Debunking Any and All Arguments for the Existence of a God

[Cann!bal]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

Correct me if I'm wrong but creationism is when people say the earth is a living thing like in the bible? If so I'll just talk about religion. When we die we lose 21 grams of weight that no one knows where it goes. This has been known to be call the "Soul Weight." Matter is not created or destoryed so we can't turn off like a light we have to go somewhere (At least that energy) where does it go if not to "heaven" please note I'm just starting a argument. @Michael @Leader @Sector

No. That's not what creationism is.

In the one experiment ever conducted where this arises from, the loss of 21 grams was only observed in one of the six patients. Besides, 21 grams is heavier than air, so rather than ascending to where Heaven is conventionally, it would descend to where Hell conventionally is.

 

[Nevermind]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

No, I do agree with you on the theory of evolution. But the argument isn't about evolution, it is about creationism. Am I right? You wish to disprove all theories of creationism using any method. My true point is: can you disprove these?

I can't disprove them fully. That's not possible. Any claim you make can't be disproved to a certain degree. However, that doesn't make the claim valid.

So you do agree that the time table for the brain is definitely a lot more than a hundred years, perhaps more than tens of thousands of years?

No. The data says otherwise.

I'm going to tell you what is actually constant. I agree with you that over time the increase is not constant. But this is the average of the exponential increase. An average is used to get from the initial to the final point. It combines all increases together and finds the mean of that.

What's your point? There have been times when the human population has gone down to around 55,000, which is nearly extinct. This link pretty much debunks that claim. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html

(Time to get religious) So you keep saying they all got knocked out somehow. Now let's assume that they all were, indeed, killed somehow, perhaps in the same way as the Flood? Yes, I do believe creationism wins here.
@Leader

How does that even make sense? Did you read this part of your post?

---

The only thing I could think of is that an omnipotent timeless creator is the best answer at the moment for the origins of the universe. No scientific theories have been proven yet (multiverse theory, vacuum theory), so a god would seem very likely to be the answer to how the universe would've been made. Although there is no evidence to make this theory any truer, it seems most possible.
(ps I'm not a theist, but I've heard this argument before)

That's not true. That's the god of the gaps argument and it's a logical fallacy. The fact that there is no scientific explanation doesn't warrant a supernatural one.

 

[NULLNULLNULL]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

That's not true. That's the god of the gaps argument and it's a logical fallacy. The fact that there is no scientific explanation doesn't warrant a supernatural one.
[/quote]

thats the counter I expected. theists always say "well if we don't know how it happened, it must've been god"
your rhetoric is impressive, I see you've been doing your research

 

[Envy]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

I can't disprove them fully. That's not possible. Any claim you make can't be disproved to a certain degree. However, that doesn't make the claim valid.

You can't disprove this one to any degree it seems. Yes, I agree that it doesn't make the claim valid. I want you to remember that for this debate, I, literally, just changed all of my views. So my bad when I don't make sense.

No. The data says otherwise.

I feel like I keep providing more data, but it keeps getting ignored. I will repeat my support again. They said it is the same amount as memorizing 300 years worth of television. The didn't say it in the exact words, but it is implicating that. Humans do not memorize everything they do, including there dreams, for 300 years. Instead, they transform discrete things into long-term knowledge/memories.

What's your point? There have been times when the human population has gone down to around 55,000, which is nearly extinct. This link pretty much debunks that claim. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html

Hmm. The only one that might have any weight at all is number three.
I'm debunking number 2 because .05 because it is the average for all 4000 years.

And for debunking number 1, lets assume one year was a 1% population growth. Next five years was a 0% population growth. Then the next year was -1% due to some accident. Then the next three years were at 2% population growth. What is the average population growth? .6%. If you use this average population growth all the way from the beginning, it gets you to the same result at the end.

And for number 3, numbers do tend to get exaggerated by humans in order to exemplify the enormity of situations.
@Leader

 

[Nevermind]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

You can't disprove this one to any degree it seems. Yes, I agree that it doesn't make the claim valid. I want you to remember that for this debate, I, literally, just changed all of my views. So my bad when I don't make sense.

You haven't provided any evidence for your claims. Plus, I can barely understand them in the manner that you are typing them.

I feel like I keep providing more data, but it keeps getting ignored. I will repeat my support again. They said it is the same amount as memorizing 300 years worth of television. The didn't say it in the exact words, but it is implicating that. Humans do not memorize everything they do, including there dreams, for 300 years. Instead, they transform discrete things into long-term knowledge/memories.

The brain could store 300 years of TV. It's merely a way to illustrate the capacity of the human brain.

And for debunking number 1, lets assume one year was a 1% population growth. Next five years was a 0% population growth. Then the next year was -1% due to some accident. Then the next three years were at 2% population growth. What is the average population growth? .6%. If you use this average population growth all the way from the beginning, it gets you to the same result at the end.

You're operating off of assumptions that are unwarranted. Show me the math for this.

 

[Envy]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

You haven't provided any evidence for your claims. Plus, I can barely understand them in the manner that you are typing them.

What is wrong with my typing? I assure you there is little to nothing wrong with it. My grammar is at college level, but if you insist, I guess I can't argue. Evidence? The original claim was that there is no actual logically sound way in determining the age of fossils and parts of the earth's crust. I don't need evidence for this. By providing this claim, I rebuted a possible counterargument against the creationistic claim that "God created everything on this earth". What's your counterargument? Stop beating around the bush.

The brain could store 300 years of TV. It's merely a way to illustrate the capacity of the human brain.

I'm not sure if this is even a debate anymore. My original claim was that the human mind can contain way more knowledge than capable in a life time. So if, by definition, evolution means to adapt for survival, then why does our brains contain so much more capacity than neccesary? Creationism states God gave us these advanced brains because we were created in his image, or something like that.

You're operating off of assumptions that are unwarranted. Show me the math for this.

Current population= 100,000 people
Next year(due to a tsunami) population=99,000 people 1% decrease
3rd year population =99,650 people 0.65% increase
4th year population =100,440 people 0.78% increase
5th year population = 101,160 people .71% increase
6th year(due to an earthquake) = 100, 640 people .5% decrease
7th year population =101,340 people .69% increase
8th year population = 102,242 people .88% increase
9th year population =103,152 people .88% increase
10th year population = 103,951 people. .77% increase
Average population increase: 0.386%
This is population totals for an example.
I am taking what they said into account--all of these catastrophic events. Some years people make a lot more babies than others.
As you can see the increases are not consant, some years decrease in population, but that doesn't effect it from getting to it's end result. Apply the same exact thing from 2250 B.C.E. to 2014 A.C.E. Tell me it is not mathematically sound. Tell me this is an unwarrented assumption. I've spent a lot of time responding to these. Please respect them. @Leader

 

[Nevermind]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

What is wrong with my typing? I assure you there is little to nothing wrong with it. My grammar is at college level, but if you insist, I guess I can't argue. Evidence? The original claim was that there is no actual logically sound way in determining the age of fossils and parts of the earth's crust. I don't need evidence for this. By providing this claim, I rebuted a possible counterargument against the creationistic claim that "God created everything on this earth". What's your counterargument? Stop beating around the bush.

I don't have to provide a counterargument to that claim. It is a claim asserted without evidence, therefore it can be dismissed without evidence.

I'm not sure if this is even a debate anymore. My original claim was that the human mind can contain way more knowledge than capable in a life time. So if, by definition, evolution means to adapt for survival, then why does our brains contain so much more capacity than neccesary? Creationism states God gave us these advanced brains because we were created in his image, or something like that.

http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_05/d_05_cr/d_05_cr_her/d_05_cr_her.html
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_05/i_05_cr/i_05_cr_her/i_05_cr_her.html

Both of these links provide a pretty simple evolutionary explanation for the brain.

Current population= 100,000 people
Next year(due to a tsunami) population=99,000 people 1% decrease
3rd year population =99,650 people 0.65% increase
4th year population =100,440 people 0.78% increase
5th year population = 101,160 people .71% increase
6th year(due to an earthquake) = 100, 640 people .5% decrease
7th year population =101,340 people .69% increase
8th year population = 102,242 people .88% increase
9th year population =103,152 people .88% increase
10th year population = 103,951 people. .77% increase
Average population increase: 0.386%
This is population totals for an example.
I am taking what they said into account--all of these catastrophic events. Some years people make a lot more babies than others.
As you can see the increases are not consant, some years decrease in population, but that doesn't effect it from getting to it's end result. Apply the same exact thing from 2250 B.C.E. to 2014 A.C.E. Tell me it is not mathematically sound. Tell me this is an unwarrented assumption. I've spent a lot of time responding to these. Please respect them. @Leader

'The population growth rate proposed by the claim would imply unreasonable populations early in history. We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood). Then, assuming a growth rate of 0.5 percent per year, the population after N years is given by

P(N) = 8 × (1.005)N

The Pyramids of Giza were constructed before 2490 B.C.E., even before the proposed Flood date. Even if we assume they were built 100 years after the flood, then the world population for their construction was 13 people. In 1446 B.C.E., when Moses was said to be leading 600,000 men (plus women and children) on the Exodus, this model of population growth gives 726 people in the world. In 481 B.C.E., Xerxes gathered an army of 2,641,000 (according to Herodotus) when the world population, according to the model, was 89,425. Even allowing for exaggerated numbers, the population model makes no sense.'

 

[Envy]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

I don't have to provide a counterargument to that claim. It is a claim asserted without evidence, therefore it can be dismissed without evidence.


http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_05/d_05_cr/d_05_cr_her/d_05_cr_her.html
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_05/i_05_cr/i_05_cr_her/i_05_cr_her.html

Both of these links provide a pretty simple evolutionary explanation for the brain.


'The population growth rate proposed by the claim would imply unreasonable populations early in history. We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood). Then, assuming a growth rate of 0.5 percent per year, the population after N years is given by

P(N) = 8 × (1.005)N

The Pyramids of Giza were constructed before 2490 B.C.E., even before the proposed Flood date. Even if we assume they were built 100 years after the flood, then the world population for their construction was 13 people. In 1446 B.C.E., when Moses was said to be leading 600,000 men (plus women and children) on the Exodus, this model of population growth gives 726 people in the world. In 481 B.C.E., Xerxes gathered an army of 2,641,000 (according to Herodotus) when the world population, according to the model, was 89,425. Even allowing for exaggerated numbers, the population model makes no sense.'

1) I'm deadbeat on this topic. I can't think of anymore counterarguments to our views. I don't know what someone religious would say. Anybody religious here know how to answer this?


2) That has nothing to do with the brain's unneccesary capacitence.


3) The only thing that seems to rebute my math and these theories are rumors from over two thousand years ago.

a)The pyramids were built before the Flood. Then the people who built it were killed by the Flood.

b)So since this is biblical, do I have to assume this actually happened in the first place? I though creationism doesn't really have word-for-word relation to the Bible. Just trying to get a feel of my parameters (because there is no way in shit somebody actually parted a fucking sea).

c)"The Persian army, alleged by the ancient sources to have numbered over one million but today considered to have been much smaller (various figures are given by scholars ranging between about 100,000 and 150,000)". Compared to the estimate of 90,000. I say that is pretty darn good. For those 1700 years between the flood and this war, there could have been a lot of babies made. Perhaps even 5% population increases for a time period. Then, obviously, the war resulted in a population decrease for that year.

@Leader

 

[Nevermind]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

2) That has nothing to do with the brain's unneccesary capacitence.

If it were unnecessary, then the argument from design falls through entirely.

3) The only thing that seems to rebute my math and these theories are rumors from over two thousand years ago.

Okay. What theories and rumors are you referring to?

a)The pyramids were built before the Flood. Then the people who built it were killed by the Flood.

Read the rest of the quote.

b)So since this is biblical, do I have to assume this actually happened in the first place? I though creationism doesn't really have word-for-word relation to the Bible. Just trying to get a feel of my parameters (because there is no way in shit somebody actually parted a fucking sea).

That's what creationism is. It's interpreting the Bible as factual and scientific.

c)"The Persian army, alleged by the ancient sources to have numbered over one million but today considered to have been much smaller (various figures are given by scholars ranging between about 100,000 and 150,000)". Compared to the estimate of 90,000. I say that is pretty darn good. For those 1700 years between the flood and this war, there could have been a lot of babies made. Perhaps even 5% population increases for a time period. Then, obviously, the war resulted in a population decrease for that year.

100,000 to 150,000 is still more than the entire population of the world according to you.

 

[Envy]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

1) If it were unnecessary, then the argument from design falls through entirely.


2) Okay. What theories and rumors are you referring to?


3) Read the rest of the quote.


4)That's what creationism is. It's interpreting the Bible as factual and scientific.


5)100,000 to 150,000 is still more than the entire population of the world according to you.

1) Sorry. This is what I really meant. The incredibly large capacitence of our brains were created in god's image(due to his immortal lifespan), not for evolutionary survival. The facts that I have laid before you prove against the scientific theories of evolution.

Side Note: The entire problem with all this creationism stuff is that there is absolutely no concrete evidence to prove it. The only way to make an argument is by disproving other theories and saying "God is the only possible explanation".

2)The theories of creationism, and the rumors of population sizes during that time.

3) How did they date these pyramids in the first place? That brings me us back to the first argument, doesn't it?

4)Okay. Then, you got me there.

5)These are estimates. Remember that the equation avergaes the before and after. It's entirely possible there was a population growth to 200,000 over that time from 2250 B.C.E. to 480 B.C.E. Then after the war, the population decreased drastically to compensate for the increase.
@Leader

 

[Nevermind]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

1) Sorry. This is what I really meant. The incredibly large capacitence of our brains were created in god's image(due to his immortal lifespan), not for evolutionary survival. The facts that I have laid before you prove against the scientific theories of evolution.

Side Note: The entire problem with all this creationism stuff is that there is absolutely no concrete evidence to prove it. The only way to make an argument is by disproving other theories and saying "God is the only possible explanation".

Our brains have evolved over 100,000 to have a great capacity. Some people have high intelligence, i.e. Einstein. Some people have low intelligence, i.e. mental retardation. Mutations fit into evolution. The people who receive good mutations will more likely reproduce and send their DNA on rather than those with bad mutations. I don't exactly see your point here. I linked several articles that explained how are brains evolved from one the size of a peanut to the current size and capacity.

Read that here.

2)The theories of creationism, and the rumors of population sizes during that time.

Creationism shouldn't even be considered a theory. It's a hypothesis, if anything. A hypothesis that turned out wrong.

3) How did they date these pyramids in the first place? That brings me us back to the first argument, doesn't it?

Artifacts found in or around the temples made of wood were dated around 2,600 BCE, using radiocarbon and carbon-14 dating. They also were able to date the pyramids with these two dating methods since there was quite a lot of organic material embedded in the stone and mortar of the pyramids.

5)These are estimates. Remember that the equation avergaes the before and after. It's entirely possible there was a population growth to 200,000 over that time from 2250 B.C.E. to 480 B.C.E. Then after the war, the population decreased drastically to compensate for the increase.

Your calculations, assuming the ~0.5% increase, gets to about 83,000 at the time.

 

[Envy]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

1)Our brains have evolved over 100,000 to have a great capacity. Some people have high intelligence, i.e. Einstein. Some people have low intelligence, i.e. mental retardation. Mutations fit into evolution. The people who receive good mutations will more likely reproduce and send their DNA on rather than those with bad mutations. I don't exactly see your point here. I linked several articles that explained how are brains evolved from one the size of a peanut to the current size and capacity.

Read that here.


2)Creationism shouldn't even be considered a theory. It's a hypothesis, if anything. A hypothesis that turned out wrong.


3)Artifacts found in or around the temples made of wood were dated around 2,600 BCE, using radiocarbon and carbon-14 dating. They also were able to date the pyramids with these two dating methods since there was quite a lot of organic material embedded in the stone and mortar of the pyramids.


4)Your calculations, assuming the ~0.5% increase, gets to about 83,000 at the time.

1) I see how. But why has it evolved to such an unncessary extent if we evolve for survival?

2)True

3)True

4)What's not to say that the population was 200,000 before the battle, and 83,000 after? That would, in fact, result in the same averages.

@Leader

 

[Nevermind]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

1) I see how. But why has it evolved to such an unncessary extent if we evolve for survival?

There is no overarching purpose for having a big brain. It's just the simple fact that having a bigger brain is more beneficial to survival, leading to more offspring.

4)What's not to say that the population was 200,000 before the battle, and 83,000 after? That would, in fact, result in the same averages.

Your calculations.

 

[Envy]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

Haha. I can't argue for creationism anymore. I, hereby, declare @Leader victorious of this debate, unless there is someone else who objects to that claim. Good job mate.

 

[Radical]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

Nobody can beat @leader in this argument as we can prove science, but not are believes so you can't really prove this is true.

So, I was doing research (don't know if @valiant already posted them) which I guess you can try (you will) to debunk.

1. Formation of Life: Dead chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of "protoplasm" as believed in Darwin's day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some "warm little pond" will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The "Law of Biogenesis" states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.

2. Design of Living Things: Design is apparent in the living world. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a classic example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn't work perfectly, "boom" - no more beetle! This is also another view of the core issue of information, as the design of living things is the result of processing the information in the DNA (following the blueprint) to produce a working organism.

3. Second Law of Thermodynamics: The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to "mix" with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the "heat death" of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured. Somehow the energy of a "Big Bang" structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law. It is sometimes said that the energy of the Sun was enough to overcome this tendency and allow for the formation of life on earth. However, application of energy alone is not enough to overcome this tendency; the energy must be channeled by a machine. A human must repair a building to keep it from decaying. Likewise, it is the machinery of photosynthesis which harnesses the energy of the Sun, allowing life to exist, and photosynthesis is itself a complex chemical process. The maturing of an acorn into a tree, or a zygote (the first cell resulting from fertilization) into a mature human being does not violate the Second Law as these processes are guided by the information already present in the acorn or zygote.

If you want to debunk all the greatest arguments here is the website I got this information on: http://www.bestbiblescience.org/top.htm

 

[Nevermind]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

1. Formation of Life: Dead chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of "protoplasm" as believed in Darwin's day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some "warm little pond" will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The "Law of Biogenesis" states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.

Abiogenesis is the process in which life arises from non-living things. Scientists don't know exactly how life got started, but that doesn't mean god did it.

'That's the god of the gaps argument and it's a logical fallacy. The fact that there is no scientific explanation doesn't warrant a supernatural one.'

2. Design of Living Things: Design is apparent in the living world. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a classic example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn't work perfectly, "boom" - no more beetle! This is also another view of the core issue of information, as the design of living things is the result of processing the information in the DNA (following the blueprint) to produce a working organism.

You're attempting to use a Richard Dawkins quote to support design, but you obviously failed to read his actual book. The key of that quote is 'appearance of having been designed for a purpose'. Living things may appear to be designed, but when we examine them and look closely at the evidence, we can see that this is merely an illusion.

3. Second Law of Thermodynamics: The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to "mix" with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the "heat death" of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured. Somehow the energy of a "Big Bang" structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law. It is sometimes said that the energy of the Sun was enough to overcome this tendency and allow for the formation of life on earth. However, application of energy alone is not enough to overcome this tendency; the energy must be channeled by a machine. A human must repair a building to keep it from decaying. Likewise, it is the machinery of photosynthesis which harnesses the energy of the Sun, allowing life to exist, and photosynthesis is itself a complex chemical process. The maturing of an acorn into a tree, or a zygote (the first cell resulting from fertilization) into a mature human being does not violate the Second Law as these processes are guided by the information already present in the acorn or zygote.

'The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because:

•the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.

•entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).

•even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).'

I suggest finding another site. All of those arguments fail.

 

[Phormick]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

All I have to say.. is that you guys make my brain hurt

 

[Radical]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

I did a little research, but all of the arguments are terrible ideas, and I can't think of any other ways that creation is real since the proof is opinion or not really good and can be debunk.

Like @valiant said someone could try to beat @"leader", but it won't likely happen.

---

All I have to say.. is that you guys make my brain hurt

I was confused at first, but just do like 5 minutes of research and you will kinda of get it/get it.

 

[Phormick]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

After doing about 30 minutes of research. I think I've got the concept down. Found that I already had most of it, so it wasn't too hard. I'll be doing the same as @Leader will be. Challenge me

 

[Nevermind]

RE: Debunking Any and All Creation Arguments

I'm looking for a smooth debate. Anyone have any arguments?