The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Shikyo792
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Creationism VS Big Bang-Abiogenesis-Evolution

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 4 votes the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,424 times Debate No: 77128
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (4)

 

MagicAintReal

Con

Resolution

Creationism's claims are likely true, and The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are likely not true.

Burden of Proof Is Shared

Pro - Has 40,000 characters to demonstrate that the claims of Creationism are likley true (Pro's BoP), and rebuttal Con.

Con - Has only 30,000 characters to demonstrate that the The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are all likely true (Con's BoP), and rebuttal Pro.

*There are no rounds, so there are no round rules, just characters...use them as desired to meet your burden of proof.

Pro Wins
If we accept the resolution.

Con Wins
If we reject the resolution.

Definitions

Creationism - the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, rather than by natural processes.

Claims - assertions of the truth of something

Likely - probably

True - in accordance with fact or reality

The Big Bang - the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that marked the origin of the universe.

Abiogenesis -the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.

Evolution -the process by which different kinds of living organisms develop and diversify from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

*Definitions are agreed upon by posting your first argument.

*Definitions can be changed in the comments section, before the debate, as long as both Pro and Con agree in the comments section.

May the better argument win.
Shikyo792

Pro

I believe that it was creationism that helped to create the world and universe that we know today (not to mention the life).

~Before The Big Bang~

* The Big Bang - the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that marked the origin of the universe.

This definition is where I shall start. According to the theory it was both matter and energy that were packed together densely. This raises the question where did the energy necessary come from? According to "Law Of Conservation Of Energy" energy can not be created nor destroyed. Their is no way that the universe could have created the energy itself using a natural process because their was no nature to begin with. Which means that their had to be something unnatural to have created the energy in order for the Big Bang theory to happen. Now while the Big Bang might of happened it wouldn't have been possible without help.

~Evolution and Abiogenesis~

* Evolution -the process by which different kinds of living organisms develop and diversify from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

* Abiogenesis -the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.

According to the theory of Abiogenesis:
1) An unknown event happened that created an unknown organism in an unknown location in the ocean
2) An unknown event happened that caused the unknown organism to reproduce

Unfortunately for the theory of Abiogenesis, there are many unknowns that have yet to be proven. Lets start with number one shall we? It has been proven time and again that a living organism can not be made or created from a non-living thing. But according to this theory that is what was supposed to have happened. Also according to the theory, the unknown organism was created in the ocean, this causes in itself many problems. Such as the long chains of Amino Acids that is needed for a living organism can not be created while in water.
Then there is the chance of all this happening, which lets face it is extremely low. The chances that all everything necessary for a living organism to come together in an area where some of the much needed things for it could not be created.
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Con

Since I actually have a burden of proof in this argument as Con, let me start by saying:
Creationism's claims are likely not true, and The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are all likely true. I reject the resolution.

Here's why:
1. Quantum nothingness, a zero energy universe, and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation are evidence of The Big Bang.

2. Repeatable results of landmark experiments that demonstrate naturally occurring inorganic-->organic reactions, and the fact that amino acids have the ability to react with each other to create biologically active material are evidence of Abiogenesis.

3. Two ape chromosomes fusing to make our 2nd chromosome seals the deal on the idea that humans came from older apes, and are now modern bipedal apes...as mechanistically explained and repeatedly and accurately predicted by Evolution.

4. No demonstration or replication of Creationism's claims physically, contingent on physical reality, or logically means there has been no evidence provided for Creationism.

*****

1. The Big Bang
-Quantum Nothingness

"Something" is a physical concept that is best explained by physical sciences. Physically speaking, to be something, at the most basic level, something must have particles/atoms/wavelengths/energy/radiation.
Anything that one could consider to physically exist, even light or radiation, is made up of one of these basic characteristics of something.

The absence of all of these basic characteristics of something leaves us with a vacuum of empty space.
The absence of something physical, nothing, is a matter of physics.

Quantum physics has been observing and testing nothing for a while. The very science used to explain what something is, has discovered that nothing is a vacuum of empty space with no matter, no energy, no radiation, no particles, and no atoms, BUT there is a detectable physical field.
http://daarb.narod.ru...

You might be thinking...Hold on! A physical field would be something! A physical field can't be nothing...
I know...I know it sounds contradictory, but this physical field isn't a steady state of something at all. It's empty, it's void of matter or energy, it doesn't radiate, it has no atoms or full particles, it doesn't have any wavelengths of light...nothing.

What's interesting, but demonstrably true, is that this faint physical field in nothing is created by constant subatomic particles--not full protons, neutrons, or electrons--popping into existence from nothing and just as quickly popping out of existence (quantum fluctuation).
http://science.jrank.org...

In this nothing state, these subatomic particles exist and don't exist at the same time...doesn't sound like something to me.
Physicists are correct in calling this state nothing.

This state of nothingness is actually unstable; it can't remain nothing for long, such that with the many subatomic particles popping in and out of existence all of the time, energy is inevitable.
https://www.youtube.com...

Lawrence Krauss, particle physicist, puts it very well in the above two and a half minute video.

Energy is just the other side of the coin to matter, and this means that if subatomic particles appearing from quantum nothingness eventually lead to the manifestation of energy, then matter can come from this unstable quantum nothingness.

The Big Bang is a highly potentially energy-dense state the size of one of these subatomic particles in quantum nothingness.
The Big Bang is something from nothingness.

-Zero Energy Universe
How could these faint particles create such a massive amount of positive energy as exhibited by the big bang?
With the help of gravity.

Well, the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of (+) matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of (-) gravity.
This is called the zero-energy universe.
http://www.astrosociety.org...

From the big bang, we start at a state the size of a subatomic particle, that popped into existence in quantum nothingness.
The total energy of (+) matter + (-) gravity = 0.

I like to represent matter and gravity as a set:
[ (+) matter, (-) gravity]

Since matter is positive energy, we'll represent it with (+)
Since gravity is negative energy, we'll represent it with (-)

Right at the big bang, before expansion, matter and gravity could be represented as
[+0, -0] which of course equals 0 total energy.
At this point, there is no (+) matter in the quantum nothingness and no (-) gravity.

But after the big bang, a dense state the size of a subatomic particle, matter and energy were expressed, and so was gravity.
So how can this much positive energy come from the faint physical field?
Because there was enough gravity to allow it.

So at the very beginning of expansion from nothingness, the total energy set of matter and gravity could have looked like:
[+1, -1] = 0 and then
[+2, -2] = 0 and then
[+3, -3] = 0 and so on as the universe expands...
[+10, -10] = 0 and then
[+1000, -1000] = 0.
Still 0 total energy, but we have some (+) matter which is positive energy and its exact counterbalance of negative gravity energy.

So the big bang's required massive amount of positive energy would be counterbalanced by the amount of negative energy in the form of gravity...total energy = 0, kind of like quantum nothingness.

The Big Bang came from [+0, -0] = 0 total energy, and the universe exists at [+1000000000000, - 1000000000000] = 0 total energy.
I'm just using hypothetical numbers, but I'm trying to illustrate the concept of lots of matter and energy being cancelled out by lots of negative gravity energy as a set.

Our zero energy universe has a total amount of energy that never changes, and thus is neither created nor destroyed, per the 1st law of thermodynamics. This would allow for such a massive dense energy state from quantum fluctuations.

-Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
With the right radio telescope, even you can see that the space between the stars above us isn't just black space, it's filled with microwave radiation.
http://aether.lbl.gov...

All of this cosmic background microwave radiation, which is a "black body" as it absorbs all intercepted electromagnetic radiation, is nearly a uniform glow between stars across the universe, and would be a proven indicator of an expandable hot dense state such as the big bang being the cosmos' origin.
http://www.mpg.de...

The small variations in the microwave's uniformity, show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot dense state that has expanded to the current size of the universe.

These variations have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum fluctuations of subatomic particles in a vacuum of space, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk...
Yeah, that link is from Cambridge...I know, argument from authority...go to page 9 of the PDF which is page 2 of the preface.

So The big Bang is likely true, given quantum nothingness, a zero energy universe, and cosmic microwave background radiation.

2. Abiogenesis.
-The Miller Urey and Replicated Experiments
In chemistry, a compound is organic if it is covalently bonded to carbon.
If the compound is not covalently bonded to carbon it is inorganic.

So the distinction between inorganic and organic in chemistry can be very small if you're dealing with carbon compounds. All the Miller Urey and replicated experiments did was show that with naturally occurring atmospheric gases, inorganic compounds can become organic compounds.
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

So let's see how extreme the results are.
Here's an inorganic carbon compound, cyanate
HNCO
Here's an amino acid, Glycine
C2H5NO2

Is it that much of a leap to say that natural atmospheric pressures likely in earth's history could help spawn a shift from
HNCO-->C2H4NO2?

Ok well then the idea of inorganic-->organic shouldn't seem that radical.

A claim from people who have not looked at the replicated studies of the Miller Urey is that too much oxygen, which would be present in earth's atmosphere, ruins the results of inorganic-->organic.

This is true, but any lowering at all of the oxygen from the typical atmosphere allows for the inorganic-->organic switch proven in the experiments. These oxygen fluctuations are demonstrable.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org...

Once we have amino acids, many opponents to the theory say, well amino acids are just lifeless organic matter...how do you get to replication genetically?
Ready?
Amino acids react with each other, and if a chain of amino acids, polypeptides, fold onto themselves, they become biologically active.
To quote the NIH:
"The sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active."
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

Once we have biologically active proteins, we are talking about basic genetics.
RNA - a messenger carrying instructions from DNA for controlling the synthesis of proteins.

So Abiogenesis is likely true, because the Miller-Urey and replicated experiments all yield that inorganic compounds can become organic compounds with an atmosphere likely on earth in its history. Furthermore, amino acids can generate biologically active material by themselves, so life from non-life seems likely true.

*I will address Evolution 3rd round!
*Pro did not provide any evidence FOR creationism, only refutes of Pro's own representations of The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution.
*So far, in the 3rd round, I will have nothing to refute except the inaccuracies of Pro's representations.
Shikyo792

Pro

Shikyo792 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Con

I extend my first 10,000 characters. Pro can use their characters any way they choose.

3. Evolution
-Chromosome 2

Human chromosome two is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes.
Humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the great apes...because two ape chromosomes fused to make our 2nd chromosome.
http://genome.cshlp.org...

Single chromosomes typically have two ends and a center.

Telomere - Centromere - Telomere


Telomeres (the red ones) - - - - - Centromeres (the green ones)
Image result for telomeres---Image result for centromeres

But humans' 2nd chromosome looks like (the single chromosome is on the right):

Which is Telomere - Centromere - Telomere - Telomere - Centromere - Telomere
This shows fusion.

How do we know what fused?

Base pairs on the ends of each chromosome are unique to that chromosome.

We found the base pairs that match ancestral ape chromosomes on our 2nd chromosome.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Evolution just states that organisms that live long enough to reproduce pass on their genetic characteristics that helped them live long enough to reproduce.
As organisms migrate to different environments, different genetic characteristics lead to living long enough to reproduce.

Those that live long enough to reproduce pass on their genes more successfully than those who do not live long enough to reproduce in the different environment.

Genetic changes over time lead to different species from a parent species.

The new species would have remnants of the parent species in their genetics.

Our 2nd chromosome is clear evidence that apes are our ancestors and our parent species is ape. We are in fact modern apes.

This fusion of chromosomes is exactly what you would expect if evolution were true, and it demonstrates how changes over time lead to different organisms completely.

Due to its mechanistic explanation and subsequent demonstrations of the biodiversity of life on earth, and that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, which is an accurate prediction from evolution, evolution is likely true.

4. Creationism
-I don't know

Pro has not provided any demonstration of creationism's claims.
I reject the resolution, because Pro has failed to meet their burden of proof that creationism is likely true, and has not provided any claims.

For these reasons, Creationism is likely not true, and The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are all likley true.
Shikyo792

Pro

Shikyo792 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Con

My characters are extended.
Creationism is likely not true, and the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are all likely true.
Shikyo792

Pro

Shikyo792 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Krauss's hypothesis, is not a hypothesis, quantum fluctuations are everywhere, and proven.

Yes, to cause something, there has to be time for the cause to take place...

When energy was expressed at the big bang, so was time...thus Krauss's founded principle, quantum fluctuations, of quantum mechanics does not posit a cause.

Giving rise to an action requires time. Before the big bang, there was no matter or energy in quantum fluctuations, so it follows no time for your idea of a cause to cause something.

Thanks for the vote, but you are really critical of my arguments...sometimes it's nice to hear a critique from you, but sometimes it seems you just don't like my style of debate.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
RFD:

This is a very straightforward vote, especially because of the forfeits. The forfeits obviously gain Con conduct, so I'm not really stressing on the conduct point. Onto arguments. The debate basically comes to the Big Bang, evolution and the possibility of abiogenesis. If Con affirms those three key points, it gains Con the clear victory.

Pro's objection to the Big Bang -- Big Bang = causation, but Conservation of Energy entails that causation of energy is impossible. Con actually drops this objection, but goes on to prove the Big Bang via CMB radiation, and uses zero-energy universe to affirm the universe actually came out of 'nothing'.

Pro doesn't even object to evolution, and Con clearly affirms the possibility of evolution. Onto abiogenesis -- Pro just uses an extremely defensive argument against abiogenesis, not showing abiogenesis is "impossible," but rather says no arguments are for abiogenesis. I'm seeing lack of some links, and it needs some stronger impacts to strengthen it. I wouldn't vote on defenses anyway. Con manages to show amino acids and RNA have been formed abiotically.

Overall, Con wins on all three points, and Pro fails to meet their BoP of affirming creationism, merely attempting to refute the BBT and abiogenesis. The forfeits gain Con conduct. So, I have no choice but to vote Con, since Pro barely has any strong impacts.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@MagicAintReal: I'm not buying Krauss' hypothesis primarily because of your own temporal objection -- a "cause" is incoherent without time. Krauss' hypothesis posits a cause, hence is inherently flawed *unless* a multiverse is proven.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Ok, whatever you want to call something that happened before time existed...even though "cause" is a temporal concept, and requires time to have caused something....I don't care, because energy and matter come from quantum fluctuations, and if this is considered a cause, it is not divine.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Krauss' QF argument from zero-energy universe is essentially conceding the universe had a cause.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Truth is an emotional/thought process...Facts are not...Care about facts...
Posted by Couchsessel 1 year ago
Couchsessel
Shikyo, your argument on probability is invalid, because of our position as the observer.

The universe is very big. Out there are probably hundreds, if not thousands or millions of planets where life could have developed. On most of them no life will have developed because of the low probability. However, we ourself are only present on earth because the low probability stuck true on this planet.
Your argument is like saying: "The chance to win in lotto is extremely low, thus anyone who does win must have cheated and should be arrested."
See the error there?
Posted by jollyroger 1 year ago
jollyroger
Always been one of my favorite subjects, good luck to both of you.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Scary? My avatar is a carbon atom...I'm a nice nerd.
Posted by ChickenBakuba 1 year ago
ChickenBakuba
I feel like accepting but MagicAintReal seems like a scary opponent
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
MagicAintRealShikyo792Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
MagicAintRealShikyo792Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
MagicAintRealShikyo792Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
MagicAintRealShikyo792Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited more than one round. This is bad conduct.