3 years ago
Which side makes a better case?
avatar
21 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 3 years ago

    @genuine @chasuk When is this happening? I also suggest you amend the subject with the affirmative statement you agree with!

    • 3 years ago

      @gigi: The debate is scheduled for Sunday, 10 pm CST.

      Thanks for drawing my attention to the amended subject.

      @genuine_504, while I am still be happy for our debate to occur, I will be proceeding with the original subject — "There is more proof to support Creationism than proof of Evolution" — and not the amended version.

      @yaz: Would you kindly revert the subject to its original form? Thanks!

  • 3 years ago

    There were two separate streams operating simultaneously, which I suspect as the reason for your lag.

    I didn't know that such a thing was possible. :-)

    Thank you for the discussion!

  • 3 years ago

    Great debate guys, thanks a lot!

    • 3 years ago

      Very interesting perspectives..this debate for sure deserves more time!

      • 3 years ago

        "the elasticity of custard pudding" haha @chasuk that's great. Interesting example but the point is so true. With reasonable evidence, these things are difficult to argue with (given the research and reports were presented without manipulation)

        • 3 years ago

          @genuine_504 interesting take on randomness and thermodynamics as evidence for creationism, honestly have not heard those arguments before

        • 3 years ago

          @genuine_504 I wouldn't say macroevolution is faith-based at all. There is observable change that we can track and measure so I'm not sure I understand your point on that...

          • 3 years ago

            @jessvdb I don't really know where I stand on this debate but on that point you mentioned, we can measure that change (of macroevolution) yes, but we cannot measure that it was an actual act of evolution. We can't really prove the actual reasons for those 'evolutionary' changes. I actually do believe in evolution but I think people assume there is more scientific evidence for it than there actually is.

          • 3 years ago

            @jessvdb I have not been able to see where there is any actual evidence of macroevolution.

          • 3 years ago

            @jessvdb the macro-evolutionary changes that people 'track and measure' is not traceable, measurable or observable, it is a hypothesis that many have postulated about past events, by definition we cannot observe these changes and no one ever has. We've observed microevolution aka adaptation, but nobody has ever witnessed macro, or large, changes take place, such as a cow like mammal becoming a whale etc.

          • 3 years ago

            @genuine_504 please check your email :)

          • 3 years ago

            @yaz just replied back to you.

          • 3 years ago

            @akyriak acheological studies are not valid in this case? Recording a change in skeletal remains from the past compared to how they present now? We can track those changes, just like we tracked the ways in which humans evolved through discovery of remains (emergence of bipedalism, slow change of the sagittal crest, etc.).

          • 3 years ago

            @jessvdb care to debate this?

          • 3 years ago

            @akyriak I would love to but a bit busy at the moment. Let me come back to you

          • 3 years ago

            @jessvdb ok whenever you're free :)

        • 2 years ago