn't been destroyed obviously hasn't gone through a process that would destroy it ... it's a pretty simple concept to wrap your head around in my opinion.

  why are Saturn's rings still intact?
My answer is pretty much the same as it was for the comet question. I am unfamiliar with the "braiding theory"  but your argument was "If the earth is millions of years old, then Saturns rings should not still exist because of the complex braiding process.". It seems as if you assume that the Earth and Saturn's rings are the same age. Saturn's rings most likely formed a very long time after Saturn was around. Scientists believe that the Earth is billions of years old but that doesn't mean they believe EVERY damn thing in the universe is the same age.

Where does the Bible record that Noah's ark landed?
On the mountains of Ararat 3 months before the tops of the mountains were seen.

First of all, how big was the boat?
About 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high which is roughly half the size of the Titanic.

 and how many animals did Noah have to take on the ark?
This depends on which bible verse you read.

"And to him on board the ark went one pair, a male and a female, of all animals, clean and unclean, of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, two by two, as God had commanded....Those which came were one male and one female of all living things; they came in as God had commanded Noah...the water had increased over the earth for a hundred and fifty days." (Genesis Chapter 7 verses 15, 24)

"Take with you seven pairs, a male and a female, of all ritually clean animals, and one pair, a male and a female, of all unclean animals; also seven pairs, male and female, of every bird-to ensure that life continues on the earth. For in seven days I am going to send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights." (Genesis Chapter 7 verse 2)

As you can probably tell the number of species varies depending on which account you go by. For example just the birds alone would change from 20,000 to 140,000 (based on the current recorded amount of bird species) between the two verses. I'm not exactly sure which animals the bible considers clean and unclean so I can't give you an approximate number but one thing is for certain, there were a ton of animals on Noah's 450ft boat. God bless Noah for living on a boat with over 1,200,000 spiders ( 8,400,000 if spiders are considered "clean") I sure as hell wouldn't want to do it.


Who says that Noah took adult animals? Why not take younger animals that are old enough to support themselves
but take less space, and why get ahold of the biggest Dinosaurs that you can find when you can get much smaller ones?
You are right, the bible doesn't state that Noah took adult animals. Maybe Noah was limited to the first 2 animals he could find and wasn't very picky. It would make much more sense to cram millions of smaller animals onto a boat rather than larger ones. That's how I would have done it if I were God ... well actually I would just create all these animals out of thin air after killing all the existing animals with my magical powers instead of worrying about a flood and a man having to make a fairly large boat ... you know because I'm God and I can do that. Who said that the bible was always logical though.

While I am on the topic hypothetical scenarios dealing with Noah I have a question to ask you. How much viagra did God give a 600 year old Noah to be able to reproduce humanity with his daughters?

Sword legion : Thought I would point out something though, since this just shows how little real research you do. You stated that Nessie is 'big'. Nessie is supposedly a Plesiosaurus. I have seen a Plesiosaurus fossil. They aren't that big. Really, only 10-12 feet on average. Not my definition of 'pretty big'. And yeah, a lot aren't going to look for her now. You know why? Back when that whole hogwash started, there were so many freaking people out there looking for it to capture it. Nobody ever found it. But regardless, there are still people who look. Heck, they have a show all about these people trying to find Bigfoot. There are still believers out there actively looking for it. Nobody has. Unless you want to count the people who claim to have seen it at a time where there were conveniently no other people around to witness it. Or the ones who got blurry 'footage' of it with equipment that would in any other conditions give you crystal clear picture or video. Why is it that cameras always decide to take blurry shots when they see Bigfoot or Nessie? 

How about the question of inbreeding after there were only two of every animal? Or did somebody cover that already?