The Instigator
godsnumberis7
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
o0jeannie0o
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Creation vs evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
o0jeannie0o
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 561 times Debate No: 54290
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

godsnumberis7

Pro

I am for creation, i will start out with if you believe in evolution than answer me this, if scientist think that something had to come from something than where did all the matter and energy come from.
o0jeannie0o

Con

I believe you are referring to the law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created or destroyed) and the big bang theory. You have it the end of sciences knowledge on the main question " what came before the big bang?". You see, we don't know. The fact that we cant tell you what came before doesn't mean god exist or created the world nor dose it mean he doesn't.
We can recreate many property's of the big bang and we can see that the universe has radiation, expansion, and it explains many phenomenons that happen everyday (why the earth is round, orbit, gravity) . This is why the theory is so widely accepted, unlike creationism, there was cause and effect.
If you can use the law of thermodynamics in your argument then i ask you what created god? if it is so unlikely that humans where created by chance since we are so smart and great, then its way more unlikely that god wasn't created by chance because he is much greater.
A typical response to this is that god is outside of the universe and that these laws don't apply to him.
If laws of the universe don't apply to god (because he is outside of the universe) then why would they have to apply to what happened before the universe came to be? (before the big bang). The law of thermodynamics wouldent necessarily have to apply outside of the universe making your argument irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 1
godsnumberis7

Pro

OK, well my next argument would be that for the earth being millions of years old they use carbon 14 dating but carbon 14 dating have messed up many times and they have stuff where carbon 14 dating has said something is millions of years old that happens to really be a couple thousand at the most and how can we know that that is accurate. I would also like to bring up about the fossil record, in genesis it says that before Adam and eve there was no sin, death or bloodshed and if dinosaurs were alive before Adam than that would oppose the bible because there was no death, sin or bloodshed before Adam and Eve sinned and Adam was the first sinner.
o0jeannie0o

Con

Your right dinosaurs do oppose the creationist view of the bible. most creationists believe fossils where placed here by the devil using magic, which you should know. (others include humans living along side these giant beasts in the very different climate and surviving wile they magically died, see others: http://dinosaurs.about.com...) A more likely scenario is survival of the fittest. When the earth changed (maybe an asteroid or the ice age) some animals could survive (small mammals that burrowed underground, turtles in water etc) but larger animals that couldn't escape the cold or horrifying conditions (i.e dinosaurs) died. Thousands of years later humans evolved from mammals.

As for your radiocarbon decay argument, I would like to point out that it only works on items with a half life in the millions. This means if radiocarbon dating is used improperly (on things that are only thousands of years old) it will give you the wrong dates. We know that the earth is more then 6000 years old (the creationist standard) because we have tangible proof.The most tangible, easy proof is that there are trees, living on this earth with well over 10000 years of rings. There are canyons that show millions of years of layers (the grand canyon shows 5-6million). we can easily measure this and have undeniable proof accepted in all scientific circles. Other proof includes ice sheet dating, other radioactive dating, moon dust accumulation, helium depletion and many more. The creationist view point uses no proof except paraphrased verses of the bible.
Debate Round No. 2
godsnumberis7

Pro

I would just like to say this has been a good debate, and I don't believe that the devil used magic to make the fossils on this earth, i believe that Noah's flood buried the dinosaurs and it says in genesis that all animals at first ate plants which would explain why dinosaurs didn't eat the humans and how is it possible for an asteroid or ice age to kill the animals if their was no death or bloodshed before the first sin.
For the carbon dating you say that it only works on items with a half life in the millions and if it is used on stuff thousands of years old it doesn't work and exactly, so if the Earth is thousand's of years old isn't there a possibility that carbon dating is wrong for millions of years old and it could be 6000 years old and same for the tree's, if they are thousands of years old than it's possible that the carbon dating said it was millions even though it's really 6000 years old. Now the bible is our best proof but also as are proof think about this, do you think that the Earth being in the perfect place is just a coincidence or you can also look at how complex the human body is and that were the only life form that we know of can talk and do stuff that animals can't do.
o0jeannie0o

Con

I wish we had time to argue Noah's flood, as it it too long, perhaps another time. I would like to mention that carnivorous animals body's where not made to handle a vegetarian diet. For example if you feed cats veggies today, like long ago, they will die. the digestive system would have never changed to accommodate that, unless evolution where true.

I believe you have misunderstand my previous statement. I told you that yes carbon dating isn't always as accurate on things with a short half life but there are other ways to tell the age of the earth for example Ice core dating. Scientists drill down into the ice of Greenland and Antarctica to measure climate change from hundreds of thousands of years. What they pull out is a gigantic rods of ice (over 2 km worth) and on each rod, as each summer past, there is a different layer of ice. You can literally count the layers to tell that this area of land has been here for more then X hundred thousand years. This wont tell you the age of the earth just that it is most certainly over 6000 years old. http://carm.org...

Trees are the same, each year they grow a new ring and these rings can be counted, given the oldest known tree alive is 5000 years old. Radio carbon dating isn't always exact, more so back before they had a check. Then the trees age can be used as a radioactive decay guide. kind of like a check to see if it is working. These Checks that are pretty recent are making radiocarbon dating more reliable each day.
http://www.radiocarbon.com...

Creationism uses 6000 years as age of the earth counted by unreliable sources of age of humans within the bible (saying people lived around 130 years each http://creation.com...)
There is absolutely no tangible, or even reliable evidence to prove that the earth is only 6000 years old and plenty of evidence to prove that it is more.

There is no Evidence to suggest that we didn't have time to evolve into Homo Sapiens-Sapiens, there are no new "kinds" of animals showing up daily. Yet you can watch creatures evolve constantly on a small basis, virus and bacteria are the easiest to see i.e. why we need a new flu shot each year.

There is no evidence to suggest that humans could have possibly lived with dinosaurs and lived, but plenty of parallels today that suggest we would be food. Also wouldent a T-Rex attack be more important then a bear hunt when early humans panted cave drawings?

Creationists are scientifically wrong, Sorry but just because its in the bible doesn't exclude the story from being a myth.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
Sorry ChristusExemplar, your profile isn't open to comments
Posted by ChristusExemplar 2 years ago
ChristusExemplar
I would be interested if the contender would message me after this debate is over. I wouldn't mind giving a shot at this subject.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
godsnumberis7o0jeannie0oTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO never actually offered evidence for his/her position; arguments to CON. CON actually cited sources; sources to CON. Conduct equal; S&G equally bad.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
godsnumberis7o0jeannie0oTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more in-depth arguments. Pro's was not strong enough and was refuted by Con.
Vote Placed by XLAV 2 years ago
XLAV
godsnumberis7o0jeannie0oTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments are weak and Con easily rebutted them. Argument points goes to Con. Con provided sources, Pro did not. Sources goes to Con. Con had better spelling and grammar. Spelling and grammar goes to Con. Pro should refrain from helping Con on his argument like in round 2 where Pro mentioned dinosaurs.