Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

87
66
I'll stick with evolution. I have my own ideas.
Debate Score:153
Arguments:195
Total Votes:157
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I'll stick with evolution. (81)
 
 I have my own ideas. (63)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(37415) pic



The problem with evolution can be described with an analogy.

 

Let's use a computer as an analogy for the human brain.

 

There are many different types of brains, just like there are many different types of computers.  You have PCs, Macs, tablets/phones, tiny, wearable, computing devices, calculators, super computers, etc.  So a human brain can be a supercomputer and a dog's brain can be a calculator.

 

Now, these computers all need an operating system, like Windows, OS-X, IOS, Android, Linux, Etc.  The operating system can represent sentience.

 

But in order for computers to do useful stuff, they need aps, like Microsoft Word, Photoshop, VLC, etc.  This can be human knowledge and reason.

 

Ok.  Ready?  Here we go.

 

We are expected to believe that a super computer evolved, with Linux installed and a number of aps?  That's Quite a lot to happen all by itself.  Can we reasonably expect to find a similar machine on some distant planet, half burried in sand?  I mean, don't you find that just as incredible as what religion teaches?

I'll stick with evolution.

Side Score: 87
VS.

I have my own ideas.

Side Score: 66
3 points

Yes, that is as incredible as what religion believes, because that is what religion believes. Evolution says a distant planet would have a different computer system, and religion says the computer system would be the same since it came from the same source.

Side: I'll stick with evolution.

So, like a quantom computer on another planet with DOS and 16 bit programs?

Side: I'll stick with evolution.
2 points

I am sorry that you don't know what the word different means, I won't be able to explain if you haven't learned by now.

Side: I'll stick with evolution.
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Yes they are equally incredible.

.

They both seem to leave a lot to imagination.

But if you investigate God from more than one study of just Evolution, like in History, in Archiology, in Prophetic Accuracy, and in Logic, then Creation and the Divine Intruder is much more established with sound proof that Evolution would be when presented absent from the Divine Intrusion of the Creator!

Side: I have my own ideas.
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Any time you study one and not the other you will be inclined to believe the one you studied. When you study both, the only way Creation is possible is if God created the universe and then life, and let evolution take over, but that is not the Creation story.

Side: I'll stick with evolution.
1 point

Hmm... scientifically proven with great explanations or random trash? I'll go with Darwin.

Side: I'll stick with evolution.

If you do not favor evolution, then you posted on the wrong side.

Side: I'll stick with evolution.
1 point

Haha, he messed up former and latter. It sounds like he meant former from his tone.

Side: I'll stick with evolution.
1 point

There's lots of great responses already in this column. I'll just add the problem with your analogy is religion's explanation for the computer is it came straight from God exactly the way it is now and there was never any versions before it. And then when scientists find remnants of a Commodore 64 or TRS-80 and make a theory they preceded your modern computer you deny it and refer back to the legends of Bronze Age civilization to counter.

Side: I'll stick with evolution.
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

The gospels are eye witness accounts and actual biography.

Most historians confirm this.

The question for the skeptic really lies in the belief of Resurection and other miracles.

But as a Biography, that isn't disputable by any reasonable argument.

And there also has been forensic analysis done that would make the 4 gospels written collaborating the detailed stories impossible.

If you take 2 executives, brainy people of modern day, and they set out a conspiracy, (without luxury of government coverups - as in Hillary) But just executives frauding people, and caught and under investigation, a series of questions would detail inconsistencies that are indications of lies in testimony.

So just 2 people in short term with details of 1 thread of events would likely unravel.

And that's not the case with the 4 gospels, a forensic would confirm it, many have. 1 in particular has, and he started as a passionate atheist, and after months of review determined these were true eyewitness accounts.

Here is a quick clips from an atheist turned Christian through investigation.

https://youtu.be/QsUBwTh0VX0

.

Side: I have my own ideas.
Grenache(6103) Disputed
1 point

The four eyewitness accounts - by people complicit in what was a banned or persecuted religion at the time, and whom all had decades to craft their texts and confer with each other.

Hey, do you think 200 years from now Muslims will point to 4 texts written by Al Qaeda today and say clearly since they're all similar then what they said is confirmed fact?

Side: I'll stick with evolution.
1 point

We are expected to believe that a super computer evolved, with Linux installed and a number of aps? That's Quite a lot to happen all by itself.

No, the Theory of Evolution asks us to believe no such thing. In fact, it requests we believe in nothing remotely close to that absurd analogy.

Your metaphor is as silly as that old one the Creationists used to prattle on about that said Evolution was as likely as a tornado in a junkyard swirling up a bunch of discarded items and then setting down a completely, perfectly-fabricated 747 jumbo jet.

Evolution works nothing like those two scenarios. It does not ask that we believe we, or the Earth began with anything that was already perfected and formed. Rather, Evolution postulates a very long, mostly gradual process of trial and error. Of the painstakingly slow, but also highly efficient process of Selective Inheritance.

That is, of species utilizing desirable or favorable genetic mutations to enable them to thrive and adapt successfully in their given environments. And then to pass these physical advantageous traits onto their offspring. Over and over until an ascension is developed and what was once a desirable aberration finally becomes the new standard.

It's a far different mechanization, or process than what you and your supercomputer in the sand poses. As that is nothing but an unexplained and sudden action. One with no explained previous process of enabling it to attain fruition.

So once again, we here see a detractor of Evolution simply showing is that they do not understand the theory they are wrongfully attempting to denigrate. This gets very tiresome, I must confess. And it is the standard, rather than the rare, for people who disbelieve Evolution.

That is, not to put too fine a point on it: they just don't know what they are talking about.

SS

Side: I'll stick with evolution.

Maybe the universe is filled with disembodied, imortal, sentient, beings. Then one of them came up with a patent to build an inhabitable body. And so they started building all life and posessed their creations.

I mean, I too can come up with some crazy ass shit theory ;)

Side: I have my own ideas.
1 point

i can appreciate the absurdity of evolution from another perspective, however your analogy is missing a crucial component which could be fixed with something like a mutation script. applications that do not properly or competitively meet their purpose are deleted and so linux runs these applications with minute changes and iterates. every iteration is reviewed for its relative success and the change is assimilated into the application if it makes the app more successful for its purpose.

evolution is just a theory, but as with other theories is a constructed guess upon facts and backed by evidence. arguably the ideas some come up with to explain these facts are just as ridiculous and false as the next. but as of yet, evolution has no contender to better explain our origin with the current information.

Side: I'll stick with evolution.

Evolution does not explain the start of life. It only explains how it keeps going.

Why would chemical reactions come together to form life? And more importantly, why would they need sentience?

Side: I'll stick with evolution.
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

The question I have is related to survival vs cooperation.

I'm not a scientific person, .but if the earth was evolving mutating adapting to further evolve and mutate etc ... the wouldn't selective mutations obey their genes for survival, reproduction, and dominance?

And by doing so limit or eliminate exclusively for its own survival and progress?

Now, we can't really expect high thought, so we can't apply our thought process to the process, just basic cell reproduction, and there can be that smart gene, that remembers an experience to assist in progress.

But animals don't protect the survival of their prey, they just obey hunger.

So in this rapidly multiplying field of evolving life forms, who defined the boundaries so the weaker life forms could survive and progress at an even rate to result in the full appreciation of all of nature, seemingly all at once?

Side: I have my own ideas.
SlapShot(2607) Disputed
1 point

I mean, I too can come up with some crazy ass shit theory ;)

Of course you can, amigo. But I feel you would be better off forgetting all that and instead just simply studying a bit more on the Theory of Evolution. As it is painfully obvious from your posts here that you are very confused about even its basic, primary tenets. Your "super computer in the sand" metaphor proved that.

Or maybe just a plain ol' Biology 101 class?

Hope this helps. And let me know if I can answer any questions for you.

SS

Side: I'll stick with evolution.

You obvioysly do not know me and thus have no idea what you're talking about. ;)

Side: I'll stick with evolution.
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

You asked in a debate I was banned in by Saintnow why Jesus suffered 6 hours.

What He did can be found described in science, in part. And described in detail in the Bible.

To understand one thing you have to understand other things.

First what was the fall really? We understand it as removed from the garden, not living in fellowship with God, struggles, labor pains, and returning to dust.

And Jesus, what did He do? And why?

First the dilemma. People don't often "feel lost" we sometimes "feel broken" and some may "feel hopeless" but all in all life seems pretty good. We can ignore many things and still be "happy" The most "healthy" among us have good outlooks in life, right? So religion is for the "weak" and "needy" or to "feel good"

Not understanding the fall would leave this impression.

So lets understand the fall.

There are many things to understand in the fall. I want to focus on one part that pertains to the statements, "you will surely you shall die" and "to dust you shall return."

The brokenness of man is what Jesus came to heal. To bring hope to the hopeless end of man. Jesus came to give hope where there literally was no hope.

And to seek the lost who would be left wandering as disembodied souls, in hopelessness and in darkness. To offer healing to the brokenness of the disembodied soul, eternally lost and eternally dead, eternally disembodied.

Is that one dimention?

The Father saw the broken hopelessness of the lost souls of men and there was only one way to heal their brokenness.

And the walk in our dust, to as He says, Bread broken for us. He had to walk through our brokenness as innocent in the whole law. He had to master flesh and then break it on the cross. With forgiveness in the flow of His innocent blood. Through it He ransomed the dust that was under the serpent.

Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, sweat blood in requesting it pass, if there were another way. So Jesus actually plainly and matter of factly answered and said there were no other options.

If you understand light, spltting in a particle accelerator that was like what He did, then He faced Hell, disembodied in the wandering and He took keys of their brokenness away from the jailor so He can make body and soul whole again.

And in the 3rd day, which is for a judicial precept or relative to the time frame would be 3rd day of creation. Which was all about the earth and growth.

So then He raised His dust that was under the judgment of brokenness, and the hopelessmess of disembodied souls. And He walked out with power over death, with the keys to our dust in His hand.

So thats the answer to what He did, and the why He did it, and why it was required.

Light properties:

If a single photon can demonstrate double-slit interference, then which slit did it pass through? The unavoidable answer must be that it passes through both! This might not seem so strange if we think of the photon as a wave, but it is highly counterintuitive if we try to visualize it as a particle. The moral is that we should not think in terms of the path of a photon. Like the fully human and fully divine Jesus of Christian theology, a photon is supposed to be 100% wave and 100% particle.

Side: I'll stick with evolution.
Cartman(18192) Disputed
0 points

That's a crazy ass shit religion. Not theory.

Side: I'll stick with evolution.

You are correct of course but these bigots on the Left hate the very thought of Christianity or a God. These insecure people want to live their self consumed lives with no God or no person speaking of moral choices.

They want their one night hook ups, and if the girl gets pregnant...NOT THEIR FAULT! Tax payers will have to raise the idiot dead beat's child while he will go through life wondering why his father abandoned him.

So they will believe any far fetched thing to keep from any notions of personal accountbility for one's choices in life.

Therefore they actualy believe that our complex DNA just randomly occured over many years. I have a bridge for these people to buy.

Faith in God is a thousand times more plausible answer to our creation than the ludicrous theory of evolution.

No one has the proof. No one has all the answers. All we can do is look at life. See how badly the Godless are destroying this nation. They have absolutely no common sense to what is causing all our problems. If you speak to them about the broken homes, and children having no fathers to discipline and love them, these space cadets look at you like you are on some other planet.

They have the wisdom of a rock!

Side: I have my own ideas.
1 point

https://youtu.be/mG37ysdWLWc

This is entertaining

Weigh the evidence!

Side: I have my own ideas.