The Instigator
ThatGuyandtheother
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TannerJK
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Creationism is a valid scientific hypothesis

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 519 times Debate No: 48171
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

ThatGuyandtheother

Con

As we saw in the Nye vs. Ham debate, this was already largely covered, but I will again go over my main arguments.

1. There is no ability to predict using the creation model
2. There are no scientific findings which support the creation model

All anecdotes, touching stories, and chance are all disqualified as proof o the creation model because they are so easy to make up.
TannerJK

Pro

I accept and will allow my adversary to lay out his first full argument before posting any initial thoughts.
Debate Round No. 1
ThatGuyandtheother

Con

First, let me define my terms. By "creationism", I am referring to the Christian, YEC version of the Bible.

Basically (and I'm no professional writer), the reason I don't think that creationism is valid as a scientific hypothesis is that is has no evidence to support it. All hypotheses (hypothesisis? :p), whether it be evolution, relativity, or even that the Earth orbits the sun have some evidence to support them, as well as no evidence strongly countering it and an ability to explain phenomena. For example, Galileo saw certain patterns in how the planets moved which was inconsistent with parts of the geocentric universe. His new theory, the heliocentric universe, answered this phenomena and had evidence to support its verity. One might say, "the geocentric universe also had evidence!", but what it didn't have was an ability to explain certain phenomena, rendering it innaccurate and unuseable. This ability to be proven wrong is part of what it means to be a scientific hypothesis.

Creationism does not have the evidence required to support it, cannot explain certain phenomena, and is competing with other theories which do. This makes it invalid in the scientific community as well as in a broader sense.

We could turn this into another creation vs. evolution debate, but I would like to keep it on the topic of "creationism is a valid hypothesis - yes or no".
TannerJK

Pro

TannerJK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ThatGuyandtheother

Con

Well...uh...what now?
TannerJK

Pro

TannerJK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ThatGuyandtheother

Con

ThatGuyandtheother forfeited this round.
TannerJK

Pro

TannerJK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ThatGuyandtheother 3 years ago
ThatGuyandtheother
StevenBeach1994,

Interesting. We do have proof of the brain and mind, through the synasis and what not. Also, we have no proof of a "soul" in your sense. Please elaborate on the evidence for this. We can't simply define the mind as nothing if we have no proof of it (which we do). "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense", after all.

"At this point he hadn't physically (being the world and all things pertaining to matter) made it, or Mentally (Being the brain and its physical functions) know how to make it, but spiritually ( being then inner consciousness, mind, or imagination) He'd seen it. Maybe not what it looked like or what it would sound like, and act like, but he saw the overall concept the "purpose" of it."

Again, please elaborate. You are using spirit and imagination as the same entity. Imagination is, in a basic sense, ther result of our hunting. Being able to predict and imagine possible ways to take down animals is quite useful.

You say that evolution was God's mind figuring it out, so God is therefore:
a. Not perfect, therefore not supreme
b. Confined to natural laws, therefore not transcedent
c. Capable of being outwitted or outdone, therefore not all-knowing

Which God is this? More importantly, why worship such an imperfect, confined, easily defeated deity? Oh, and a thought it heavily dependant on what you classify as "thinking". Please tell me how you define "thinking". Is it perception? Just thought? Both?

Also (I know this is disjointed), but you say that there is nothing outside the universe, when we have NO IDEA what is outside the universe. Of course, this doesn't imply nothingness and I don't see why we should treat it as such. Also, who said it had to be God's imagination? It could be Shivah's imagination, for all we know.
Posted by StevenBeach1994 3 years ago
StevenBeach1994
So let's say God wants to create a human being; it could just be done but there are rules that he made and applied to himself. He has three forms, Father son holy-ghost; we as humans also have three forms Mind, Body and Soul. In each of these forms God can only do so much; and anytime he acts he acts through the body of a human who he has a spiritual connection to. (This will later beg the question how did he create the world of there was nobody for him to act through; i'll get there soon)
What is creation? You have an idea and set forth in making it come about, Henry ford and his automobile, H. G Wells and his book The Time Machine, anything that has come out our imagination. Our Imagination which is essentially a part of the brain but more or less a development of the mind and personality we have. The mind which is also defined as nothing because there is no proof of the mind, just as there is no proof that there is not a mind.
So as I said you have an idea, now is that the beginning or the end? Possibly both at one point in time. Henry ford and his automobile, he said "i need a wagon that's automated." At this point he hadn't physically (being the world and all things pertaining to matter) made it, or Mentally (Being the brain and its physical functions) know how to make it, but spiritually ( being then inner consciousness, mind, or imagination) He'd seen it. Maybe not what it looked like or what it would sound like, and act like, but he saw the overall concept the "purpose" of it.
So God says i want to create life. how do i go about this. Well lets see, i said the mind is nothingness right? what is on the outside of the universe? the answer is nothing; so we are in God's imagination. Evolution was God's Mind figuring out how to do it, and in his point of view time is meaningless so seven days to us maybe 24 hours but to him the may be millions of years, or even nano seconds. How fast is a thought? ( I Will Continue In Another Comment, Reached the Limit)
Posted by Pitbull15 3 years ago
Pitbull15
@Missmedic: But it's not going to kill these two or anyone else for them to debate it. I'm skeptical about it, too; but I'm always interested in these kinds of debates.
Posted by ThatGuyandtheother 3 years ago
ThatGuyandtheother
humanright2debate,

Some of the greatest minds in history were also racists. What is your point.

Sincerely,

Me
Posted by WaterTipper 3 years ago
WaterTipper
Creationism is a valid scientific hypothesis, with ZERO actual evidence (none!).

Is that not enough to end this silly "controversy?" Is a debate actually necessary?
Posted by humanright2debate 3 years ago
humanright2debate
some of the top great scientists. believed in Creationist
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
When a person takes on creationism, they give up learning many sciences that require knowing what evolution is. This is a short list of those sciences, Pathology Pathology Oncology Oceanography Neurology Mycology Microbiology Medicine Immunology Ichthyology Histology Hematology Geology Genetics Forestry Enzymology Embryology Ecology Cosmology Cardiology Botany Biology Biochemistry Bacteriology Archaeology Anthropology Anatomy....Creationism has no education value.
No votes have been placed for this debate.