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
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 52%  
  Substantial: 23%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 50%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 81%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.76  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
"There were periods in the past when three or four early human species lived at the same time, even in the same place. We – Homo sapiens – are now the sole surviving species in this once diverse family tree.'
Or was it this statement?
"From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals."
Lets start over. On that website, there is not one piece of evidence for evolution. Lots of claims, but no evidence. Now I'd like to see some actual evidence for evolution if you don't mind.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.64  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
You say "The evidence is right there in front of you." yet you refuse to include it in your post.
You say, "We have ran DNA tests that show a link between the life on this planet", yet you refuse to include the evidence that would support such a claim.
You say, "We can even directly observe evolution" yet you make no effort to reveal the evidence that any such process has been observed.
If you already know what the evidence for evolution is, than it shouldn't take you that much time to find it, and I don't see why you should have to do research in order to simply show me the evidence that has already convinced you that evolution is true. Or could it be that you don't actually have any evidence, that you have never actually seen any evidence, and your entire atheistic worldview is faith based?
Lol
I believe in scientists, and I have faith in the scientific method, so evolution must be true.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 36%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 39%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 48%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 65%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 50%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
When a painter sits beside a beautiful landscape and is inspired to put that beautiful landscape on a canvas so that others might have the opportunity to see and appreciate that beautiful landscape, as the author of that painting saw it, it was the beautiful landscape that inspired him to put it onto canvas. The landscape didn't make the painting. It was the author, the painter who put the landscape onto canvas, because the landscape inspired him to do it.
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Trust me, I knew that you would not be capable of providing evidence for evolution. You do indeed have great faith in your science.
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is possible that God spoke to Moses and told him about creation. It could be that Genesis wasn't even written by Moses. It could have been written by someone who knew Adam for all I know.
It could be that Genesis is nothing more than a cute little story parents told their children throughout the ages. I don't know. But I cannot show that it is false, and neither can you.
I honestly don't care if anyone cares what the Bible says. I have been convinced that it is true, and that is all it takes for me to believe it is true. I couldn't care less what you and others believe. Well, I care a little, but I understand, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 57%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 55%  
  Substantial: 51%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Sonofason Let me make myself quite clear. Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the origins of life. You can insist it should be able to answer the question all day, but that is not what the theory is about. You may as well ask how does a carbonated beverage produce life. It's just as relevant as evolution.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://www.jkrowling.com/about/
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.28  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 54%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
You do not know me in the slightest degree, and therefore you do not get to decide what I have or have not done. Nor do you have a clue what I am capable of doing.
You telling me, without any evidence whatsoever, that the story of Adam and Eve, and the story of a global flood is not accurate means absolutely nothing to me. I have seen a great deal of evidence which supports both stories. I have so far dismantled every single argument that I have ever seen constructed for the purpose of discrediting or refuting the truth that is contained in the Bible. And now I will destroy yours as well.
The Bible never claims that the age of the universe is only 6,000 years old.
The Bible never claims that people were not present on this planet more then 6,000 years.
And even if the Bible did make such a claim, the people who lived 6,000 years ago were under no obligation to define mankind as mankind is defined today, and it could be very well true that by their standards, no man existed prior to 6,000 years ago, because Adam was the first man.
You do not know there was no global flood. Try providing evidence for this unsupported claim of yours, that is if you care to get my attention.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 49%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
You voted on this?
http://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/4525/#Comment_4525
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 21%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.78  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 13%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.98  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 46%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
The expansion rate of the universe is not likely a constant. And I have never observed background radiation. Why should I believe it even exists?
I don't know if you have any homo sapien fossils, let alone whether or not you know how old they are. What evidence do you have to back this claim up?
You don't know there was not a global flood.
And your link doesn't work.
I understand population growth rates, and I know you can reach 150 million people in less than 400 years easily.
The Chinese calendar did not begin at year zero. The beginning was estimated based on the estimated true age of the earth, likely based on real and valid information, probably from Noah himself lol..
Again, calendars don't mean anything, unless you got the guy in your pocket that created it.
You have nothing of anything that even resembles evidence. Thus I will continue to believe in a literal translation of the bible...thx.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.5  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.94  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 26%  
  Learn More About Debra
You're right, you didn't say the earth was 13.8 billion years old. But it doesn't really matter, as you neither know the age of the universe, nor the age of the earth. You have various dating methods but no hard evidence that any of them are accurate.
Do tell me what the actual population growth statistics were 4,000 years ago again? Please show your work.
I have already shown valid reason why you cannot count any calendar as valid evidence in any regard to whether or not there was a great flood that covered the earth with water.
Name the person who started the Chinese calendar please.
I haven't claimed anything other than the fact that none of your claims can be considered valid evidence that there was no global flood. You made the claim. And therefore its up to you to support your claim. I have already shown why your previous reasons, or evidence as you called it, cannot be considered valid evidence by reasonable persons.
It's quite a fantasy that you live in if you think you have proved there was no global flood.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
1.
As evolution proposes?
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.84  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you seek evidence that no flood occurred, you must fabricate your own evidence, and ignore the available evidence.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.4  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
and can be observed, measured, and calculated, it cannot be negative (it can be expressed in a negative in the same since that if you have 10 fingers and add negative 2, you now have 8. Its really just taking away, not dipping below zero which is what I mean when I say negative). And even if negatives could be physically expressed, the number line is still problematic in a world with no beginning. In such a world, the number line begins at negative infinity, and ends at infinity. On a number line to get from negative infinity to infinity, you must cross zero. Zero is a unique number, and its considered the starting point of numbers. Its the only number you can't divide by, its the only number where you get the same result when you multiply by it by other numbers(0) or use it as an exponent (1). Its the only number that has no effect when its added or subtracted. Its pretty easy for a trained mathematician to look at a graph and see where zero is in the place of a variable because many graphs display weird behavior at this point (for instance a standard parabola starts to go from a negative to positive slope at this point). All number lines have a point zero, and in a universe with no beginning, where would point zero be? And most importantly, infinity is not a true number but a concept. Numerically, infinity can never be reached. So if the universe were infinitely old, the it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present. Since infinity cannot be reached, we shouldn't have been able to reach this point if the world were infinitely old. Its not as problematic on the positive side of the line, as its understood as an idea, and true numbers can be used to describe any point, infinity is only used as a shortcut so that we don't spend an eternity expressing simple ideas. An infinite chain of causes going back in time is impossible scientifically and numerically, and therefore there was a first cause. Since nothing in our observable universe can happen unless caused, something must exist outside the observable universe, it must have preceded time, and must have more force and energy than what can be found in our universe, otherwise the cause would not be sufficient for the effect. Science is the study of the observable universe, and Science hasn't proven God for the same reason that math hasn't proven the that ain't is considered grammatically incorrect. Entirely different subject. Anything which exists outside of the observable universe is outside the domain of science, however when deeply analyzed science does provide us with plenty of reason to believe that something exists beyond what can be observed by science.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 22%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
But, I digress...in general, I agree with the point you are trying to make.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
Where is the evidence for this? @Sonofason
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 51%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 30%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Pounds can refer to both a mass (weight) and a force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)
Using it to refer to weight is FAR more common. The usual unit of force (and the SI unit) is the Newton.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.32  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 66%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight
The First sentence reads "In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity"
Weight is a force, this is why lbs, the unit for measuring force, is used to describe weight.
The reason scientists use Newtons to measure force is because Newtons is the metric systems standard unit for measuring weight. Scientists have adopted and international standard for measuring things so that data is more easily viewed across multiple countries. The international standard for measuring things is the metric system. The reason lbs is used more in reference to weight is because non-scientistsare more likely to measure weight than other forces. However, the international scientific standard unit for measuring weight is the Newton. To verify this, please visit the Wikipedia page on weight, and in the blue box, look for "SI unit" and it will say Newtons.
  Considerate: 99%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 7%  
  Learn More About Debra