The Instigator
Dwint
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
TannerJK
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Creationism is not a reasonable theory

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Dwint
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,783 times Debate No: 49200
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (2)

 

Dwint

Pro

Hello! I will argue that Creationism is not a reasonable theory. I will be referring to Young Earth Creationism, that claims the Earth was created by God exactly as it is described in Genesis and denies evolution. If you want to accept this debate leave a comment.

Structure:
Round 1: acceptance
Round 2: arguments
Round 3: rebuttals
Round 4: conclusion
TannerJK

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Dwint

Pro

The biggest problem I see with creationism is that it is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Because the Bible was written a long time ago and our moral standards changed substantially in the last 2000 years, many stories from the Bible seem morally wrong. For example:
-god killed children because they mocked a prophet - 2 Kings 2:23-25 [1]
-almost any sin is punishable by death -Leviticus[2]
-god favors incest : God decided to only save one family from the Great Flood, thus favoring incest, when he could have just allow another woman to be saved
-god kills innocent people just because he is god - Exodus 12:12[7]
-god encourages slavery -Leviticus 25:44-46 [8]

These immoral actions of God from the Bible determined apologists to say the Bible is not meant to be taken literally[3] If the Bible is indeed not meant to be taken literally, then creationism is not reasonable, as it is based on a literal interpretation of a book that is not meant to be interpreted that way. Creationism can only exist if the Bible is meant to be taken literally.

If the Bible was indeed meant to be taken literally, then Creationism can exist. However, it can't be a reasonable theory because in order to exist, Creationism has to treat biblical stories as facts. Thanks to our progress in science we can now see that most Bible stories couldn't have happened, as they would break basic science facts. Here are a few examples:
-Noah's Ark - Genesis 5-10[4]
This is interesting because it's from the book Creationism is based on. There are plenty of things wrong with this story. First of all, one person could never gather animals from across oceans and transport them back in the Middle East. Also, how could penguins or polar bears survive in that climate?Imagine how huge the ark had to be. Fish wouldn't have survived that either and after the flood, the gene pool would have been far too small for all the species to continue to exist.[5]
-Lot and his daughters - Genesis 19.30-36[6]
Again, this is from the book Creationism in based on. This "and he perceived not when she lay down" suggest he was unconscious. An unconscious man could never even sustain an erection, so how did Lot even have sex with his daughters? Also, considering his age it would have been very unlikely for him to impregnate both of them the first time.
-Jacob and genetic mutations - Genesis 30:37-39[9]

We have two scenarios:

I. The Bible is meant to be taken literally - Young Earth Creationism is based on the literal interpretation of the Bible, therefore creationists claim the whole Bible is true, so they claim Noah's Ark and many other stories happened. This stories are not scientifically possible, therefore they are not reasonable, so Creationism is not reasonable.

II. The Bible is not meant to be taken literally - Young Earth Creationism is based on the literal interpretation of the Bible. If the Bible is a metaphor, then it's not reasonable to take any part of it literally, so Creationism is again, not reasonable.

In conclusion, creationism is an unreasonable theory.

[1]https://www.bible.com......
[2]https://www.bible.com......
[3]http://www.christianbiblereference.org......
[4]https://www.bible.com......
[5]http://rationalwiki.org......
[6]https://www.bible.com......
[7]https://www.bible.com......
[8]https://www.bible.com......
[9]https://www.bible.com......
TannerJK

Con

TannerJK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Dwint

Pro

I hope my opponent can come back. I was really looking forward to this.
TannerJK

Con

TannerJK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Dwint

Pro

That's it then.
TannerJK

Con

TannerJK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Defender1999 3 years ago
Defender1999
'Another example of such disingenuous phraseology is' The Separation of Church and State". The phrase draws its own conclusions on behalf of the listener. The actual language is "The Establishment clause".
Its ashamed that even the Christian patriot has not only adopted the atheists vernacular, they even now believe it.'

My apologies but is this comment is meant to poke fun at me and to insult me directly? Are you offering a direct rebuttal to my claims that "evolution is a religion; creationism is a religion"?

To Dwint,
Critics fall at a stumbling block of "Literal and figurative" interpretation and are thus creating all sorts of straw man about creationists. No, neither do believers nor creationists even believe in such things. Rather we advocate plain reading of Scripture- basing the ideas directly off the text. If you cannot understand this, then that would be a problem since this is a kind of a concept we learn in English of interpreting texts. While it caters for its own readers' interpretation, one must acknowledge the original meaning of the text.

If you have a problem with morality in the Bible then you have to come up with an explanation whether evolution can explain morality better than the Bible. Why should we expect evolution and morality go hand in hand? Evolution cares just about survival and what you do is just for survival whether moral or immoral. Rules are decided by the one who holds and make them, to every individual in himself.

Also, consider such rampant promotion of abortion and homosexuality and rampant immorality in Hollywood we see everywhere. Why expect as if 201st century man's standards are superior to God?

Can you also explain to me why I should expect that an ape be a close relative to me and I come from a pool of bacteria? You and me?
Posted by maxtr 3 years ago
maxtr
"""Defener;
Stop using the word "Creationism" and replace it with the word creation, what would you feel if I change the word "evolution" to "evolutionism"? Clearly a deceptive tactic and bait-and-switch. Nowhere do I contend that even evolution is science, it's not, but a religion in the guise of science."""

Another example of such disingenuous phraseology is' The Separation of Church and State". The phrase draws its own conclusions on behalf of the listener. The actual language is "The Establishment clause".
Its ashamed that even the Christian patriot has not only adopted the atheists vernacular, they even now believe it.
Posted by Defender1999 3 years ago
Defender1999
andymcstab,

Creationists have already answered the objection that Augustine don't take Genesis "literally". Augustine was not an old-earth but a Biblical creationists believing in one-day creation that God made everything all in one day. http://creation.com... While Augustine did accept the Biblical authority but not entirely in the sense when it comes to one-day creation.
Posted by Seanf007 3 years ago
Seanf007
I'd love to debate, but I don't meet your age and/or rank criteria.
Posted by IQok 3 years ago
IQok
I would love to debate it but your rank and age criteria will not allow it.. Change it and lets get er done!!! LOL
Posted by grandmaster108 3 years ago
grandmaster108
I'm a Christian but I can't accept this debate due to I don't meet your rank criteria
Posted by TannerJK 3 years ago
TannerJK
I would live to debate this with you. I am a strong creationist. Also, we both are 14 so that would make it interesting since we are debating so done who is our age.
Posted by andymcstab 3 years ago
andymcstab
No, defender. St Augustine in the 5th century argued that the Genesis narrative need not be taken literally.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Defender1999 3 years ago
Defender1999
Dwint,

I do agree with you at this point even a skeptic like you, the fact is you know the implications of evolution or millions of years and they cannot be reconciled with the Bible. The Bible argues strict RECENT creation and no millions of years. Genesis was clearly understood to be SIX literal days ad how it was read. It changed only in Lyell and Hutton's time.
Posted by Defender1999 3 years ago
Defender1999
To msheahan99,

I wish to debate you on Old-Earth Creationism of course, but as a high school student, I am fraught with other priorities as well. This is not an excuse, you don't like the burden of homework upon you. Please state if you are a Christian, and if that is so, I'll be willing to debate on it (no use on debating on Old-Earth Creationists if of different religion, has to be the same beliefs so it would be easier to understand one's argument. So instead of debate, we can message each other instead and I'll reply if we may have time. It's not cowardice, I'm on strict budget of time.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
DwintTannerJKTied
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: FF. Probably argument and sources too, but I don't read the whole content of full forfeits.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
DwintTannerJKTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: concession