The Instigator
theta_pinch
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
bubbatheclown
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Creationism is scientific

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 1 vote the winner is...
theta_pinch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,160 times Debate No: 45542
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

theta_pinch

Con

In the forums you said that creationism is scientific.
Pro has the burden of proof.
bubbatheclown

Pro

Since there are 5 rounds, I'll just consider the first round to be for acceptance, though I might post a little something.

The truth is, I am not science oriented at all. I am more right brained than I am right wing, which says a lot. In fact, my biggest hobby is writing stories on my computer. I'm currently writing a sci-fi novel, and I've written more than 300 pages of it.
I don't know that much about science or math. In fact, half of the time when I'm talking about Creationism I don't completely understand what my opponents are saying. However, so that I don't look bad, I've accepted this challenge and I'll try to do the best I can. I'll probably lose, but hopefully I'll put up a good fight.

First of all, I would like to say that Theistic Evolution is incompatible with several religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. All of these teach the Earth was created in just a few days, literal 24 hour days. If you deny this is true, then effectively you are denying Christianity, Judaism, and/or Islam.
Debate Round No. 1
theta_pinch

Con

ONE REASON WHY CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENTIFIC

It's core assumption is that God exists and the bible is correct.

NOTE TO PRO: Since you have the burden of proof you need to prove that creation is scientific rather than just providing a rebuttal to my argument.
bubbatheclown

Pro

"It's core assumption is that God exists and the bible is correct."

Not necessarily. Though most Creationists are Christian, a large variety of religions believe that the Universe was created by God. Therefore, it's not Christian-exclusive, though it may certainly seem that way at times.
You imply that the belief in God is not scientific. Is it unscientific to believe in a higher power? I think not.

Now that I gave a rebuttal, I'll move on to the business of proving Creationism is scientific.

Okay, let's see. It's scientific if it makes predictions and it uses evidence to support its cause. Creationism uses evidence. We don't simply make this stuff up. We use the evidence to help our cause. We look at the fossils and the lack of transitional fossils and the complexity of life and other factors as evidence. It's almost as scientific as it is religious.

As for predictions...I've said it before and I'll say it once more, until somebody answers me on this subject: the Rapid Decay Theory. It has been accurate on multiple different planets. It accurately predicted that this planet has a magnetic field, this planet doesn't, this planet used to, and stuff like that. The Dynamo Theory has been wrong before where the Rapid Decay Theory has been right. And there's plenty more out there.

So, we use evidence and we make predictions. Sounds relatively scientific to me. HOWEVER, we will not abandon the overall conclusion, that this Universe was created. We will never stop believing in this. However, we don't have blind faith in this. We gather evidence to support our cause. And if there is an objection to Creationism, we will find a way to defend our theory, with science. Of course, if we were ever backed into a corner and there was no way to defend ourselves scientifically, we could always rely upon the contention that it was a miracle. However, we don't typically do this, except in regards to the Creation of the Universe and planet Earth, and maybe a few other cases such as Noah's Flood.

Yeah, I know all that was probably kind of weak. But like I said, I'm not a scientist, and I have very little scientific knowledge.

P.S. Please answer my contention on the Dynamo Theory and the Rapid Decay Theory.
Debate Round No. 2
theta_pinch

Con

Before I proceed with my rebuttal I'd like to show what a scientific theory is:


1. It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).

2. It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.

3.It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.

4. It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.

5. It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations.

To be considered scientific it must fulfill the first three(and hopefully the last 2) criteria. If it fails any one of the first three it's not a theory.

We look at the fossils and the lack of transitional fossils and the complexity of life and other factors as evidence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Basically not finding evidence for something isn't evidence that it doesn't exist because there is the possibility that you just didn't find it. Therefore lack of transitional fossils is not evidence(however we HAVE found transitional fossils.) As for the complexity of life: complexity doesn't imply a designer. For example snowflakes are incredibly complex but no one says they were designed.



As for predictions...I've said it before and I'll say it once more, until somebody answers me on this subject: the Rapid Decay Theory. It has been accurate on multiple different planets. It accurately predicted that this planet has a magnetic field, this planet doesn't, this planet used to, and stuff like that. The Dynamo Theory has been wrong before where the Rapid Decay Theory has been right. And there's plenty more out there.

RAPID DECAY THEORY:
1. It has been proven that the magnetic field fluctuates over thousands of years invalidating the idea of a magnetic field half-life.
2. The supposed half-life was gained using 150 years of data; not nearly enough for a prediction of activity over geological time scales.

I'd also like to point out that Dynamo Theory has progressed quite far since the discovery of the error in it's prediction. In the present it IS actually able to predict the magnetic field of Uranus which it failed on decades ago. Lending credit to the revised dynamo theory is that when the data is set in a simulation, it replicates magnetic reversals; something the rapid decay theory can't do.

So, we use evidence and we make predictions. Sounds relatively scientific to me.

Unfortunately for creationism, the criteria for a scientific theory is that it must be consistantly accurate across a broad field of scientific inquiry. Because of this it has not yet fulfilled any of the criteria.

HOWEVER, we will not abandon the overall conclusion, that this Universe was created. We will never stop believing in this.

Due to this it fails the 4th criterion taking away from its scientific merit.

However, we don't have blind faith in this. We gather evidence to support our cause. And if there is an objection to Creationism, we will find a way to defend our theory, with science.

The problem with the above statement is that that evidence often has more parsimonius explanations and often times the evidence gathered is outdated or uses unreliable methods. A good example of this is Helium dating; it is used as evidence by creationists over radiometric dating despite the fact that it is less reliable. So while it does attempt to gather evidence; that evidence is often times unreliable and not repeatedly tested failing criterion 1 and 2.Often times the science used to defend creationism is twisted and misrepresented.

Of course, if we were ever backed into a corner and there was no way to defend ourselves scientifically, we could always rely upon the contention that it was a miracle.

This alone makes it unscientific.

However, we don't typically do this, except in regards to the Creation of the Universe and planet Earth, and maybe a few other cases such as Noah's Flood.

Meaning that it is unscientific because the evidence by your own admittal is NOT consistently accurate.

CONCLUSION
Creationism has not fulfilled any of the criteria as of now.

PSEUDOSCIENCE: Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

CRITERION FOR IDENTIFYING SOMETHING AS PSEUDOSCIENCE


Vague and/or exaggerated claims and ambiguous languageOne of the easiest ways to avoid being proven false is to not make any specific claims at all. Predictions in science are all about specificity and exactness. Operational definitions have to be clearly defined and shared; what you are measuring, how you will measure it and how you will determine if any results are significant are all hallmarks of good science. Pseudoscientific claims are never specific but rely on vague and ambiguous language, often encompassing grandiose claims.


Lack of peer review, and claims of vast establishment conspiraciesDEFINITELY! Young Earth Creationists constantly claim that peer review is rigged and won't submit for peer review.

Stasis, and hostility towards development or change of the ideaPseudoscience is embraced by its proponents with almost religious fervor. Since the idea can never be wrong, there is very little that needs to be changed or should be changed.

I think pro's statement says it all here: "HOWEVER, we will not abandon the overall conclusion, that this Universe was created. We will never stop believing in this."

Misuse of scientific terms

One of the easiest ways to gain the trappings of science is to describe pseudoscience using the words of science, or terms that sound scientific.

Baraminology; a term invented to replace "kinds." It sounds scientific but is essentially the same thing as "kinds."

Misrepresentation of termsThey frequently refer to macro-evolution as a completely different process than micro-evolution while in reality they are the same process.


Poor standards of evidence

In science evidence is valued when it is collected in a rigorous manner and is as divorced as possible from personal bias. pseudoscience promoters are only interested in evidence that confirms the initial idea. This confirmation bias means that any evidence that might contradict the theory is ignored.

Confirmation bias is readily apparent. Creationists like to take people with PhD's who support them and use it as support for their ideas completely ignoring the vastly greater number who don't believe in creationism. In addition they repeatedly ignore most modern studies instead preferring older ones that support their claim.

Reliance on outdated or later refuted scholarly works

Sometimes a pseudoscience supporter will present an scholarly article from a work in the related field as "proof" that the claim is not pseudoscientific even via further research it can be shown that one study was a glitch.

ABSOLUTELY! It repeatedly makes claims based on outdated and later refuted works. For example rapid decay theory is outdated and has been refuted.NOTE: it was refuted by proving that the Earth's magnetic field does not exponentially decay.

Ideas are unfalsifiableHere's how it goes(even according to pro:) if we can't explain it scientifically we'll simply invoke a miracle to explain it. Therefore it is impossible to falsify because everything that it can't explain(such as how Noah had enough room for all the animals on the ark) is attributed to a miracle.


Clear political and religious motivation

A huge red "pseudoscience flag" should go up when an idea is pushed against the backdrop of a strong agenda that has nothing to do with the idea being proposed at all. This is most easily seen with creationism and intelligent design where the "science" is an afterthought to the general battle between "evil materialism" and religion. This can often be seen when an individual suddenly starts promoting a pseudoscientific idea shortly after a major political or religious conversion, or a list of "supporters" of an idea are all unified in some sort of philosophy or religion.

Well it's based on the bible so it's pretty much impossible for it not to have clear religious motivation.

CONCLUSION 2
Creationism is a poorly disguised pseudoscience. This is shown by the fact that it obviously is a religious idea in addition to it fitting all the criteria for pseudoscience.

SOURCES:
http://rationalwiki.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
bubbatheclown

Pro

I apologize if I kept you waiting. The other night I was posting my argument. I was doing pretty good and I even did a little research! But alas, my computer deleted what I wrote. So I decided to get back to it at a later time, which is now.
Before I continue, I ask Pro to use a normal font if he can. There's something chaotic about the font that he is using.

After thinking over what you've said, I concede this statement but I do not concede victory to you. I concede that Creationism is not a scientific theory but rather a historical theory, pertaining to a supernatural event that occurred in the past. Given the event's supernatural nature it cannot be recreated in a laboratory. However, to prove creationism, science is used, and I will attempt to prove that the methodology used by creationist scientists is scientific.
With that said, I will begin. Since my opponent considers Creationism to be inseparably linked to Christianity and the Bible, though this is not necessarily the case, I consider myself permitted to use the Bible in my arguments, unless my opponent states otherwise.

In his previous post my opponent gave me the accepted definition of a scientific theory:
1. "It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics)."
Since it pertains to an event that happened in the past, this one is relatively difficult. However, the Bible has made some scientific predictions that have come true.
For instance, the Bible has stated that the Earth is a sphere, and that is "hangs on nothing." If you don't believe me, I encourage you to look through the Bible yourself. It also says that the Universe is "stretched out like a tent." Scientists generally agree that the Universe is expanding. In the Old Testament it also ordered that people with diseases like leprosy be cast out of communities. Today we quarantine people with transmittable deadly illnesses.
So, I think it accomplishes this first one pretty well.

2/3. "It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct."
All right then. The Bible is also supported by archaeological evidence.
For instance, take Belshazzar, the last King of Babylon mentioned in the Bible. Secular historians used this account as an excuse to mock the Bible, because there were no records of a King Belshazzar. They already knew who the king of Babylon was at the time. His name was Nabonidus, I think it was. And then one day...BAM! They found a cylinder talking about Belshazzar. It turned out he was the king's son, and that he ruled Babylon together with his father. It was a co-regency.
And then there were the Hittites. There was a time when secular historians thought that the Hittites never existed, and that the Bible was just making it up. And then one day...BAM! They found evidence confirming the existence of the Hittites.
Therefore, since the Bible is supported by both science and history, it's fair to say that the Bible meets this second criteria.

4. "It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time."
Unfortunately, since the Bible never changes, it cannot be modified through new evidence. But thankfully, it doesn't need to. The arguments used to defend it change, but the Bible itself doesn't.
So perhaps it doesn't meet this one so well.

5. "It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations."
I don't know what this one means.

Now that I've given some kind of answer to all of your definitions of a scientific theory, I will move on.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
I couldn't agree more. Therefore God's invisibility doesn't disprove His existence. But still, archaeologists have been searching for decades now. You'd think that they'd find a transitional fossil.

"RAPID DECAY THEORY:

1."It has been proven that the magnetic field fluctuates over thousands of years invalidating the idea of a magnetic field half-life.
2. The supposed half-life was gained using 150 years of data; not nearly enough for a prediction of activity over geological time scales."

This is what you've said. First of all, I'd like to thank you for answering my contention on the Rapid Decay Theory. You're the first person I know of to have answered me when I talked about this.
However, as for the Rapid Decay Theory not really being right, well, it did accurately predict what was happening on those planets, right? That would seem to suggest that it should at least be examined. But perhaps you're right.

You said some other stuff as well, also something about Helium dating. You evolutionists sure do like to say that your theories have been "proven" or that creationist arguments have been "proven" wrong. However, creationists have come up with models to challenge carbon dating.

Anyhow, I'll move on to what you define as pseudoscience.

"Vague and/or exaggerated claims and ambiguous languageOne of the easiest ways to avoid being proven false is to not make any specific claims at all. Predictions in science are all about specificity and exactness. Operational definitions have to be clearly defined and shared; what you are measuring, how you will measure it and how you will determine if any results are significant are all hallmarks of good science. Pseudoscientific claims are never specific but rely on vague and ambiguous language, often encompassing grandiose claims."

The bad spelling aside, doesn't it seem the tiniest bit suspicious to you that they set up their definitions of pseudoscience around creationism and anything conservative, with a definite and visible Left Wing bias?
But anyhow, creationism makes few predictions because it refers to something that happened in the past. When guessing who's going to win a Presidential election you don't factor in something that happened in Ancient Rome, do you? And we don't use ambiguous language either. I'll say it plainly: we believe the Universe or at least the Planet Earth was created 6000 years ago by a Deity, which most Creationists believe to be the God of the Bible. That wasn't vague at all, if you ask me.

"Lack of peer review, and claims of vast establishment conspiraciesDEFINITELY! Young Earth Creationists constantly claim that peer review is rigged and won't submit for peer review."

Once again the spelling is atrocious. And we don't conceal the evidence. Anybody's allowed to read creationist papers. However, we don't submit our papers to the "peers" because guess who the "peers" are. You guessed it: hardcore evolutionists. And this is not just a claim. The only way it would be just a claim was if most scientists were not hardcore evolutionists who refuse to accept even the possibility of YEC.

"Stasis, and hostility towards development or change of the ideaPseudoscience is embraced by its proponents with almost religious fervor. Since the idea can never be wrong, there is very little that needs to be changed or should be changed."

Once again I can smell the bias on whoever defined pseudoscience, and just about every other buzzword liberals and evolutionists alike enjoy using. As a religious Book, of course the Bible cannot be altered! But as I've stated, the arguments used to defend Creationism can. Thus, Creationist arguments can change with new evidence. Anything can change except for the overall conclusion.
If you think this is unscientific, many evolutionists (such as Richard Dawkins) do the same. Their arguments may change, but they will never accept the possibility of a God, especially not the Biblical God. I don't know whether you personally could accept the possibility of God or not, but many evolutionists won't.

"One of the easiest ways to gain the trappings of science is to describe pseudoscience using the words of science, or terms that sound scientific."
First of all, evolutionists do not have a monopoly on science. It's not like you guys bought the rights to science.
Second, it's only pseudoscience because you guys say it's pseudoscience.
Third, they are legitimate theories. The Rapid Decay Theory was a legitimate theory, at least for a time, if it isn't still.

"Misrepresentation of termsThey frequently refer to macro-evolution as a completely different process than micro-evolution while in reality they are the same process."

Atrocious grammar aside yet again, a dog can become another breed of dog, but a dog will never become a cat or a cow.

"Poor standards of evidence
In science evidence is valued when it is collected in a rigorous manner and is as divorced as possible from personal bias. pseudoscience promoters are only interested in evidence that confirms the initial idea. This confirmation bias means that any evidence that might contradict the theory is ignored."

And you're saying all those anti-theist evolutionists like Dawkins have no personal bias? Ha!

I'll move on to "Clear Political and Religious Motivation."

"A huge red "pseudoscience flag" should go up when an idea is pushed against the backdrop of a strong agenda that has nothing to do with the idea being proposed at all. This is most easily seen with creationism and intelligent design where the "science" is an afterthought to the general battle between "evil materialism" and religion. This can often be seen when an individual suddenly starts promoting a pseudoscientific idea shortly after a major political or religious conversion, or a list of "supporters" of an idea are all unified in some sort of philosophy or religion."

Yes, but Creationism and ID are not necessarily Christian, though about 90% of Creationists are. Anyhow, we'll admit that it is from a religious viewpoint. That doesn't make it wrong.

P.S. The scientific consensus which you adore once thought that Jews were subhuman.

Sources:
A. Something I heard on the radio
B. Some Wikipedia
Debate Round No. 3
theta_pinch

Con

Since it pertains to an event that happened in the past, this one is relatively difficult. However, the Bible has made some scientific predictions that have come true.
For instance, the Bible has stated that the Earth is a sphere, and that is "hangs on nothing."

That was common knowledge back then and now.

If you don't believe me, I encourage you to look through the Bible yourself. It also says that the Universe is "stretched out like a tent."

Space was considered flat back then; this is not anything special.

Scientists generally agree that the Universe is expanding. In the Old Testament it also ordered that people with diseases like leprosy be cast out of communities.

It shouldn't take long for people in a tribe to realize that keeping certain sick people near them makes others sick. This is not anything special either.

Today we quarantine people with transmittable deadly illnesses.

So, I think it accomplishes this first one pretty well.

None of these "predictions" are anything special to the Hebrews. In addition all this proves is that people back then knew those things; it doesn't logically follow that Genesis is an accurate historical account of the formation of life and the universe. This is the fallacy of composition.

Therefore, since the Bible is supported by both science and history, it's fair to say that the Bible meets this second criteria.

How abou we take a look at these quotes:

"There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a gap in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine's tenth century. One cannot speak historically of a state without a population. Nor can one speak of a capital without a town. Stories are not enough."--Thomas L. Thompson; a leading biblical archaeological scholar.

AND

"Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so."[27] From the beginnings of what we call biblical archaeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archaeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archaeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archaeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.[28]

Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence...--William G. Dever; a leading biblical archaeologist.

AND

Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog:

"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."

I couldn't agree more. Therefore God's invisibility doesn't disprove His existence. But still, archaeologists have been searching for decades now. You'd think that they'd find a transitional fossil.

While transitional fossils aren't relevant to this debate here's some evidence for them (NOTE: this is only one out of many examples):http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
This lists more: http://www.talkorigins.org...

However, as for the Rapid Decay Theory not really being right, well, it did accurately predict what was happening on those planets, right? That would seem to suggest that it should at least be examined. But perhaps you're right.

One of the most important criterion for a theory is that it MUST be consistent with ALL available evidence or else it's falsified. Unfortunately for Rapid Decay "Theory" it is inconsistent with evidence over a longer time scale.

You said some other stuff as well, also something about Helium dating. You evolutionists sure do like to say that your theories have been "proven" or that creationist arguments have been "proven" wrong. However, creationists have come up with models to challenge carbon dating.

Carbon Dating has been crosschecked thousands of times with tree rings and it has pased every test so creationists also have to deny tree ring dating which they don't deny. Also if there models were scientifically accurate they would've passed peer review. Not a single on has.

The bad spelling aside, doesn't it seem the tiniest bit suspicious to you that they set up their definitions of pseudoscience around creationism and anything conservative, with a definite and visible Left Wing bias?
No.

But anyhow, creationism makes few predictions because it refers to something that happened in the past.

In science predictions can also refer to EFFECTS of the event/phenomenon. What effects does it predict we should find if creation occurred?

Once again the spelling is atrocious. And we don't conceal the evidence. Anybody's allowed to read creationist papers. However, we don't submit our papers to the "peers" because guess who the "peers" are. You guessed it: hardcore evolutionists. And this is not just a claim. The only way it would be just a claim was if most scientists were not hardcore evolutionists who refuse to accept even the possibility of YEC.

Hence you just proved it qualifies for lack of peer review and claims of vast conspiracies. It doesn't matter who your peers are; if you used sound methodology and proper procedures then it will get past peer review.

Once again I can smell the bias on whoever defined pseudoscience, and just about every other buzzword liberals and evolutionists alike enjoy using. As a religious Book, of course the Bible cannot be altered! But as I've stated, the arguments used to defend Creationism can. Thus, Creationist arguments can change with new evidence. Anything can change except for the overall conclusion.

These aren't biased criteria. Arguments changing doesn't count as being able to change for new evidence. It's the theory that must be able to change; not the arguments. You've just proved this criterion.

If you think this is unscientific, many evolutionists (such as Richard Dawkins) do the same. Their arguments may change, but they will never accept the possibility of a God.

Yes they will.......When they are presented with evidence.

First of all, evolutionists do not have a monopoly on science. It's not like you guys bought the rights to science.
Second, it's only pseudoscience because you guys say it's pseudoscience.

No; it's pseudoscience because it doesn't adhere to a valid scientific method among other criteria. The criteria for pseudoscience were based off of science.

Atrocious grammar aside yet again, a dog can become another breed of dog, but a dog will never become a cat or a cow.

You're right a dog will never become a cat or cow. However their usage of macro-evolution and micro-evolution are misrepresenting the terms.

And you're saying all those anti-theist evolutionists like Dawkins have no personal bias? Ha!

That's where peer review and repetition comes in.


Yes, but Creationism and ID are not necessarily Christian, though about 90% of Creationists are. Anyhow, we'll admit that it is from a religious viewpoint. That doesn't make it wrong.

It doesn't prove it wrong but it does show that there is likely to be a lot of bias.

P.S. The scientific consensus which you adore once thought that Jews were subhuman.

That is irrelevant and an appeal to emotion fallacy.

CONCLUSION
I proved that creationism does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory. I showed the bible's historical inaccuracy. Finally most of con's arguments against it being pseudoscience actually support that conclusion, and the ones that didn't support my conclusion I succesfully refuted.

SOURCES
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
bubbatheclown

Pro

You've been a good opponent. I only hope you consider my arguments to be worthy of refuting. As stated before, my brain is not scientific. And thank you for changing your font.
All right, let's do this thing.

You started out by saying that a spherical earth was common knowledge in Bible times. I don't appreciate you starting out with an outright lie. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on "Flat Earth" and you'll find that the Ancient Jews, Egyptians, and Mesopotamian peoples thought that the Earth was a flat disc, as did the Greeks until the 6th century BC. The Chinese, a brilliant people, believed this as late as 1595, according to a Jesuit missionary named Matteo Ricci. The Wikipedia article on "Spherical Earth" says it started with the Greeks. And please don't give me poop about Wikipedia not being a reliable source.
As for the Earth hanging on nothing, the Greeks thought the Earth floated in the water. The people of India thought the Earth was held up by elephants, and the Native Americans believed in a world turtle. Almost nobody at that time believed that the Earth literally hung on nothing.

Then, you said that space was considered flat. This is true, but I don't know if they believed in an expanding universe.

Then, you said "It shouldn't take long for people in a tribe to realize that keeping certain sick people near them makes others sick. This is not anything special either."
You would think so, but it took a while for the Medieval Europeans to figure this out during the Black Death. Just keep in mind that nobody knew about germs back then. Back then everybody thought that angry spirits caused illnesses.

Then, you said "none of these "predictions" are anything special to the Hebrews. In addition all this proves is that people back then knew those things; it doesn't logically follow that Genesis is an accurate historical account of the formation of life and the universe. This is the fallacy of composition." Actually, if other civilizations didn't know this stuff, why would the Bible?
At least there were some genius scientists assisting its creation, but I doubt this.

Next, you quoted somebody named William G. Dever, who made the claim that the Kingdom of Israel did not exist. Hmm...what a bold claim. Listen to these statements from an article of CBN:

"In 1868, a stone tablet was discovered in Jordan. It was written by a Moabite king named Mesha, an enemy of Israel.
The stone dates to around 840 BC, less than 200 years after David and it provides the first known reference to the "House of David" outside the Bible.
"And 'House of David,' it means 'dynasty of David.' So we know that there was a guy called David, and he had a dynasty," Garfinkel said. "Okay, so now this is absolutely clear that David is not a mythological figure. So the mythological paradigm collapsed in one moment."
More than a hundred years later the same phrase, "House of David," turned up on another stone, this time in northern Israel.
It was written about 200 years after David's rule -- again, by one of Israel's enemies, Hazel, the king of Damascus. "He said, I killed 70 kings. I killed a king from Israel and a king from the House of David," Garfinkel explained.
One of David's greatest victories took place in the valley of Elah. This is where the young shepherd boy killed the giant Goliath, and it's one of the few places where you can still catch a glimpse of the Israel that David knew.
Nearby are the ruins of the Philistine city of Gath, the hometown of Goliath and the remains of the brook where David found the stone that killed him.
And high above the valley is a fortress that's thousands of years old to the local Bedouin. This place is still known as "Khirbet Daoud" or "David's Ruin." It's the only iron age city in Israel that's perfectly preserved and almost frozen in time.
"For us as archaeologists, this is one of the richest sites in Israel. This is like a biblical Pompeii," Garfinkel said.
The Hebrew name is "Khirbet Qeiyafa" or "Fortress of Elah." Garfinkel first uncovered the city in 2007. He recovered some burnt olive pits from the site and sent them to Oxford University for carbon-dating. The results surprised even Garfinkel himself. "It turns out that this beautiful city and all the finds is from about 1020 to 980 BC, and this is exactly the time of King David," he said.
In David's day, the Valley of Elah served as a neutral zone between the Israelites and the Philistines. In Qeiyafa, which was right on the frontlines, excavators discovered a large cache of weapons.
"We are shedding some light on the story of David and Goliath. We are in the same location, in the same time the city is heavily fortified. We have all these weapons, so I'm telling you that this indeed was an area of conflict between two political units," Garfinkel said.
In the Bible, this fortress is mentioned with a diferent name, Sha'Araym, "The city of two gates." In 1 Samuel 17, Sha'Araym is the place where the Philistines fled after David killed Goliath.
"Sha'Arayim means in Hebrew "two gates." In KQ, we have two gates. So if you take the biblical tradition, the location, the chronology, the meaning of the name -- all these aspects fit Qeiyafa perfectly," Garfinkel said."

Excuse the poor grammar. But my point is, King David did exist, and he did rule over the Kingdom of Israel. That must burn!!
Then you mentioned something from a guy named Ze'ev Herzog. Well, not that the exerpt from the above article didn't clear this up, but according to Wikipedia, his latest work is from 2004, All his other works are from the 1980s and 1990s. As for God "having a wife," even if this were true, it would've been an example of Israeli idolatry, not the original religion of the Bible.

Now we're moving out of the archaeological domain and into the scientific domain. I'll probably butcher this part, but maybe not.

Next you provided a link to an article concerning the flatfish. But how do you know this isn't simply another breed of flatfish? I'd hardly call it a transitional fossil.
Your second source was much better. But how do you know that all that stuff are transitional fossils? Like before, they could just be extinct breeds of various animals. And if all that stuff are actually transitional forms, why don't evolutionists flaunt it like they flaunt the fossil record and tree rings and the ice cores?

Aw man, I'm running out of characters. I'll try to cover as many more as I can.

"One of the most important criterion for a theory is that it MUST be consistent with ALL available evidence or else it's falsified. Unfortunately for Rapid Decay "Theory" it is inconsistent with evidence over a longer time scale."
Yeah, well it hasn't been proven wrong yet.

"Carbon Dating has been crosschecked thousands of times with tree rings and it has pased every test so creationists also have to deny tree ring dating which they don't deny. Also if there models were scientifically accurate they would've passed peer review. Not a single on has."
Wow, what a claim. But here's the thing: light has actually been slowed down by scientists to less than 100 MPH. Therefore, light having been a different speed in the past is very possible. So carbon dating too could change with time, methinks.

Next, you said that evolutionist scientists are not biased. Look, everybody has a bias. Just about every movie has an Aesop, left or right wing in nature. The News is definitely biased. Fox News and MSNBC are not the only examples of a biased media. The scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, are most definitely biased in some way or another. Richard Dawkins is notoriously biased and anti-theistic. He would never accept the existence of God. No matter what evidence you show him he will find a way around it.
The peer reviews will always reject creationist papers. They will work around the clock to find some fault to pin on it.

You said some stuff about logical fallacies and pseudoscience.
Finally, you said that my Post Scriptum was an "appeal to emotion." I wasn't trying to demonize scientists. I'm simply saying you cannot always trust the scientific community's conclusions as fact, especially when they have a bias. And many of those scientists have an anti-creationist bias.

There it is. I finally posted my argument for Round 4. That Wikipedia wouldn't let me enter it until I clicked the button 40 times or so. Anyway, I await your response.
Debate Round No. 4
theta_pinch

Con

You started out by saying that a spherical earth was common knowledge in Bible times. I don't appreciate you starting out with an outright lie.

I just did and it turned out I was wrong.

As for the Earth hanging on nothing, the Greeks thought the Earth floated in the water. The people of India thought the Earth was held up by elephants, and the Native Americans believed in a world turtle. Almost nobody at that time believed that the Earth literally hung on nothing.

It appears I was wrong here too.

Then, you said "It shouldn't take long for people in a tribe to realize that keeping certain sick people near them makes others sick. This is not anything special either."
You would think so, but it took a while for the Medieval Europeans to figure this out during the Black Death. Just keep in mind that nobody knew about germs back then. Back then everybody thought that angry spirits caused illnesses.

Well if we're talking about the dark ages that's not much of a surprise since a lot of knowledge had been lost.

Actually, if other civilizations didn't know this stuff, why would the Bible?
At least there were some genius scientists assisting its creation, but I doubt this.

A similar question would be "if other civilizations didn't know how to make underwater concrete, why would the Romans?
Ancient cultures are constantly surprising us with their knowledge; one example would be the antikythera mechanism which had gears 1500 years too early. There is still no reason to think that it was God who gave them these ideas.

Next, you quoted somebody named William G. Dever, who made the claim that the Kingdom of Israel did not exist.

I can't find that claim in the William G. Dever quote I gave.

Then you mentioned something from a guy named Ze'ev Herzog. Well, not that the exerpt from the above article didn't clear this up, but according to Wikipedia, his latest work is from 2004, All his other works are from the 1980s and 1990s. As for God "having a wife," even if this were true, it would've been an example of Israeli idolatry, not the original religion of the Bible.

The age doesn't matter since it hasn't been disproved what he said.


Next you provided a link to an article concerning the flatfish. But how do you know this isn't simply another breed of flatfish? I'd hardly call it a transitional fossil.
Your second source was much better. But how do you know that all that stuff are transitional fossils? Like before, they could just be extinct breeds of various animals. And if all that stuff are actually transitional forms, why don't evolutionists flaunt it like they flaunt the fossil record and tree rings and the ice cores?

This isn't relevant to this debate so I won't say anything more about this than this: we know because they exhibit traits form both their ancestral group and descendant group.

Wow, what a claim. But here's the thing: light has actually been slowed down by scientists to less than 100 MPH. Therefore, light having been a different speed in the past is very possible. So carbon dating too could change with time, methinks.

Yes they have slowed light down that much but it wasn't in a vacuum where it is supposed to be constant so that doesn't make it any more likely. Radioactive decay on the otherhand doesn't change in any known condition.

Next, you said that evolutionist scientists are not biased. Look, everybody has a bias.

That is not what I was saying. I was saying that pseudoscience promoters ONLY care about evidence that supports their claims.

Finally, you said that my Post Scriptum was an "appeal to emotion." I wasn't trying to demonize scientists. I'm simply saying you cannot always trust the scientific community's conclusions as fact, especially when they have a bias. And many of those scientists have an anti-creationist bias.

Yes many scientists do, but the very nature of science requires naturalistic explanations (unless they can prove that it was supernatural empirically.) Also tht anti-creationist bias makes their results more likely to be accurate because they are not simply looking for evidence to affirm their unfalsifiable, unwarranted beliefs.

CONCLUSION
Con has admitted that Creationism is not a scientific theory and tried to show how it adhered to the methods of science. I was able to show that it was actually a pseudoscience. I thank pro for a very interesting debate.




bubbatheclown

Pro

As Theta Pinch challenged me to this debate, I get the last word.

Theta Pinch said that he was wrong about a spherical earth and the earth hanging on nothing being common knowledge in Bible times, and that he wasn't intentionally lying, so it's cool.

A similar question would be "if other civilizations didn't know how to make underwater concrete, why would the Romans?
Ancient cultures are constantly surprising us with their knowledge; one example would be the antikythera mechanism which had gears 1500 years too early. There is still no reason to think that it was God who gave them these ideas.
That is correct, I suppose. This amazing scientific knowledge in itself does not prove creationism or the Bible as fact. However, it shows that the Bible, and therefore Christian Creationism, have already made predictions that have been proven right. Making predictions is scientific, right?

Then, you said that William G. Dever never claimed the Nation of Israel didn't exist. I'm sorry for messing that up. It was your second source, Ze'ev Herzog, who said something along this line. Anyway, the Kingdom of Israel did indeed exist.

Then, about transitional forms:
This isn't relevant to this debate so I won't say anything more about this than this: we know because they exhibit traits form both their ancestral group and descendant group.
So is a platypus a transitional form then? Did Rhinos come from Triceratops?

On the speed of light and carbon dating:
Yes they have slowed light down that much but it wasn't in a vacuum where it is supposed to be constant so that doesn't make it any more likely. Radioactive decay on the otherhand doesn't change in any known condition.
I don't have an answer for that.

Next:
Next, you said that evolutionist scientists are not biased. Look, everybody has a bias.

That is not what I was saying. I was saying that pseudoscience promoters ONLY care about evidence that supports their claims.
That is but a claim, but even if it were true I could say the same about many evolutionists.

Finally, concerning evolutionists having an anti-creationist bias:
Yes many scientists do, but the very nature of science requires naturalistic explanations (unless they can prove that it was supernatural empirically.) Also tht anti-creationist bias makes their results more likely to be accurate because they are not simply looking for evidence to affirm their unfalsifiable, unwarranted beliefs.
Basically you said we have no evidence of our claims. Actually, we do. You simply have rebuttals, but a rebuttal doesn't make you right.

Finally, I'm finished with this last round and therefore this debate. May the better debater win and may the voters vote fairly.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Theta - DDO N00bsniper of the year. Mwuhaaha
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
To all DDO Users:
I have created a 2020 Mock Presidential Election, located in the Debate.org forum. If you wish to participate as a candidate, sign up. If you do not wish to participate, feel free to watch and vote anyway.
Posted by ambassador4christ 3 years ago
ambassador4christ
Belief in a God is the only rational explanation of the universe. Even if the universe could have evolved the chances are so very slim. The atheist now is making the great leap of faith. It's not a rational problem, the problem is that if there is a God there is a judge now. Men are sinful and do not want a judge. It's a heart issue, not a mind issue.

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
-Romans 1:20

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."
-C.S.Lewis
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
about that quote that said the kingdom of david didn't exist I think he meant that it didn't exist as described by the bible; it wasn't a regional power but rather a small kingdom.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
I'm guessing that fair voters will give you points for conduct and me points for spelling and grammar.
Posted by MartinKauai 3 years ago
MartinKauai
PRO, CON has posted a rather devastating round to your claim that creationism is scientific. I would love for you to honestly examine his arguments. The single fact that Creationism worships gaps in understanding is proof that it is not scientific. By definition, science is a methodology in acquiring knowledge. It is fueled by our ignorance. Creationism circumnavigates the need to examine claims on empirical grounds by asserting that complexity must be designed, without attempting to explain how the complexity came about. Again, simply by definition, that is not science. You don't have to agree with science. You don't have to deny Creationism. But Creationism is not science.

Side note: this is just one example.
Posted by MartinKauai 3 years ago
MartinKauai
This is rather entertaining.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
Also, I'm actually a teenager at the time that I'm posting this. The whole 28 years old thing was just because I assumed everyone on this site would be an adult, an assumption that has been proven false.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
theta_pinchbubbatheclownTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not fulfill his burden of proof. Moreover, Con used actual sources, whilst Pro used Wikipedia and "something [he] heard on the radio." That's simply not enough.