Debate Rounds (5)
I look forward to debating anyone who does not agree with my view that Creation is scientifically impossible and there is no evidence to support it. Evolution is truth and Creation is a lie.
I will begin making my arguments in the next round. Before we begin, however, I would like to implement a few crucial rules:
1. Proper grammar and spelling must be used.
2. Cite your sources in every single argument.
3. We must respect each other's views and we must have good conduct.
OS: I will be countering Con's stance that Creation is scientifically impossible, and show some evidence to support it. I believe that our world was created by an intelligent being, which I will refer to as God. I also believe that while life on this planet has changed, and can do so to a degree without outside influence, it is highly unlikely that it did so without the influence of God.
I accept Con's rules, and hope for unbiased judging. I hope this will be an educational debate, and will give the floor to Con for their opening statements.
"Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses." 
I do not understand how God - or any being, in fact - could create such a complex acid. Maybe I lack imagination or maybe I have a hard time understanding God. However, I would appreciate an explanation of God's power.
The Age of the Earth
I would like to point out that hardcore Christians and Bible followers believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. Now, this may not be the case with you, but I would like to settle the dispute anyway:
"The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%)." 
This can be proven with radiometric age dating of meteorite material and the study of rocks on Earth.
If God made us, who made God? If God wished everything into creation, why is there evidence suggesting there is no God and that Creation does not work?
These are not all of my arguments. These three points are only to introduce my larger argument, which I will state in the coming rounds. Now, I await your argument and rebuttal.
Counter points first.
It is the fact that life is so complex that leads many to believe there must be a creator- the fact that something such as DNA could occur and work by happenstance would be amazing- however, there are reasons that it would not work well on their own. If there is no creator- and life evolved on its own- there are milestones that evolution would have to overcome to get to the point of today. These include sexual reproduction and multicellular-ism. I will describe later why these things are so unlikely that, when considering anything else, many scientists would consider the odds negligible. I have merely done this. My stance is that the odds of evolution overcoming these milestones on its own are negligible, and therefore the stance is worthy of a level of disregard. As for the coding of the DNA itself, it is certainly something that could be feasible for a being to design, especially if given the time... God is certainly a being above man's level of intelligence, and as I describe later, he certainly had more than ample time to consider the design of such a thing.
The Age of the Earth
I would like to diffuse the use of the term "hardcore Christians." This suggests that someone who does not believe in the Young Earth model is not pious. The fact is that the people who believe in this are very literal- they take the bible for its exact word by word meaning and do not consider anything outside the bible. There are reasons why this is not the correct way to go about it: A) The Bible uses many metaphors and parables, things that are not meant to be literal. Therefore, considering everything to be literal is an inherent fallacy- the "six days" could refer to six eras. This is supported by the fact that the Bible often says that ages of men are like mere days to God (again, something I will expand on later). B)We do not know how long humans dwelt in the Garden of Eden before being kicked out, therefore we cannot know how long it was before the Bible's human timeline started. Finally in response to this, while I do believe the Earth is quite old, some sources claim that radioactive dating is inaccurate to a point- the Earth is most likely billions of years old, but right now we can't be sure just how old. (Although, this is unimportant, since, again, the Bible does not provide a definite answer as to how old the Earth is).
You'll have to discuss this evidence before I can refute it, however God does not necessarily need a creator. You see, Time exists in our universe. Because of this, most speculate that, as anything else governed by time, it most likely has a beginning. This is why there are conflicting arguments for how the universe started (for example, God, or an independent Big Bang). However, if God truly created the universe, he most likely existed before it. Time is a property of the universe. If something existed before the universe, it isn't necessarily governed by Time. Ergo, it may not have a beginning. Hence, we refer to God as an eternal being. He simply exists. This can be a hard concept to grasp, but it makes sense with due consideration and some abstract thinking.
Now, my basic points support the Bible's validity. Again, greater detail to come.
Israel is a ridiculously resilient nation. Historically, it has gone through so much- being brought so low- only to rise to become one of the most successful Middle Eastern nations.
Defying rational thought, these prophecies (something few belief systems dare to write down) have shown shocking accuracy. I have done the math personally, finding out that for only a small portion of the prophecies that have come true, the odds are less than that of flipping "heads up" on a quarter 32 times in a row without a single tails and assuming a perfect 50/50 chance. If you would like, I can link you to a page where I will put this math in-depth.
Holy Bible, King James Version
AP Edition Biology, Seventh Edition
(I didn't actually use this one, it just explains something I already knew) http://www.hawking.org.uk...
The Daniel Project
I do not have much time. I will have to make this argument shorter than I want it to be. Please give me an opportunity to elaborate in the coming rounds.
Here are the basic reasons for why I am opposed to the idea of God and Creation:
1. The Universe does not need a Creator. The evidence of Evolution (fossils, DNA, etc.) is sufficient enough.
2. The Bible is an unreliable source. (I am in a debate about this topic right now. The link is http://www.debate.org...;)
3. One cannot prove or disprove God. But because of all the evidence against the notion, one must assume there is none.
4. Logically speaking, Creation does not make sense. However, Evolution is supported by scientific facts, unlike Creation.
5. Complexity doesn't suggest Creation. Complex things such as DNA and consciousness had to evolve. They could not have been created.
6. Christians simply assume the Bible is the truth. However, there isn't enough evidence, exluding the Bible itself, that will support the claims in it.
7. God cannot exist. Before the Universe, there was no time, thus there was no time for God to have existed. Once the Big Bang occured, time was set in motion. The Universe does not need a Creator. It can be explained with science.
8. When you really think about it, if God were real, he would be a massive jerk.
9. Who deserves as much power as God? Even the perfect being - with the perfect moral code and the right personality - does not deserve the power to create and destroy worlds, life, and spacetime. Just imagine this power. When you visualize it, you yourself will realize that it doesn't work.
10. One of the sources you used was "Holy Bible, King James Version." So, there are multiple versions of the Bible? Which one is the actual true word of God? My answer to that question is the following: None of them is the word of God.
11. Evolution is science. Creation is faith. Do you see the fundamental differnece between the two?
12. Imagine heaven. Does it work? No.
13. Imagine hell. Does it work? No.
14. Imagine God. Does it work? No.
15. Imagine God creating beings and they just pop onto Earth. Imagine God producing wind when he is blowing or imagine God forming mountains when he pushes the ground. Does it work? No. Wind is the movement of air from high pressure to low pressure. Mountains form when convergent boundaries collide with one another. This is plate tectonics. You see, for everything there is on Earth, there is a scientific explanation. What do Christians say? They always say, "God did it." Does it work? No!
I will elaborate on these points in the coming rounds. But as I said, I do not have much time. Therefore, the argument is short. Please do not make too many rebuttals in the next round. I still have a lot of explaining to do. Thank you.
ManSwoo forfeited this round.
My opponent forfeits. I am disappointed. I will resume my arguments in the next round. I believe I have made my points and I will allow my opponent to make up for the argument he forfeited.
ManSwoo forfeited this round.
My opponent forfeits. Until he finds sufficient evidence to support his claims, I will not concede.
ManSwoo forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con is correct, for Creation is incorrect. Con had better conduct and made more convincing arguments because he wrote more and Pro forfeited. As for spelling and grammar, it goes to Con. They are tied on sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.