The Instigator
WilliamsP
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
creationtruth
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Creation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
WilliamsP
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,836 times Debate No: 54418
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (2)

 

WilliamsP

Con

In this debate, I will argue that Creation is not the story of our origin. My opponent will argue that Creation is logical and is the story of our origin. This debate is primarily about Creation, but my opponent and I are allowed to make statements regarding Evolution.

This debate will follow a judge voting style with a 7 point system. Each debater has 72 hours to write an argument with a maximum of 10,000 characters. This debate will have four rounds.

The first round is simply for acceptance. The second round will be main arguments with no rebuttals. The third round will be rebuttals and final arguments. The final round will be final rebuttals and a conclusion.

All sources will be cited. All formats are acceptable. Forfeiture or trolling will result in the loss of points of that debater. Proper spelling and grammar will be used, but occasional errors are, of course, acceptable. I look forward to a factual, logical debate.
creationtruth

Pro

Accepted. I am a Christian and believe in the Genesis account as literal history supported by scientific evidence. I look forward to a good debate, good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
WilliamsP

Con

Introduction
I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for responding and accepting this challenge. I look forward to debating him.

Arguments
The Bible, as we all know, claims God made the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. I do not see how such an all-powerful being could exist and, even if one did, how he could produce all of life and other objects in such a limited amount of time. Now, let's say that this being is truly all-powerful. Why would it take him six days to create everything? Wouldn't it take him only a moment or two? And why would he rest on the seventh day, or any day in fact? Is his strength not unlimited? This debate is very serious, but I do intend to use a little bit of humor in order to get my point across. Let's look at the below comic strip:



It is a good question. Why did it take him so long? If God were truly all-powerful and unlimited, wouldn't it take him a moment or even an instant to create everything? I also intend to establish that the existence of such a being is so unlikely that one can say it is impossible. We do not need a creator to exist. The evidence for Evolution is efficient enough.

God apparently made the Earth in six days, again. For this specific debate, I intend to interpret the Bible in its literal word, meaning that I will literally interpret everything. So, if that is the case, why did dinosaurs and humans not coexist instead of living millions and millions of years away from each other, which they actually did? Look at the below comic strip please.



The Bible begins with the words,"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I would have appreciated it if the Bible specified when the "beginning" was and what God was doing before "the beginning". If God were truly always there, then how did he originate? Did he make himself? Did he have another creator? This is the ultimate paradox. Whatever my opponent believes, I insist that if ANYTHING is impossible, it is that a being has ALWAYS existed.

My stance is summarized in the following statements:

1. The Universe does not need a Creator. The evidence of Evolution (fossils, DNA, etc.) is sufficient enough. For now, I made a strong case against Creation. If my opponent requests me to, I will provide plenty of Evolution evidence.

2. The Bible is an unreliable source. (Please view my debate on this topic:

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. People believe in God simply because they were raised to do so. Now, what if they had not been raised to believe in God and had been raised to think scientifically? They would have been disgusted when hearing the notion of an all-powerful God creating everything. Even my opponent would be horrified by that if he were not raised a Christian.

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 horrible role model. He would send people to hell simply because they did not believe in him. What happens to the people that were raised to believe in a different God? What if the evidence lead people to believe something different? Can God blame those people?

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 I 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 because there is NO God.

11. Evolution is science. Science is faith in fact. Creation is faith. Faith is stupidity. Do you see the fundamental differenece 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, it does not.

In order for my opponent to win this debate, he must defend his Creationist views and show how scientific fact can support it.


Works Cited
1. Holy Bible, King James Version



creationtruth

Pro

My opponent so far has not sufficiently addressed the issue at hand. His round 1 argument can be summarized as "I don't understand why God did things the way He did, and science proves evolution." I will respond to my opponent's claims and questions in the next round. Hopefully round 2 will be more substantial on the part of my opponent.

This debate is concerning the logicality of Creation and as such I will make a succinct case for the affirmative. First, we must recognize that biblical creation in particular is a model which attempts to make sense of the history and origin of the universe, Earth, and all bio-organisms. This model is based on Genesis and requires that all scientific observations be taken into account in order to properly develop a working hypothesis. Often the study of origins is perceived as such a daunting task as this endeavor involves the explanation of everything that is. I think we should limit our discussion to biology for the sake of time. In biology (the study of life), we have made many discoveries, the most amazing of which is no doubt the biological cell along with all its constituents. "Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on the earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world" (Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 250).

The complexity of the cell alone is not what points to an intelligent Creator but it is the study of cellular function itself. For example, consider the superbly efficient molecular motor ATP synthase, a tiny protein complex which makes an energy-rich compound ATP (adenosine triphosphate). ATP synthase manufactures ATP from two smaller chemicals, ADP and phosphate. ATP synthase is so small that it is able to manipulate these tiny molecules, one at a time. ATP synthase must convert some other form of energy into new ATPs. This energy is in the form of a hydrogen ion (H+) gradient, which is generated by a different whole protein system to ATP synthase. Hydrogen ions pour through ATP synthase like wind through a windmill. This comprises a positively charged electric current, in contrast to our electric motors, which use a negative current of electrons (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). These rotary motors in the membranes of mitochondria (the cell's power houses) turn in response to proton flow (a positive electric current). Rotation of the motor converts ADP molecules plus phosphate into the cell's fuel, ATP. When a stream of tiny hydrogen ions (protons) flows through the base and out the side of ATP synthase, passing across the membrane, they force the axle and base to spin. The stiff central axle pushes against the inside walls of the six head proteins, which alternately become slightly deformed and reformed. Each of your trillions of cells has many thousands of these machines spinning at over 9,000 rpm (http://www.mrc-mbu.cam.ac.uk...).

ATP synthase is made by processes which all require functioning sources of ATP such as the unwinding of the DNA helix with helicase to allow transcription and then translation of the coded information into the proteins that make up ATP synthase. Manufacture of the 100 enzymatic machines needed to achieve this require ATP as well! And making the membranes in which ATP synthase sits needs ATP, but without the membranes it would not function (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). Evolutionists imagine how the ATP synthase motor might have evolved, but these are just surmising, no conclusive evidence has been brought forth. This example of ATP synthase exemplifies the common chicken-and-egg problem many molecular machines exhibit. Which came first the ATP synthase which requires ATP or ATP which requires ATP synthase? This is quite a vicious cycle for evolutionists to explain.

Let us also consider the marvelous macromolecule DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA"s function is to store and transmit genetic information, but it can"t work without many molecular machines. However, as the noted philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper commented, "What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But '. . .the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA.' Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics" (http://books.google.com...).

Richard H. Ebright and his team from Rutgers University have discovered more intricacies in the process of transcription (http://phys.org...), where information from the right-part of the DNA is copied onto a strand of messenger RNA (mRNA). It is this mRNA that is translated into proteins in the complex machines known as ribosomes. DNA is double stranded, so must first be unwound, so that the right strand can be copied onto mRNA, in a sense like a photographic negative. So one of these machines (ribosomes), called RNA polymerase (RNAP), first locks on to the start of the gene. The next stage is that the anchored RNAP then reels in the DNA which unwinds the double strand so that the messenger RNA copy can be formed off one of them (Roberts, J.W. "RNA Polymerase, a scrunching machine." Science 314(5802):1139"1143, 17 November 2006 ).

A problem arises for evolution in the following way: the instructions to build RNAP are themselves encoded in the DNA. But the DNA could not be transcribed into the mRNA without the elaborate machinery of RNAP. And this is also an example of irreducible complexity because it would not be able to perform its function unless every feature was fully functioning. There would be no use being able to dock onto the right spot of the gene and getting stuck there, or unwinding the DNA without being able to wind it back. Furthermore, RNAP uses ATP as an energy source to achieve its feats. And ATP is made by, of course, the ATP synthase which is also coded on the cell's DNA. Therefore, until RNAP is fully formed, coding for cellular instructions would not be possible as the process of transcription into mRNA requires RNAP.

With just these two simple examples of irreducible complexity, I think we can make an argument that the more logical statement is that these microstructures within our cells were created by an intelligent mind. To say these came about by random chance, natural processes is very illogical. Unless you can provide evidence of a viable, logical and natural process by which these structures developed, effectively answering the chicken-and-egg problem, then I believe the creation hypothesis is much more logical.
Debate Round No. 2
WilliamsP

Con

Further Arguments
In this round, I will refute my opponent's points and continue my arguments, which I will expand on using scientific facts. I simply provided an overview of why I oppose Creation, but I will now go into depth. Before I refute anything, I will respond to this statement: "Unless you can provide evidence of a viable, logical and natural process by which these structures developed, effectively answering the chicken-and-egg problem, then I believe the creation hypothesis is much more logical."
I intend to respond to this challenge and address his concerns fully in my final arguments. I will begin by posting a simple timeline of human evolution:


My first source begins by describing the two kinds of cells. The source then continues with this statement: "In spite of these differences, the same basic molecular mechanisms govern the lives of both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, indicating that all present-day cells are descended from a single primordial ancestor." The key-word to this statement is "ancestor". According to Creation, God made everything himself. Why would cells have ancestors instead of them being their own entity?
The source continues with, "It appears that life first emerged at least 3.8 billion years ago, approximately 750 million years after Earth was formed (Figure 1.1). How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Nonetheless, several types of experiments provide important evidence bearing on some steps of the process." I will provide this Figure 1.1 to you below:

The source continues to state, "It was first suggested in the 1920s that simple organic molecules could form and spontaneously polymerize into macromolecules under the conditions thought to exist in primitive Earth's atmosphere. At the time life arose, the atmosphere of Earth is thought to have contained little or no free oxygen, instead consisting principally of CO2 and N2 in addition to smaller amounts of gases such as H2, H2S, and CO. Such an atmosphere provides reducing conditions in which organic molecules, given a source of energy such as sunlight or electrical discharge, can form spontaneously. The spontaneous formation of organic molecules was first demonstrated experimentally in the 1950s, when Stanley Miller (then a graduate student) showed that the discharge of electric sparks into a mixture of H2, CH4, and NH3, in the presence of water, led to the formation of a variety of organic molecules, including several amino acids...The next step in evolution was the formation of macromolecules. The monomeric building blocks of macromolecules have been demonstrated to polymerize spontaneously under plausible prebiotic conditions. Heating dry mixtures of amino acids, for example, results in their polymerization to form polypeptides. But the critical characteristic of the macromolecule from which life evolved must have been the ability to replicate itself. Only a macromolecule capable of directing the synthesis of new copies of itself would have been capable of reproduction and further evolution." As you can see, organic cells can be produced under the right circumstances. The ability to reproduce itself must have evolved as well. None of this evidence supports Creation, a Creator, or any of the notions present in the Bible.
My second source states the following, which my opponent should consider: "When confronted with fossils that clearly suggest that new species have emerged over time, many of the early opponents of evolution argued that God has continued to create life on earth over time. However, the problem with this theory is that it renders other parts of creationism nonsensical; in particular, it makes the efforts of Noah and his Ark entirely unnecessary. If God can continue to create over time, it would not have been necessary to get a male and female of every species on to Noah’s Ark for safe keeping during the flood. Instead, God could simply have recreated every species anew after the flood. If God does not continue to create over time, then new species can emerge within the course of life on our planet, and creationists would find themselves affirming the core position of evolution. This is not an inconsequential dilemma, as it calls into question the coherence of creationism."

My opponent needs to look at the above image closely. Does it make sense for an all-powerful God to have created this? It is nonsensical, illogical, irrational, and unreasonable. Of course, my opponent describes the sheer complexity of cells and their respective structures, but he fails to realize that these do not require Creation. They can evolve and they have evolved.


Rebuttals
My opponent begins by describing cells and other structures. What he fails to do is explain how these structures originate from a Creator. He fails to explain how Evolution cannot accomplish the formation of these structures. I believe he is unaware of how Evolution actually works. My opponent's argument is largely impressive and valid, but the following paragraph upsets me:
"A problem arises for evolution in the following way: the instructions to build RNAP are themselves encoded in the DNA. But the DNA could not be transcribed into the mRNA without the elaborate machinery of RNAP. And this is also an example of irreducible complexity because it would not be able to perform its function unless every feature was fully functioning. There would be no use being able to dock onto the right spot of the gene and getting stuck there, or unwinding the DNA without being able to wind it back. Furthermore, RNAP uses ATP as an energy source to achieve its feats. And ATP is made by, of course, the ATP synthase which is also coded on the cell's DNA. Therefore, until RNAP is fully formed, coding for cellular instructions would not be possible as the process of transcription into mRNA requires RNAP."
My opponent refuses to acknowledge that a Creator is not needed. As I have shown, organic cells can evolve in the right circumstances, fully independent of a Creator. Not only must my opponent address the origin of cells in order to prove the existence of a Creator, but he must also address the historical and scientific evidence that indicates the direct opposite, which is Evolution. He must consider the fossil and DNA evidence. He must acknowledge the facts I presented.
I would like for my opponent to answer a few crucial questions to clear things up:

1. If Creation were the true story of our origin, did the dinosaurs coexist with humans, and if yes, does this correspond with the fossil and DNA evidence present?

2. If God is truly an all-powerful, all-loving being, why does crime occur? Why do innocent individuals become the victims of harsh diseases such as cancer or have devastating accidents?

3. How can Creation be explained without contradicting or rejecting the solid evidence, which most religious people attempt to do?

I must concede, I rushed this argument. If there is anything I forgot to mention that I should have, or if attacked my opponent incorrectly, I please urge my opponent and the viewers to remain friendly. I rushed this argument and I may just have forgotten a few things. It happens.

Works Cited
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
2. http://www.notsodeepthoughts.org...
creationtruth

Pro

I must correct my statement in which I previously addressed my opponent's round 1, I meant to say his round 2 response. I will now first address my opponents round 2 response and then his round 3 response. I suppose I will provide some more evidence of creation if space permits.

Round 2 Response:

You say, "Why would it take him six days to create everything? Wouldn't it take him only a moment or two? And why would he rest on the seventh day, or any day in fact? Is his strength not unlimited?" Answers: God could have created in six microseconds, but the Bible, in Genesis 1, is presenting what God did, not surmising about what He "could have done." His six day creation work and Sabbath rest are for His people (Exodus 6:10-11), our 7 day week is derived from God's creation week. He does not need to "rest," the text implies simply that He ceased from His work of creation. Yes, His strength is unlimited (Revelation 1:8, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:3, Isaiah 26:4).

You say, "We do not need a creator to exist. The evidence for Evolution is efficient enough." The law of biogenesis (http://creation.com...) and the laws of information science entail that life requires an intelligent life force for biological life to exist (http://www.debate.org...).

You say, ". . .why did dinosaurs and humans not coexist instead of living millions and millions of years away from each other, which they actually did." What evidence do you propose that shows dinosaurs indeed lived millions of years before humans? Dinosaurs coexisted with man, these were the dragons, monsters, thunderbirds, and behemoths of times past (http://creation.com...). Extant dinosaur tissues seem to indicate very strongly a more recent existence (http://creation.com...). Also your cartoon is not biblical, dinosaurs would have been on board the ark along with the rest of the then extant animal species.

You say, "If God were truly always there, then how did he originate? Did he make himself? Did he have another creator? This is the ultimate paradox. Whatever my opponent believes, I insist that if ANYTHING is impossible, it is that a being has ALWAYS existed." God did not originate from anything/anywhere/anytime. He is the eternal Father whose going forth has been from everlasting times (Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 45:17, Jeremiah 10:10, Habakkuk 1:12). This is not a paradox, the fact that you can't wrap your brain around the everlasting existence of God does not disprove it. Most people cannot wrap there brain around E^2=M^2C^4+(PC)^2 but this does not make it impossible. Your "arguments" here are moot.

You say, "The Universe does not need a Creator. The evidence of Evolution (fossils, DNA, etc.) is sufficient enough. For now, I made a strong case against Creation. If my opponent requests me to, I will provide plenty of Evolution evidence." You have made no case against creation and I will respond to your proposed evidence of your round three arguments.

You say, "The Bible is an unreliable source." Based on what? The Bible is an entirely accurate source, prophetically, historically, scientifically, philosophically, theologically, and practically.

You say, "Logically speaking, Creation does not make sense. However, Evolution is supported by scientific facts, unlike Creation. " How so? You should study creation science more. Evolution is supported by people not facts.

You say, "Complexity doesn't suggest Creation. Complex things such as DNA and consciousness had to evolve. They could not have been created." I think an argument can be made that bio-complexity "suggests" creation, but it does not ultimately prove it. To say they had to evolve though, I think is statement made out of ignorance. How did DNA and consciousness HAVE to evolve? Of course they could have been created, don't be so na"ve.

You say, "Christians simply assume the Bible is the truth. However, there isn't enough evidence, excluding the Bible itself, that will support the claims in it." Some Christians might assume things about the Bible, but the Bible itself says to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Many Christians prove (test) the Bible historically, scientifically, etc. and then as the verse I just gave says, they hold fast to that which is good (true). There is plenty of evidence, I'm sorry you seem to be unaware of it all. I suggest you check out creation.com for starters to see some evidence for creation, every scientific claim they make is backed up by references and can (and should) be scrutinized.

You say, "People believe in God simply because they were raised to do so. Now, what if they had not been raised to believe in God and had been raised to think scientifically? They would have been disgusted when hearing the notion of an all-powerful God creating everything. Even my opponent would be horrified by that if he were not raised a Christian." Your assumptions about be here are disconcerting. I would not assume that simply because you believe in evolution that you were a misotheist like Richard Dawkins. You should not assume things about your opponent. I was not raised Christian by the way. I came to know Christ as my Savior when I was 18, before then I was living a life against Him. In American society I was raised to think selfishly not scientifically. America is not scientifically minded, it is, as a whole, hedonistic. I began thinking scientifically after I became a Christian so your statement is moot. Disgusted? I am disgusted when I here professors teaching their students that they arose from pond scum millions of years ago and have developed through the animal kingdom to become what they are today. The truth of our Creator God who gave His own life (1 John 3:16) for us out of His great love toward man is just the opposite, it is beautiful. People all over the world are depressed, empty inside, lonely and feel unloved because they are unaware of the Creator God who loves and cares for them so much. They need to seek God, and God has promised that they will find Him, and those who come to Him will in wise be turned away (John 6:37).

You say, "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." No honest scientist would say God cannot exist, that is just ridiculous. Time is relative (i.e. Einstein's theory of relativity). We only have time because God set it in motion. God is outside of time. The "Big Bang" is a model riddled with problems, people choose to believe in it because they refuse to acknowledge their Creator. How can the origin of the universe be explained with science? Were we there at its beginning? Of course not, all we can do is make observations and guess about the origins of the universe. Genesis 1 was given by God so that you may know where you come from.

You say, "When you really think about it, if God were real, he would be a horrible role model. He would send people to hell simply because they did not believe in him. What happens to the people that were raised to believe in a different God? What if the evidence lead people to believe something different? Can God blame those people?" People go to hell because they reject the one true, living God. To reject God is to reject life, as all life comes from Him. People who believe things without seeking out the truth are without excuse because God gives every man the ability to come to Him for the forgiveness of sins. If, hypothetically, a person truly had no idea about the true God and never was given the opportunity to make a decision for Him, then because God is just, He would not condemn Him (Genesis 18:25). Babies and young children do not go to hell because they are not of the age of accountability wherein they are able to make a coherent decision for or against the one true God.

I'm running out of space so maybe I'll answer the rest of you round 2 arguments in the next round.

Round 3 Response:

Your source does not provide any evidence for Neo-Darwinian evolution (tree of life/macroevolution). Homologous structures are only evidence for evolution within the framework of the evolution model. They are just as much evidence for a common designer, so homology is a poor evidence for both models. There is no proof that cells have ancestors, evolutionists presuppose this, they weren't there when this supposedly took place, it must be inferred.

The only circumstance in which cells could be produced is by intelligent design. No known chemical process can put together amino acids in the intricate way they are found in cells. I challenge you to provide evidence of abiogenesis. The reason the law of biogenesis can still be effectively maintained as a law is because no exception has been observed. Until an exception is observed, it remains a scientific law. Life comes from life as far as we know, and that tells us, logically, that life had to be specially created (or intelligently designed).

God finished creating on day 6 of creation week. This does not mean speciation and natural selection cannot take place. God has given animals a versatile genome and the ability to adapt to new environment (such as the post-Flood environment). You should check out this article (http://creation.com...). Informed creationists do not deny the fact of speciation, adaptation, natural selection, etc., what we disagree with is the idea of macro changes which require the introduction of new information. Where does the genetic information come from that allows, for instance, a dinosaur (over time) to develop wings, feathers, etc. This simply is not possible. And mutations do not help (http://www.debate.org...)

You have given no evidence that cells have evolved. Please reread my arguments of irreducible complexity, you have not answered them.
Debate Round No. 3
WilliamsP

Con

Rebuttals
Notice how my opponent utilizes the Bible as an often recurring source in his round two responses. He assumes the Bible is accurate and factual. He assumes that it is the word of God. I did not intend to debate this, but I will establish my opposition to the notion now. The Bible is an unreliable source. Please view my debate on this issue: http://www.debate.org...; The Bible is an unreliable source because of the numerous distortions and edits it has had. It is an unreliable source because the authors of it cannot be identified and there is no scientific evidence to support it.


My opponent's round three statements are excessively religious. Most of the sources he used in that round were from the Bible. I will now respond to my opponent's most crucial statements and then I will conclude the debate with a summary.

My opponent says, "God could have created in six microseconds, but the Bible, in Genesis 1, is presenting what God did, not surmising about what He "could have done." His six day creation work and Sabbath rest are for His people (Exodus 6:10-11), our 7 day week is derived from God's creation week. He does not need to "rest," the text implies simply that He ceased from His work of creation. Yes, His strength is unlimited (Revelation 1:8, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:3, Isaiah 26:4)." My opponent's only source here is the Bible itself, which is most unfortunate. There is no scientific evidence provided here. This statement is invalid until proven with more evidence other than the Bible.



He says, "What evidence do you propose that shows dinosaurs indeed lived millions of years before humans? Dinosaurs coexisted with man, these were the dragons, monsters, thunderbirds, and behemoths of times past. Extant dinosaur tissues seem to indicate very strongly a more recent existence. Also your cartoon is not biblical, dinosaurs would have been on board the ark along with the rest of the then extant animal species." My opponent's argument, again, uses a pro-Creation source in order to "prove" his point. I wonder why he cannot simply use sources that are all about science. I believe the evidence of dinosaurs living millions of years before us was implied and evident, but my opponent shows the opposite. I now intend to present this evidence to him. My source says, "The particular problem with human-dinosaur coexistence is the same problem presented by all flood geology. Namely, that in the fossil record there is absolutely no trace of human remains found in the layers where dinosaur fossils are found. There are no modern animals mixed in with dinosaur remains; there are no dinosaur remains mixed in with more modern animals. In fact, the fossil record is remarkably well-ordered for being supposedly, according to creationists, put down by a devastating and chaotic flood." As you can see, there is simply no fossil and/or DNA evidence in any way suggesting or supporting the notion of dinosaur-human coexistence. Now, descendants of the dinosaurs live with us today, which are bird. Birds can, in a sense, be referred to as "modern dinosaurs." We do coexist with them, obviously, but evidence shows we did not coexist with the real giant lizards from millions and millions of years ago.

He says, "God did not originate from anything/anywhere/anytime. He is the eternal Father whose going forth has been from everlasting times (Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 45:17, Jeremiah 10:10, Habakkuk 1:12). This is not a paradox, the fact that you can't wrap your brain around the everlasting existence of God does not disprove it. Most people cannot wrap there brain around E^2=M^2C^4+(PC)^2 but this does not make it impossible. Your "arguments" here are moot." The only "evidence" here is the Bible. The reason I - and many, many other people - cannot comprehend te notion of God existing outside of time is because it doesn't work. You cannot compare E^2=M^2C^4+(PC)^2 to an all-powerful being creating everything. My opponent's only source here is the Bible. In order to prove these claims, he will need to provide further evidence from a wider selection of sources, not only creation.com and the Bible itself. It is rather annoying.

He says, "The Bible is an entirely accurate source, prophetically, historically, scientifically, philosophically, theologically, and practically." I have already refuted this. We shall now move on.

He says, "How so? You should study creation science more. Evolution is supported by people not facts." Creation is not supported by science. It is only supported by a book written thousands of years ago by people nobody knows the names of, that has been edited numerous times, that has been distorted, and that does not utilize any science at all. Evolution, my friend, is supported by facts. Creation is supported by the Bible and the foolish people that follow it.

He says, "I think an argument can be made that bio-complexity "suggests" creation, but it does not ultimately prove it. To say they had to evolve though, I think is statement made out of ignorance. How did DNA and consciousness HAVE to evolve? Of course they could have been created, don't be so na"ve." My opponent should take the time to review all of the evidence of Evolution. Then he will see that I am right. He should not simply assume the Bible is accurate.

He says, "Some Christians might assume things about the Bible, but the Bible itself says to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Many Christians prove (test) the Bible historically, scientifically, etc. and then as the verse I just gave says, they hold fast to that which is good (true). There is plenty of evidence, I'm sorry you seem to be unaware of it all. I suggest you check out creation.com for starters to see some evidence for creation, every scientific claim they make is backed up by references and can (and should) be scrutinized." I will not waste my time responding to this hideous statement. All viewers that are, as I am, Evolutionists must agree with me.

He says, "Your assumptions about be here are disconcerting. I would not assume that simply because you believe in evolution that you were a misotheist like Richard Dawkins. You should not assume things about your opponent. I was not raised Christian by the way. I came to know Christ as my Savior when I was 18, before then I was living a life against Him. In American society I was raised to think selfishly not scientifically. America is not scientifically minded, it is, as a whole, hedonistic. I began thinking scientifically after I became a Christian so your statement is moot. Disgusted? I am disgusted when I here professors teaching their students that they arose from pond scum millions of years ago and have developed through the animal kingdom to become what they are today. The truth of our Creator God who gave His own life (1 John 3:16) for us out of His great love toward man is just the opposite, it is beautiful. People all over the world are depressed, empty inside, lonely and feel unloved because they are unaware of the Creator God who loves and cares for them so much. They need to seek God, and God has promised that they will find Him, and those who come to Him will in wise be turned away (John 6:37)." The Bible is the only source in this statement. My opponent tries to spread the word of God in this statement, but fails. I am not lonely, I am loved, and I live a happy life because God is not a part of my life, and neither are the barbaric and childish beliefs of the Christian faith and, really, all faiths.

He says, "No honest scientist would say God cannot exist, that is just ridiculous. Time is relative (i.e. Einstein's theory of relativity). We only have time because God set it in motion. God is outside of time. The "Big Bang" is a model riddled with problems, people choose to believe in it because they refuse to acknowledge their Creator. How can the origin of the universe be explained with science? Were we there at its beginning? Of course not, all we can do is make observations and guess about the origins of the universe. Genesis 1 was given by God so that you may know where you come from." The Big Bang theory is supported by a plethora of facts. Is my opponent even aware of the evidence of the Big Bang? My opponent lacks the imagination and the capacity to acknowledge that the Big Bang is fact.



He says, "People go to hell because they reject the one true, living God. To reject God is to reject life, as all life comes from Him. People who believe things without seeking out the truth are without excuse because God gives every man the ability to come to Him for the forgiveness of sins. If, hypothetically, a person truly had no idea about the true God and never was given the opportunity to make a decision for Him, then because God is just, He would not condemn Him (Genesis 18:25). Babies and young children do not go to hell because they are not of the age of accountability wherein they are able to make a coherent decision for or against the one true God." If God is all-loving and all-powerful, why does crime occur? Why do people become the victims of horrific accidents? Tell me that.

I will post further rebuttals in the comments section.

Conclusion
I would love to refute more, but my limit of characters has been reached. For my opponent to win this debate, he must provide more evidence, other than the Bible itself and creation.com. If there are any more refutations I should make, I will do so in the comments section.

Works Cited
1. http://rationalwiki.org...
2. http://rationalwiki.org...
creationtruth

Pro

I'm afraid my opponent has not addressed the scientific arguments I proposed in round 2. I will attempt to answer as many of my opponents questions, concerns, arguments and rebuttals as space permits in this last round.

First off, in round two you posted a timeline of "hominid evolution." This timeline proves nothing. All of the australopithecines, paranthropines, kenyanthropines, ardipthecines, sahelanthropines, and orrorines are apes whilst most of the skulls classified as "homo" are humans ( http://creation.com...) (http://creation.com...). There is no evidence of evolution having taken place when these skeletons are studied in detail. Posting pictures without explaining how they show evolution has taken place is tantamount to propaganda.

You say, "My opponent begins by describing cells and other structures. What he fails to do is explain how these structures originate from a Creator. He fails to explain how Evolution cannot accomplish the formation of these structures." How thy originate? Irreducible complexity, by its very definition, implies that and intelligent, sentient being must have created these cellular structures (which in turn means every "kind" of animal must have first been created). We don't say that the Creator keeps creating as we understand reproduction, at least once they cells are in place and all of the basic "kinds" of animals are in existence. To ask me to explain how evolution "cannot accomplish the formation of these structures" is ridiculous. I would not ask you to tell me how God could not have created as this would be impossible for you to do. This debate is concerning the validity/logicality of either creation or evolution. I have provided two examples of structures which require a designer, you have provided nothing.

You say, "Not only must my opponent address the origin of cells in order to prove the existence of a Creator, but he must also address the historical and scientific evidence that indicates the direct opposite, which is Evolution. He must consider the fossil and DNA evidence. He must acknowledge the facts I presented." I have addressed the origin of cells with my two examples. I have addressed evolution, but I will only address what you provide as your evidence. It is ridiculous to ask me to address the "historical and scientific evidence that indicates. . . evolution" when you have provided none. Fossil and DNA evidence? What fossil and DNA evidence? I'm not saying I am unaware of what evolutionists claim as evidence for evolution, but you cannot expect me to address things you have not used in your argument. In fact I was the only one to provide a somewhat detailed argument concerning DNA, you provided nothing but cotton candy claims (claims which are just fluff, no substance).

You say, "If Creation were the true story of our origin, did the dinosaurs coexist with humans, and if yes, does this correspond with the fossil and DNA evidence present? " If by fossil evidence you mean the geologic column, then no. The geologic column does not exist (http://creation.com...). The fossil record fits much better within the creation/flood model than it does with the evolution/geologic column model. Often I will here evolutionary dissenters say that if humans and dinosaurs coexisted then we should find fossils of both together. This is unreasonable as human fossils are exceedingly rare, and the chances of finding these buried alongside dinosaurs (if they existed together) would be extremely unlikely as most dinosaurs and humans would have kept there distance from each other just as most alligators and humans keep their distance today. Also, coelacanths have coexisted with whales for millions of years (in the evolutionary view) yet we have not found a single example of these creatures having been fossilized together, and they live in the same environment! If by DNA evidence you mean genetic homology, then no. Homologous genes are just as much evidence for a common designer, but besides this, DNA has nothing to do with scientifically testing whether or not humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

You say, "If God is truly an all-powerful, all-loving being, why does crime occur? Why do innocent individuals become the victims of harsh diseases such as cancer or have devastating accidents? How does this relate to the debate? Why are you bickering about a God you don't believe exists? The common theological question of "if God exists and is a loving God, then why do bad things happen" is rooted in a lack of understanding of sin. People are given the will to choose God or to reject Him, to live righteously or to live unrighteously, to follow God's commandments or to break them. This mortal life is only temporary. God allows people to be murdered, suffer diseases, etc. because He loves us. Now I know that the knee-jerk reaction for most atheists to what I just said would be to dismiss me as illogical and blinded by religion, but let me explain. To have God come into the world and make an end of sin would mean that He would have to judge and condemn all sinners as they stand and pardon those who have trusted in His salvation. I say that He loves you for not yet doing this because as you read (whoever you are that is reading), God is extending His merciful hand to you. When we die (or when Messiah comes) it will be too late (Isaiah 55:6). If God were to intervene in a crime, He would be unjust to not do so for everyone. What you would then have is a Edenic situation where there is no harm or suffering and no sin, but this is exactly what we fell from. When Adam and Eve sinned they brought death into the world (Romans 5:12). This death was the curse God placed on mankind for their disobedience. You may wish to argue that this is unfair, but consider a drug baby who is born into a situation which is seemingly unfair, though the baby was not at fault, nevertheless he is born in a "fallen" state. I don't believe in the aspect of original sin which says that we all are made guilty by Adam's sin because not only is this not found in scripture, but it would be unjust of God to condemn someone for the actions of another, and in fact, the scriptures teach quite differently, that when one sins, they, by their own actions, corrupt themselves and bring to themselves God's judgment; people are guilty sinners because of the sins they commit, not because of Adam and Eve. With that said, no injustice goes unnoticed by God (Matthew 25:34-45, Luke 12:6-7). God will bring justice and recompense in the end, but what He is ultimately concerned with is our eternal destiny. God wants us to be with Him, to have salvation and live forever with Him in His kingdom, but He cannot allow corruption in His new heavens and new Earth (where Eden will be restored). God in His love has provided the atonement, the propitiatory sacrifice for our sins ---Jesus Christ. In Him we can be reconciled to God, having our sins paid for by the blood of the Lamb who is without spot or blemish (without sin). God loves us and does not want to see us perish (Ezekiel 33:11, 1 Timothy 2:3-4).

You say, "How can Creation be explained without contradicting or rejecting the solid evidence, which most religious people attempt to do?" You have provided no "solid evidence." If there was such solid evidence, surely you would included it in this debate. Creation is explained using facts about what we do know (observational science), evolution is explained using suppositions and inferences (hypothetical science) based many times on things which we know don't happen (i.e. abiogenesis, information-adding mutations, ontogenic recapitulation, etc.).

You say, "Notice how my opponent utilizes the Bible as an often recurring source in his round two responses." Well most of my response to your round 2 arguments were due to the theological nature of your questions. If you ask Bible questions, then it is reasonable that I would respond with Bible answers. Your claim about the Bible's unreliability is unsubstantiated in this debate. Your other debate which you cite is riddled with erroneous claims which space does not permit me to address.

Notice how my opponent, in his final round, skips over my scientific arguments and address only my response to his question concerning the length of time God took to create (which is a Bible question, and begs a Bible answer) which he deems "excessively religious."

You say, "My opponent's argument, again, uses a pro-Creation source in order to "prove" his point. I wonder why he cannot simply use sources that are all about science." Whether a site is pro-creation, pro-evolution or pro-aliens does not negate the science claims proposed. To say that these sources are not scientific because they believe in creation shows your level of duplicity. It would be like me saying, "why do you keep quoting Science and Nature, they are all pro-evolution so they cannot be scientific;" preposterous! Look beyond the team jersey and address the science claims.

Your quoted "source" concerning fossils exhibits inaccuracies derived mainly from his (hers?) erroneous belief that the geologic column exists, it does not (http://creation.com...). There are many out of sequence fossils (http://creation.com...). The claim that no modern animals are found in "dinosaur layers" is demonstrably false. There are many "out of sequence fossils" to cite, but here are just a few which should not have existed alongside dinosaurs: ducks ("Cretaceous Duck Ruffles Feathers," BBC news, www.bbc.co.uk, 20 January 2005), squirrels ("Mesozoic Squirrel," Nature 444:889-893, 2006), platypus ("Swimming with Dinos," www.museumvictoria.com.au, 24 January 2008) beaver-like creatures and ("Early Aquatic Mammal," Science 311 (5764): 1068, 24 February 2006), et al.

NMS.

Remember the resolution when voting.
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
creationtruth
@airmax1227 - I did not simply attempt to refute evolution, I provided two clear examples of irreducible complexity which demonstrate the need for an intelligent Creator which the biblical creation model supports and the naturalistic evolution model does not. My opponent provided no proof of evolution and did not at all address my evidences. I limited my argument to one aspect of the biblical creation model, and I think it is the most important aspect, that there is an intelligent Creator.
Posted by airmax1227 2 years ago
airmax1227
#2

However, that is not what this debate is about. Let's assume that Pro thoroughly disproves evolution here for the sake of this debate. Even granting that, the next step has to be convincingly asserting a reasonable alternative, in this case the creation story and god.

So does Pro effectively assert such a case? It doesn't appear that he does. While much of this debate focuses on the science of evolution, it does not focus nearly enough on Pro's case for asserting a creator or the creation story. Even if we assume the lack of truth in Con's assertion, the truth in Pro's assertion can't be assumed as a reasonable alternative. As said above, even if we accept that he disproves evolution, he isn't able to take the next step pertaining to the resolution.

There are a number of very interesting arguments posed by both debaters here, but the burden on Pro to disprove evolution, prove the existence of a creator and then ultimately prove the biblical creation story proves to be too much. He gives it a good shot and really does an excellent job, but when forced to choose a winner it is clear that Pro fails to prove the biblical creation story. Therefore argument points go to Con.

Kudos to both debaters. Both did an excellent job representing their respective positions.
Posted by airmax1227 2 years ago
airmax1227
#1

Both debaters did an excellent job here, but even assuming an equal burden of proof, Pro has an especially difficult burden proving the biblical account of creation. In other words, Con has to simply assert the generally accepted scientific explanation, while Pro has to prove the existence of god, and beyond that, prove the biblical creation story. I'm not sure this can be considered a "fair" debate given those circumstances, but Pro did accept the debate, having to know what would be required of him to win it.

So ultimately the question becomes in deciding a winner for this debate, does Pro do enough to meet his burden of proof? At the very least I can say that he does an excellent job of trying, and his arguments were very well made. He articulates his points extremely well, and he sources his arguments accordingly.

I believe Pro should be given a lot of credit here for poking holes in some of the conventional wisdom asserted by Con and he does this using very well made scientific arguments and sourcing them appropriately. For the sake of this debate, I believe both debaters argued this extremely well and it's ultimately very difficult to choose who did better arguing their position on this aspect. As far as I'm concerned, as far as this debate goes, that aspect is a draw. Con argues his position very well, and Pro rebuts and asserts his own position equally as well. If the debate were to come down entirely to proving the truth of evolution, it would be impossible for me to say that Con won this debate.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Creationtruth is the only stupidly Ignorant one on this debate!

There is absolutely no truth in Young Earth Creation, which Galileo destroyed centuries ago and was only revised by Ellen White's Hallucination of her travelling to Heaven and witnessing God create the world in six normal days. This hallucination led her to evangelize and start the Seventh Day Adventist movement, which reinvented the six day creation and young earth nonsense that Galileo destroyed.

Yes, suddenly we live on a Flat (Circular Earth with corners) and a solid dome studded with stars above it where if the dome (heaven) is shaken, stars will fall to Earth: Revelations 16

Yes, this is the nonsense that Galileo destroyed.
Now we have to put up with it all over again thanks to Ellen White's hallucination and her initiating Young Earth Creationism.

If you want a brief history of Young Earth Creationism, PZ will tell you all about it!
Here he educates you on the Evolution Of Creationism:
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Wrong MartinKauai: My comments are Factually Driven.
There is no valuable scientific knowledge on any Creationist sites that cannot be better learned on infinitely more Authoritative sites, such as any University site and the National Center for Science Education.

http://ncse.com...

You will find the Real Truth there.
Such truth that never can exist on any Young Earth Creationist site.

BTW: Pro's entire argument is Fallacious.
Most commonly Argument from Ignorance, Argument From Final Consequences and Confirmation Bias Fallacies.
Pro's sources are also full of these same fallacies, thus the entire argument for Pro is fallacious and sources are also fallacious.
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
creationtruth
@MartinKaual - I said "You should study creation science more" not because I was making an ad hominem argument but because of his lack of credulity based on his statements such as "evidence of creation, still does not exist. . ." He must either be lying about having read every article put out by the Discovery Institute, ICR and AIG or lying about there being no evidence. Either way he is being deceitful. Creation is supported by a plethora of factual evidences, the problem is, evidence can only be interpreted according to a model in regards to the origins debate, but I digress.
Posted by MartinKauai 2 years ago
MartinKauai
@Sagey - Your emotionally driven and childish statements do not merit a reaponse. You should study creation science more.

The courtier's reply sprinkled with an ad hominem. Creationtruth, I'm disappointed.
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
creationtruth
@Sagey - Then you would fall under the definition of those in 2 Peter 3 who are "willingly ignorant." Debate me and find out if there really is ". . .no evidence base to support ID."
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
It's no wonder the Discovery Institute and ICR loses all it's court battles against Evolution and will continually Lose, because Law Courts rule on Evidence.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
LOL: I studied all the creation science there is, I've read every article posted by the ICR and the controlling body at the time for ID, The Discovery Institute as well as everything that has ever been published on AIG.
There is nothing new on Creation.com, same old misconstrued, obfuscated garbage as ICR has put out decades ago.
I've followed Creationism and their arguments for 30+ years since they attacked (disrupted) my science class in the 70s.
There is no evidence base to support ID.
They don't even have anything near a scientific Theory in their favor.
All they can come up with is arguments that don't have enough evidence to make them a Hypothesis, or sub-Theory.

Creation has absolutely nothing but Subjectivity to offer.
No Validity in any of their apologetic attempts to assert nonsense over reality.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 2 years ago
airmax1227
WilliamsPcreationtruthTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 2 years ago
jamccartney
WilliamsPcreationtruthTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters made strong arguments, however Pro used the usual Christian argument, which I tend to laugh at. Con gets points for better sources. Spelling and grammar are the same and conduct is also the same.