The Instigator
princearchitect
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
gametimer
Con (against)
Losing
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 3 votes the winner is...
princearchitect
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 988 times Debate No: 75911
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

princearchitect

Pro

It would be an honor to debate you.
gametimer

Con

I hope your creation. Because histories of genetics will be flying your way.
Debate Round No. 1
princearchitect

Pro

My name is Don Mitchell, I will be debating in favor of creation, I want to thank my opponent for accepting my request for this debate and I hope this debate will educate, enlighten, & inspire. My opening argument will lay the foundation on why I believe that this amazing creation was designed by an Intelligent Designer. In my argument I will be presenting arguments from Dr. William Lane Craig of Reasonable Faith states, "their is no good argument that atheism is true, & that their are good arguments that theism is true." My first argument is the Cosmological argument! We understand that through amazing scientific breakthroughs, mathematicians & astro-physics have come to the conclusion that the universe indeed has a beginning & is not eternal. Because the universe is not eternal it has an absolute beginning known as the Big Bang that is known to have happen some 13 billion years ago in a cataclysm event, what make the Big Bang so startling that it represent the origin of the universe from literally nothing, that all things came into existence as far as the physical universe is concerned from nothing. Now this put my opponent in a awkward position because he must explain How the universe came from nothing & by nothing, logically that doesn't make any sense, because nothing from nothing leaves nothing. Now if the universe begin to exist and is not eternal we must ask ourselves, why is the universe? The logical reasoning is that the universe has a cause, and this cause brought the universe into existence. Now as the cause of space & time this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being with amazing power & intellect...We know that abstract objects can't cause anything, so the cause must originate from a transcendent intelligent mind. For my opponent to refute my argument he must show evidence how the Universe came into existence from nothing and by nothing, and why the universe came into existence? I have more arguments & evidence against the theory of evolution, but would like to hear from my opponent...Thank you for you're time and attention.
gametimer

Con

Before I argue, if nothing came from nothing, doesn't that contradict the existence of God? If nothing came from nothing, it is just as likely as a space wizard that popped up from where? Nothing.
Debate Round No. 2
princearchitect

Pro

My opponent has simply wasted two rounds, with no defense on the theory of evolution,
He has failed to come up with a logical conclusion on the origins of the universe.
He has failed to refute any evidence to my initial rebuttal, so I would conclude that
He has conceded the first two rounds of this debate. His opening argument
Demonstrated irrational reasoning that doesn"t make any sense.
He wasted a round by saying and I quote, "I hope your creation.
Because histories of genetics will be flying your way."
Now if my opponent believes that genetics will be flying,
I would encourage him to become a Christian today because flying genetics would be a miracle!

2nd it is not my creation, the creation belongs to God, so you"re illogical assumption has no reasoning.
I would also encourage my opponent to research debates with an objective mind before engaging in debates
and learn how to engage in debates. Because a logical rebuttal would have demonstrate my point by point
Arguments for creation & point by point refute it, debunk it, then in its place present a rational alternate hypothesis.

My opponent wasted a round to ask the question and I quote,
" Before I argue, if nothing came from nothing, doesn't that contradict the existence of God?
If nothing came from nothing, it is just as likely as a space wizard that popped up from where?" Nothing.

To answer his question directly is no it doesn"t contradict the existence of God, as a matter of fact
It gives reasoning to the existence of God. There are three hypothesis on the fine-tuning of the universe,
1.Physical necessity, 2. Chance, or 3. Design.
Physical necessity is not, however, a plausible explanation because the finely-tuned constants
And quantities are independent of the laws of nature. Therefore they are not physically necessary.

2. So could the fine-tuning be due to chance? The problem with this explanation is that the odds of a
Life-permitting universe governed by our laws of nature are just so infinitesimal,
That they cannot be reasonably faced. Therefore the proponents of chance have been forced to
Postulate the existence of a world ensemble of other universes, preferably infinite in number
And randomly ordered, so that life permitting universes would appear by chance somewhere in the ensemble.
Not only is this hypothesis to borrow Richard Dawkins" phrase, " An parsimonious extravagance",
But it faces many logical objections. By far, most of the observable universes in world ensemble would be
Worlds in which a single brain fluctuates into existence out of the vacuum and observes it"s otherwise empty world.
Thus, if our world were just a random member of a world ensemble, we ought to be having observations like that.
Since we don"t, that strongly disconfirms the world ensemble hypothesis, so chance is also not a good explanation.

3.It follows that design is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe.
Thus, the fine-tuning of the universe constitutes evidence for a cosmic designer.

God is the best explanation of the intentional states of consciousness in the world.
Philosophers are puzzled by the states of intentionality. Intentionality is the property of being about something or of something. It signifies the object directedness of our thoughts. For example, I can think about my summer vacation
Or I could think of my wife. No physical object has this sort of intentionality. A chair, or a stone, or a glob of tissue like
The brain is not about or of something else. Only mental states of consciousness or about other things.
As materialist, Atheist Dr. Rosenberg recognizes this fact and so concludes that on atheism,
There really are no intentional states. By contrast on theism, because God is a mind,
It"s hardly surprising that there should be finite minds. Thus, Intentional states fit comfortably into a theistic worldview. So, we may argue, One if God did not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist.
Two, but intentional states of consciousness do exist. Three, therefore God exists.

Again for my opponent to win this debate, he must tear down the creation hypothesis I have displayed
& in return present a more rational explanation on the theory of evolution as the most logical explanation.
Thank you for you"re time and attention.

www.resonablefaith.org
gametimer

Con

gametimer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
princearchitect

Pro

I want to thank my Heavenly Father God through His Son Jesus Christ for giving me another chance to glorify His name!
I also want to thank debate.org for giving us a platform to debate our issues,
I also want to thank my opponent gametimer for accepting to debate me on the issue of Creation vs. Evolution!

It is safe to say, that I" am the clear winner of this debate, my opponent has not defended evolution nor atheism in the first two rounds & has forfeited the third round. Before I get into my closing argument I would like to address
The space wizard that popped up from where? Nothing, comment.
It seems that atheist admires mocking God, Christians, and Faithful Individuals.
Comparing God to space wizards, Santa Claus, Flying spaghetti monster.
I think it"s pure bullying tactics based on irrational assumptions, serious debaters in open debates
don"t even use them terms anymore, it has no scientific sufficiency, it has been debunked numerous times.
Because we have undeniable evidence that there is no old man, with a long white beard, wearing a red suit,
riding on reindeers, flying around, delivering toys to children all over the world.
Just as the Flying spaghetti monster, logically we know that spaghetti cannot fly!
If my opponent wants to be taken seriously, I encourage him to use better compelling arguments going forward.

My closing arguments would be to potential voters, I encourage voters no matter their religious preferences
To look at this debate objectively & with an open mind. The evidence clearly supports the creation hypothesis.
I have presented cosmological arguments, scientific rebuttals, and fine-tuning hypothesis with not logical rebuttals
from my opponent & a forfeit to top it off. With overwhelming evidence, I ask voters to vote for Pro (for) prince architect
as the winner of this debate thank you for you"re time and attention.
gametimer

Con

Thank you PrinceArchitect for allowing me to debate you. As you said I shall start thinking more rationally and research debation before the next debate. Plus I would like to apologize, for being gone a couple days. It messed up everything. But again thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by princearchitect 1 year ago
princearchitect
My opponent has failed to open with a reliable opening argument,
& didn't provide any rebuttals. Please vote Pro!
Posted by princearchitect 1 year ago
princearchitect
Yes, I will be debating for creation.
Posted by gametimer 1 year ago
gametimer
Are you creation?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
princearchitectgametimerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for Con's forfeiture. Pro gains arguments concidering that he was the only one to actually post them. He also gains sources for the same reason.
Vote Placed by Nathaniel.Braswell 1 year ago
Nathaniel.Braswell
princearchitectgametimerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Since Con forfeited Pro wins my vote.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
princearchitectgametimerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ultimately failed to give *any* argument or debate his resolution in any depth--as well as forfeiting round four. Sources do not go to Pro as he didn't provide a direct link to his references, his chosen website additionally has obvious bias.