The Instigator
Dr.Chronosphere
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Conservative6120
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Creation Vs. Evolution

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 415 times Debate No: 77880
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Dr.Chronosphere

Pro

This first round will be dedicated to accepting the challenge. I am a firm believer in the Bible, and support Creationism. I strongly suggest that we both stay calm on this topic, as it can quickly turn into a heated argument. No name-calling, swearing, or slandering will be allowed. Are you up for it?!
Conservative6120

Con

I accept your rules. I hope for a good debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Dr.Chronosphere

Pro

I will first state that both theories cannot be 'proven'. The very nature of the origin of the universe and the world cannot be tested, observed, or repeated. This kind of science is classified under historical science. We take what we can see, filter it through our worldview, and end up with a theory that is mainly based on what we see today. Christians have an account from the Bible that we use to explain Creation, while Evolutionists have to start from scratch. When you look at origin theories, you will see a great difference. One relies on a Supreme Creator who is not bounded by any laws except His own, who was able to create the observable universe from nothing in a few days, while another relies on nothing over time creating something out of itself. In other words, a secular viewpoint against a Biblical standpoint is what we are looking at.

I have looked at many other evolutionists who think we Creationists are so "unscientific". They see us as ignorant, foolish, and gullible. I want you, in this debate, or as you are reading this to accept that your theory might be false. (I have to as well) Since we have probably both been taught these ideas from an early age, it is likely we have formed strong emotional bonds to our ideas, making it harder to accept another view. Another thing to consider is why we believe what we believe. You must remember to think this throughout this debate.

Since you are on the Con side (for evolution), it is likely you have one of four different views. Sometimes the reason that people believe evolution is simply because they know no other way. If you are a deliberate believer, you fall into the next three. Often, the most common evolutionist is an atheist, meaning, they don't think that God can be proven through science. Another group, the "New atheists", believe that God can be dis-proven through science. The last view is that God (or some other divine being), created the world through the means of evolution. Atheists are generally right in that God cannot be directly detected by science, but we can see and observe His creation. Consider this- the concept of love. It is a non-physical emotion that everyone accepts as existing, yet we cannot "see" love or directly detect it with science. We can; however, see the results and affects of love from those who love each other. In the same manner, even though we cannot measure God directly, we can prove His existence from examining the universe and detect His affect on the physical world.

Let's consider the beginning of the universe from a secular standpoint. But before we do that, remember the first law of thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed. Also ponder why the matter would have existed in the first place. Anyways, literally in the middle of nowhere, a small singularity comprised of all the matter in the universe of indeterminate size expands, giving rise to all dimensions of space and time. This would not be possible for a singularity to expand because the immense gravity required to pull all matter to be so very small is not possible. If there were enough gravity to pull all matter and energy so small, then it could not of expanded against the massive gravity. In the first few nanoseconds, (10^-32 to 10^-36th of a second) the universe went through a period of short, but intense, hyper-inflationary growth.
(The cause of this is not known, but is required for life in the universe happening.)
Then, the quarks and anti-quarks combined together, destroying each other.
(It was originally believed that ratio of quarks to anti-quarks was 1:1, since neither one was expected to have been
created in favor of one another. If this were true, than the universe would be composed of pure energy, which is not very
favorable toward the existence of life.) (1)
If the big bang did create hydrogen and helium, then the explosion through friction-less space could not have assembled into stars and galaxies. Explosions don't do that!

---I suppose I have said all the matter compressed itself, but we don't know where the matter came from, so in the next paragraph I will say that nothing first existed (the primary reason for the Big bang is to theorize what the matter and energy first came from-plus it was proven by Einstein through his theories and discoveries of laws that there had to be a beginning. The Universe has not existed forever.)---

Let me start over with the Big Bang theory and what it actually is. This idea theorizes that a large collection of nothing decided to compress itself tightly together and than explode into hydrogen and helium. The gases were hurled through friction-less space (never could stop or slow down) to collect into other atoms that compressed into stars that repeatedly exploded to create the heavier elements, combining into the highly organized universe we see today.
PROBLEMS:
1. Nothing cannot give rise to something, because there is nothing to work with.
2. Nothing cannot go away from the vacuum of space to compress into a super-dense core with a density of 10^94 gm/cm^2 and a temperature of 10^39 degrees absolute- which is a lot of density and heat for a big pile of nothing to have!
3. It may look good in math calculations, but really? Does this sound scientific?
4. There wasn't any ignition to ignite nothing- because there were no chemicals to ignite nothing!
5. There isn't a way for nothing to expand- you can't expand something that isn't there!
6. The calculations are too exact, that if any property were altered, it would not have been possible!
7. An equation like this would not have exploded outward, but would have fallen back itself and created a black hole. One theoretical object to eat another one!
8. Antimatter would have been created equally to matter, thus canceling itself out.
---This last paragraph and problems have been derived from the book,"The Evolution Handbook"
---If you want more, I can give you more, I still have loads of information disproving big bang---

Now let's talk about creation. Creationists claim they have a historical account that is God-inspired, infallible, and always true. I would like to point out the miraculous nature of the Bible throughout the ages being preserved by people who were persecuted and burned at the stake- all for one book! (2) Another thing to note is the question of why the people who wrote the Bible would write such things about themselves. (3) If the disciples were to create a religion, then why would they make it with historical accounts of themselves doing certainly embarrassing sins and make it without certain pleasurable elements? Why would they have been so willing to die for the cause of a fake religion they made up? Because it is real? Probably!

Anyways, Creation states that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Some people wonder how God existed in the first place. The answer is that God is multidimensional, omnipotent, unbounded by time, and spiritual (non- physical) Since God created time, He is not subject to cause and effect. (4) He created time and atoms, subatomic particles,
(If you think about it, all matter can be divided into smaller and smaller parts like a fractal, so how would this level of
complexity have come to exist all by itself randomly?)
all dimensions, all laws of the universe, light, and more things that we can't technically explain. If we can't explain some of these topics or create life in a controlled environment, then how could absolute randomness- which doesn't have a mind like us- create everything?

---I have too much information for one round, I am getting tired of supplying additional information and wish to take a break, hence the strange ending!---
--- I would encourage you to visit these websites for more information---
---The next round will include the evidence against evolution. This was mainly about origin of universe.---

Sources:
(1) http://www.godandscience.org...
(2) https://answersingenesis.org...
(3) http://www.godandscience.org...
(4) http://www.godandscience.org...
Good sites:
https://answersingenesis.org...
http://www.godandscience.org...
Conservative6120

Con

Conservative6120 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Dr.Chronosphere

Pro

I am sorry that I wasn't able to postpone the time. Are you going to continue? I think that I will use the next round for my argument against evolution. I just want to give you a chance. If you are not going to post anything then I guess I will have won.
Conservative6120

Con

Conservative6120 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Dr.Chronosphere

Pro

Dr.Chronosphere forfeited this round.
Conservative6120

Con

Conservative6120 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Dr.Chronosphere

Pro

Dr.Chronosphere forfeited this round.
Conservative6120

Con

Conservative6120 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Dr.Chronosphere 1 year ago
Dr.Chronosphere
Okay, I went on vacation the last week and totally forgot about this debate. I am sorry that my opponent wasn't up to the challenge. He forfeited every round (except for the last) The time limits are short, but I still was able to post my argument and my opponent was unable to even type one character. (except for accepting this challenge) I guess that evolution doesn't stand a "chance" when faced with common sense!
Posted by proanimator 1 year ago
proanimator
Very powerful argument!
Posted by Conservative6120 1 year ago
Conservative6120
Good argument! I'll have mine up sometime this week!
Posted by Gogert777 1 year ago
Gogert777
Debate!!
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
There is no creator. But you exist..There is no evolution. But you do exist..In some time you do not exist.
No votes have been placed for this debate.