The Instigator
abc123jendunee
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
ZacGraphics
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Creationism is an irrational explanation for life on Earth

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 1 vote the winner is...
abc123jendunee
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 465 times Debate No: 80964
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

abc123jendunee

Pro

First round is acceptance. Please state your religion as well. I will be taking the side that creationism is irrational and nonscientific.

Definition:
Creationism is the religious belief that the Universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation."
ZacGraphics

Con

I'll be accepting this challenge.

Best of luck to you.
Debate Round No. 1
abc123jendunee

Pro

First of all, I would like to state that the basis for Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, which by all means is NOT a reliable source of information whatsoever, as it contradicts itself and is factually flawed. There are many more viable theories on the topic of creation of life and species of Earth, such as the theory of evolution and abiogenesis, which provide scientific explanations with evidence, and it is generally accepted as scientific fact and has more than enough evidence than creationism.

Evolution itself is quite simple and based on the following logical or scientific facts:
1. Animals are occasionally born with mutations, which can be good bad or do neither.
2. Animals with favorable traits are more likely survive and reproduce.
3. Animals pass down genes which define specific traits
4. Different locations, climates, predators and etc can effect what is considered a 'favorable trait', making species evolve differently based on surroundings, creating new species and etc.
5. Over time, this can create entirely different 'kinds' of animals.

Abiogenesis is much harder of a concept as it explains how 'life' was originally created, however life is hard to define. Here is how it goes:
1. Small organic molecules (amino acids and etc) naturally occur in some sort of 'primordial soup'.
2. They combine to make larger biomolecules (proteins, RNA, and etc)
3. RNA, in the conditions in said 'soup' reacts and acts like DNA making a semi-alive system
4. That gradually transformed into a more complex living organism.
There are much more details but I won't bother to delve into that. (Unless you want me to)

Many of the parts are actually proven in lab conditions, whereas creationism offers no such evidence.
I await your response.
ZacGraphics

Con

First off, not trying to be a kiss-up, but you made some very good and intelligent points. Which, no matter what my religion, I will recognize. However, I disagree with some points.

You start off by saying that "The Bible is an unreliable source of information and is flawed". I can't understand why you would think that, though. The Bible is the most read book in the world. It beats #2 on the list of most read books in the world by a couple thousands of millions. Are all of those people Christian? I highly doubt that. Anyways, that topic is for another debate, we're here to talk about the rationality of Creationism.

Let's examine what you've said here, as you make an attempt to confirm evolution.

Evolution is a theory. It isn't a scientific law. Scientific laws are 100% true. What you're trying to explain here is a theory. Have you proved that theory? No, simply because it hasn't been done yet, and it never will. Why? It's a gold mine of errors. Thus, explaining why it's still just a theory.

Yes, new kinds and variations of a certain species are possible, but this isn't, and has never been done by science.
What you don't, and refuse to admit, is this very fact; no species has ever been proved to evolve in any way.

You base most of your first points off of a thing called "natural selection". This idea has been proved false before, also. Say that natural selection were true, and thus, a reality. What would happen? Humans would adapt to their setting on a physical level. Those who live in the north, in the cold, would develop fur to keep warm. If this were true, humans in the south, the tropic areas, would have reflective skin to keep them cool, or something along those lines. Natural selection just isn't true.

Now, on to your second points on Abiogenesis. For those who don't know, Abiogenesis is, by definition, the natural process of life coming from non-living matter, under proper conditions, of course. I'm not quite sure why you brought this up, as scientists of molecular biology have began to conclude that this is less and less probable, and is outside the realm of probability. I won't discuss much of it here, or my own head would start hurting. If I could see what you have to say on this topic, that would be splendid.

Now, finally, onto my side of the story. Creationism. You say that there is zero evidence in favor of creationism. I disagree, and I disagree with a generic answer that, quite frankly, hasn't been disproven yet.

Look around you, there is evidence of creationism all around. You don't even need to leave your seat to see that our entire universe is in perfect design. We, planet Earth, sit in a position perfect from the Sun. A fraction closer or further away, life would not be possible. Our solar system is a perfect design of flawless living conditions. And, by definition, a design must have been created by a designer. Could all of this you see before you come from chaos? Perfection doesn't come from chaos, and never will.

"To suppose that the eye... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." - Charles Darwin (1872)

I'm quite excited to see your input. If you can prove that a flawless universe can come from chaos, major kudos to you.
Debate Round No. 2
abc123jendunee

Pro

First of all I would like to acknowledge your statements:

"You start off by saying that "The Bible is an unreliable source of information and is flawed". I can't understand why you would think that, though. The Bible is the most read book in the world. It beats #2 on the list of most read books in the world by a couple thousands of millions. Are all of those people Christian? I highly doubt that. Anyways, that topic is for another debate, we're here to talk about the rationality of Creationism."

Right then you have made the Ad Populum fallacy which illogically states that 'If many believe so, it is so.' You may feel free to search that up, but I do not wish to delve into that anymore, as it is quite irrelevant. (FYI: I actually own a copy and read the Bible before)

You stated:

"Let's examine what you've said here, as you make an attempt to confirm evolution."

I would like to remind you that the argument is on 'Creationism is an irrational explanation for life on Earth' and therefore I'm not arguing that evolution/abiogenesis is confirmed (Although evolution might as well be), I'm just saying it is more rational than creationism.

"Evolution is a theory. It isn't a scientific law. Scientific laws are 100% true. What you're trying to explain here is a theory. Have you proved that theory? No, simply because it hasn't been done yet, and it never will. Why? It's a gold mine of errors. Thus, explaining why it's still just a theory."

...is a classical argument against evolution. But I believe your definition of a scientific theory is flawed. Cell theory, Theory of relativity, Theory of molecular genetics, Theory of gravity are all 'theories' but nonetheless facts. (Unless you want to debate me about why gravity doesn't exist and etc) THEORIES, in the scientific world mean a scientific explanation for a way something works, whereas LAWS, are a literally a defining rule or law for the nature of the world and beyond. The LAW of gravity exists and states that 'two objects attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them' while the THEORY of gravity explains why. The second LAW of thermodynamics state that "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium" (Basically an 'ordered' isolated system will tend to go to 'chaos'.). This is a LAW because it doesn't explain something, just states the tendency for a system to behave a certain way. This is why evolution is, and always will be a theory.

"Yes, new kinds and variations of a certain species are possible, but this isn't, and has never been done by science.
What you don't, and refuse to admit, is this very fact; no species has ever been proved to evolve in any way."

On the contrary, evolution have been seen happen, but not 'Darwinian evolution'. In fact, many creationists actually accept evolution to some extent. (God made a male and a female dog which evolved into all the species of dogs we know today) However, given time, this type of evolution can change into different 'Families' of animals and etc.

"You base most of your first points off of a thing called "natural selection". This idea has been proved false before, also. Say that natural selection were true, and thus, a reality. What would happen? Humans would adapt to their setting on a physical level. Those who live in the north, in the cold, would develop fur to keep warm. If this were true, humans in the south, the tropic areas, would have reflective skin to keep them cool, or something along those lines. Natural selection just isn't true."

I don't want to insult you, but I find this quite funny. Humans, and other 'intelligent' creatures have the intellectual capacity to create tools. Humans in the cold wore and made jackets. Humans developed medicine and a social system to cope as well. Because of such 'tools', humans have stopped dying off, and using the logic of natural selection:

1. Animals are occasionally born with mutations, which can be good bad or do neither.
2. Animals with favorable traits are more likely survive and reproduce.
3. Animals pass down genes which define specific traits
4. Different locations, climates, predators and etc can effect what is considered a 'favorable trait', making species evolve differently based on surroundings, creating new species and etc.
5. Over time, this can create entirely different 'kinds' of animals.

Favorable (Eg. Higher immunity) and non favorable (Eg. Born blind), less likely to benefit/be disadvantaged from such mutation (Step 2), therefore stopping this process.

"Now, on to your second points on Abiogenesis. For those who don't know, Abiogenesis is, by definition, the natural process of life coming from non-living matter, under proper conditions, of course. I'm not quite sure why you brought this up, as scientists of molecular biology have began to conclude that this is less and less probable, and is outside the realm of probability. I won't discuss much of it here, or my own head would start hurting. If I could see what you have to say on this topic, that would be splendid."

Believe it or not, parts of the theory of abiogenesis are actually tested, such as step 3. I have no idea where you got the idea that molecular biologist disagree, but latest research prove otherwise: http://phys.org... (Feel free to read it. I find it intellectually enlightening.)

"Now, finally, onto my side of the story. Creationism. You say that there is zero evidence in favor of creationism. I disagree, and I disagree with a generic answer that, quite frankly, hasn't been disproven yet."

You're forgetting the logical fallacy of burden of proof, meaning the "Obligation on somebody presenting a new idea/ claim to provide evidence to support its truth. Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to prove the evidence presented is not adequate. Burdens of proof are key to having logically valid statements: if claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true."

"Look around you, there is evidence of creationism all around. You don't even need to leave your seat to see that our entire universe is in perfect design. We, planet Earth, sit in a position perfect from the Sun. A fraction closer or further away, life would not be possible. Our solar system is a perfect design of flawless living conditions. And, by definition, a design must have been created by a designer."

Think about it. Is the Universe really that perfect? I mean, if you ask me, I could have done better than this so called 'God'. The Universe is 14 billion years old, and humans have only been around for 200,000 of those years. In around 5 billion or so years, the sun will expand into a red giant, consuming the Earth and ending all life on it. In fact, a vast majority of the Universe is inhabitable.

I'm going it a bit philosophical here. If Earth was closer to the sun, we would not exist. Life on Earth would be impossible. However, the Earth is in a perfect position, and therefore we exist. It would seem that its perfect, but in reality, in order for us to debate, the Earth needs to be in that position.

To address:

"Could all of this you see before you come from chaos? Perfection doesn't come from chaos, and never will."

This is known as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You can research more yourself as I am running out of characters, but it means that this is only true for a closed system where there is no energy source. However, if you do some more research on cosmology, you can see that the universe is likely not to be a closed system. But this point about the Universe is irrelevant to the original topic of life. For more info read: http://www.scientificamerican.com...

I look forward to your response.
ZacGraphics

Con

Alright, well, thank you for this debate. You make excellent points. Telling me to do research and whatnot.

I'd like to say a few things before I raise my white flag, however. Read it or not, I don't really mind.

In the beginning of this debate, you told me that the Bible is not a reliable source of information, and is factually flawed. That right there, was almost telling me "Hey, we're gonna have a gun fight, but you can't bring a gun". Obviously, there are other "weapons", per say, but the Bible would be my most powerful. Why would that be? Onto your next contradiction.

You say I'm "making up the Ad Popululum fallacy". Which, you would be incorrect, and no, I'm not changing my point of view at all, I'm just explaining my true reasoning. I didn't say "If all say it is, then it is". No, that would be like the world saying "Michael Jackson is alive." It's still not true, and that doesn't bring Jackson back to life. What I'm saying, is that if SO many people read it, buy it, and steal it, then there MUST be some viability or actuality behind it.

Now, I want to point out something that didn't quite make sense to me.

"I don't want to insult you, but I find this quite funny. Humans, and other 'intelligent' creatures have the intellectual capacity to create tools. Humans in the cold wore and made jackets. Humans developed medicine and a social system to cope as well. Because of such 'tools', humans have stopped dying off, and using the logic of natural selection"

That's mostly a mental level, and I'm talking about physical. I might just be delusional, but in many cases I think you're attempting to raise yourself up, or exalt yourself. Again, I could be very wrong, as I usually am.

In my final argument, I will bring forth this statement.

We're looking at this from different perspectives, which is causing such a clash in ideals. A debate of this topic will never be fully proven, simply because God made it so that you actually get a choice in what you want to believe in. He didn't provide TONS of evidence in His existence, or otherwise it would dull the effect of a "spiritual relationship", and yes, that exists, not just in Christianity.

I'm looking at this from a standpoint of Faith, but trying to be unbiased, and kinda failing. You, are trying to disprove something that may or may not shake the laws of reality and your "science" that you hold so dear.

I loved this debate, but I hope I won't have to speak of this topic again as it gets bland, and some people just absolutely hate being proved wrong, arguably yourself. Not trying to hate on you, in fact, you're a very intelligent young man. I admire that, and I hope to one day try to enlighten myself in the brain, as I study psychology and neurology.

Thank you for your time, audience and Pro, but this debate goes to Pro. He brought up greater points than me and worded them better.

Good day.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ZacGraphics 1 year ago
ZacGraphics
Thank you for your vote/comment @Kozu. It opened my eyes to a lot of things I need to improve upon. As this was one of my first debates, I have a ways to go before I become better at debating and bringing forth supporting evidence, and this feedback brought be one step closer.
Posted by abc123jendunee 1 year ago
abc123jendunee
Please, if you can respond today because I have a lot to do tomorrow.
Posted by ZacGraphics 1 year ago
ZacGraphics
Sorry, I forgot to mention, I am a Christian, but I will try my best in being unbiased.
Posted by TheGerman 1 year ago
TheGerman
Damn, I would love to be Pro in this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kozu 1 year ago
Kozu
abc123jenduneeZacGraphicsTied
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: R3 consession by Con. Even without the concession, it was pretty much a landslide for Pro. Con just never get around to explaining *why* he's wrong about the theory of evolution. He complains about semantical issues like some things being called "laws" or "theories" but that does get him anywhere closer to scientifically disproving evolution. More over, *Con did not present a single argument in favor of creationism*. The Burden of Proof is shared in this debate (I assume), but every one of Con's arguments work towards disproving evolution. *Even if* Pro were to fail to support any of his arguments, that doesn't automatically mean creationism is true; evolution and creationism are not a dichotomy. Both of these could be false, and panspermia may be the origin of life on earth, but Con hasn't given me any reason to think that creationism is exclusively the cause here. So for these reasons, I grant Pro argument points.