The Instigator
lemusthecuban
Pro (for)
The Contender
SkySky16
Con (against)

Creationism (Pro) vs. The Big Bang Theory and Evolution (Con)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
lemusthecuban has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/3/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 727 times Debate No: 100542
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

lemusthecuban

Pro

Today, I am going to be taking the side of Creationism, in that God created the Earth and the people, specifically the Christian God. The challenger will take the side of the popular science belief which is the Big Bang Theory created the earth and evolution eventually created man kind.

Debate and Rules:

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Statements (why you believe what you do)
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Final Rebuttal/Closing Statement

No ad hominems, show sources of information where it is fit, abide by the debate structure
SkySky16

Con

I accept your challenge and look forward to a scholarly debate.
Debate Round No. 1
lemusthecuban

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate.

For my opening statement, I would like to mention that I once believed in Evolution and the Big Bang and all of that sort. Then I started doing my research before I became a devoted Christian. I believe God created the world for the fact that a lot of science especially when you keep pushing the clock way back just has too many things that can't be explained. For instance, one day I questioned my teacher on what made the Universe. What made the matter that created this big bang. He did not seem to have an explanation for me. A college educated teacher in my senior year of high school ultimately stopped in his speech by just a few unexplained questions. After doing more and more research I found that the earth and every organism and habitat on it was just too perfect to be some scientific accident or phenomena. There had to be some greater power out there. Religion can answer the questions of "Who or what made God?" and the whole book of Genesis in the bible can explain how everything was placed perfectly. So to me that makes more sense than what science was first teaching me.

I look forward to reading your opening statement.
SkySky16

Con

For my opening statement, I would like to point out how overwhelmingly proven evolution is. Back in the day of Darwin and his introduction of his theory, debates were rigorous and controversial. But in today's time, with the massive amount of information and evidence collected by fields like palaeontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other areas, we've gradually come to the point where it has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Thousands of studies and experiments have been done. All of them that have stood up against vigorous criticism stand in support of evolution as a scientific theory. To reject the scientific community's massive amount of information and factual knowledge for whatever reason is ludicrous, much less so in favor of a belief in a deity.
As far as the big bang goes it is much less certain, but that doesn't mean it is less valid than creationism. In fact, it is much more reasonable and logical for the big bang than a mystical being. This is explained by numerous things. For example, the redshift of the galaxies, the microwave background across the universe, and even the mixture of elements that are seen today.
For the fact the instigator of the debate failed to define or give much more than "the popular belief" of creationism, evolution, and the big bang theory I feel obliged to "define" these somewhat.

Evolution, as defined by Merriam Webster:
the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)

However, it is NOT the "survival of the fittest" as has been popularly coined by people, as it is not solely contingent on that singular metric.

Big bang theory, as defined by Merriam Webster:

a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density

Creationism, as defined by Merriam Webster:
a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

Before we begin I must point out that pro should not use the bible as a reference because that is not an authoritative knowledge source. It can not be proven/disproven in the traditional sense. Also, it leads to many logical fallacies such as double think and circular reasoning that prove nothing but inept debate skills.

This opening statement is rather lengthy but justified because I took the burden of establishing a ground of what exactly we are debating and for the simple fact I'm advocating for two extremely complex theories while Pro is advocating for one faith based belief.

I look forward to your rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
lemusthecuban

Pro

Thank you for your rebuttal and an apology for taking longer than expected for mine.

First off, you should have no worries as I do not use the bible in any of my debates, especially this one. I love science and that is what I use. First off however, what is the definition of science?

One of the definitions of science as described in dictionary.com:

systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

As we see here the word observation. Before I bring up my next point I would like for everyone to recognize that evolution does have many different meanings, 5 popular ones in science:

1. Cosmic Evolution (The origin of time space and matter)
2. Chemical Evolution (The origin of higher elements from hydrogen)
3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution (Origin of stars and planets)
4. Organic Evolution (Origin of life)
5. Macro Evolution (Changing from one kind of an animal to another)
6. Micro Evolution (Variations within kinds)

Now onto my point, guess which out of those has only been observed. If you guessed anything other than 6 that is very much so incorrect. Micro evolution is the only kind of evolution to have ever been observed. This basically means taking a German Shepherd and a Husky and mating them to make a different variation of a dog. Macro evolution the kind people believe we evolved from is in my mind very ludicrous. Thank you, but I choose not to believe our entire existence started from a rock. See what evolutionists and scientists fail to prove is how one animal can turn into another. Sure there has been experiments done that made a very small organism turn into other small organisms. But these experiments were modified and closely watched. But we have yet to see an animal change into another animal with nature doing it on its own, without being in a controlled laboratory.

I would like to also also mention the missing links in evolution if you want me to talk about it more I would be happy to. But I would like to pounce on the subject of DNA Complexity. The molecules in DNA/RNA are in fact so, so, so very complex that by evolution happening just by pure luck, is ludicrous to believe. I'm sure I can win the lottery an infinite amount of times before that even happened again. Of course it hasn't happened again lol. Humans are still on this Earth for the past million some odd years. And where is the next species that has supposed to been magically formed off of us. Haven't seen any yet. Evolutionists tell me that it takes millions of years to happen. My response "How convenient, well I don't see it happening anytime soon and all you have is an "explanation""

But somehow the belief that everything came from nothing and life came from non life is now growing to be the popular view on everything. Baffles me. Now I disagree with science teaching the big bang in public education. If they want to teach it in private schools fine by me. But the reason I have a problem with this is evolution and the belief in the big bang is nothing but a religion. Now people will throw at me a definition of religion is believing in a God. But I tend to use the 4th definition of Merriam-Webster:

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I use this solely because for one, evolution and the big bang is NOT science, it's a popular BELIEF done through a way of explaining that's how the world came to be. Something that makes sense? Not so quick. Take a look at these facts I have to present

First, I would like to mention the planet Saturn is losing its rings. They are slowly moving away. If the planet were millions of years old, the material in the rings would have dissipated long ago.

Secondly, Earth's rotation is slowing at the rate of one thousandth of a second per day. At this rate a billion years ago it would have been spinning so fast that centrifugal force would have caused it to fly apart.

Thirdly, and my most favorite for debunking this, is the oldest living tree pinus longaeva is 5,066 years old according to ring count. With this said, shouldn't there be a tree or some kind of plant older than this, if life existed millions of years ago on Earth, without trees life cannot exist on Earth. People like to tell me they've gone extinct? All of them? And how is that?

Okay so the big bang in my opinion, is even more ludicrous to believe. This is because it can't be experimented in a lab, nor can it be observed. Just merely explained. However, when you explain these things you'll find flaws in the Big Bang Theory.

Let's start with dark matter and dark energy. This has never been and never will be proven. The dark doesn't mean color it means unknown. So yes, let's make up some fictional matter and energy that "made it happen". It's kind of like me saying I am the most powerful person in the universe. My power is everywhere and can do everything! You just can't see my power but it's there! And then someone with common sense saying, "pfft whatever man, yeah right."

Now lets try cosmic inflation, the term inflation refers to the explosively rapid expansion of space-time that occurred a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang. HOWEVER, this definitely violates Einstein's General Law of Relativity, in which apparently nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. But then, some scientist comes along to try to explain the big bang with a magical term "inflation" I use magical because again, it has never been proven or observe, while breaking laws of science. I would post more proofs however, I did not want to bore you on my correctness of a bunch of useless, boring reading, when I have made my point.

As Kent Hovind said it best:

Humanist view: "Amazing this big bang made the world from absolutely nothing"
Creationist view: "Incredible design there must be a smart designer"

Finally, I should also add, famous atheist scientist, Stephen Hawking even admitted to their being "some form of intelligence" at the University of Cambridge. The link to this article will be in my links descriptions below.

So the reason I choose God over the big bang theory, is there is no contradictions. I've seen prophecies in the bible written thousands of years ago come alive today. Only sourcing this, just one time, because as many proofs as you bring from science, I can falsify it with more science, with kind of like a bonus of proof from the bible. So I urge you to let me use biblical references to correlate what backs my science for my potential next rebuttal.

As I say, the bible may not be able to be proven. But the fact's don't lie.

Saturn Losing it's Rings: https://www.scientificamerican.com...
Earths Rotation Slowing: http://www.sciencemag.org...
Oldest Living Tree: https://www.fs.fed.us...
Facts pertaining evolution/religion: https://www.chick.com...
Flaws in the Big Bang: http://thetechreader.com...
Flaws in Evolution: http://www.patheos.com...
Stephen Hawking: https://worldnewsdailyreport.com...
SkySky16

Con

Pro has just sprung on me more facets of evolution that was not reasonably inferred by the question and and round 1 introductory statement. Please disregard Cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar and planetary evolution, and organic evolution.
Furthermore, Pro makes the ridiculous claim that only micro evolution has been observed. And likens it to "taking a German Shepherd and a Husky and mating them to make a different variation of a dog" which is absurdly incorrect as to what micro evolution is. This example is selective breeding, the whole point of evolution is that it's natural! This was explained by the definition of evolution I brought up in my opening statement. This example does not show natural selection, genetic mutation, OR hybridization. Completely flawed reasoning by Pro.
Pro then goes on to say the he BELIEVES macro evolution is ludicrous. First of all, Pro's belief have no affect in scientific FACT that it occurs. Second of all, he makes what I hope is a joke in saying he doesn't believe we evolved from a rock. Nowhere in science does it claim that, and again Pro's beliefs are worthless in this debate. Macro evolution, on a basic level, is a series of micro evolution that provides a unique creature completely different than the "original."
Pro goes on to state "what evolutionists and scientists fail to prove is how one animal can turn into another." Science isn't claiming morphology. Pro's absolute misunderstanding and ignorance on this scientific theory is extremely flawed. Then Pro goes on to contradict this statement by stating that experiments have observed small organisms "turning" into other small organisms, but then critiques these experiments by saying they were modified. Not only does Pro cite these claims he doesn't even name the species or experiment this was done in.

Evolution is observable:

"This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Gal"pagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor."

This excerpt from an article, citation below, explains everything. To make another point extending from this article, all that is needed to prove evolution flawed or wrong, is the wrong fossil in the wrong place. That is literally all it would take, yet every single fossil supports evolution, every single one of them.

To quote the same article to refute Pro's argument that evolution is too "lucky."

"Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days."

This clearly obliterates Pro's nonsensical refutation that nobody even claimed was true in the first place. Pro then goes on to say that his refutation to SCIENTISTS saying that evolution takes millions of years to produce such complex things is "How convenient, well I don't see it happening anytime soon and all you have is an 'explanation.'"
First of all, all I have is an explanation? That is literally all that is needed, it explained evolution. He says it convenient when it isn't when looking at actual science. He states that he doesn't see it happening anytime soon so it must be false. What a fallacious argument, does this disprove the eventual explosion of the sun? No it does not.

Pro then argues that he is baffled by how "the belief that everything came from nothing and life came from non life is now growing to be the popular view on everything." Again, it doesn't matter what his personal views are. So moving on.
"Now I disagree with science teaching the big bang in public education. If they want to teach it in private schools fine by me. But the reason I have a problem with this is evolution and the belief in the big bang is nothing but a religion."
More personal belief arguments that have no weight in this debate.
"First, I would like to mention the planet Saturn is losing its rings. They are slowly moving away. If the planet were millions of years old, the material in the rings would have dissipated long ago." No citation, therefore just pro's personal, and extremely flawed, scientific beliefs.
"Secondly, Earth's rotation is slowing at the rate of one thousandth of a second per day. At this rate a billion years ago it would have been spinning so fast that centrifugal force would have caused it to fly apart." Honestly, what an illogical and dare I say stupid argument. He claims that the rotation is SLOWING then claims if this were to be true earth would fly apart due to it spinning too FAST. Pro is grossly misinformed.
"Thirdly, and my most favorite for debunking this, is the oldest living tree pinus longaeva is 5,066 years old according to ring count. With this said, shouldn't there be a tree or some kind of plant older than this, if life existed millions of years ago on Earth, without trees life cannot exist on Earth. People like to tell me they've gone extinct? All of them? And how is that?"
What the hell does this even mean. Of course there are plant life that existed before this, doesn't mean there has to be something older, because then that logic would require and infitiely living organism.
Pro talks about dark matter and energy as if it has anything to do with evolution.

"Now lets try cosmic inflation, the term inflation refers to the explosively rapid expansion of space-time that occurred a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang. HOWEVER, this definitely violates Einstein's General Law of Relativity, in which apparently nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. But then, some scientist comes along to try to explain the big bang with a magical term "inflation" I use magical because again, it has never been proven or observe, while breaking laws of science. I would post more proofs however, I did not want to bore you on my correctness of a bunch of useless, boring reading, when I have made my point."

Claims things without citation. Says it violates things traveling faster than the speed of light which no one has claimed.
No Pro, you have not made your point. You have made, in sum, zero logical or science based points in this sham you call a rebuttal.

I was hoping for an educational debate between scientific theory and criticism but Pro has done nothing but slap personal beliefs and critiques without any evidence substantiating them and vast amounts disproving his beliefs.

I am appalled.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Smorfy 1 year ago
Smorfy
I feel inclined to inform everyone voting on this debate that lemusthecuban used lying links. The link about Saturn's rings moving away (https://www.scientificamerican.com...) doesn't say anything about the rings moving away. Rather, it says the rings have waves. The article about Stephen Hawking (https://worldnewsdailyreport.com...) is from a SATIRE news site! If you only scroll down, the recommended articles make this clear. For example, "Moon Astronaut Admits on Deathbed: 'Obama Could be Alien'. Use real sources next time. I implore all voters to vote for SkySky16 on the conduct and source options.
Posted by Smorfy 1 year ago
Smorfy
@lemusthecuban there is no such thing as centrifugal force. There is only centripetal force. Centrifugal force is an illusion. We only feel it. Centripetal force acts inward toward an axis. Centrifugal force is an pretend force that supposedly acts outward away from an axis. Even if centrifugal force did exist, centripetal force would counter it, and our planet would not break apart.
Posted by SkySky16 1 year ago
SkySky16
@canis
This guy is a joke, I regret accepting this debate, but will finish.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Creationism does only exist as a dream...
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.