Biblical Young Earth Creationism is scientifically probable. (Second Challenge)
Debate Rounds (5)
Welcome everyone to this debate!
I hope to give a chance to any opponent who wishes to show me (and indeed, the Internet), that BYEC (Biblical Young Earth Creationism) is scientifically probable.
I will define BYEC as follows:
"The belief that the God described in the Bible created the Earth in six literal Earth days; the belief that the Earth is between 5,700 and 10,000 literal Earth years old; the belief that this god created humans in their present "form" (homosapien); and the belief that there were originally two humans (one man and one woman) that lived in a perfect place known as "The Garden of Eden"."
This definition isn't perfect, and if you want to change it then please post a comment; every Creationist has certain differences in their beliefs, after all. The definition above is not fixed. However, my opponent must agree to the definition of the God described in the Bible as:
"Omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful to the extent of the logically possible), omnipresent (all-present, always there, everywhere), and omnibenevolent (always right, always moral, all-good)."
Unless anyone thinks that this definition is inherently flawed, this is not a debatable definition. So, I believe all the other definitions speak for themselves, so I will now state the rules:
1) The first round is not for acceptance only; the first round is for both acceptance of the rules and for Pro's opening case.
2) In the fifth round, Pro must state (and only state) the following "No argument posted here as agreed".
3) The BoP is on Pro to prove the resolution to be correct. The BoP is on Con to prove Pro's contentions as false, thus stopping Pro from meeting his/her burden.
4) A forfeit of a round is an automatic loss of conduct (regardless of the reason), but it is only a loss of conduct.
5) There can be no "Vote Pro" or "Vote Con" at the end of the debate unless one of the debaters consented.
6) Sources are considered accurate unless proved to be otherwise. ((Therefore, Wikipedia, TalkOrigins, AnswersInGenesis etc... are considered accurate, although the reliability of the sources will be up to the voters.))
I believe that's all, if anybody has any questions, please post a comment! Good luck to all, and allez!
(Please note, this is the second verion of this debate I am doing; this was not a glitch.)
I accept the challange that Con has presented.
I believe that the following points are undeniably taught in thye Bible:
1. God created the entire world as we know it
2. This creation took only 6 periods of 24 hours identified as days
3. This creation took place thousands of years ago, not millions or billions
4. The order of all created things is as follows:
b. A "firmament" identified as "Shamayim", or Heaven/the Sky/Outer Space
c. Dry land
e. Celestial bodies besides Earth
f. Water-dwelling reptiles, fish, amphibians, and birds
g. Land-dwelling reptiles, other animals including humans
It will be my goal to display that it is scientifically possible (and even likely) for those above points to be true. I do not claim to be able to scientifically prove biblical creation, but rather show that it is not scientifcally disproven. I do not claim that the theory is true nor do I claim that the Big Bang is true. Becuase the theory of creation covers not only cosmology but also the origin of life, I will refer to both the Big Bang and theory of Darwinian evolution as the "mainstream theory."
I believe that any theory which is based upon a logical fallacy is invalid, regardless if is for or against the topic in quesiton. If I do commit any logic fallacy as a main premise of any argument, I recant that argument and will reaccept the burden of proof to provide another argument for the I was trying to make if I become aware of my error. I wish that the Con will do the same, although I cannot force any action upon him.
My argument for round 1 is in order to show that an intelligent creator of the universe is probable.
We all know that the universe is immense and extends much farther than we can observe. Some scientists believe that it might be infinite in its size (1). The universe is also very fragile. Altering any physical law too much can have drastic effects. According to Source #2, changing the law of gravity too much could cause larger life forms to be crushed, prevent intelligent life from exiting, make star life much shorter, or it could cause more elaborate and longer lasting structures to form in the unvierse. For our universe to exist as we know it, gravity has to be close to what it is now. This apparent fine tuning of the universe can be explained 3 ways:
1. There are infinite universes
2. The universe "learned" to work with the laws it had and eventually produced life based on carbon
3. God created the universe as it is and fine tuned it to work in harmony
All three of those hypothesis cannot be proven by science, becuase we cannot repeate nor observe what exactly caused the universe to work as it does andsupport life, nor we cannot see outside our universe if an outside exists. This means that we have to rely on other information to determine which one of those three is the most logical. I will present this other information in my future arguments.
I thank my opponent for his opening contention; I will respond to it now.
My opponent starts by accepting the rules, although he changes the BoP agreed upon. My opponent's burden of proof is that:
BYEC is scientifically probable.
However, my opponent changed this:
"It will be my goal to display that it is scientifically possible". This is not my opponent's burden. My opponent's burden is to show how it is probable, not possible. He accepted this by joining the debate. It may seem minor, but that change could have led to semantics and a large burden loss. Now that's cleared up; I will continue.
Opponent's (Semi) Contention 1: "An intelligent creator of the Universe is probable".
My opponent gives what I would call a semi-contention for this. He makes a deduction, but doesn't mention a conclusion, instead stating: "I will present this other information in my future arguments."
While that is fine, it makes it difficult for me to respond, because I cannot be sure what my opponent's conclusion would be. As such, I will post a refute in advance based on what I think my opponent will put forward this round.
I think it will be that:
Due to all of the laws that have to be as they are - change them by just a little and life wouldn't exist - it is irrational to assume that the Universe wasn't tuned by an intelligent tuner for life. (Evidence for gravity, temperature for water etc...)
Well, if that will be the argument's conclusion; I will respond as follows:
Three points can be made on this argument. The first is that life is nothing important to the Universe. Sure, what life has achieved can be pretty amazing, however what we have done to our own planet is a nice example of how damaging it can be, too. If anything, life as intelligent as ours is very bad to the Universe. Second, while life arousing from certain chance variables - things that are unlikely happen all the time. There's almost always someone who won the lottery, or stopped a crime because s/he just happened to be there at the time. So life arousing as an unlikely even is actually irrelevant.
Lastly, the Universe is, by itself, not fine tuned for life at all. Without water, there can be no life, and only a few planets have conditions for life by being in the so called Goldilocks zone - making the Universe very hostile to life. Even here on Earth, for example, it is very hard for life to exist in the Arctic and on volcanic slopes.The argument from fine-tuning is felled, surely, by these three points:
a) Life is nothing important; if anything [intelligent] life is very bad.
b) The improbability of life is irrelevant.
c) The sheer levels of hostile-to-life-environments contradicts the argument and thus nullifies it.
Of course, I don't know if that will be my opponent's conclusion; but I'm having an educated guess! Love guessing! So, until my opponent presents his conclusion to his argument; I can and will say no more! I eagerly await my opponent's response(s)!
Thank you Con for your reply.
The fine-tuning argument was actually my opening argument to this debate, and I called it an inconclusive argument. It does require a certain philosophical view on life in order to be seen as evidence for God's existence. That philosophical view is the same one presented by theology: the universe exists to serve human life. I did not want to get very deep into that argument for that very reason.
The second argument I will post for God's existence is the existence of information. If one visited a new island that mankind never knew about, and they discovered a sign directing people to a building, the visitor can logically conclude that intelligent life existed at one point in the past on that island. He does not need to see the intelligent life to conclude this. In the same way, DNA is information. It is the instructions for a cell. Because information exists in large amounts, it is logical to conclude that an intelligence created that information at one point in time. A naturalistic approach to the origin of DNA would require a more complex model, and according to Occam's razor, the hypothesis with the least number of assumptions should be preferred until evidence can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is not so. Because we have not yet replicated the creation of DNA, we cannot consider any hypothesis on the origin of DNA more scientifically valid than any other. Logically, an intelligent creator of DNA is much more probable. Therefore, it is more probable to say that DNA was created by an intelligence, either alien or supernatural. Because alien life creating DNA would require them to be a completely different form of life from what we have on Earth (that is, one without nucleic acids), a supernatural intelligence is more logical than an alien one. Thus, the most logical explanation for DNA is a supernatural creator.
I would also like to state in this post that human evolution is not scientifically proven. For example, the "neanderthal" and "homo sapiens" may simply be separated only by phenotype and culture. For example, they had tools, language, social groups, and could fix broken bones (1). Their skeleton is essentially the same as humans, and even modern Homo sapiens have slightly differing skeletal shapes. Some people say that their brain was larger, but we never saw their brain, and therefore that is simply a hypothesis.
I thank my opponent for his responses; allow me to do the same.
My opponent responds to my semi-refute of his semi-contention by stating that: "I did not want to get very deep into that argument..." . While that's fine - and a deeper response may indeed be required to get further into that argument - until a counter-refute is provided, I will have to extend my semi-refute as a full refute. The conclusion that my opponent's semi-contention draws is: "...the universe exists to serve human life." My refute counters this conclusion.
Opponent's Contention 2: DNA and information.
My opponent's contention can be drawn up as follows:
P1: DNA is a language, a code [etc...]
P2: Every language, code [etc...] has been formulated by an intelligent mind.
C: Therefore, DNA was formulated by an intelligent mind.
Well, allow me, first, to run down the difference between sound, true, and valid.
Sound means that the conclusion(s) follow logically from the premise(s).
True means that the premise(s) is correct.
Valid means that the argument is both sound and true. For an argument to work, it must be valid. So, is it?
Is the argument sound?
Yes, I will accept that the argument is a sound argument.
Is the argument true?
No, I will not accept the argument to be true; allow me to show you why. Premise one I will accept to be true. I think to call DNA not a code or a language is completely accurate and I am sure that my opponent agrees. But premise two is not true. You see, the amazing to exception to premise two is DNA itself. (We do not know exactly how DNA came to be, but it is possible that it came from RNA). If one includes the DNA from the premise, the whole thing become circular. It can be boiled down to: If an intelligent mind made DNA, then intelligent mind made DNA. And since the argument is circular, it is begging the question, therefore making it illogical and thus not true.
If the argument is false; the argument is not valid.
So, my opponent's second contention is refuted.
Opponent's Note 1: Human evolution has not been scientifically proven.
Well, yes it has. My opponent's counter-evidence is that neandathals had many similar traits. That's true; I don't deny it by any means. However, there are several distinct differences between homo sapiens sapiens* and homo neanterthalensis. This makes it impossible for us to be the same species.
That's all I have to say for now; I will eagerly await my opponent's response(s)! *I just realised our current "form" is homo sapien sapien, not homo sapien. I would ask that we accept to change the rules to add the extra "sapien" for the sake of accuracy and clarity. Hopefully my opponent will accept this resolution.
Thank you for your resonse.
"The conclusion that my opponent's semi-contention draws is: "...the universe exists to serve human life." My refute counters this conclusion."
That was not a comclusion I had reached; you have quoted me out of context.I did not state that as my conclusion.
"but it is possible that it came from RNA). If one includes the DNA from the premise, the whole thing become circular. It can be boiled down to: If an intelligent mind made DNA, then intelligent mind made DNA. And since the argument is circular, it is begging the question, therefore making it illogical and thus not true."
Using RNA as an explaination for DNA simply pushes the problem of how the "code/language" came into existance back a step. RNA also contains information like DNA does.
My argument was not curcular reasoning, as my conclusion was not a premise. My argument is this:
P1: If information exists, it is most logically explain by an iltelligent creator.
P2: RNA/DNA contains information.
C: Therefore RNA/DNA is most logically explained by an intelligent creator.
If Con wishes to attack the truthfulness of my argument, he must disprove premise one by showing that informaiton is not most logically explained by an intelligent creator, or he msut disprove my second premsie by showing that RNA/DNA contains no information. I can prove right now my second premsie as true:
(From Oxford Dictionary)
1. Facts provided or learned about something or someone.
2. What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
DNA and RNA both fit the second definition of information, and therefore my second premise is true.
My argument for my first premise was in my last post.
"Well, yes it has. My opponent's counter-evidence is that neandathals had many similar traits. That's true; I don't deny it by any means. However, there are several distinct differences between homo sapiens sapiens* and homo neanterthalensis. This makes it impossible for us to be the same species."
May I be presented with these distinctions? Also, I would like to state this: The 3rd source Con used is Yahoo answers, and the poster on Yahoo did not psot sources. There is no reason I should treat that source as scientifically authoritative.
Here is the most damaging fact to Darinian evolution: we have never observed a gene being created that never before existed. We have observed aniamls loosing genes over time, but never gaining new ones. If you don't believe me, reference just one example of new genes being created. Not transfered from one gene pool to another by humans, but actually naturally created having enver existed before.
I thank my opponent for his response; I will do the same.
"you have quoted me out of context." If I have, I apologise, but if that wasn't the conclusion then I cannot really take this any further. If there's no conclusion; it's not an argument, so I don't need to refute it. Well, I guess we'll move on, unless my opponent wants to come back to it in his post.
OK, so my opponent has now set out his argument formally:
"P1: If information exists, it is most logically explain by an intelligent creator.
P2: RNA/DNA contains information.
C: Therefore RNA/DNA is most logically explained by an intelligent creator."
So now that I have the argument as my opponent presents it; allow me to refute it.
Ok, so this is circular reasoning. I will clarify my previous post.
So, if we accept P2 to be true, then we can change "information" in P1 to "RNA" without objection. We can then remove P2 (because it's redundant). So, what's the argument now?
P1: If RNA exists, it is most logically explained by an intelligent creator.
C: Therefore, RNA is most logically explained by an intelligent creator.
I'm sure my opponent will agree that's circular reasoning.
If we cannot replace "information" with "RNA" then premise two is incorrect, but as my opponent pointed out and proved; P2 is correct. Therefore, the argument resorts to beg the question.
On my third source, my opponent makes a good point, so I'll consent that source. However, I give this one, not to disprove my opponent's claims, but to back up my own. The debate still goes on and I think we won't find a conclusion. However, on:
Opponent's Note 1: "Human evolution hasn't been proven."
Whether or not homo neanterthalensis and homo sapiens were the same species is largely irrelevant; my opponent didn't provide any objection to my counter that human evolution has been proven. Therefore, I will extend the bulk of my contention, and my own note that:
Note 1: Whether or not early humans and Neanderthals were the same doesn't disprove human evolution.
Opponent's Note 2: Darwinian evolution is damaged.
My opponent's proof that Darwinian evolution
(which is defined as:
"A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.")
is heavily damaged is: "we have never observed a gene being created that never before existed."
That's true (at the least, I cannot find anything that would prove you wrong). This doesn't damage Darwinian natural selection in any way, however; there's evidence for Darwinian natural selection. We can infer that new genes must be created through evolution. A relatively small fact that we haven't yet observed doesn't damage Darwinian natural selection at all.
Well, that's all for now, I look forward for my opponent's final response(s)! Until then!
I would like to talk about the circular reasoning once more. I am not saying DNA/RNA is information. I am saying that it contains information, or what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things. Replacing RNA/DNA with "books", you can see how it is not circular reaosning:
P1. Informaiton is most logically explained by an intelligent creator.
P2. Books contain information.
C. Therefore books are most logically explained by an intelligent creator.
"We can infer that new genes must be created through evolution. A relatively small fact that we haven't yet observed doesn't damage Darwinian natural selection at all."
The fact that we have not observed it makes it an unscientific theory. Science must be both observable and repeatable. If we have not observed the thing in question, we cannot know it happened. If we cannot repeat it, we do not know if we misunderstood it or made a mistake.
I thank my opponent for his final (to the extent that there will only be one sentence in his round five post) contentions and counters; I will make my closing statements and final refutes.
Opponent's Contention 1: The argument from fine tuning.
My opponent has not mentioned this argument; I am therefore forced to assume that he has consented it.
Opponent's Note 1: Human evolution has not been proven.
Once again, my opponent hasn't mentioned this in his post, so I must assume he has consented this.
Opponent's Contention 2: The argument from information.
Here, my opponent's refute is that DNA contains information and is not information itself. My opponent is both right and wrong on this. DNA does contain information, I won't deny it, nor have I. However, it is also information itself. My opponent makes it sound like:
DNA isn't information, with the exception of a couple of "things" within it. However, it is quite the opposite.
DNA is information, with the exception of "junk" (non-coding) DNA, which is information that has been "deactivated".
So, it is more accurate to say that DNA is information than DNA contains information, because the fact that DNA contains information is made redundant when the DNA itself is the information. It's like saying:
"Steel contains steel". It's pointless and redundant. Therefore, I can safely and logically extend my refute that the argument from information begs the question.
(P1: If RNA exists, it is most logically explained by an intelligent creator.
C: Therefore, RNA is most logically explained by an intelligent creator.) Illogical.
Opponent's Note 2: Darwinian evolution is heavily damaged.
I believe my opponent has misunderstood the definition of Darwinian evolution, which I gave last round. The definition is:
"A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.". I also gave examples of this; I will give them again here. 
My opponent did not address my refute. Instead, he resorted to:
"The fact that we have not observed it makes it an unscientific theory." My opponent either meant:
a) Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Or
b) New genes being created. By "it".
If he meant a, then his whole response was merely a red herring, because he did not address my refute at all. If he meant b, then it is not actually a theory, making the whole sentence redundant. In any case, my opponent's response is refuted.
To finish off, I would like to quote my opponent from round one:
"If I do commit any logic fallacy as a main premise of any argument, I recant that argument and will reaccept the burden of proof to provide another argument for the I was trying to make if I become aware of my error." I hope that I have shown my opponent's last two points, the argument from information and the gene creation argument to be invalid; I hope he will therefore refrain from using them again. (I'll assume that he has already done the same for his first contention and his first note, for which I graciously thank him.)
Well, I thank my opponent for taking his time to debate this most entertaining and enjoyable topic with me. I also thank the voters, for voting, and the audience (with the voters) for taking their time to read this through. Many thanks - hugs all round! :D
Until next time and with kindest regards,
I would like to thank Con for his closing argument.
DNA is not information. DNA (deoxyribose nucleic acid) is a chemical. When this chemical is arranged in particular patters, those patterns make the strand of DNA contain information. However, DNA is not information any more than paper is informaiton or ink is information. It is simply a medium by which the information is contained. If DNA was not arranged in a useful way, it would not contain informaiton.
As for Darwinian evolution, if anyone can explain to me how it can occur witut genes coming into existance, please do that on your vote comment. Because we have not observed a required process for Darwinian evolution, the entire process becomes unobserved. Without genes coming into existence, there is no way to get from a bacteria to a mammal. Evolution might have been a valid opinion when it was first written down and when nobody understood genes that well, but now that we have discovered DNA, the thoery requires more scientific experimentation to be credible form a scientific standpoint.
I would also like to post a thought I have not et had answered: if the universe was once a singularity and nothing else existed, what caused that singularities expansion?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Projectid 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were contestant and full, the Pro lacked full arguments and seemed to shy from bringing full disclosure to his thoughts. The Pro used circular reasoning, which the Con pointed out and refuted. I thought the conduct of both debaters was equal. Spelling goes to Con, because the Pro obviously doesn't use the spell check. The Con used the most reliable sources. Interesting debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.