The Instigator
brontoraptor
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
ConserativeDemocrat
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Atheism has less evidence than Christianity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
ConserativeDemocrat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 897 times Debate No: 89932
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (42)
Votes (2)

 

brontoraptor

Pro

First round: acceptance

All other rounds: anything goes
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

I accept, looking foward to the debate. Just to clarify though, I will be arguing that atheism has more evidence then Christianity, correct?

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
brontoraptor

Pro

Argument 1

James Gates has given demonstrations of adinkas, specifically Hamming self correcting or "error correcting" code in the construct of the equations used to describe our universe. This is 1's and 0's, and not just random 1's and zeros, but a specific kind of code: Self Correcting Computer Code.

*

Interview of James Gates, Physicist and Scientific Adviser to Barack Obama-


*

Example of Binary Hamming Self Correcting Code-


*

Stephen Meyer, author of "Signature of the Cell", has requested debates with Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion", but Dawkins has refused every challenge, saying he does not debate creationists. But Meyer has stated clearly that the debate would not include anything religious but science alone. Dawkins declined repeatedly. Interestingly enough, Dawkins HAS debated creationists such as William Lane Criag, but Craig was a philosopher. Meyer is a scientist. His assertion that he "does not debate creationists" is a false assessment. He does not debate people familiar with his field of study.

Why does it matter? First off, it shows an ideological motive. If it was about truth and science, the debate should be welcomed. He has debated people from other walks of life.

Secondly, he is one of the strongest propieters and founding fathers of the "New Atheist Movement". Are the dogmas he has taught false? With time it looks more and more so.

Fossil record out of place


*

In an interview with Ben Stein, Richard Dawkins said, "And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

*

Evolution has been a key point used to convert or ideologically establish the New Atheist religion.

Charles Darwin once said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ exists which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

“The distinctiveness of specific forms fossil record,” Darwin acknowledged, “and their not being blended together in innumerable transitional links is a very obvious difficulty."

Stephen Gould in "The Panda's Thumb" stated,"The fossil record has caused Darwin more grief than joy."

The fossil record was no ally of Darwin in his theory. And many years later, the fossil record doesn't seem to be Richard Dawkins' friend either.

Dawkins was forced to retreat from the fossil record that was sure to support his ideology and "Science".

Dawkins later said, “We don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact.”

We don't? What do we need then? A change of kind in any lifeform has neither been examined, tested, or demonstrated. Variation within groups is examined. Of course taller people would be more likely to survive a hypothetical worldwide flood that was 5 feet deep. This is not a change of kind, nor steps toward a change of kind. If suddenly there was a life saving advantage to being short, the taller ones would die, yes. Survival of the fittest is a fact. This is not a system set up to morph bacteria into slugs. This is a system set up to provide variation within the construct of that particular type of lifeform. Magical New Atheist evolution is a mythological pipedream taken 100% on blind faith. The New Atheists have been jobbed by their cult's false priests.

David Berlinski, Molecular Biologist, who is not a creationist, refutes Darwinian evolution, and does not even consider it as even worthy of being called a "scientific theory".


*

"No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests."

-Leonardo Divinci

*

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases.

1)adenine

2)guanine

3)cytosine

4)thymine

The DNA in human beings consists of around three billion bases, and more than 99% of those bases are the same in every single human being.

The order of these bases determines the information available for constructing and holding up an organism, synonymous with the way that letters of the alphabet appear in a specific order to create words and sentences.

Example of a Genetic Code Table-


*

"Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out."

(Isaiah 42:5)

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.

(Jeremiah 10:12)

The Bible is saying that God expanded the universe outwards.

The universe is expanding and stretching out the fabric of space.

ConserativeDemocrat

Con

Not really sure what that means.

Rebuttals:
None of that is an actual argument. You just posted various quotes, which doesn't mean anything. How does posting quotes prove God exists? You also didn't actually prove evolution is false, not that it matters for this debate. As for your 2 bible verses, it says "stretched", meaning it happened previously. And what does that even prove?

Arguments:
You seem to be thinking that if evolution is false, God exists. That is not true. You have to prove to be that God exists. No, not a God, but the Christian God. Prove that

The Christian God does not exist. There are so many impossibilities with that.

One of the many impossibilities is Noah's Ark
This story is simply impossible. In one week, a 700 year old man and his family can not travel around the world, picking up millions of animals, collecting the needed food and water, and building a huge boat in one week. Plus, the animals could not fit on the ark, there isn't enough space. Plus, the ark described would not float. It would buckle and crack. A wooden boat called the USS Wyoming was built in the 1800s. It was significantly shorter than the ark, and it was built in a longer period of time by expirenced ship builders in a dock, and you know what happened? It sank. So there is no way the ark would of floated. Also, did you know that during the time this supposedly happened, the Egyptians were building the pyramids. I guess someone forgot to tell them they were underwater. Plus, all the animals would of died when they got off the boat as there would be no food. And where did the water come from and where did it go?

This is one of the many impossibilities in the bible. Not to mention there is zero evidence of a worldwide flood that covered mountains like Mt. Everest. If Christianity is true, then why is Noah's Ark scientifically impossible?

The bible also has many contradictions and logical fallacies.
Such as:
God is and is not pleased with his creation

Adam and Eve are created at the same time and Adam is created first

Birds are created before and after Adam

Trees are created before and after Adam

Just a few of the many contradictions. If God is perfect, how come he contradicts himself so often?

Plus, God is supposed to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent. God also has a plan that all the actions in the universe follow. But then how do we have free will? And, God can't be omnibenevolent if his plan has evil in it. If God existed, he wouldn't allow earthquakes and hurricanes to kill his creation. And plus, why would he create Satan? This shows that God can't be omnibenevolent. Since that is one of his qualities, then he doesn't exist.

Many of the claims in the bible are scientifically false too. It isn't possible for the Earth to be 6000 years old. This is because we have dated rocks to be several billion years older than that. Also, according to creationism, star's light hit the Earth immediately. But it would of taken several million years for the light from many galaxies and stars to reach Earth. God also created light before he created things that make light. That is impossible.

Not to mention the flat Earth. The bible repeatedly alludes that the Earth is flat. However, we have shown that to be false with pictures, flights, and math. If Christianity is true, then this should not happen.

It isn't possible to be swallowed by a whale. The only whale that has a big enough throat is a sperm whale, but the stomach acid would of dissolved Jonah.

You can not walk on water or come back to life 3 days after you died.

Prayer doesn't work.

I think I have shown that Christianity is false. But that doesn't matter. You still have to prove a God exists, and a specific God. That isn't possible. Good luck though!

Sources:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...(schooner)
http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
https://www.biblegateway.com...
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com...
Debate Round No. 2
brontoraptor

Pro

Con does not know that the Bible is parabalistic, kryptic, and symbolic throughout its pages.

*

Con speaks about Noah's Ark and it's "impossibility". Is it a literal story? Maybe. Maybe not. If Con takes it to be a literal story, he must demonstrate why, with sources and evidence otherwise. He did not.

I prescribe to Noah's story as nonliteral. Why? The Bible says Christ is God, and Christ did not depict literal stories, but spoke in parabals that used the word "LIKE".

Examples?

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE treasure hidden in a field.

(Matthew 13:44)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.

(Matthew 22:2)

The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish.

(Matthew 13:47)

Christ references Noah-

When the Son of Man returns, it will be LIKE it was was with Noah.

(Matthew 24:37)

They knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is what it will be LIKE at the coming of the Son of Man.

(Matthew 24:39)

More?

Adam and Eve are said to have been in a garden, naked, had access to a "tree of life", and ate a "fruit". There was a serpent present.

Adam in Hebrew simply means "man". Literal story? Probably not. It makes a hard concept easier to understand as Christ was well known for.

Christ speaks:

SERPENT

(Matthew 23:33)

"You serpents, you brood of vipers.."

TREES and FRUIT

(Matthew 7:17)

Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

-

TREE OF LIFE

(Proverbs 15:4)

A soothing tongue is a tree of life, But perversion in it crushes the spirit.

Proverbs 11:30

The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, And he who is wise wins souls.

Proverbs 13:12

Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life.

NAKEDNESS

Revelation 3:18)

"..the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed."

None are literal.

*

Con: "God was not pleased with His creation."

It's ad hominem and would be meaningless to His existance. Nevertheless.

(Genesis 1:31)

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

*

Con: "Adam and Eve are created at the same time and Adam is created first."

This statement contradicts itself. Adam was created first in the story.

*

Con: "Birds are created before and after Adam."

Con: "Trees are created before and after Adam."

I don't know what Con is even referencing without a verse. Based on Con's description, I see no logical fallacy in things being created before and after anything. I created a sandwich yesterday. I created a sandwich today. I haven't contradicted myself if I created a hamburger inbetween. I also still exist in spite of any sandwich to burger timeline.

*

Con: "God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent...evil exists, God can't exist."

"Free will.."

Ad hominem. If one claims no free will, this has nothing to do with His existance. Evil existing has nothing to do with His existance. It's the means to an end. He is omniscient, thus if He thinks the end product is good, He allows evil to exist to get this final good product. Proven love for Him is the product.

Creation does exactly what God intended.

(Matthew 13:30)

Let both grow together until the harvest. (Evil and good)

(Collosians 1:16)

All things have been created by him and for him.

(Ephesians 1:4)

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world.

(Isaiah 48:10)

See, I have refined you, though not as silver; I have tested you in the furnace of affliction.

Why? He's proving the answer to one profound question.

(John 21:17)

The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him yet a third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

*

Con: "Many of the claims in the bible are scientifically false too. It isn't possible for the Earth to be 6000 years old."

Nowhere in the Bible does it say the world is 6,000 years old.

*

Con: "Prayer doesn't work."

Mine does. But I have an unrelentless faith that God can do anything, and devote my life to Him.

*

Con: "You can not walk on water."

Oh? Let's see if this statement is true.


Looks like my opponent has stated a nonfact.

*

Con: "The bible repeatedly alludes that the Earth is flat."

Con gave no verse to show his claim, but I will give you some that show what it does say about the earth.

He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

(Job 26:7)

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain. He spreads the heavens out.

(Isaiah 40:22)

He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters, at the boundary of light and darkness.

(Job 26:10)

*

Con: "You seem to be thinking that if evolution is false, God exists. That is not true."

So now we have a burden of proof on Con to show us evidence of there being no god without using Evolution.
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

Do I even need to post anything? You have not shown God exists. But on to my rebbutals.

"Con speaks about Noah's Ark and it's "impossibility". Is it a literal story? Maybe. Maybe not. If Con takes it to be a literal story, he must demonstrate why, with sources and evidence otherwise. He did not."

This story clearly is meant to be taken literally. The word "like" does not appear, and it is discribed in a litteral manner. Plus, if it was a metaphor, why is their so much detail put into it?

Con: "God was not pleased with His creation."
It's ad hominem and would be meaningless to His existance.

How is that ad hominem? And plus: Genesis 6:5-6, Genesis 1:31. Plus, how can an omnipotent God make something he isn't happy with?

Con: "Adam and Eve are created at the same time and Adam is created first."
This statement contradicts itself. Adam was created first in the story.

Of course that is contradictory. That is the point. Genesis 2:7, Genesis 2:21-22

The next 2 contradictions are contradictions because how can you invent birds and trees twice?

Con: "God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent...evil exists, God can't exist."
Ad hominem. If one claims no free will, this has nothing to do with His existance. Evil existing has nothing to do with His existance. It's the means to an end. He is omniscient, thus if He thinks the end product is good, He allows evil to exist to get this final good product. Proven love for Him is the product.

How is that ad hominem? And evil has everything to do with it. How can an omnibenevolent God have evil exist? You are not all good if your plan requires suffering.

Now for the science claims.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say the world is 6,000 years old.
If you count up all the times and dates mentioned in the bible, then it adds up to around 6000 years old. And my second point still stands.

Con: "Prayer doesn't work."
Mine does. But I have an unrelentless faith that God can do anything, and devote my life to Him.
Where's the proof prayer works? And anecdotal evidence is not valid.

Con: "You can not walk on water."
Oh? Let's see if this statement is true.
Looks like my opponent has stated a nonfact.
Can people walk on water?

Con: "The bible repeatedly alludes that the Earth is flat."
Con gave no verse to show his claim, but I will give you some that show what it does say about the earth.
Job 26:7 That does nothing for your claim
Isaiah 40:22 A circle, as in a disc. Not a sphere.
Job 26:10 A disc Earth is in the shape of a circle.

So where is your evidence? There is zero evidence for the Christian God existing. And plus, you haven't given any evidence for the Christian God existing! So where is your evidence?
Debate Round No. 3
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:

"how can an omnipotent God make something he isn't happy with?"

He is happy with the final product of it. Of the infinite variables and paths it would take to create the final "good" product, this was it.

Here is a video demonstrating this concept.


*

Con: This story clearly is meant to be taken literally. The word "like" does not appear.

Based on what? Jesus referenced many OT stories using the word "like" or making a comparison.

It will be like Sodom(destruction).

It will be like Noah(God saves those that are His, catastrophe comes unexpectedly; be ready, a new start to world, etc) This is the exact demonstration Christ gives for salvation, the rapture, the judgement of Earth, and a new Heaven and Earth. Thus the story demonstrates a harder concept in simple terms.

Con says Genesis 2:7 vs Genesis 2:22 is a contradiction. It is not.

Genesis 2:7

God creates a man.

Genesis 2:22

God creates a woman

What contradiction? There is none.

*

Con:

"You are not all good if your plan requires suffering."

Says what?

*

Con:

"If you count up all the times and dates mentioned in the bible...6,000 years."

Con is welcome to demonstrate this for us.

*

Con:

"Prove God exists!"

Okay.

*

James Gates has given demonstrations of adinkas, specifically Hamming self correcting or "error correcting" code in the construct of the equations used to describe our universe. This is 1's and 0's, and not just random 1's and 0's, but a specific kind of code: Self Correcting Computer Code.

James Gates, Scientific Advisor to the U.S. Executive Branch


Example of Hammins Binary Code


*

"Declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are god.” (Isaiah 41:23)

*

Christianity-

The second beast comes from "out of the earth" and directs all peoples of the earth to worship the first beast. The second beast is described in Revelation 13:11-18 and is also referred to as the false prophet. The two beasts are aligned with the dragon in opposition to God. They persecute the "saints" and those who do "not worship the image of the beast.

"It is declared that anyone who does not worship the beast or its image would be killed. The lamb-horned beast from the earth also causes all people to receive the mark of the beast "in their right hand or in their forehead."


*

700 years later Islam came along and...

*

Islam-

Quran- "The Beast of the Earth"

And when the Word is fulfilled against them (the unjust), we shall produce from the earth a beast to (face) them: He will speak to them, for that mankind did not believe with assurance in Our Signs.

— Qur'an, sura 27 (An-Naml), ayat 82[1]

It will strike the face of the disbelievers, and it will brighten the face of the believer and “He is destined for Paradise” will be written on his forehead.


*

The Mahdi (Islamic messiah), matches the Biblical Antichrist step for step.


In the Bible Jesus is the king of kings.

In Islam they look to stand against someone called the king of kings.

Video demonstrating this.


*

"And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your men shall see visions and shall have dreams."

(Acts 2:17)

Dreams of what?

Muslims are "seeing Jesus" in mass.




*

(Isaiah 17:1)

"A prophecy against Damascus: "See, Damascus will fall and will become a heap of ruins."

After years of Syrian conflict, Damascus is a heap of ruins.


*

(Revelation 20:4)

And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus.

ISIS declares war on the cross. Beheads 21 Christians-


Beheadings-


Quran 8:12

I will cast terror into the hearts of the disbelievers. Therefore strike off their heads.

*

An infallable "false prophet" who denounces the death and divinity of Christ would come and lead many to follow Him. He puts forth an image to be bowed to.

(Revelation 16:13)


Mecca Azan; Muslims bowing to Kaaba


If the Bible is not inspired, it is the best improbable book of guesses that actually come true that can even be conceived by the human mind.
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

Rebutals:

1) According to the bible, God is not pleased with the final product (Verse Above), so my point still stands

2) Noah's Ark is a literal story. You just danced around my points.

3) How can you be all good if your plan requires evil? Common sense tells me that is impossible. If God doesn't have the qualities described in the bible, then he doesn't exist.

4) http://www.icr.org...
The Earth is around 6000 years old. For the reasons above, that is impossible.

5) What does your first argument mean? That doesn't help you at all. Explain how that proves a Christian God exists.6

6) About the beast and your other points, both Christianity and Islam descended from the prophet Abraham, and they are quite similar, so obviously they will have some similarities. As for seeing Jesus, a few anecdotal stories proves nothing.

7) Isaiah 17:1. That doesn't help you. Damascus is not completely destroyed. It is damaged. Your verse says destroyed.

8) Christian persecution was common when the bible was written. Beheadings were common then. Bible has verse about beheading Christians. What is so amazing about that?

9) You gave me like 3 somewhat correct guesses. That doesn't prove that the Christian God exists.

You have 1 more argument. In it, you need to prove with solid, indisputable, scientific evidence that not only large Christian God exists, but that the bible is correct as well. If not, then I will win. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 4
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:
"According to the bible, God is not pleased with the final product (Verse Above), so my point still stands."

I disagree.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.
(Genesis 1:31)

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
(Genesis 2:1)

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
(Genesis 2:2)

"Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.."
(Revelation 21:1)

God is pleased with the final product of His creation according to the Bible itself.

*

Con:
"Noah's Ark is a literal story."

It's an allegorical story.

Genesis Noah story and Revelation story.

1)God warns man of its wickedness and gives a chance to turn away from it.
2)God prepares a way of escape.
3)His chosen ones do escape the impending doom.
4)A new world begins.

Jesus also referenced Adam and Eve, but did not see the story as literal, as He referred to people/beings as trees, evil people/beings as serpents, fruit as something from the heart, and the term "tree of life" is used allegorically many, many times in the Bible. These are all the terms used in the Adam story. And also, Adam simply is a word for "man" in Hebrew.

*

Con:
"How can you be all good if your plan requires evil?"

Darkness defines light. One does not understand good without understanding evil. This is the proving ground of those whom God chose before the foundation of the world. God is using evil to try, refine, test and prove His love and our love for one another. Those who will believe serve a greater purpose. Those who will not believe are here to try and test us.

What is God looking to find out?

The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."
(John 21:17)

He even put Himself to the test.

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are.
(Hebrews 4:15)

What has God gotten from evil?

"After he has suffered, he will see the light of life begotten and be satisfied."
Isaiah 53:11

What is God showing us in this?

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son.."
(John 3:16)

What is the final product from evil?

"We love because he first loved us."
(1 John 4:19)

Many are unable to understand.

"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
(John 1:5)

*

Con:
"both Christianity and Islam descended from the prophet Abraham."

Christianity descended from Christ. Islam descended from Prophet Muhammed 700 years after Christ. Muslims do not believe the Bible.

*

Con:
"Damascus is not completely destroyed. It is damaged. Your verse says destroyed."

Actually it says,"See, Damascus will fall and will become a heap of ruins."
"Completely destroyed" is not the wording used.

*

Con:
"Bible has verse about beheading Christians. What is so amazing about that?"

These beheadings happen at the end of days per Revelation. This is happening in the year 2016, in real life, not in 100 AD.

*

Con:
"scientific evidence"

That a God exists has already been demonstrated in James Gates and Error Correcting Code.

*

Revelation told of an infallable antichrist prophet who would arise. This prophet sets up a graven image that "speaks". His followers will bow to it. They will behead Christians. A beast will arise from the Earth against the Christians from the prophet's followers that marks foreheads.

Prophet must be antichrist or denounce Christ.

Muhammed did in the Quran.

Prophet sets up graven image.

Muhammed did.

Pictures of it-

http://www.crystalinks.com...

They must bow to it.

http://youtu.be...

It must "speak"

Islam hadith-

"The Stone will appear on the Day of Judgement (Qiyamah) with eyes to see and a tongue to speak."

http://www.triposo.com...

BEAST that MARKS FOREHEADS-

When the Word is fulfilled against them, the unjust, we shall produce FROM THE EARTH a BEAST."

"R01;Qur'an, sura 27 (An-Naml), ayat 82

The beast will strike the head, and it will be brighten the face of the believer with the staff and "He is destined for Paradise" will be marked on his FOREHEAD."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Here is where the Bible warned of what was coming.

Then I saw a beast, coming OUT OF THE EARTH."
(Revelation 13:11)

"It also forced all people... to receive a MARK on their FOREHEADS."
(Revelation 13:16)

The Islamic messiah, the Mahdi, matches the Biblical Antichrist step for step.

http://www.answering-islam.org...

*

Muslims do not believe in the Christian Bible. This is why they denounce Christ as Lord. Muhammed also could not read, muchless read Greek, the language the NT was written in at Muhammed's time. The odds of a religion popping into existance that matches this way is by probability a mathematical impossibility.

I have proven by science God's existance and proven the Christian god through prophecy.

Con's burden was to show more evidence atheism was correct. He still is yet to show ANY evidence thst Atheism is correct.

My burden was to show more evidence that Christianity was correct. I have demonstrated many, many arguments.
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

First off, that's not how it works. I don't have to prove atheism is real, as the default claim it that atheism is correct. It is your job to prove that Christianity is correct. You have not done that. That is like saying to prove an indictable pink unicorn lives in Juipter. That isn't possible. You say "Binary Code". But what does that mean? You say Islam and Christianity have a similar story. What does that mean?

You have to prove that a God exists. You didn't. I googled self repeating code. The links said nothing about that proving a God exists. Your second piece of evidence was that Islam and Christianity have a similar story. That proves nothing. You need to have amazing evidence to prove a specific God is real. And multiple pieces too. Not just there being similarities in the stories in storybooks. As for your post in the comments, Atheism is not evolution. Atheism is that lack of a belief in a God. There is no evidence for a God, tgerefore atheism has "more" evidence then Christianity.

Your rebbutals are just my quotes taken out of context and you ignoring my arguments. For example, if Noah's Ark was an allegory, why were there specific details in it? Plus, why would it be taken as am allegory. It is never alluded to or mentioned that the story is an allegory. You also said that God is pleased with his final product. Then why did he say he didn't like it? God is omnipresent, so he could see the future. Therefore, when God said he disliked his creation, he knew what was happening in the future. Get the picture?

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by brontoraptor 7 months ago
brontoraptor
If my tall children survive for whatever reason, sure we'd have tall people, which is one variation of homo sapiens. No tails, no wings, no hooves. Just tall humans.
Posted by brontoraptor 7 months ago
brontoraptor
Natural selection is simply the fittest of an allready existing characteristic type surviving. This doesn't causeone to grow a tail or grow a third eyeball.

Darwinian evolution is a fairytale where my child with 3 eyes begins spawning children with three eyes who spawn more three eyed children. This is not reality. David Berlinsky is a secular expert in the field and labels Darwinism as not even worthy of being called a theory. The fossil record refutes it. It has never been seen, tested, witnessed, measured, etc.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
"Survival of the fittest stands separate from evolution."

No it isn't. Survival of the fittest is natural selection, a core mechanic of evolution.

Plus, evolution doesn't require a new species to be formed. The overbite didn't make us a new species, sure, but it is still evolution.

So what a scientist calls evolution a pipe dream?
That's just a claim.
Posted by brontoraptor 7 months ago
brontoraptor
Survival of the fittest stands seperate from darwinian evolution. If I am tall and you are a midget, a five foot deep flood may wipe you out. It won't wipe me out because I am tall. But I can still have short offspring after the waters reside. This isn't a change in my offspring's being human. It's just I simply survived because I am tall. For a while my offspring would generally be tall. But given a new environment that kills tall people, the shorter ones would survive. But they are still human. For a while now they will be short until a new catastrophic environment change occurs. Still humans. Variation and survival of the fittest are not darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution is a fairytale promoted by militant atheism. It's a theory similar to the theory of aliens seeding us on the Earth. The fossil record rejects it. No ever witnessed change in kind rejects it. Common sense rejects it.

Dog and plant breeders witness this truth firsthand. You can breed and crossbreed all kinds of variations, but never leave the boundries of the allready programmed variation. At the end of the day you still have flowers. You still have dogs.
Posted by brontoraptor 7 months ago
brontoraptor
An overbite is a variation within the programming of the particular kind. Bacteria survive within an environment leaving only a particular variation. The new strand is simply a variation of bacteria that survived. We still have? Bacteria. Variation makes us look different within our particular kind. It does not make us into a new kind.
Posted by brontoraptor 7 months ago
brontoraptor
David Berlinski, secular scientist in the field rejects darwinian evolution calling it a pipedream also stating that it is not even worthy of being called a scientific theory much less a fact.
Posted by brontoraptor 7 months ago
brontoraptor
David Berlinski, secular scientist in the field rejects darwinian evolution calling it a pipedream also stating that it is not even worthy of being called a scientific theory much less a fact.
Posted by zookdook1 7 months ago
zookdook1
"it is your position that there is no god"

Correct. We lack belief in God. We don't believe God does not exist, as atheism is not a belief system. Functionally it's the same thing but you arrive at it through a different way.

Atheism is a belief system as much as baldness is a hair colour.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
"The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases."

Please don't assume that it demands a coder.
Because this isn't digital code, it's biological. Completely different.

""Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out."

(Isaiah 42:5)

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.

(Jeremiah 10:12)

The Bible is saying that God expanded the universe outwards."

I'm sorry, where in that does it state the word "expanding"? Don't twist the words of your own holy book.
If I stretch a rubber band and then stop, keeping it stretched but not moving it, it is not expanding, though that's what your reasoning states.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tkubok 7 months ago
tkubok
brontoraptorConserativeDemocratTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Brontoraptor had the burden of proof. Evolution has nothing to do with Christianity or atheism. Incase you were unaware, there are Christians who accept evolution. First instance of derailing the debate goes to Brontoraptor. Both are pretty even on the sources, but as Brontoraptor used websites like uncommon descent, point goes to Con again.
Vote Placed by SkyLeach 7 months ago
SkyLeach
brontoraptorConserativeDemocratTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro. Pro stuck to the debate topic while Con repeatedly attempted to derail the topic into areas he felt more comfortable debating. He used a lot of sophistry to do this (begging the question, denial of antecedent, avoiding the argument, etc...) Argument Pro. He didn't convince me of the topic, but he did take the debate. He provided quite a number of arguments that needed to be addressed by Con, but instead were avoided. Pro was logical, direct, and concise in his position. There were weaknesses, but Con ignored them and chose to go after 'proof in god' demands of his opponent rather than addressing the arguments of the debate that were on topic. Proof that God exists wasn't the topic of the argument, it was preponderance of evidence in favor of belief. I am agnostic. I think neither belief system has sufficient evidence. If it weren't for my own study, however, pro would have convinced me here.