The Instigator
Sagey
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Sukati
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Can Creation Ever Replace Evolution As The Dominant Theory For Diversity Of Life?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Sukati
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/26/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,718 times Debate No: 58185
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (4)

 

Sagey

Con

Basic 3 round Debate.

Pro will be arguing that Creation can depose/replace Evolution as the dominant theory for the vast diversity of living organisms on planet earth.

While will have Burden Of Proof as I am the Instigator of the debate title, that there is no way that Creation can replace Evolution as the dominant theory for the diversity of living organisms currently observed on our wonderful planet.

Though the best debater for the Pro position is somebody who really believes that Creation can depose Evolution, such as a Young Earth Creationist.
But, an Evolutionist (Theistic or Atheistic) can play devil's advocate if they know the arguments used by Young Earth Creationists well enough.

Note: Theistic Evolutionists (Catholics/Protestants/Buddhists, some Muslim Sects, etc..) do not seek to replace Evolution with Creation, so it is not their argument at all.

No acceptance round, Pro will start with the Argument.
Second round will be Rebuttals and extending argument.
Final round for rebuttals and closing comment.

My Opening Statement/Argument:

The only way I can see that Creationism would have a chance of deposing Evolution is if a God appeared and explained to everybody on the planet at once how and why life appears on earth as it does, but we would all have to be totally certain that everybody had the same vision and message, otherwise it may be just a group hallucination like the visions of the Mother of Jesus.
So we would require confirming, tangible evidence that it occurred.

Evolution is now so very strong, evidence wise, that Creation will have to be able to demonstrate that it better explains the diversity of life we currently perceive.

Creation has had such a bad rap over the last few decades, that many people, including scientists consider it as an argument from ignorance fallacy.
So Creation is severely lacking in the credibility stakes.

Britain has banned the teaching of Creation from all science classes in all publicly funded educational institutions, which includes publicly funded religious schools. #1
The rules are that Creation can be taught in Religious Education classes, so long as they do not claim that it is an alternative to Evolution, nor that it is supported by Science. If the break these rules, the school will lose it's public funding and they will have to fund themselves privately.

I had just tried this day, to find Creationist literature in our public library system and they have all been removed. I often enjoy a read of Creationist literature, I find it very amusing, but sadly, no public libraries stock any such literature, only Anti-Creationist literature by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Prof. Ian Plimer's "Telling Lies For God", I used to be able to source William Paley's book "Natural Theology" from the library religion section, but it is no longer stocked.
This is partly the reason for me starting this debate.

The other is with such odds now put against Creationism, I wonder how Creationists consider they will have any chance of deposing Evolution.
Since the children in secular countries will be deprived of any knowledge of Creation in their schooling.
It seems likely the death of Creationism is written on the walls.

How can Creationism possibly survive and put up a good fight to claim what Creationists consider as its rightful place as the opposition to Evolution?

My argument is that it is now Impossible for Creation to achieve this goal of deposing Evolution!

#1 http://www.christianpost.com...
Sukati

Pro

I would like to thank Con for an interesting debate topic!

I will be arguing that Creationism could possibly replace evolution as the dominant theory for the diversity of life.

Breaking down the meaning of the resolution:

The resolution is as follows: "Can Creation Ever Replace Evolution As The Dominant Theory For Diversity Of Life?"
Let's set some definitions.

Can is defined as: "to be able to do, make, or accomplish"[1]

Creationism is defined as: "the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect"[2]

Evolution is defined as: "a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time"[3]

With these definitions in mind, the resolution states in layman's terms: "Is it possible that creationism could ever replace evolution as the dominant theory for diversity of life?"

Because Con has BoP, he must prove the following:

P1: Creationism is not the dominant theory

If he affirms P1 to be true, then he must prove:

P2: It is impossible for creationism to replace the dominant theory of evolution.

I will now continue to my arguments:

Creationism is the dominant theory in the United States.
According to a 2014 poll, 73% of the United States believes that God played a role in creation.[4] Because the majority of Americans believe that God has a role in Creationism, evolution is not the dominant theory of diversity of life.

But what if evolution was the dominant theory for the diversity of life? Let's assume for a moment that evolution was the dominant theory. Because we are debating if creationism is able to replace evolution as the dominant theory, all I have to do is affirm that it is possible for creationism to replace evolution as the dominant theory.

It is a huge stretch to say that it is impossible for creationism to replace evolution as the dominant theory. Because Con has BoP, Con must provide evidence that it is fact not possible for creationism to replace evolution as the dominant theory. Although I do not have BoP, I will provide evidence that it is possible.

In regards to Con saying that the UK has banned creationism from schools, is it possible for them to reverse it? Is it possible for the UK to make a law, declaring the one banning creationism from education null and void? Yes, it is possible. It may not be plausible, but it could possibly happen under certain circumstances.

Is it possible for a flaw to be discovered in the theory of evolution, and people begin moving back toward creationism? Yes it is possible. It may not be plausible, but it possible.

Because it is possible for creationism to replace evolution as the dominant theory for diversity of life, the resolution is affirmed.


Sources:
[1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4]:http://www.theblaze.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Sagey

Con

Thanks Pro for accepting this debate!
Your acceptance came as a complete surprise and you are correct in many counts.
I accept your definitions and they will stand.

Rebuttals:
Pro's Statements:
S1: [In regards to Con saying that the UK has banned creationism from schools, is it possible for them to reverse it? Is it possible for the UK to make a law, declaring the one banning creationism from education null and void? Yes, it is possible. It may not be plausible, but it could possibly happen under certain circumstances.]

Rebuttal: No Secular country will ever remove the ban on Creation in Science classes, because Creation is simply not Science. It is impossible for Creation to ever become Science, thus the ban will never be removed, it is not only implausible, it is impossible for Creation to become scientific. No rational institution would ever teach Theology as Science.
The only way this could happen is if Britain's government was taken over by an Evangelical Christian group such as "Living Waters" and Ray Comfort or Ken Ham became the Prime Minister of Britain, but he will still have to fight the entire Scientific community to pass such a bill.


S2: Is it possible for a flaw to be discovered in the theory of evolution, and people begin moving back toward creationism? Yes it is possible. It may not be plausible, but it possible.

Rebuttal: Even if a flaw in Evolution was discovered, the dominant theory would not revert to Creation, it would likely produce a better version (new revised) theory to replace Evolution.
No, Creationism is not the default theory if Evolution falls over, a better Scientific Theory will result instead.

My Extended Argument:

Point 1: Yes, Creationism is a dominant concept in some states of the US as to the origin of life on planet Earth, but it is not the dominant theory as to the diversification of life on earth, as many Theistic Creationists also prescribe to Evolution as being the dominant cause for diversification.
Worldwide: Since the vast majority of Christians on the planet are Catholics and Catholics accept Evolution as their church via their Pope declares Evolution to be God's method of producing diversity in living creatures, then the world dominant Christian view is also makes Evolution the dominant world Christian theory.
As can be seen in my following Source, many of the world's religions accept Evolution as a dominant theory.
Source for Acceptance of Evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Even Answers-in-Genesis unwittingly instigated Evolution as the reason for the diversity of dog breeds when it stated that one pair of wolves came from the ark and man created all the different breeds from that single species of wolf.
Human assisted Evolution is still evolution, as the laws and principles are the same.
Even Charles Darwin noted this many times in his "Origin Of Species".

Extract: "If all dogs are the same kind, then from a biblical perspective, only two of the original dog kind were needed on Noah’s Ark. After these dogs came off the Ark and the population of dogs increased on the earth, new species of dogs formed as the dog population split up and moved to different places over the earth—but they are all dogs, nonetheless."
Source: https://answersingenesis.org...

Point 2: At the time Darwin penned "Origin Of Species" and launched the Scientific Theory Of Evolution onto the world stage, Creation was indeed considered as the Explanation For The Diversity Of Life On Earth by the global community.

Note: Darwin was not original, he drew his hypothesis from many sources, even Leonardo da Vinci had notions of Evolution in his writings, Leonardo (a Christian, of course) can be considered as a founding father of the palaeontologist side of Evolution.

Point 3: The world is becoming more Scientific Savvy, thus most education institutions worldwide are removing Creation from science classes, as Creation will never ever be a Scientific Theory like Evolution.
So in the world scientific arena Creation is a Theological Construct or Concept and will never be a Scientific Theory.
But, for this debate it is not really important that Creationism will never become a Scientific Theory.
It will always remain only a general theory or theological idea.
As I have stated in my opening argument, Public Libraries are removing all trace of Creationism, so children growing up in those secular nations are not even being exposed to Creation as a concept.
Eventually, as this removal of information is extended to the United States as the US government is trying to implement the New Generation Science Standards in as many states as possible with the aim of reducing and even annihilating Creationism in the public school system of those states, it will become increasingly difficult for creationism to put itself back onto the world stage as a viable explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

The problems for Creation are three fold in regaining the Dominant Theory Status so I will assert 3 premises and conclusion based on these problems Creation face in regaining it's once held position.

P1: The entire world in increasingly relying on Science to explain everything, from nutrition to Cosmology, the Internet is largely responsible for much of this proliferation of Information, though nations, like Britain, improving their education standards also plays a big part. Thus the acceptance of Science means that what the vast Scientific community agrees upon and Theories are now globally accepted in most regions as dominant Theories.

http://books.google.com.au...


P2: Creation must become a Scientific Theory to replace the Scientific Theory of Evolution. As in Science, only a better Scientific Theory can override an existing Scientific Theory.
To achieve this, Creation must approach it's own arguments Scientifically.
http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us...

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

How science establishes Theories is by deliberately trying to disprove Arguments and Hypotheses.
As Science tells us that the best way to prove anything is to try to disprove it.
If it stands up to all attempts to disprove it using all methods known to humans, it is by human standards TRUE.
If it fails it never was true in the first place.
Evolution has stood up solidly to every possible test science has been able to devise and thus has demonstrated its own Truthfulness.
Creationists must be more scientific and do the same to their own Creation arguments.
They must subject their arguments to every possible test that can be devised and test their validity.
If they survive their tests for validity they become Hypotheses.
They must hand their Hypotheses and all the data gained in their testing and procedures used over to Scientific scrutiny.
If the scientific community cannot find flaws in the Creation Arguments, then Creation will become a Scientific Theory.


P3: Supposing Creation passes all attempts to disprove it, as Evolution certainly has and Creation becomes a competing Scientific Theory.
Then it must be able to Explain The Diversity Of Life, More Thoroughly Than Evolution Currently Does.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...



Conclusion: Based on the three premises (P1,P2,P3) above that I draw my conclusion that it is Impossible for Creation to ever replace Evolution as the explanation for the Diversity of Life.

http://www.nature.com...

I'll hand you back to Pro with this extract from:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth's history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts."

Thanks again to Pro for surprisingly accepting this debate!


Sukati

Pro

I would like to thank Con for a very good debate.

Unfortunately, I have run myself into a hole. For one, I believe in both evolution and creationism (not YEC), so I was unknowingly playing devils advocate. I did jump the gun and accepted the debate with not much thought to where this debate would go. Once it started, I realized that I would have to argue from a young earth perspective, and prove that YEC can be taught as science. However, instead of conceding the debate, I would like to continue the debate so I wouldn't have wasted Con's time.

Scale of the debate:

This is something that has not yet been defined, nor has it been discussed thus far. The question the topic sentence asks: "Can Creation Ever Replace Evolution As The Dominant Theory For Diversity Of Life?"


Definition of ever: "in any possible case or at any time"
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com...

Dominant theory where? Because there is no set definition, that means it applies to all of the countries. But why is scaling important? It is important because some countries, depending if they are secular or not, have different laws regarding creationism and evolution being taught in schools.

Here is a brief list of laws regarding the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org...

In order to win the debate, Con must prove:


P1: In every country, the schools teach evolution.
P2: Creationism cannot be taught as the reason for diversification of life.
C: Creationism cannot in any possible case, replace evolution as the dominant theory of life.

In order for me to win, I must prove:

P1: Evolution is not taught in every country.
P2: Creationism is taught in some countries as the reason for diversification of life.
C: Creationism can in any possible case replace evolution as the dominant theory of life.

Thus, I must provide evidence for P1 and P2 for me to affirm my position.

C1: Creationism is taught as the reason for diversification of life in Saudi Arabia, whereas evolution is not taught.

"Evolution is only mentioned by name in Saudi 12th-grade textbook where it claims Charles Darwin has "denied Allah's creation of humanity."[34] Rest of textbook focuses on descriptions of the taxonomic ranks with no further mention of evolution, only Qur'an verses as relevant to certain groups of animals." Source:http://en.wikipedia.org...


In this case, it is possible for creationism to replace evolution as the dominant theory, thus affirming my position.


Debate Round No. 2
Sagey

Con

Thank You Pro for redefining your position:

Yes, this debate was aimed at YEC, thus I sense your difficulty.

As a Rebuttal to Pro's P1:

I don't need to demonstrate that Evolution is taught in every country, but in the Majority of Countries or the Countries that count in determining Scientific Standards like which is to be considered Dominant Theories, which are the Commonwealth of Nations, Europe, including Russia and the United States, these have the institutions that devise world scientific standards.
I will at length make my point here:

Who defines what is the Dominant Theory is not the Population, as yes, in the US you could say that Creation is the most popular belief and this possibly applies also to some Islamic countries, but not to China, Britain, Asia, nor Northern Europe where Evolution is by far more popular than Creation.

To argue that because it is popular that it is the Dominant Theory (if it can become a Theory) is an argument by ad-populum fallacy!
The people may accept an idea, but it won't be accepted by their Academics, and when it comes to accepted Theories, it is the Academics that count.

To be a Dominant Theory, it must be accepted by Academia.
Popularity doesn't count, because the education system is governed in most communities by Academia and since the majority of countries are competing on the World Stage for superiority in Academic Achievement by their Universities, there is a world wide push for better educated Science Graduates.
This push is forcing the United States and other countries to instigate National Accreditation Standards, that are deliberately trying to stamp out the teaching of Creation in science classes.

This brings me to my Rebuttal of Pro's P2
There is a Valid Reason why Creationism is being stamped out of the education systems of all countries that count in formulating which Theories become the Dominant Theories, and the top 27 scientifically literate countries are almost totally devoid of Creationism being taught as even a sub reason for the diversification of life on planet Earth.

It has been demonstrated markedly that nations and even in the United States as a perfect example, that teaching Creation as the reason for diversification for life as they do in Answers-in-Genesis and ICR.org, reduces the overall scientific literacy levels of the Nation or State.
The US Government is extremely aware of this as the US has slipped drastically in world standards of Scientific Literacy of its population and doing a state by state analysis demonstrates that the highest science literacy standards come from states which have the least amount of Creationist influence in education. So Scientific Literacy is inversely proportional to the level of Creationism in education. Thus the US Government is seeking to rectify this and it is going to try and do it as constitutionally as possible, but it may need to get Tough on Creationism as Great Britain has. Just view the Charts below.
Screen Shot 2013 12 03 at 5.29.16 AM

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com.au...

Thus the British banning of Teaching of Creation as scientific in all publicly funded schools in the UK, which includes private religious schools that receive public funding, as it would like to regain top ranking above China, who leads the way in Science Education.
But the Humanist and National Science bodies are not going to stop the fight there, they want to Exterminate Creationism teaching completely from Britain, from pre-school upwards.
http://www.theguardian.com...

Similarly the United States would also love to be able to compete on the World Stage favorably as one of the most well educated nations (scientifically) on the planet, which was a position it once held, but is now being beaten by even once considered third world countries like Korea.
For example a nation that has a National Science Standard that has forbidden the teaching of Creation in science for decades now is Australia, in the last listings 2013 it was ranked No. 6 in the Science education rankings is well ahead of the U.S. ranked 28. The only way that the US will ever regain a place in the top 10 is to institute a National Science Standard and enforce it in all states, which is unconstitutional, since education has always been a State Government Responsibility.
In mathematics the US is ranking at the bottom of the list. Considered as totally Pathetic.
Where was Einstein, oh, I forgot, he was educated in Switzerland, ranked 9, where US is ranked 36th in Mathematics or the lowest performer in the list.

Note that every one of those 27 countries above the US, of which most are secular, have no Creation being taught as Science in their national curriculum. US is the only one of that top 28 that does, in some states.
Thus the U.S. Government's current attempts to have all states adopt the Next Generation Science Standards.

http://www.nextgenscience.org...

Unless the US can get all states to implement these standards, there is no way it will regain it's position of a world leader in Science Education.

If the US fails to get all states on board the NGSS scheme, it may have to resort to being unconstitutional and enforcing such standards Nationally.

I'm waiting for the sparks to fly and for Ken Ham's tail feathers along with his museum to be plucked from him. That will be fun to witness.

Ken's source of Income will be greatly diminished and his children may need to find meaningful jobs. No doubt Creation material will be banned from access by school children as it will be in Britain and other countries.

I believe that I have successfully defended my BOP Conclusion on the grounds that Creation cannot ever rise to reclaim it's once held for thousands of years, position of Dominant Theory For Diversity Of Life.

P1: Every country that counts in formulating the Scientific Standards (Commonwealth, Europe and the United States) has vowed to remove Creation from Science classes, including the United States, thus the creation of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) to implement this aim. But the US Government may get desperate and take this further.

P2: All 27 Nations at the top of the Highest Average Scientific Literacy above the US, do not teach Creation and many of them, such as in the Commonwealth, creation literature is not available to the student, thus such knowledge in those nations is disappearing from society.

Conclusion: Battling such Extreme Odds where not only the world science bodies are trying to exterminate Creationism and they are backed in their efforts by most of the Government Education Institutions as well as National Governments, Creationism doesn't have any possibility of fighting back. There will be pockets of resistance such as the Bible Belt in the United States and ACE in Britain, but they will eventually be defeated and Ken Ham may be forced to remove his silly Museum from public attention for Good.

It won't happen overnight, but Creationism will eventually be Crushed by World Agreement against it.
Call it unconstitutional, but a Festering Pimple of Deliberate Extreme Ignorance which degrades the Visible Intelligence of a Nation to the rest of the World may need to be lanced for the sake of saving the face of US scientific literacy.

Thanks very much Pro!

Back to you M8!








Sukati

Pro

R1: "Who defines what is the Dominant Theory is not the Population. [...] To be a Dominant Theory, it must be accepted by Academia."

Con is confusing scientifically accepted theory with dominant theory. Academia may accept evolution as scientific theory, but it cannot choose its own theories as dominant.


Dominant is defined as: "predominant;main;major;chief" (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

Evolution may be the dominant theory among scientific communities, however, that does not mean that it is the dominant theory.


For example, the belief that you need to be baptised to enter heaven is dominant in Christian churches, however, it is not necessarily dominant among the rest of the world, because everyone is not Christian.

Con also claims: "To argue that because it is popular that it is the Dominant Theory (if it can become a Theory) is an argument by ad-populum fallacy!"


Regarding my points made above, popular=dominant, but popular ≠ correct. We are arguing dominance, not correctness.

In Layman's terms, Academia establishes accepted scientific theory, or what is dominant among scientists, but can't establish what is popular, or dominant among the world.

R2: "the top 27 scientifically literate countries are almost totally devoid of Creationism being taught as even a sub reason for the diversification of life on planet Earth."

This is not true. In South Korea, evolution is being removed from high school text books. (http://www.nature.com...) There are still groups teaching creationism in the Netherlands. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)


However, I do not see a link between the PISA scores and countries teaching creationism in schools.

As I've shown, creationism is still present in South Korea. Despite this fact, the South Koreans still rank 11th overall.

As for the United States dipping lower and lower on scores, it is not due to creationism being taught in schools. First, the US students competing in the PISA do not answer test questions with: "Because God made it that way." Remember, these are the top students in the United States. Second, if creationism was the cause, it would be contingent on the top students being strictly religious and the most educated.

To further my point, let's presume creationism was the cause of US student performing poorly on the PISA. Creationism would only have an effect on their science score. However, it is shown that students in the United States have been performing poorly on not only science, but math and reading as well (http://www.npr.org...).

Creationism is not taught everywhere in the United States. The vast majority of creationism is taught in the South. (http://www.slate.com...) Everywhere else, creationism is not permitted.


R3: "The only way that the US will ever regain a place in the top 10 is to institute a National Science Standard and enforce it in all states, which is unconstitutional, since education has always been a State Government Responsibility.[...] Unless the US can get all states to implement these standards, there is no way it will regain it's position of a world leader in Science Education. "

While I do agree that there should be a national science standard, you have not provided evidence that creationism is the root cause of the US scoring poorly. As shown in R2, creationism is only present in a few states. The majority of the US bans creationism being taught.


R4: "P2: All 27 Nations at the top of the Highest Average Scientific Literacy above the US, do not teach Creation and many of them, such as in the Commonwealth, creation literature is not available to the student, thus such knowledge in those nations is disappearing from society."

The UK banned creationism from academies on June 9th after the most recent PISA exam results in 2013, thus creationism being taught would not effect the PISA scores. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)


Conclusion: I have successfully shown that Creationism, in any possible case, can replace evolution as the dominant theory of diversification. There are still countries where creationism is still taught as science in schools (eg. Saudi Arabia.) Because creationism is taught as science and not evolution in some countries, it is possible for creationism to replace evolution as the dominant theory for diversification of life.

Once again, I would like to thank Con for a very good debate.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Thanks Doomswatter, I wondered about that when posting the debate, but, I decided to go with stating it Directly instead of using probability, as it was more for impact on those finding it in their browser than winning the debate. I thought it had a better Troll value. I cannot get rid of the little troll in the back of my mind, having been a troll for so many years.
Trolling can be fun, and sometimes I manage to come across an unprotected site where I can enjoy myself. :-D~
But most creationist and end-of-times evangelical sites now recognize my IP address and block me.
The university firewalls also stop me from accessing those sites, since Creation is banned here in schools.

But occasionally I get to use a friend's system when I mind it while they take holidays and thus get a bit of a Troll for free since their IP is not blocked.
Posted by doomswatter 3 years ago
doomswatter
Sagey, I agree that was a good argument against the *probability* of creation dominance, however it did not completely rule out the *possibility*. If you ran this again, but specified that it should be a debate of probability, you would most likely win.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Thanks Sukati, Neck to Neck.
May even tie if it doesn't get any more voters.
So there is nothing between us.
Great Effort M8!
Even one I thought would go my way went your way instead, so that's a great mark in your favor.
Posted by Sukati 3 years ago
Sukati
This is going to be a close one. Good debate Sagey!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I agree Doomswatter, that comment was a strategic mistake, though the fact that Creation will never be regarded by science as a Theory was what I thought would be my Ace in the pack. Since the world is becoming scientifically savvy.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I was just reminded that the Chinese had almost identical mythology to the Japanese where they had ten sunbirds who would be travel around the world to settle in their Eastern tree at one a day and then they all decided to fly together and the heat caused a big drought that scorched everything on earth, until they called on the God of archery for help, where shot nine of the ten sunbirds out of rage and was going to shoot the last one when the emperor stopped him. The last sunbird was so fearful of the archer god, that he has never made mischief ever since and always flies around the word in strict obedience with rules the gods devised.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I like Sukati's final argument. Nice!

I think this will be a close debate, not that much between us.
:-D~
Come creation myths are very amusing.
I used to like the Japanese creation story, something about having nine suns and shooting them down with arrows, until only one remained. Almost as practical as the Old Testament mythology.
Though I've forgotten most of them, it's been a long time since I studied religious history and ancient mythology.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
@Sagey yeah, i watched WLC debates, I was just saying that they exist lol.
But you are right, most of the time are only OEC that target evolution for their fallacies.

"Amun-Ra masturbating as in the Egyptian mythology," lol
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
The reason this was aimed at YEC is that they are the only ones who react to pushing of Evolution as Old Earth Creationists accept both a Creation story and Evolution at the same time, just as Pro does.
So Pro was not really the target, as I don't disagree with the mix of Creationism and Evolution and most Evolutionists don't either.
Since the first cells have to come from somewhere so the source is open to all options.
Such as Creation by a supernatural being, such as Amun-Ra masturbating as in the Egyptian mythology, Abiogenesis (chemical formation of life), Alien implantation or viruses arriving on a comet.

Evolution does not deal with origins, only what occurred after life originated.
It deals with the mutation, adaptation and genetic changes which produced the vast diversity of species on our planet from possibly one or many origins.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
William Lane Craig is a total NutJob.
Every blog he has ever written reads like fallacy soup.
WLC does not have a single rational neuron in his body.

His debate tactics are proof of that.
He's a walking fallacy and a total waste of time thinking about.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Siladheil 3 years ago
Siladheil
SageySukati
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: I find it difficult to rule one way or the other on this debate. Each side brought up many points and countered each other extremely well. This debate is over my head, but as I am unable to determine a winner, I will leave my vote at tied. Best of luck to you both in future debates!
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
SageySukati
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: anything is possible
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
SageySukati
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: As CON mentioned, creation is not science. Therefore, it is not a theory and could never be a dominant theory.
Vote Placed by doomswatter 3 years ago
doomswatter
SageySukati
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: This was an interesting debate, and both sides argued admirably. Unfortunately for Con, he centered the debate on the possibility of Creationism becoming dominant, not the probability, putting himself in a difficult position. Con destroyed his own argument in R1, with his paragraph that began, "The only way I can see that Creationism would have a chance of deposing Evolution is if a God appeared..." Con had to prove, among other things, that it was impossible for a god to appear, etc. He did not do so, and although both sides presented interesting arguments, they were hardly applicable to the overall scope of the debate.