The Instigator
ElijahTheRight
Pro (for)
The Contender
Zaephou
Con (against)

Creationism is far more superior to Evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
ElijahTheRight has forfeited round #3.
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: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 236 times Debate No: 96432
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

ElijahTheRight

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this debate. I am a Christian, but I love science.

I would like to start off by asking this, "How can this perfect (as in perfect chemistry, perfect cells, perfect reproductive system among living things, etc.) world come from something accidental?"

I I believe in a Creator because that is the only reasonable thing we have. Why are thre exactly two genders? Why Is Earth in its perfect place, a perfect distancee from the Sun.
Zaephou

Con

I accept.

Hope you have a good debate!
Debate Round No. 1
ElijahTheRight

Pro

Thank you for challenging me.
I just read an article, and it had this one great quote that i would like you to comment on, "Likewise, the evolutionist must use biblical creation principles in order to argue against biblical creation." I think it would be a fair debate if you would try to argue the bible and I would try to argue evolution theories.
Let me start off by arguing about the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang theory disagrees with the first law of thermodynamics, which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. How may the particles from an explosion create new substances?
What caused the singularity before the explosion to suddenly cause the Big Bang? What created the singularity?

A popular question to Christians is, "Who created God?" Well, It is pretty easy to explain how God was created. He wasn't. This is the part where most atheists get confused. The problem is that atheists who try to disprove Creationism must look at the Bible, at the context. God was not created, bcause he created time. He is outside of time, he is holy. He is seperate. He has no beginning because beginning is a factor in time.

I wish you could answer my questions in the next round.
Zaephou

Con

My argument willl be presented in the following manner: your quote -> my rebuttal. Let's begin:


1. 'The Big Bang theory disagrees with the first law of thermodynamics, which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.'

The first law of thermodynamics actually deals with the law of conservation of energy, stating that energy cannot either be created or destroyed. The Big Bang does not violate this law, since the moment the Big Bang happened, such as approximately a planck length from when the Big Bang occured, all the energy was condensed to one single point in space-time, and the energy was simply released in a large expansion. I would like to note to my opponent that it is more accurate to describe the Big Bang as an expansion of space-time.


2. 'How may the particles from an explosion create new substances?'

The energy from the Big Bang created matter, since the simplest form of matter is condensed energy, and according to the attraction forces, this matter became larger matter.

3. 'It is pretty easy to explain how God was created. He wasn't'

This is a case of special pleading, and it can create an infinite regression. Simply put, if God has always existed, what prevents us from saying that the universe has always existed and requires no creator?

4. 'He is outside of time, he is holy. He is seperate. He has no beginning because beginning is a factor in time.'

This is an impossibility, since reality itself adheres to temporal behaviours. Reality requires time to exist, that is why there was no reality before the Big Bang since there was no 'before', since 'before suggests time existing without the Big Bang occuring, which is not the case since time came with the Big Bang.

Now, onto your suggestion to adhere to Biblical creation principles. Firstly, why can't I use evidence for evolution, to support evolution, which ergo would provide evidence against creation?

I am guessing that you would want me to comment on Genesis. The Genesis creation story has many scientific impossibilities, such as the creation of light and darkness first, without the existence of a source of the light. In day 2, God creates the sky, but the sky cannot exist without the Sun, which is created on the 4th day. The water, land and plants are created before the sun! This goes completely against stellar nucleosynthesis and the processes of a star's life leading to the birth of heavier elements present in the earth. Also, without the Sun, the plants would have immediately died, and there are no accounts in the Bible of God keeping the plants alive until the 4th day.

Perhaps the most amusing day is the 7th, where God rests. Think about it, why would an omnipotent being need rest? I shall present some further analogies to go against the very nature of the Biblical God:

- If God was omnipotent, he would not need rest nor would he have a reason to create the universe seperately in 'days'.

- If God was omniscient and omnibenevolent, He would not create the universe the way it is now, or us for that matter, since this current universe does not adhere to God's omnibenevolence of omniscience.

Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by UchihaItachi 1 month ago
UchihaItachi
Definitions don't prove anything. Where's the evidence for God?
Posted by kylet357 1 month ago
kylet357
Rebuttals to Pro:

First of all, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics doesn't state MATTER can't be created or destroyed. It says ENERGY can't be created or destroyed. And since matter is only just energy but condensed, matter can most definitely be created.

The energy is already there with the Big Bang, so the fact that stars, planets, organic materials and lifeforms would go on to form is not that much of a stretch.

"How may the particles from an explosion create new substances?"
Simple, energy condenses to form matter. This is where the earliest stars of the universe form and from there, heavier elements are made when those stars go supernova (which is when a star explodes).

"What caused the singularity before the explosion to suddenly cause the Big Bang? What created the singularity?"
Something tells me that you think "I don't know" is an unacceptable answer. If that is the case, then I'll ask you why that is. And I'll also ask why you think saying "God did it" is the better answer. I'll tell you right now, even the Belgian Catholic priest (Georges Lema"tre) who discovered the expansion of the universe (through mathematics) said not to use this as an argument for God.

"A popular question to Christians is, "Who created God?" Well, It is pretty easy to explain how God was created. He wasn't."
Special pleading. As Carl Sagan once said "You say that God always existed. Why not save a step and say 'The universe always existed.'

"[God] is outside of time."
To be outside of time is to be outside of the universe. Which is:
(a) Impossible, since there is no outside the universe
(b) Means your interpretation of God doesn't exist in reality, because reality is only within our universe.
You basically admitted that your interpretation of God is physically impossible.

Also, you mention a lot about atheists, but realize there are a LOT of Christians who oppose your viewpoint as well (Including the Catholic Church/Pope and various scientists).
Posted by Zaephou 1 month ago
Zaephou
My opponent has not defined what he/she means by superior either. Superior in what way?
Posted by sboss18 1 month ago
sboss18
"More superior" is redundant, just using "superior" is fine.
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
vi_spex
evolution is the case..
Posted by Zaephou 1 month ago
Zaephou
First round is usually acceptance, I hand over the round to my opponent to fully present his/her argument
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.