The Instigator
Moelogy
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kwagga_la
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Big Bang + Evolution (Pro) vs. Theism (Con)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,680 times Debate No: 103115
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (54)
Votes (0)

 

Moelogy

Pro

I recently left my religion (Islam) and became an atheist. I would like to discuss the naturalistic viewpoint about Big bang and Evolution with a theist.

1 - Acceptance + Pro arguments
2 - arguement and rebuttals.
3 - arguements and rebuttals.
4 - solely for rebuttals (no new arguements)

This debate is religion-neutral. I do not care what religion you are as long as you can defend God.

BOP - shared even though it should not be.
kwagga_la

Con

Thank you for starting the Debate.

Evolution:

1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms:Darwinism, natural selection

2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"

(https://www.google.com.br...)

I am a believer in Christ and rely on the Bible as my source for information regarding the origin of the Universe. I do not believe that God used evolution as understood today by science and that most evolutionists confuse evolution with adaptation. Evolution has many applications and it sometimes gets too generalized to mean only one thing. Other possibilities of observable evolution (taking the word solely by its meaning) is a baby that evolves into a fully grown human being. However, that does not prove evolution from one kind to another is true (fish to human). A certain kind of entity can exist and adapt to its surroundings but do not necessarily change its kind. This is not proof of evolution but adaptation. Evolving from some cell to a fish to a human being requires a change of kind. It is not a variation of specie.

As for the Big bang, the Bible gives a more reasonable explanation of how everything originated than merely saying something came out of nothing. The Bible identifies a cause whereas evolution does not. Accepting the theory of Big bang is based on faith. Every scientific theory possible to explain the Big bang is believed but never been observed. That is faith. According to atheistic reasoning that should disqualify the theory of the Big bang as well as evolution, because evolution relies on it to explain its origins. These are the inconsistencies usually found in atheistic reasoning when they rely on science to support their claims. What they use as support for one argument discredits a different argument.

Apart from the above, evolution is not very practical and fails to explain simple questions like how certain kinds of species actually survived. Certain kinds of species cannot survive from an infant condition without the care of a parent. This should be evident in that no human infant left outside in the cold without someone to feed him or her can survive. The only logical way a human infant can survive these type of circumstances is if they adapted or evolved (if you will) to withstand hunger and cold. Since we are both humans, we both no that never happened. As you know evolution says the egg came before the chicken whereas Creationism says the chicken came first and took care of the egg.
Debate Round No. 1
Moelogy

Pro

Big bang

The entire universe existed in a small high-energy state called the singularity that contains all of matter and energy then this singularity exploded during the big bang because the higgs boson broke the symmetry of the singularity [1]. When the big bang happened, the universe exploded and the universe expanded very fast fourteen billion years ago approximately. In the first moments after the Big Bang, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As the universe cooled, conditions became just right to give rise to the building blocks of matter ; the quarks and electrons of which we are all made. A few millionths of a second later, quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons. Within minutes, these protons and neutrons combined into nuclei. As the universe continued to expand and cool, things began to happen more slowly. It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. [2] [3][4] The gravity of those atoms or the newly created matter formed stars first and then the leftover matter from the sun or other stars formed the planets around it like earth and mercury. Those planets are perfectly round because of gravity and rotating around itself which makes it into a ball shape. [3] [5]. So the universe exploded then the matter formed stars then the leftover matter formed the planets after the formation of stars. Stars are dated to be older than planets so stars come first then planets. [11]

Scientific evidence :

- Redshift of galaxies.

The simplified version of the doppler effect states that things coming your way will have shorter wavelength (blue shift) and that things moving away from you will have a longer wavelength (red shift). [6] Think of the ambulance, as it approaches you, its sound waves become shorter / louder / more audible. However, as it moves away from you, the sound waves becomes longer / less audible. The same effect happens with light. Astronomers have found that the further from us a star is the more its light is red shifted. This tells us that distant galaxies are moving away from us, and that the further a galaxy is the faster it is moving away. Since we cannot assume that we have a special place in the universe this is evidence for a generally expanding universe. It suggests that everything is moving away from everything else. The Big Bang theory says that this expansion started billions of years ago with an explosion. [7]

In 1929, Edwin Hubble announced that almost all galaxies appeared to be moving away from us. In fact, he found that the universe was expanding - with all of the galaxies moving away from each other. This phenomenon was observed as a redshift of a galaxy's spectrum. This redshift appeared to be larger for faint, presumably further, galaxies. Hence, the farther a galaxy, the faster it is receding from Earth. The redshift of galaxies has also been confirmed by Nasa. [8]

So, if these galaxies are far, far away, are moving very quickly away from us, this suggests that the entire Universe must have been confined in a single point billions of years ago if we were to reverse the expansion process.

- CMBR

The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation also called the CMB is another line of evidence for the big bang. The CMB is the afterglow of the big bang. It is the residual heat or energy leftover from the intense initial explosion of the big bang. If there was an explosion of matter and energy as violent as the big bang that brought space and time into existence, you would expect to find leftover energy or radiation from that intense violent explosion or expect to find the "afterglow". The CMB is exactly that. [9] The COBE satellite beautifully maps this CMB and shows the afterglow energy of the explosion. [10] The actual diagram is just a display of the predictive power of the big bang Theory. However a brief history of this is empirical evidence is that it was first predicted by Ralph Alpherin 1948 in connection with his research on Big Bang Nucleosynthesis undertaken together with Robert Herman and George Gamow. It was discovered by accident. In 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. The radiation was acting as a source of excess noise in a radio receiver they were building. Coincidentally, researchers at nearby Princeton University, led by Robert Dicke and including Dave Wilkinson of the WMAP science team, were devising an experiment to find the CMB. When they heard about the Bell Labs result they immediately realized that the CMB had been found. The result was a pair of papers in the Astrophysical Journal (vol. 142 of 1965): one by Penzias and Wilson detailing the observations, and one by Dicke, Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson giving the cosmological interpretation. The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place with plenty of violent energy and heat leftover from the explosion of the big bang. As the universe expands, this universal energy within it cools down little by little since it is being applied to a greater area. Thus the universe should be filled with radiation that is literally the remnant heat left over from the Big Bang, called the "cosmic microwave background". [12]

- Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and abundance of primordial elements.

In the earliest moments after the Big Bang, there was nothing more than hydrogen compressed into a tiny volume, with crazy high heat and pressure. The entire Universe was acting like the core of a star, fusing hydrogen into helium and other elements. This is known as Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. As astronomers look out into the Universe and measure the ratios of hydrogen, helium and other trace elements, they exactly match what you would expect to find if the entire Universe was once a really big star with a lot of energy as predicted by the big bang theory. [2]

abiogenesis

abiogenesis is the Idea that life can evolve from non-life. This is not in contradiction with the law of bio-genesis. Here is why, the law of biogenesis states that complex multi-cellular life can not evolve from non-life or out of nowhere. abiogenesis states that simple unicellular life could evolve from the inorganic chemistry in non-life. abiogenesis provides a bridge between the evolution of life and the origin of the universe. abiogenesis accounts for how life could evolve from non-life and how life could very easily shift from unicellular organisms to multicellular ones.

Evidence

The experimental empirical evidence for abiogenesis can be summed up in 5 steps: origin (miller-urey experiment), assemebly (Fox), packaging (Oparin and Haldane), replicating (E.coli experiment), multicellularity (E.coli experiment). Miller urey experiment literally can produce all of life's amino acids from inorganic gases and electric spark (lightning). With different variations of the same experiment, you can get Nucleic acids and all the other monomers including monosacharrides. [13] Fox showed with certain experimental evidence that those monomers could turn to polymers when exposed to heat like on hot clay or hot sand or sea vents. [14] Those polymers were cased in fats to from the first protobionts that could replicate faster than it died [15]. as shown in the E. coli experiment, with enough time, unicellular life will grow enough mutations and form colonies i.e. simple multicellular organisms. [16]

https://www.scientificamerican.com...
https://www.khanacademy.org...

Evolution

evolution is the idea that all species build up enough heritable mutations and changes overtime that they eventually will turn into new species. This theory and fact [17] has so much evidence backing it up, you will most likely reject for two reasons, you do not understand it or a 2000 year old book written by Bedouins told you not to follow it.

Evidence

- Transitional fossils

Transitional fossils prove that species evolved from other species overtime. The fossil record will often show a fine and gradual transition from one species into another that empirically demonstrates that some species evolved from others over time

Fish to tetrapods

-Tiktaalik [18] two hind legs where red box is. red box over less clear leg.

- Ichthyostega [19] looks like human legs [20]

- Pederpes [21] not as obvious but the legs are off the body in lower end of the spine

Reptiles to birds

- archaeopteryx [22]
- Confuciusornis [23]

Primate to humans

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Explanation of image in comments

- Pseudogenes

Pseudogenes like w3nta [24] are in the human dna and they give us tails like primates but they are deactivated due to a mutation despite being in our own dna which suggests humans had tails at one point in the past and other primate characteristics in the past. Same with hHaA [25] that gives us hair all over our bodies just like primates but it is deactivated by a mutation and is not used despite being in our dna which reveals that we once in the past did have this trait.

- Vestigial Features

They are leftover structures and organs from other species that have no function and are sometimes harmful like:

- Wisdom teeth in humans

- coccyx in humans

- pelvic bones in snakes

- hind legs in whales

- Ostrich wings

- atavisms

atavisms prove evolution and they are when pseudogenes get activated, they reveal traits we had in the past like fur all over, tails and other primate characteristics.

Look at four-year-old Jiaxue from china

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

He was born with atavisms and he had a tail like primates and he could not walk in an upright posture like primates.

https://www.google.ca...

There is more evidence later.
kwagga_la

Con

Rebuttal:

Big Bang:

Pro states that in the beginning there was a singularity. He starts with a hypothesis that is based on speculation and then gives a sequence of events of how everything came to be by further speculation. The theory of the "big bang" has changed over the last 100 years and "science" prides itself that they are willing to change or admit they were wrong as new evidence is acquired. The problem with this is that it does not make the current theory very trustworthy because new evidence may be discovered tomorrow that will change what is believed today. The Watchtower Society is known for exactly the same type of behavior. They make claims and predictions and when found to be wrong they alter what they said and think they are very pious to admit their mistakes, as if that makes everything ok.

The Theistic view suggests a quick formation with supplementary elements coming into existence after the initial rapid formation of the universe. It suggests a single point that expanded and is still expanding. The Red shift is similar but the big difference is the amount of years said to evolve everything by some so called scientists. The theory set out by Pro has never been observed and tested and therefore fails the scientific process criteria. The evidence of heat etc. can well be because of creation because the initial formation is claimed by both sides (although not all sides out there in the world today). The intensity of the original generated heat is not known and subsequent measurement is based on speculation not fact. The same also holds true for radiation.

Pro stated in the comments section that he hopes I will be open minded and rational. In return I would ask of Pro to be honest and answer the following questions based on what was said above:

1. What caused the singularity to start existing?
2. With all the different theories replacing each other to explain cosmology, do you think the predominant theory today is reliable (seeing new evidence can replace it tomorrow)?
3. The number of years it took to form the universe has changed from millions to billions of years. That is a significant error rate when calculated. In light of this, do you think the current 13.8 billion years is reliable?

Abiogenesis:

Species: noun, plural species.
1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.
2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. http://www.dictionary.com...

There is a difference between kinds and species that gets neglected when dealing with evolution. I have mentioned this in my opening round. Evolution today propagates a change in kind. A variation in species is adaptation. Although this was mentioned my opponent went right ahead and presented adaptation as evidence for all of evolution although it is not. Experiments done in this field is often confined to micro organisms and bacteria. The observed bacteria may acquire new properties to classify it by someone as a new species but the fact is it is still bacteria. It did not change kind. The same holds true for micro organisms. What did the micro organisms become? It became a new variation of MICRO ORGANISMS. None of these experiments have ever proved that these organisms can produce intelligent life form as found in the human race. Dogs, reptiles and birds all have variant forms of intelligence that is clearly distinguishable. Simple organisms that may be produced in no way automatically prove that humans came from or that animals came from these organisms. The example mentioned regarding the survival of species also shows this type of speculation to be just that, speculation and unfounded at that. It's like a disabled mother with severe impairments expected to take care of a new born baby.

Example: A white and Black person may have a child that will look different from both parents. The child acquired new properties and is thus a variation of a species because the child is still HUMAN. If this is proof of evolution then it refutes the claim that evolution takes millions of years, If it is not then it supports my view of adaptation and variance in species that is NOT evidence for evolution. Many so called scientists confuse this point.

Transitional fossils:

Joseph Merrick, known as the Elephant man was born with severe deformities although his parents where "normal" - https://en.wikipedia.org.... He was never regarded as a transitional fossil although his structure contained remarkable physical differences from "normal" human beings. Why do I mention this? Quite simply because the so called transitional fossils could have been people or animals with severe deformities themselves. This is likely because millions and millions of transitional fossils are not found as would be expected but only a few here or there. These fossils are often "build" up to represent what some person think it should have looked like and therefore is also based on speculation and not fact.

There are a number of other problems which I will list:
1. Fossils are found without knowing if they were freaks of nature instead of true transitional fossils.
2. It can not be proven that these transitional fossils were able or in fact did reproduce.
3. The evidence or lack thereof suggests these rare fossil did not reproduce which is also more or less similar to Darwin"s concern due to lack of millions of fossils.
3. Joseph Merrick"s physical change only took 9 months. It did not take millions of years. This is in opposition to current theories of how the human race evolved.

Reptiles to birds:

Similarities between birds, animals and humans do not automatically make them the same kind or is evidence they came from the same kind. This is a logical fallacy.

Vestigial Features:

Vestigial features are based on usefulness. Humans cannot do without the tailbone (coccyx) because it is used to anker nerve endings which is essential for normal functioning. The appendix, once thought unnecessary, has been found to assist in the immune system. The list goes on and on how people spoke without knowing what they were talking about.

Atavisms:

If you suggest we came from the monkeys like Darwin proposed then you are obviously not up to date. That theory is not held anymore and replaced rather by the cell-fish-human evolution theory. Many current "scientists" have criticized Darwin and presented "evidence" to disprove his original theory.

"But now scientists say 50-million-year-old Algeripithecus was not an ape or human ancestor and was more like today's lemurs, after all." http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Some of the points raised were not addressed because I do not really see a remarkable difference between it and what can be expected if God created everything.
Debate Round No. 2
Moelogy

Pro

First of all, Con provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever for theism or his creationist beliefs. This concession means he did not meet his burden of proof.

Big Bang :

"Pro states that in the beginning there was a singularity. He starts with a hypothesis that is based on speculation and then gives a sequence of events of how everything came to be by further speculation."

No. Speculation means there is no evidence. I provided you with tons of evidence and references that demonstrate that the big band did happen like the CMBR, Expansion of galaxies, big bang nucleosynthesis, etc. If I provide evidence, there is no room for speculations since no assumptions were made.

"The theory of the "big bang" has changed over the last 100 years and "science" prides itself that they are willing to change or admit they were wrong as new evidence is acquired. The problem with this is that it does not make the current theory very trustworthy because new evidence may be discovered tomorrow that will change what is believed today."

There is no evidence and you did not provide any sources that theory of big bang changed. Please get in the habit of providing evidence and references when you make claims. The theory of the big bang has been the exact same idea from George La Maitre until now, the same idea of rapid expansion from the singularity into what is the universe today as we know it. (http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...). Moreover, I do agree with you, the theory of big bang will be REFINED not changed in the future when quantum mechanics will begin to apply to the singularity, so now the theory of the big bang will not only address the evolution of the universe from the singularity to its current state, in the future, the theory of the big bang will include quantum mechanics to include a more "origin" oriented view to answer questions like where did the singularity come from?

"The Theistic view suggests a quick formation with supplementary elements coming into existence after the initial rapid formation of the universe. It suggests a single point that expanded and is still expanding."

Far from it, The theistic stance in many world religions is that the Earth came before the rest of the universe and the universe is 6000 to 10,000 years old. This is recorded in christianity (Genesis 1, 4, 5, 11) and in Islam (41:9-12 and the genealogies of adam are also in the quran). The theistic view can not include the big bang which explictly says that the earth came after the rest of the unvierse, in fact 10 billion years after shattering the 6000 figure of the bible and most of the other holy books.

"The theory set out by Pro has never been observed and tested and therefore fails the scientific process criteria."

Yes we can observe it, the CMBR is literally the leftover energy / heat or the afterglow of the violent expansion of the big bang. Moreover, if you see light far enough and old enough you can actually see a short period of that rapid expansion (http://news.harvard.edu...)

"The evidence of heat etc. can well be because of creation because the initial formation is claimed by both sides (although not all sides out there in the world today). The intensity of the original generated heat is not known and subsequent measurement is based on speculation not fact. The same also holds true for radiation."

Heat this size and for this long is only rationally possible after an explosion or rapid expansion the size of the big bang. I would like you to refrain from using speculation since science does not make claims without evidence. Claims especially major ones in science are backed by tons of evidence. If you in fact think science is speculation then creationism is at major trouble since it has note even a shred of evidence backing it up.

"What caused the singularity to start existing?"

- Maybe it was eternal or maybe it was in cycles of big bangs and big crunches.
- This is god of the gaps. "I do not know how lightning happens so God did it" "I do not know where the singularity cam from yet so God did it"
- quantum mechanics is doing serious progress in answering this question and they have experimental evidence that the singularity could have been the result of quantum energy fluctuations in a quantum vacuum.

"With all the different theories replacing each other to explain cosmology, do you think the predominant theory today is reliable (seeing new evidence can replace it tomorrow)?"

- There were no theories replacing others. The only competing theory in history was the steady state which was disproved days after it was proposed because of general relativity by Einstein.
- new evidence has to explain the universe in light of old evidence. No new evidence will ever change the fact that this universe rapidly expanded from a small singularity.

"The number of years it took to form the universe has changed from millions to billions of years. That is a significant error rate when calculated. In light of this, do you think the current 13.8 billion years is reliable?"

- Where did you get this from? Source?
- The billions figure was arrived at using extrapolations from the CMBR and calculating the size of the universe and the rate of expansion and working their way back to the beginning to find the age of the universe.

- Evolution

"Although this was mentioned my opponent went right ahead and presented adaptation as evidence for all of evolution although it is not. "

With enough adaptations, mutations and differences, speciation happens and new species and organisms are formed.

"Experiments done in this field is often confined to micro organisms and bacteria."

Yeah but they display speciation and macro-evolution such as the E. coli experiment, fruit flies experiment and the peppered moths experiment.

" The same holds true for micro organisms. What did the micro organisms become? It became a new variation of MICRO ORGANISMS "

No. E. coli experiment proves that unicellular organisms like E. coli evolve to become multicellular colonies by colony morphology. (http://myxo.css.msu.edu...)

"A white and Black person may have a child that will look different from both parents. The child acquired new properties and is thus a variation of a species because the child is still HUMAN."

Experiments can not be done on humans. The child may be human but over centuries of variations and mutations especially mutations in the hox genes, the offsprongs will become their own species. We have transitional fossils to prove that happened with primate to man.

"Joseph Merrick, known as the Elephant man was born with severe deformities although his parents where "normal" - https://en.wikipedia.org....... He was never regarded as a transitional fossil although his structure contained remarkable physical differences from "normal" human beings."

This is an example of atavism at best and has nothing to do with transitional fossils. I do not think you know what transitional fossils are.

" Fossils are found without knowing if they were freaks of nature instead of true transitional fossils."

What? Freaks of nature?

"It can not be proven that these transitional fossils were able or in fact did reproduce."

Do you have evidence for this claim? Why would you think that all organisms in history have been able to reproduce except the ones that disprove your beliefs.

" The evidence or lack thereof suggests these rare fossil did not reproduce which is also more or less similar to Darwin"s concern due to lack of millions of fossils."

Lack of million of fossils. Ignorance is bliss. I do not think you know how hard or rare it is for a fossil to happen. It is so rare because you will either have to be buried the moment you die or you have to be covered in hot tar or sap. That is how rare it is. Fossils do not form that easy. Not every organism that dies forms a fossil. Only a rare few organisms form a fossil. Unless you are buried right after you die (like humans do with themselves) or covered in sap or HOT tar, you will not form a fossil.

"Joseph Merrick"s physical change only took 9 months. It did not take millions of years. This is in opposition to current theories of how the human race evolved."

Yet another example of your ignorance on evolution. This is called punctuated equilibrium and it has happened with sickle cell anemia in africa too.

- Reptiles to birds

"Similarities between birds, animals and humans do not automatically make them the same kind or is evidence they came from the same kind. This is a logical fallacy."

actually it is. When you find transitional fossils of species that have a mix of characteristics, it is proof that one of those species evolved into another (macroevolution). Showing a fine gradual transition between two species like I did in round one with primate-to-man or fish to tetrapods is even better since it proves a gradual evolution of one species to another beyond a shadow of doubt.

- Vestigial Features

"Vestigial features are based on usefulness"

Exact opposite of their definition.

"Coccyx and appendix"

No. These things do not carry the functions you want them to carry. You need to provide sources. You can literally get rid of both of these things because the only thing they do is get infections like appendicitis. You can literally remove and take out both of those features (coccygectomy, appendectomy) and still live a normal, even healthier life.

http://www.coccyx.org...

http://www.healthline.com...

- atvasims

Darwin never said we came from apes and your source is 8 years old and is not revolutionary in any sense and in fact does not even support your claims. The least you can do is read your own source.

You did not disprove my evidence (except for frankly, very weak rebuttals that made no sense with no sources) and provided no evidence for creationism meaning he did not meet his BOP.
kwagga_la

Con

Pro implies that I am ignorant and I find his comment regarding which habits I must develop a little annoying since most of what I refer to is already in his quoted sources. With that said, let me likewise take off the gloves. Pro's stated purpose for the debate was: "I would like to discuss the naturalistic viewpoint about Big bang and Evolution with a theist." Apparently Pro is literary challenged because what he actually meant was that I must prove creationism.

Pro states: "No. Speculation means there is no evidence. I provided you with tons of evidence and references that demonstrate that the big band did happen like the CMBR, Expansion of galaxies, big bang nucleosynthesis, etc. If I provide evidence, there is no room for speculations since no assumptions were made." Strange that Pro will say that because the evidence for his support that he quotes says the following: "First of all, the Big Bang wasn't very big. Second of all, there was no bang. Third, Big Bang Theory doesn't tell you what banged, when it banged, how it banged. It just said it did bang. So the Big Bang theory in some sense is a total misnomer. We need a theory that goes before the Big Bang, and that's String Theory. String Theory says that perhaps two universes collided to create our universe, or maybe our universe is butted from another universe leaving an umbilical cord. http://bigthink.com.... Did you get that? Do I need to explain to you what misnomer means? Can you read and see that the source you quote proposes a new theory? In case it eludes you what is being stated here; your source is debunking the current theory of the Big bang.

Another source Pro quotes states the following:
(The author of the article states the following in the comments section) It"s "merely a theory" like gravity, relativity and evolution. Scientists use the term "theory", so I wanted to hold with their terminology, but also help people understand how seriously we should take these arguments. https://www.universetoday.com.... Did you get that too? It"s a theory. That involves speculation. In spite of this you claim there is no speculation only evidence.

Did the early theories of the big bang include dark matter as part of the explanation more than 20 years ago? No it did not, Dark matter is a phenomenon found about 20 years ago. Yet you say the theory did not change over the years. Again, some of the sources you quote include dark matter and the like to explain the big bang which is different from 50 years ago. There might be similarities that are retained but it is definitely not the same anymore.

Why do I need to provide sources when you already quoted the sources that support what I said? Are you ignorant of what you quote? I must get in the habit of providing evidence? Why don"t you get into the habit of reading the evidence you sight instead of just posting all your arguments from different websites? So far there is nothing original or to be discussed as the purpose of this debate state because the majority of what you post is copy paste without any meaningful discussion.

Pro writes: "The theory of the big bang has been the exact same idea from George La Maitre until now, the same idea of rapid expansion from the singularity into what is the universe today as we know it." Normally I would say you made a mistake but since you quoted from a source that actually proves you wrong I will flat out say you are lying. If in doubt, go read your own sources.

"How did the universe begin? The Big Bang is traditionally envisioned as the moment when an infinitely dense bundle of energy suddenly burst outward, expanding in three spatial directions and gradually cooling down as it did so. Now, a team of physicists says the Big Bang should be modeled as a phase change: the moment when an amorphous, formless universe analogous to liquid water cooled and suddenly crystallized to form four-dimensional space-time, analogous to ice." https://www.space.com...

I stated: "The Theistic view suggests a quick formation". Pro responds: "Far from it, The theistic stance in many world religions is that the Earth came before the rest of the universe and the universe is 6000 to 10,000 years old." You are not arguing against the different Theistic religions, you are supposed to address what I believe. That is what I believe and I find my support in the Bible as I mentioned. Focus a bit, I"m over here.

I stated: "The theory set out by Pro has never been observed and tested and therefore fails the scientific process criteria." Pro responds: "Yes we can observe it, the CMBR is literally the leftover energy / heat or the afterglow of the violent expansion of the big bang. Moreover, if you see light far enough and old enough you can actually see a short period of that rapid expansion (http://news.harvard.edu......)." Anyone who knows a little about the subject knows that no one has ever reproduced the initial formation of the universe or observed it. Pro should know better than to make such statements, but then again all his arguments so far is copy paste.

Pro responds to my question: "What caused the singularity to start existing?" - Maybe it was eternal or maybe it was in cycles of big bangs and big crunches. MAYBE? Did you read what you wrote when you said there is no speculation involved before? MAYBE? Maybe, you"re not only literary challenged but impaired as well. Ignorance may be bliss but in your case also a sign of stupidity. Pro is the one inventing possibilities but then try to argue for a god of the gaps? I hope quantum mechanics can also progress to cure your intellectual vacuum. That would be impressive.

Again Pro responds: "With all the different theories replacing each other to explain cosmology, do you think the predominant theory today is reliable (seeing new evidence can replace it tomorrow)?" " "There were no theories replacing others. The only competing theory in history was the steady state which was disproved days after it was proposed because of general relativity by Einstein." By now it should be clear Pro is a bit confused.

Pro state: "The number of years it took to form the universe has changed from millions to billions of years. That is a significant error rate when calculated. In light of this, do you think the current 13.8 billion years is reliable?" - Where did you get this from? Source? Again, this is from one of your sources:
It's a daunting challenge, especially since researchers are working at a 13.7-billion-year remove. But don't count science out, Carroll said. After all, 100 years ago, people understood very little about the universe. We didn't know about general relativity, for example, or quantum mechanics. We didn't know the universe was expanding, and we didn't know about the Big Bang. "We know all these things now," Carroll said. "The pace of progress is actually astonishingly fast, so I would never give in to pessimism. There's no reason in the recent history of cosmology and physics to be pessimistic about our prospects for understanding the Big Bang." https://www.space.com.... Do you still want to maintain your position that the theory did not change? Unfortunately I will have to get the textbook used in school to provide the siltation of what I remember, but I"m sure you can google it.

Evolution
Pro states: "With enough adaptations, mutations and differences, speciation happens and new species and organisms are formed." That"s what I have been saying all along. As stated, the issue is kind to kind not species within species.
Again Pro state: "No. E. coli experiment proves that unicellular organisms like E. coli evolve to become multicellular colonies by colony morphology". And what did they become? Only a variation of the same species.

Pro states: "This is an example of atavism at best." Apparently you missed the point here. How do you distinguish a deformed fossil from one you will classify as transitional? That is the point.

Pro continues: "It can not be proven that these transitional fossils were able or in fact did reproduce." "Do you have evidence for this claim? Why would you think that all organisms in history have been able to reproduce except the ones that disprove your beliefs." Do I need to sight a source for something that is common sense? Is there a law that demands all transitional fossils to mate to carry on evolution?

Pro states: "Lack of million of fossils. Ignorance is bliss. I do not think you know how hard or rare it is for a fossil to happen. It is so rare because you will either have to be buried the moment you die or you have to be covered in hot tar or sap." Pro miss the point again. Darwin understood the point and said that the lack of fossils was what challenged his theory.

Reptiles to birds
Pro: "actually it is. When you find transitional fossils of species that have a mix of characteristics, it is proof that one of those species evolved into another (macroevolution)." Only in your mind.

Vestigial Features - Structures that have no apparent function and appear to be residual parts from a past ancestor are called vestigial structures. https://www.boundless.com...
The coccyx, also known as the tailbone, is a small, triangular bone resembling a shortened tail located at the bottom of the spine. It is composed of three to five coccygeal vertebrae or spinal bones. ... The coccyx serves as an attachment site for tendons, ligaments, and muscles. www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/coccyx
- atvasims

Pro concludes with: "Darwin never said we came from apes". Quotes from: Darwin, C. R. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. "If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group... we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man." https://www.quora.com...
Pro cannot provide prove of how the singularity he refers to came into existence. His argument is therefore based on speculation and not an absolute truth.
Debate Round No. 3
Moelogy

Pro

Pro provides no arguments against the evidence I proposed for the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution but he just goes on with frankly weak red herrings and strawmen fallacies. Worst of all he does not provide any evidence for creationism which means he did not meet his BOP.

"Apparently Pro is literary challenged because what he actually meant was that I must prove creationism."

I am going to have to ask you to stop with the personal attacks .... we are not in a daycare, grow up. Second of all, you should have read the title of the debate before accepting. The title of the debate is literally "VS Theism (con)" which means that we will have to debate your POV. You should have probably read my first post in this debate where I clearly say "BOP is shared even though it should not be".

"First of all, the Big Bang wasn't very big. Second of all, there was no bang. Third, Big Bang Theory doesn't tell you what banged, when it banged, how it banged. It just said it did bang. So the Big Bang theory in some sense is a total misnomer."

You should have taken the time to read the Big bang theory before coming here to debate it. The big bang happened to the infinite-density infinite-energy singularity 13.8 billion years ago, and it happened because the higgs boson broke its symmetry.

"String Theory says that perhaps two universes collided to create our universe, or maybe our universe is butted from another universe leaving an umbilical cord."

Not even close. The string theory has nothing to do with the origin of the unvierse, all it says is that the uarks are made from strings. You have probably been on answersingenesis.com for too long.

" http://bigthink.com...;

That was my source from round two. It says that the singularity happened because the higgs boson broke the symmetry which supports the big bang. It says nothing of umbilical cords.

"Did you get that too? It"s a theory. That involves speculation. In spite of this you claim there is no speculation only evidence."

a theory in science is different from the every day use of the word theory. In science, theory means best possible explanation of an aspect of the natural world substantiated with a vast body of evidence. So no speculation at all.

"Did the early theories of the big bang include dark matter as part of the explanation more than 20 years ago? No it did not"

Dark matter is evidence for the big bang and not part of the theory same with the CMBR. Thats is like saying the big bang is false and changing because they found the CMBR and the redshift of galaxies.

"Why do I need to provide sources when you already quoted the sources that support what I said? Are you ignorant of what you quote?"

If you post one example of where a source said something against the claims I made or where it supports you in a controversy between us, I will forfeit this debate. But you need examples and evidence instead of claims.

"Now, a team of physicists says the Big Bang should be modeled as a phase change: the moment when an amorphous, formless universe analogous to liquid water cooled and suddenly crystallized to form four-dimensional space-time, analogous to ice."

Yeah they provided an analogy which still supports the idea that the universe exploded or expanded from a small singularity. Water expanding over a surface is somewhat comparable and analogous to the expansion of matter and energy in the spacetime fabric .

"That is what I believe and I find my support in the Bible as I mentioned."

Except that I showed you bible verses that contradict the fact of the big bang and that the earth is 4.5 billion years. The bible says the earth came before the rest of the universe and the earth is ten thousand years old at best with all the interpretations (Genesis 1, 4, 5, 11). No way to fit that with the earth coming ten BILLION years after the rest of the universe.

"Anyone who knows a little about the subject knows that no one has ever reproduced the initial formation of the universe or observed it."

Well you should probably read the source.

"Pro should know better than to make such statements, but then again all his arguments so far is copy paste."

ad hominem fallacy and you provide no proof that I copy pasted.

"Did you read what you wrote when you said there is no speculation involved before?"

There is no speculation in the big bang, it is certain and the theory of the big bang merely explains how this fact happened, but there is speculation about where the singularity came from.

"Ignorance may be bliss but in your case also a sign of stupidity."

You believe in talking snakes and Jewish zombies, literally 6-year-olds are smarter than you.

"Pro is the one inventing possibilities but then try to argue for a god of the gaps?"

God of the gaps is refering to a 2000 year-old book written by bored bedouins for answers.

"By now it should be clear Pro is a bit confused."

Claim with no evidence.

" After all, 100 years ago, people understood very little about the universe. We didn't know about general relativity, for example, or quantum mechanics. We didn't know the universe was expanding, and we didn't know about the Big Bang. "We know all these things now," Carroll said."

Straw-man fallacy. I never said we did not know any of these things. Science is beginning to find evidence to explain tons of stuff but the theory of the big bang has not changed. You go on saying we now know about general relativity or quantum mechanics but how does knowing stuff we did not know before prove the big bang changed.

Evolution -

"Only a variation of the same species." No read the sources they evolved into different species, one of the test samples became a multi cellular organism, thats definitely not the same species as unicellular E. coli.

"How do you distinguish a deformed fossil from one you will classify as transitional?"

Deformed makes no sense in evolutionary context. If this "deformed" species or organisms carries on to give birth to a new species then it was a transitional fossil. I know they are transitional fossils because there are multiple ones between the two species that demonstrate a fine gradual evolution.

"Do I need to sight a source for something that is common sense? Is there a law that demands all transitional fossils to mate to carry on evolution?"

Yeah you do. Because it definitely is not common sense that all organisms in history of evolution could reproduce except for the ones that disprove your genesis account.

"Pro miss the point again. Darwin understood the point and said that the lack of fossils was what challenged his theory."

What lack of fossils? Do you not see the plethora of transitional fossils I provided in round 2 that you still have not even touched or probably have not even looked at but you go on a straw-man rampage on my minor evidence.

Reptiles to birds

"Only in your mind."

Well you can look at the fossils for yourself. They have feathers and wings which is for birds but they have teeth and a skull unlike any bird and their size is definitely not that of a bird which indicates it is a reptile.

Vestigial features

"coccyx"

Your source provides how modern science uses the useless coccyx and as for the sitting position, I can assure you people who got a Coccygectomy can sit perfectly fine. For the nerves and muscles, um yeah you need leftover nerves and muscles there because primates need nerves and muscles to be able to wiggle their tails. The muscles and nerves there however have no function and do not affect anything in the body except for the useless coccyx

You did not address the appendix, hind legs in whales, pelvic bones in snakes, wisdom teeth, ostrich wings.

"we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man."

Yeah, that is the common ancestor between man and apes.

Conclusion -

- Con did not provide any evidence for creationism and did not meet his BOP

- He did not address any of the evidence I provided and goes on a red-herring and straw-man fallacy spree to my minor evidence which distracts us from the main evidence like the CMBR, fossils and atavisms (for example, he goes on to argue that the big bang has changed, which it did not, instead of addressing the evidence for it or shows that an atavisms of some elephant guy disproves fossils).

- Most of his argument on round 3 are personal offences which discourages me from continuing this debate and makes me ponder how old he is.

- If the next round, pro's argument follow the same trend of no evidence, pure claims, not addressing my evidence, red herrings and straw-man fallacies, I will not continue this debate since it is a waste of time.
kwagga_la

Con

Unfortunately the character limitation in the Debate do not allow me to address everything, so forgive me if I choose what to reply too. The last round was cut short and I was not able to post everything I wrote.

"Pro provides no arguments against the evidence I proposed for the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution but he just goes on with frankly weak red herrings and strawmen fallacies". I agree 100% with this statement made by PRO!!! (if anyone cared to check I am CON).

I have stated in the last round that I have a problem with Pro inferring that I am ignorant and insulting my intelligence asking me to provide sources when HIS SOURCES states what I referred too (does he think I am an idiot and cannot understand what his sources says and must therefore find some of my own?). In the comments section Pro and Backwarden criticized, belittled and mocked primearchitect. Pro states in the comments section: "primearchitect, that guy is a massive idiot". Pro also states that he hopes I will be open minded and rational thereby inferring that I am probably not. Yet Pro starts of the round by saying "I am going to have to ask you to stop with the personal attacks .... we are not in a daycare, grow up". You are a hypocrite, and a vain one at that, and I am being polite.

The debate is Big Bang + Evolution (Pro) vs. Theism (Con) which can mean anything. Yet Pro defines his intention as: "I would like to discuss the naturalistic viewpoint about Big bang and Evolution with a theist". This does NOT say that the MAIN object of Con was to prove Theism. I started the "discussion" by pointing out where I think are areas of misunderstanding. Therefore Pro is guilty of creating a totally different meaning as to what the purpose was of this debate (I am sure you can figure out which logical fallacy you are guilty of).

I quoted sources LISTED by PRO that refutes his own argument and then he goes and discredit HIS OWN SOURCE:

"First of all, the Big Bang wasn't very big. Second of all, there was no bang. Third, Big Bang Theory doesn't tell you what banged, when it banged, how it banged. It just said it did bang. So the Big Bang theory in some sense is a total misnomer." THIS IS FROM PRO"S LISTED SOURCE in the comments section, NOT MINE.

AND HERE IS PRO"S REPLY: "You should have taken the time to read the Big bang theory before coming here to debate it. The big bang happened to the infinite-density infinite-energy singularity 13.8 billion years ago, and it happened because the higgs boson broke its symmetry".

"String Theory says that perhaps two universes collided to create our universe, or maybe our universe is butted from another universe leaving an umbilical cord." THIS IS FROM PRO"S LISTED SOURCE in the comments section, NOT MINE.

AND HERE IS PRO"S REPLY: "Not even close. The string theory has nothing to do with the origin of the unvierse, all it says is that the uarks are made from strings. You have probably been on answersingenesis.com for too long". He discredited HIS OWN SOURCE.

Pro then states a few lines down: "If you post one example of where a source said something against the claims I made or where it supports you in a controversy between us, I will forfeit this debate. But you need examples and evidence instead of claims". So, let"s see if Pro is truthful and honest to do what he said he will do.

It should be clear to the reader who will check the sources listed in the comments section by PRO that these were from the sources he quoted. I say again, he should stop the copy paste tactics and start reading what is said.

Pro states: "a theory in science is different from the every day use of the word theory. In science, theory means best possible explanation of an aspect of the natural world substantiated with a vast body of evidence. So no speculation at all". The best possible explanation is speculation.

spec"u"la"tion - spekyəG2;lāSH(ə)n/Submit noun - 1. the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. (Google definition).

When dealing with whether the BB theory changed: "Dark matter is evidence for the big bang and not part of the theory same with the CMBR. Thats is like saying the big bang is false and changing because they found the CMBR and the redshift of galaxies". Of course it changed!! New elements were introduced to explain it.

Pro states: "Except that I showed you bible verses that contradict the fact of the big bang and that the earth is 4.5 billion years. The bible says the earth came before the rest of the universe and the earth is ten thousand years old at best with all the interpretations (Genesis 1, 4, 5, 11). No way to fit that with the earth coming ten BILLION years after the rest of the universe".

I never disagreed that the there is a contradiction between the two, I agree!! What is your point. Did I not state that I did not deem in necessary to address what we agree on?

I stated: "Pro should know better than to make such statements, but then again all his arguments so far is copy paste." Pro replied: ad hominem fallacy and you provide no proof that I copy pasted. Again, the Reader who takes the time to check Pro"s sources will quickly see that Pro just copied and pasted from various websites. He did not try to articulate, summarize or present the material in his own unique way as would be expected in a debate.

Pro states: "There is no speculation in the big bang, it is certain and the theory of the big bang merely explains how this fact happened, but there is speculation about where the singularity came from".

Type "is the big bang speculation" and you will find "About 641,000 results (0.46 seconds)". Most of the references I read all admitted it is, and no I did not read the Christian or religious ones.

"Ignorance may be bliss but in your case also a sign of stupidity."

Pro ask: "You believe in talking snakes and Jewish zombies, literally 6-year-olds are smarter than you". Not only that, I have seen people speak in different languages while possessed that thy never knew. I have seen predictions made that came true. You will be amazed and what you can found outside your comfort zone. Try spending some time with witch doctors in africa who go into a trance and start levitating.

I quoted from Pro"s source: " After all, 100 years ago, people understood very little about the universe. We didn't know about general relativity, for example, or quantum mechanics. We didn't know the universe was expanding, and we didn't know about the Big Bang. "We know all these things now," Carroll said." Again, THIS IS PRO"S SUORCE and he calls what HIS SOURCE says a STRAWMAN FALLACY!!!!

This is his reply:

"Straw-man fallacy. I never said we did not know any of these things. Science is beginning to find evidence to explain tons of stuff but the theory of the big bang has not changed. You go on saying we now know about general relativity or quantum mechanics but how does knowing stuff we did not know before prove the big bang changed". And the Pro states there is NO EVIDENCE that he is confused.

Dealing with the rest of what Pro had to say, I will list the following points:

1. Dealing with evolution, Pro ignores the kind to kind point raised and keeps on providing variations as species as evidence. Variation in species is NOT evidence for kind to kind which is what evolution teaches.
2. The reproduction of transitional forms and its survival was addressed from the first round and Pro never addressed this issue. It is worthless to bicker over fossil evidence if it is impossible for certain species to survive without an adult taking care of the young.
3. Pro states that deformed fossils is not regarded (in so many words) in the records and that is my point. Pro did not provide evidence that the so called fossils are absolutely not deformed species that existed. The fossil record is FULL of mistakes and FAKES. A simple google search will provide tons of information how so called transitional forms where found just be found it was not. Not taking all possibilities into account (like deformed species), seriously questions it as factual and "scientific". It is a logical fallacy not to take all possibilities in account. Darwin was the man who popularized the theory and also stated that the fossil record is the problem with it. That problem is still not solved even today.
4. Pro posts articles to prove his point but ignore the same source that states that it is not 100% certain (my paraphrase). Yes Pro believes for some reason that if he posts a quote and provides a siltation that that is evidence that cannot e refuted. The theory of black holes was proven WRONG after 30 years when everyone believed it as fact. Everyone referring to or quoting it during those 30 years were all WRONG. If you need a citation for that then you are the one who should read some more.
5. Pro admits he does not know what caused the singularity but yet argues it is a fact based on evidence. I kept on referring back to how everything started because it ant theory that fails to define its beginnings is speculation and assumption.
6. The same evidence you quote is also used by other scientists to explain creation. The reason for this is because of the assumptions and speculation involved based on uncertainty. If evolution and the Big bang was an ABSOLUTE PROVEN FACT then we would all believe it. The reason there is disagreement is because there are uncertainty involved in the theories that most scientist ADMIT. Even the ones in your sources!
7. Pro states that the Vestigial features he sites is not required. If the tailbone is required for tendons and to set then it has a use. I need my arm but when amputated I can still get around, that does not make my arm VESTIGIAL. That"s the absurdity involved in your reasoning. As for the appendix:
A Higher Purpose for the Appendix. Researchers deduce that the appendix is designed to protect good bacteria in the gut. That way, when the gut is affected by a bout of diarrhea or other illness that cleans out the intestines, the good bacteria in the appendix can repopulate the digestive system and keep you healthy.Oct 11, 2007
Appendix May Actually Have a Purpose " WebMD www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20071012/appendix-may-have-purpose
8. Pro believes that similarities are proof that a fish with things that appear to be legs means could be the ancestor of a human. The common ancestor theory debunks this because an ape and a human can come from on ancestor but have distinct lines that do not cross over although many similarities exist. Therefore similarities is not absolute prove of ancestry. I have pointed out the logical problem with this and you just repeat the same line over and over. Why not try to deal with the logical aspect of it?

If you want to insult and belittle someone else then be prepared to receive as well. If you want to treat me and other people as dogs then you can expect to be bitten. I have respect for Backwardseden because he can at least take criticism standing up and not resort to what you said:

- Most of his argument on round 3 are personal offences which discourages me from continuing this debate and makes me ponder how old he is.

- If the next round, pro's argument follow the same trend of no evidence, pure claims, not addressing my evidence, red herrings and straw-man fallacies, I will not continue this debate since it is a waste of time.
Debate Round No. 4
Moelogy

Pro

This debate is ridiculous and a waste of time. You do not provide proof for your standpoint so you do not meet the BOP. Your only arguments against my evidence is red herring, straw men fallacies or just flat out personal attacks like "expect to get bitten or this is a sign of stupidity". Your argument against the big bang is that it is speculation when I told what a theory in the scientific world means. You do not even understand evolution by natural selection. No time for this ridiculous debate.
kwagga_la

Con

Pro began by copy pasting from various websites to claim that the big bang is a PROVEN fact. I counter asking how what he says began but then he admits he does not know. He can only speculate. The problem with this is that there are different proposed theories that explain the same thing. Without being able to identify the exact cause pro cannot claim that his particular version of the Big bang is a PROVEN fact. In this regard Pro did not prove anything and did not disprove my counter. Therefore other theories including Theistic theories are also valid alternatives.

Pro talked about radiation and the cosmic microwave. I countered by pointing out that the dating based on these methods are also speculative because no one knows how much radiation was present in the beginning or what the intensity of the heat was. I did not argue there are no microwaves or radiation present. I also pointed out that creation scientists use the same data to justify creationism but the problem lies in the "what and how much present" that is based on speculation and probability. Pro failed to conclusively rebut this.

Pro relied on Abiogenesis and evolution but failed to distinguish between variation within species, adaption within species and changing in kind. He did not address this although I countered his argument pointing out that what he referred to in every case was adaption or variation within a specie. A new variation of a specie within a specie is not Darwinian evolution or the branches that stemmed from it. The bacteria remained bacteria. The micro organisms remained micro organisms and so on. That is a variation or adaptation within specie, not a change of kind as the dictionary I quoted from define evolution. His ally in the comment section tried to say that Antibiotic resistant microbes is prove but he also seems to fail to understand what I said. What did the Antibiotic resistant microbes become? Nothing, it remained a microbe organism.

Pro brought up the fossil record and I pointed out that the fossil record is biased because it does not interpret fossils found very logically. I pointed to ONE of many different cases where a deformed skeleton can be interpreted to be the next step or part of evolution when it is not. When asked how the scientists distinguish true "transitional" fossils from these types of freak structures Pro replied that they did not. That was exactly my point. Pro failed to prove anything. Fossils are based on interpretation.

Pro talked about fish to tetra-pod's and I countered saying that likeness do not automatically justify decent. It is said that man and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. That means that we cannot infer because there are likenesses between a man and a chimpanzee that the man evolved from the chimpanzee line. The theory states the exact opposite saying that the two followed distinct branches that did not cross over after the common ancestor. The fish to man theory has never been observed or proven.

Pro points to Vestigial Features and I countered his story by quoting articles that says the exact opposite that proved some of the things he listed that supposedly do not have a use do in fact have a use and are therefore not necessarily left over. I used a logical argument saying that if my arm is amputated I can still get around without it but that does not mean it is vestigial. Pro did not address my counter argument.

Pro stated Darwin did not teach man came from the monkeys but in fact Darwin and his colleagues did teach man and the apes had a common "ape like" ancestor. The variance within a general statement should always be kept in mind before making absolute statements.

So why do I point out that Pro did not answer my arguments? It is because he claims I never answered his! It is obvious what he says is false.

Pro maintained that the big bang theory did not change but when I quote from one of his own sources about string theory etc. he tries to disprove it not realizing he is actually discrediting his own source. Pro stated he will forfeit the debate if I can prove he did so but still continued the debate although I did. This shows the level of Pro"s honesty and integrity or rather lack there off.

Pro claims personal attacks on him and tries to be the adult in the debate by saying I should not do it. Calling him a hypocrite is not an unjustified attack on him, it is the truth. Further evidence can be found in the comments section where he now also calls me an idiot as he has done earlier talking about another debater who disagreed with him. He says that my comment that if he wants to treat me like a dog he must expect to be bitten s a personal attack. A conditional statement based on cause and effect where the affect is justified by the cause is a personal attack? You where asking for it.
If you don"t want people attacking you then don"t attack them. I therefore maintain his impaired-ness and vacuum I mentioned before (proof can be found of this in the round where he states Pro did not prove anything - I AM CON).

Thanks for the debate!

*excuse the spelling mistakes. I sometimes use my phone to post here which can be a challenge with spell checker changing things.
Debate Round No. 5
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kwagga_la 1 year ago
kwagga_la
@canis I dreamed a canibas leave evolved to the extent where it could start typing on a computer. It was confused at it's new found abilities because it was used to getting burned up. People sucking on you all day can be very demanding I suppose.The little evolutionary leave tried it's best but could only manage half non sensical sentences. The constant exposure to transedetial planes caused by a kindling fire clouded it's ability to think clearly. At this point I realized I was not dreaming, I was reading one of your posts.
Posted by kwagga_la 1 year ago
kwagga_la
@backwards Are you angry because I keep asking about the suffering little children? Since our first encounter I have made a program to analyse how I can insult you on your level because I get the feeling "you just don't get what I am saying". The computer suggest I call you a "stinky wet sock". I immediately recognized the short coming because it should at least be "two stinky wet socks". Your hypicracy is apparent when you point out how Christians evade, elude and not answer objections but you do exactlyR03; that which you accuse others off. Your lies are found in little statements like: "I did not even read your comments" but then you go right ahead and answer the comments made. You repeat the same arguments over and over probably thinking if you say it enough it will become true. Princearchitect dealt with some of your objections and showed how childish your assertions are. The atheist community is apparently a very humble community, according to someone on this site, so why don't you then humbly accept your short falls that you do not know it all? You contradict yourself so many times that the word is now being used as a cuss word. Shame on you, what did the word "contadiction" ever do to you?
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
@Moelogy Your opponent ---should--- be called an idiot as you labeled him, as well as an imbecile, dumb, stupid, a burning fetus, a sheepish bore, a wayward vine in a jungle of lost hard offs, garlic onion beer belly deodorant, yodeling grunge country opera, a nun's pep rally, a phallic chess piece etc etc etc. In other words its the guy's character. Its way off. christians like him have to invent excuses to stay ahead of the game and they always dance around the issues and cannot stay focused on the main issue, basically the issues that you bring up and or what the debaters bring up. They have to dance around the issues.
They can also ---never--- state "I don't know" whereas its in the diet of all good and or great scientists. Those words of "I don't know" terrorizes christians, because dare they say it and their god be wrong and or infallible? Of course not. So they have to invent excuses for their shoulders to be more broad.
And also isn't it funny, but atheists generally know more about the bible that christians do because only roughly those who claim to be christians don't read their bible's in the first place. Its about 80%. Staggering isn't it?
So indeed christianity is failing and fading rapidly and has been since 2007. Rightly. Deservedly. Thankfully.
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
followerof... Yeah "Bacteria, microbes and such are NOT sentient." Has nothing to do with anything." That's because it doesn't. Evolution is STILL TAKING PLACE as proved. So Aren't you even a little embarrassed at the sheer stupidity of your statements? Wow. You should be.

Now you prove that your god exists because you have 0 outs because evolution has just been handed to you on a silver platter as being stone cold hard fact. So you only have one out and that is to prove god. So go right ahead and you prove god. Whatsamatter can't do it? See you think you are so smart and all you have is the squat that is up your cabbage batbrain that is not very well edumacated at all. Wow does it show.

And the host of this page Moelogy asked you a very good question that you cannot answer honestly... "why do you believe in God?" And don't give us some cheapened form of skunk perfume as an excuse. Because that's what christians are well known for.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Why do you debate at all ? you only contribute with dreams..
Posted by kwagga_la 1 year ago
kwagga_la
@canis "In short, that you may receive the faith of the matter; concerning Jerusalem, which I had often seen, I told my brother what places and what gatherings of people I had seemed to myself to see. But also concerning C"sarea, which I had never seen, I nevertheless contended that it was such as I had conceived it in my mind and thought. But when I came hither, and saw nothing at all like to those things which I had seen in phantasy, I blamed myself, and observed distinctly, that I had assigned to it gates, and walls, and buildings from others which I had seen, taking the likeness in reality from others. Nor indeed can any one imagine anything new, and of which no form has ever existed. For even if any one should fashion from his imagination bulls with five heads, he only forms them with five heads out of those which he has seen with one head. And you therefore, now, if truly you seem to yourself to perceive anything with your thought, and to look above the heavens, there is no doubt but that you imagine them from those things which you see, placed as you are upon the earth. But if you think that there is easy access for your mind above the heavens, and that you are able to conceive the things that are there, and to apprehend knowledge of that immense light, I think that for him who can comprehend these things, it were easier to throw his sense, which knows how to ascend thither, into the heart and breast of some one of us who stand by, and to tell what thoughts he is cherishing in his breast. If therefore you can declare the thoughts of the heart of any one of us, who is not pre-engaged in your favour, we shall perhaps be able to believe you, that you are able to know those things that are above the heavens, although these are much loftier."

Recognitions of Clement
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Why do you debate at all ? you only contribute with dreams..
Posted by kwagga_la 1 year ago
kwagga_la
@Moelogy I think there is a difference in approach here that may have caused much of the disagreement over certain things. I approach most of the evolution debates, or try to, from a logical point of view. I question the assumptions or facts and what they are based on. Accepted agreement based on education in my opinion do not warrant blind belief. I work in a field where educated people make some of the most unbelievable mistakes sometimes. I rarely engage in a quote this quote that to counter arguments scientifically. I have done courses in evolution and origins but there is too much gaps left open for interpretation (this is my opinion of course). Perhaps you were looking more for the quote this that type of debate. Presenting evidence for this from the latest research while countering it with another scientist. I accepted the debate because it was said to be a discussion. I think FollowerofChrist might be able to give you the debate you are looking for,
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
What is the differnce between a god and Santa..Well you can read about both. But Santa gives your pressent..
There is no "big bang /evolution" vs some god..Its like saying US army vs. the Orks..
Posted by kwagga_la 1 year ago
kwagga_la
"big bang"

As pointed out, the disagreement arose when you stated it is a proven fact. Your source makes the same mistake because a proven fact is not a theory anymore.

"fossils"

Lack in numbers is the biggest problem for the fossil record.

Many sources can be quoted but here is two:

"The results show that out of all the geological factors, only the area of preserved rock drives biodiversity. Therefore, the other geological factors " counts of fossil collections and geological formations " are not independent measures of bias in the fossil record." - https://uncommondescent.com...

9 Fossils and Finds That Were Total Fakes - http://www.popularmechanics.com...

"vestigials"

A person born with a crippled leg (deformed and short which will cause discomfort) will probably be better off amputating it and getting a artificial limb. Again, getting along without a limb does not make it vestigial. These days doctors recommend you keep your appendix.

"I told you the reason for my selective answers so don"t make it into something it is not."

No you did not.

I stated the following in round 4:

Unfortunately the character limitation in the Debate do not allow me to address everything, so forgive me if I choose what to reply too. The last round was cut short and I was not able to post everything I wrote

"source"

I answered this one below.

"other religions"

The raised from the dead stories are different in that Christ said he has the power to lay down His life and to take it again. The only miracle involved with splitting the moon will be if someone actually believed it. You come from Islam, you should know Allah had no son. The differences are to huge to try and generalize it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.