The Instigator
Eye0pener
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
usernamesareannoying
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Creationism is not a logical alternitave to Evolution.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
usernamesareannoying
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,881 times Debate No: 76720
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (60)
Votes (1)

 

Eye0pener

Pro

In my Debate I will argue that Creationism is not a logical idea. That its attempt to explain the origins of life, is nothing more than creation itself. I will show through evidence that evolution is a more logical theory that has yet to be disproved. I will compare the two and point out the difference's. I will attempt to discredit Creationism all together. To begin I will give definition's of the two views.

cre"a"tion"ism
krēG2;āSHəG6;nizəm/
noun
noun: creationism

the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.
another term for creation science.

ev"o"lu"tion
G6;evəG2;loV2;oSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: evolution; plural noun: evolutions

1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms:Darwinism, natural selection
"his interest in evolution"
2.
the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms:development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding; More.

As you see Creationism says that the origins of life were do to a "creator". Like someone creating a world with life on a computer program, but in reality instead.
Evolution on the other hand says that over time simple organisms will adapt to the changing environment naturally changing more complex to accommodate it's needs from what resources are readily available. In other words Everything (to a certain point) came from previous ancestors that slowly evolved into what they are today.

I intend to show that there will be no real evidence for Creationism and the idea is poor attempt to support religious belief.

I am an atheist and would like the challenge to be accepted by someone who actually believes in Creationism.
usernamesareannoying

Con

Pro has full burden of proof, as he is making the positive claim. As this is the case, I await for m opponent to prove that evolution is a 'more logical' theory in regards to the origin of life.
Debate Round No. 1
Eye0pener

Pro

The Theory of Evolution was first proposed by Charles Darwin in a book he published in 1859 called, "On the Origin of Species".
He developed this idea or theory while aboard the HMS Beagle, a ship Commanded by Robert FitzRoy. On this ship he took a five-year survey trip around the world. Darwin collected a variety of natural specimens, including birds, plant and fossils. over the course of his trip. Darwin began to notice similarities between species all over the world, along with variations based on specific location. This made him start to believe that the animals he obbserved must have had a common ancestor. http://goo.gl...

On the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean, close to the equator, Darwin Collected different varieties of bird. Darwin found that they were finches but did not yet understand why they varied from island to island. It was later that science understood what was happening. The finches with larger strong beaks were adapted to the island they were found, being the islands main food source was nuts and seeds that had to be cracked open. Another finch had long skinny beak. The island it was found did not have as much nuts and seeds but had more insects as its food source. It was deducted that these birds must have arrived to these island and then evolved sepperately over time. Thus allowing them to physically adapt to the environment they were in. http://goo.gl...

A Scientist named Ernest Haeckel looked at embryos of different speciece and found that at an early stage all the embryo's looked alike. The species though would grow to be very differents. They included, fish, tortoise, chick, and human.
http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl....

From the genome project it has been discovered that all species share a core set of genes. 60% of the genes in a fly are also in humans. https://goo.gl.... This helps to make sence of embryos being so similar at the start. Being all carbon based in sructure, it makes sence we share the same make up.

I have continued to search for evidence to support creationism and I have yet to find any. It seems that when they talk about evidence they just say what they believe and show no research on how they concluded there logic. There arguement is "its written in the bible", or "evolution is only theory and not proof". http://goo.gl...
Yes evoltion is theory. And a theory is an educated guess or idea that has been tested with evidence and can not be disproved. Gravity is a theory and yet it does not seem to bother anyone for not being prooved. Creationism does not show any models or evidence. And parts are proven wrong by science. Creationist believe that the earth is only 10000 to 6000 years old. But from Carbon dating its very apparent that the Earth is much older. http://goo.gl... Creationist say man was created at the begining of Earth simply because it is written in a book, predating copy rights, and any kind of garauntees. http://goo.gl... If this was the case we would find humans in fossil reccords from the Cambrian, or Permian, or evan the Jurrasic era. This is not the case. We find none.

It is not logic to follow something because it's written in a really old book. Especially one that shows no discriptions for evidence at all. Just simply saying this is how something is, is not a logical way to explain something. Where is the research backing the claim?
usernamesareannoying

Con

Prologue

I thank my opponent for instigating this, despite the quibble in the comments section.


Burden of Proof


What caused the foofaraw in the comments section was a debate on whether or not I should prove creationism to be a logical alternative to evolution. It turns out I need not. Pro never stated that the BoP is shared, and Pro is the one making the positive claim. Pro is trying to affirm the resolution's veracity to fulfill his BoP. If I show that he has not affirmed the resolution (refute his arguments) then the resolution has not been deductively proven, hence we have no reason to believe it (Occam's Razor) - hence I negate the resolution. Hopefully this can be left here.

I was also intrigued by the resolution, as creationism tries to explain the origin of everything, while evolution only describes the change of already living organisms. I thought abiogenesis would of been more fitting but this will do.


Aff


In my opponents arguments he does two things:
  • Provides rectitude for evolution
  • Says that there isn't any evidence for creationism

But this does not affirm the resolution. Why does it? My opponent missed a piece. His argument is depicted by this syllogism:


P1: Evolution is most likely true

P2: Creationism is most likely false

C: Ergo, evolution is a more logical theory

For the argument to actually affirm the resolution, it should assume this form:


P1: Evolution is most likely true

P2: Creationism is most likely false

P3: If evolution is more likely to be true, then it is more logical than creationism

C: Ergo, evolution is a more logical theory

When did Pro profess premise three? He didn't - I assume his response to this would be: "It's pretty obvious" but this is an ipse dixit. I commend Pro to provide rectitude of the third premise, otherwise there is no correlation between the premises and the conclusion - a non-sequitur.

I will now contend that my opponent can't properly prove its cogency. Pro uses a wholly arbitrary, subjective model of logic which he uses to compare both theories; logic is defined as "a particular method of reasoning or argumentation". (1) His acumen is that if something is more likely to be true, it is more logical to believe that rather than the contrary. Why is this? Why is it not just as logical to believe a doctrine with less proof? Non-cognitivism - Pro must provide objective evidence why something with more proof is more logical than something that isn't; "because it is" entails special pleading and will not suffice.


Creationism

My opponent utilizes a lot of "they" and "I have never found evidence". I might of not ever seen a koala, but that isn't valid evidence to conclude that they don't exist. Just because some creationists don't provide evidence, doesn't mean that there isn't an opious of evidence as a whole.

"Gravity is a theory"

Gravity is not a theory; it's a law. Quantum gravity is a theory.

"Creationism does not show any models or evidence."

Unsourced.

"Creationist believe that the earth is only 10000 to 6000 years old."

Not all creationists need to take the bible literally. They could see metaphors behind it - who is to tell them wrong? There are too many interpretations of the bible to conclude that it is wholly objective. We cannot ask the authors what the original intentions were. Bible literalism isn't necessarily a requisite for creationists - it is for young earth creationists. That fulfills your definition of creationism that you provided - if he then states "why do many not believe in evolution then?" They could very well do, as your definition only relates evolution to the origin of life - evolution did not provide the origin of life; abiogenesis did.

"It is not logic to follow something because it's written in a really old book."

Why is it not logical?


Conclusion

I have demonstrated that my opponent has not provided adequate rectitude of the required logical argument needed to fulfill his onus. Using non-cognitivism I have shown that he must postulate an objective comparison of the theories which results in one being objectively more logical than the other.


Completely Irrelevant

Since Pro has repeatedly stated that he hasn't found evidence for the contrary of the resolution, I will give him one to play with - he need not, but if he can't refute it, then he kind of concedes that a God most likely exists. I don't myself believe this argument is true, but I don't think Pro has ever stumbled across this popular argument:

Kalam Cosmological Argument

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause

P2: The universe began to exist

C: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence

Premise One

This premise is normally justified by "ex nihilo nihil fit" viz. out of nothing comes nothing. How can it? How can something pop out of nowhere with no inherent cause? If we were to extrapolate how we have never seen anything pop out of nowhere, we have no reason to believe the contrary.

Premise Two

I doubt my opponent contends the Big Bang Theory, but it is postulated that the universe was once at a hot, dense singularity 13.8 billion years ago, then rapidly expanded - known as rapid inflation. (2)

Hence, if the universe is defined as: "all space-time, matter and energy"(3) the cause of it must be transcendent. And the only fathomable entity able to create all space-time matter and energy is God.

This is a very perfunctory justification of the argument. I didn't want to make it that elaborate as it is completely irrelevant to the debate. Voters please neglect this argument entirely, this is just for my opponent.


Reference from comments section intended for comedic purposes

Sorry Pro, I would have provided a better argument only if I had more than half a brain to work with. ;)



(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...

(2) http://www.big-bang-theory.com...

(3) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Eye0pener

Pro

To begin round three I would like to thank my opponent for the debate.

I do not once say that evolution is more likely to be true. That's been wrongfully assumed by the Con. I say evolution is more logical than Creationism, because I cannot find a single piece of real evidence to support Creationism. I would not have any problem fallowing Creationism if there were real logical evidence to support it. I do not have the BoP for I have shown evidence and will show more in a bit. Con seems confused by what I have argued in parts one and two. He says I don't know the difference between proof and "theory". I do understand proof and theory. And I have shown proof of the evidence to support Evolution. Gravity is a theory, yes its considered a law but it is also theory. Newton's theory of Gravitation, or The theory of relativity. And the law only describe how Gravity affects matter. It does not give any insight to what gravity is or what causes it. Theory is used to help with that. https://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., These are all reference on the "theory" of Gravity. Or you can look at every topic about it and it will probably tell the same.

I thank you Con for confirming that there is not any evidence for creationism. If there is no evidence to be found as I have said. There can't really be a source. In this case I actually am the source explaining that I can not find any real evidence. Just because we know there are Koalas Does not validate a logic of Creation. Is Con suggesting that Creation is real by this statement. He has not shown any evidence to the side of the debate he willing chose. Yes we could argue all day about any thing we want. But since the topic has to two sides to be argued it seems it should be easy to understand what this debate is about. I also never once say evolution is about the origin's of life. Con is creating argument I have not ever said. The two are incompatible because Creationism says that everything was Created for a purpose. Evolution says things adapt to survive off the changing environment therefore their "purpose" would have to change also. And if Con says abiogenesis provides the origin of life. Why then does he think Creationism is logic. Its one or the other.

You ask why its not logical to believe something because its written in an old book. Okay I ask you, do you believe the Egyptian religion, or Greek, or Romans religion, or the Koran? How about Satanism? That's an old book, do you believe in that? My guess would be probably no. My logic is people tend to stick with the one religion taught to them by there guardian or parent, which learned from theirs, and so on. Have any of the people ever stopped and tried to find proof for the these things they were taught?

Con says not all Creationist take the Bible literally, that they see it as metaphors. That's because that percent of people probably see it not logical to fallow certain things written in an old book. A book Religion says is the word of God. But why doesn't this "God" with his all powerful, all wise, and all knowing fallibility. forget to include things in this really old book like, don't rape, don't torture, don't molest or abuse children. If this being "God" couldn't think of these horrible things as "sin" Why would it be logical to fallow his ideas? "We can't ask the author" because he is dead. But if that's your view then you are saying the Bible is not the word of God. So if the Bible is written by man why is it logical to believe in God. Or Divine Creator. Saying there is a God because it's an easy way to explain something, not understood, is not logic. It's just an excuse to not try to understand it. No this is not ipse dixit because I don't expect the reader to except my statement as valid. I expect them to look at evidence shown and make their own decision. I have shown method of reasoning for Evolution being more logical through evidence. I have not seen any argumentation for that. To clear up confusion, what I'm saying is, because of the abundance of research and evidence to support evolution it is a more logical theory than Creationism which has lack of research or evidence that supports it. That is the my objective comparison.

Con's so called evidence is

"P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause

P2: The universe began to exist

C: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence"

These are opinionated and non-factual statements. Just because a cause started something does not mean God is responsible. There is no evidence to prove any of this. Con can't use opinion as fact. As for the big bang theory it has logic for assumption, also before the big bang it's been speculated that our whole universe could have possible passed through a giant black hole, causing the singularity that exploded, after the black hole decomposed enough. Which could suggest its always been around.

This came straight from the National Science teachers of America
The most important scientific explanations are called "theories." In science a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses (NAS 1998). Theories are powerful tools. Scientists seek to develop theories that
are firmly grounded in and based upon evidence;
are logically consistent with other well-established principles;
have been tested in diverse settings and against diverse data;
explain more than rival theories; and
have the potential to lead to new knowledge.
The word creationism has many meanings. In its broadest meaning, creationism is the idea that the universe is the consequence of something transcendent. Thus to Christians, Jews, and Muslims, God created; to the Navajo, the Hero Twins created; for Hindu Shaivites, the universe comes to exist as Shiva dances. In a narrower sense creationism has come to mean "special creation": the doctrine that the universe and all that is in it was created by God in essentially its present form, at one time. The most common variety of special creationism asserts that

the Earth is very young;
life was created by God;
life appeared suddenly;
kinds of organisms have not changed since the creation; and
different life forms were designed to function in particular settings.
In McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 [ED Ark. 1982] the judge ruled that "creation science"did not qualify as scientific theory. http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl...

In Soviet Russia around 1948 a scientist named Dmitri Belyaev started studying the Silver Fox in captivity. He found this from domesticated foxes:"Morphological changes: These changes were perhaps the most surprising (and gave the best support to Belyaev"s predictions). A much higher proportion of experimental foxes had floppy ears, short or curly tails, extended reproductive seasons, changes in fur coloration, and changes in the shape of their skulls, jaws, and teeth. They also lost their "musky fox smell.". http://goo.gl... This shows change without doubt.

In conclusion Con has not shown any logic for Creationism. He has not even seemed to notice the evidence I've provided. He has failed to provide concrete evidence for his argument. I again have looked for evidence for Creation. I still have not had any luck. Actually I find it harder and harder to be a logical theory the more I look.
usernamesareannoying

Con

Prologue
I thank my opponent for this argument.

Burden of Proof
This was completely dropped. Hence my opponent concedes that I do not have a burden of proof in this debate. He continues to say that "the debate seems to be two sided", if that's the case, Pro still cannot drop my argument explaining why I don't have one. For this reason, he concedes this argument.

Aff
Since my opponent dodged the contention last round, I will reiterate it to his suiting:

"In my opponents arguments he does two things:
  • Provides rectitude for evolution
  • Says that there isn't any evidence for creationism

But this does not affirm the resolution. Why does it? My opponent missed a piece. His argument is depicted by this syllogism:"


P1: There is evidence for evolution

P2: There isn't evidence for creationism

C: Ergo, evolution is more logical

For the argument to actually affirm the resolution, it should assume this form:


P1: There is evidence for evolution

P2: There isn't any evidence for creationism

P3: If there is more evidence for evolution, then evolution is more logical than creationism

C: Ergo, evolution is more logical than creationism

As predicted, he cites an ipse dixit he says that it is more logical because evolution is not written in an old book. This evidently doesn't suffice. What is the justification for that?

Pro has not successfully proven that creationism isn't a logical alternative for evolution... He repeatedly states: "it's written in an old book", "it isn't science", "there's no proof". Without correlation (justification from the third premise) there is nothing linking the premises to the conclusion.


Creationism

"To clear up confusion, what I'm saying is, because of the abundance of research and evidence to support evolution it is a more logical theory than Creationism which has lack of research or evidence that supports it. That is the my objective comparison."


But why is that? Why? Why do you come to the conclusion that it must be more logical if it has more evidence for it? This is an ipse dixit as you did not provide necessary justification for it. I can say the opposite - creationism is more logical as it has less evidence for it. His objective comparison lacks coherency and is a bare assertion.


"I thank you Con for confirming that there is not any evidence for creationism."

When did I do this?


"In this case I actually am the source explaining that I can not find any real evidence. "

This is confirmation bias and an anecdotal fallacy - just because YOU cannot find evidence, doesn't mean that there isn't any. I provided an argument last round - that's evidence.


"Is Con suggesting that Creation is real by this statement."

No I am not, I need not prove creationism to be real.



"And if Con says abiogenesis provides the origin of life. Why then does he think Creationism is logic. Its one or the other."

What if God used abiogenesis to create life? Your logic dictates that when someone stabs someone to death, the person didn't murder the other person; the knife did.


"You ask why its not logical to believe something because its written in an old book. Okay I ask you, do you believe the Egyptian religion, or Greek, or Romans religion, or the Koran? How about Satanism? That's an old book, do you believe in that? My guess would be probably no."

I don't see how this proves creationism to be illogical.


"My logic is people tend to stick with the one religion taught to them by there guardian or parent, which learned from theirs, and so on."

No proof.


"Have any of the people ever stopped and tried to find proof for the these things they were taught?"

I did.


" A book Religion says is the word of God. But why doesn't this "God" with his all powerful, all wise, and all knowing fallibility. forget to include things in this really old book like, don't rape, don't torture, don't molest or abuse children. If this being "God" couldn't think of these horrible things as "sin" Why would it be logical to fallow his ideas? "

Maybe he didn't forget maybe he didn't need to use them. Just because you think of those things as sin, doesn't mean that they are objectively sinful.


"But if that's your view then you are saying the Bible is not the word of God. So if the Bible is written by man why is it logical to believe in God."

Your definition of creationism consists of the biblical account of divine creation - I can interpret the bible in any way I want, hence at bare minimum, all I need to believe is that a God is the creator of the universe.


"Saying there is a God because it's an easy way to explain something, not understood, is not logic."

You are referring to God of The Gaps, and I never used that argument anywhere.


KCA

My opponent merely states that all the listed premises are opinionated and non-factual. He accuses me of God of The Gaps. I stated that the cause must be transcendent, and that the only transcendent entity able to create the universe would be God. This was dropped.


" also before the big bang it's been speculated that our whole universe could have possible passed through a giant black hole, causing the singularity that exploded, after the black hole decomposed enough. Which could suggest its always been around."

This presupposes the multi-verse theory... Nonetheless, that cause is not transcendent so it doesn't explain the existence of all space-time matter and energy.


Pro has not refuted this argument - he attempts to dismiss everything with an ipse dixit and suggests a material cause for all material - an oxymoron.


Pro's Conclusion

"In conclusion Con has not shown any logic for Creationism. "

I didn't need to since you dropped the burden of proof argument.


"He has not even seemed to notice the evidence I've provided."

I acknowledged it, but I had proven that the evidence provided does not successfully affirm that creationism is less logical.


"He has failed to provide concrete evidence for his argument."

I didn't have an argument, or even if I did use the KCA, Pro doesn't successfully refute it.


"I again have looked for evidence for Creation. I still have not had any luck"

Anecdotal fallacy.


Conclusion

I used non-cognitivism to show that my opponent did not successfully correlate his premises to his conclusion. He did not prove (without committing an appeal to intuition fallacy) that if A has more evidence than B, then A is more logical than B.

I have professed that I did not have a burden of proof and that if I refute my opponent's arguments that I would win the debate. That wasn't touched by Pro.

The KCA was dismissed without evidence and the multi-verse theory doesn't explain how all of space-time, matter and energy came into creation ex nihilio.


Pro uses a lot of his characters providing more evidence for evolution, which I have shown no problem with. And Pro presents a lot of unneeded clarification about what a scientific theory is - it's a red herring.


I thank my opponent for this debate.







Debate Round No. 3
60 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
RFD:

This debate was pretty straightforward. Neither debater really addressed the bulk of the arguments made by the other, and so neither debater is going to win this solely by defeating the arguments of the other. But that doesn't end up mattering, since I'm asking myself one basic question by the end of the debate: is creationism a logical alternative to evolution? Really, the only argument I get from Pro in this regard is that evidence = logic, but there is one piece I'm missing: the link between evidence and logic. I get the argument that evidence affords some extra support for evolution, but does that mean that creationism isn't a logical alternative? I'm not clear on that. If this debate was about whether creationism is an empirically proven alternative to evolution, Pro's arguments might have held more sway. But what I needed was one of two things: I needed to know why Con's argument regarding the KCA was not logically superior or equivalent to the empirical evidence Pro was presenting, or I needed to know why empirical evidence always precludes other logical alternatives. The former would have required that Pro engage with the KCA, and the latter required a comparison of empiricism and rationalism, at least on a superficial level. Instead, Pro engages in the same kinds of rhetoric in R2 and R3, effectively ignoring the basic BoP requirements Pro heaped on him and putting his argument squarely in the crosshairs. That failure costs Pro this debate, thus I vote Con.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
Heh good luck in DDO mate.
Posted by Eye0pener 1 year ago
Eye0pener
How about next time debate the topic.
Posted by Eye0pener 1 year ago
Eye0pener
Right. Have fun with that then. Good luck to ya.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
Next time create a resolution with a shared BoP, ok?
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
If you are as intelligent as you claimed to be you would have actually argued why I have a BoP instead of dropping the argument in the last round. Regardless, I wasted *my time* providing the KCA (an off the record argument) to satisfy you anyway. And then you have the audacity to state that: 1) I should have had a BoP and: 2) I never argued? Get out of here.
Posted by Eye0pener 1 year ago
Eye0pener
Whats that have to do with you not being a creationist. You duct BoP trying to say I never stated it shared. In my opinion you should have debated under the statement, not against it. So BoP should have been shared because you did not even fallow what was in my opening argument. No worries though I will start the debate over and eventually I might actually get an argument.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
Many creationists say to look at it from their perspective...
Posted by Eye0pener 1 year ago
Eye0pener
You do realize i originally asked for the debate to be accepted by someone who believes in Creation.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
Indeed I do.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Eye0penerusernamesareannoyingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.