The Instigator
jh1234l
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
FritzStammberger
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Creationism is true

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,472 times Debate No: 30064
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

jh1234l

Con

In this debate, Pro (FritzStammberger) should provide evidence that creationism is true. Burden of Proof is on Pro. I have the Burden of Rejoinder to refute his claims.

Voting notes:

FritzStammberger has complained about athiests vote bombing against him for no reason, so I would like to ask to please do not vote bomb on this debate.

Pro can start this round. He should not post new arguments in the last round, because I wll not be able to refute new arguments if he did.

Let the debate begin.

FritzStammberger

Pro

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1

The universe was created.

Who or what created it?

Answer: God.

This is the most logical explanation.

Who or what do you think created it?
Debate Round No. 1
jh1234l

Con

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1

The universe was created.

Who or what created it?

Answer: God.

This is the most logical explanation.

Who or what do you think created it?

Pro had the burden of proof, as said in the beginning of this debate. However, he did not put much reasoning into WHY it was the most logical explanation.

I think that the big bang created it.

"But how did the big bang come out of nowhere?" You ask.

Actually, it is possible for things to come out of nowhere. Quantum fluctuations means that a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere. [1] In fact, vaccums have a lot of activity going on, with particles appearing and antiparticles destroying them. [2]Thus, because the first law of thermodynamics can be violated, the big bang can come out of nowhere.

[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2]http://machineslikeus.com...
FritzStammberger

Pro

Quantum fluctuations occur in the already created universe not before it.

"KING LEAR: ..what can you say to draw
A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak.
CORDELIA: Nothing, my lord.
KING LEAR: Nothing?!
CORDELIA: Nothing.
KING LEAR: Nothing will come of nothing, speak again.

In order for the universe to exist it requires a cause that exists outside of space and time.

Given the extreme fine tuning of the universe as well as objective morailty, The best explanation for this timeless spaceless cause is God.
Debate Round No. 2
jh1234l

Con

Quantum fluctuations occur in the already created universe not before it.

"KING LEAR: ..what can you say to draw
A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak.
CORDELIA: Nothing, my lord.
KING LEAR: Nothing?!
CORDELIA: Nothing.
KING LEAR: Nothing will come of nothing, speak again.

In order for the universe to exist it requires a cause that exists outside of space and time.

Given the extreme fine tuning of the universe as well as objective morailty, The best explanation for this timeless spaceless cause is God.

As shown before, it can occur in vaccums. Vaccums are "nothingness". Before the universe was born, it was "nothingness". Thus, it can occur before the universe was created. Pro also has put no evidence on his argument on quantum flutuations.

Plus, quantum fluctuations talks about very small particles, and it cannot create something big in a short time. The King and Cordelia analogy falls apart.

You need to give proof that the universe was fine tuned, because if the universe was tuned differently (let's call it Universe B) the organisms would be very different but the organisms in universe B would still say that the universe was pefect, because if it wasn't they would be extinct. The organisms could adapt to the envoironment, instead of the envoironment adapting t the organisms, too.

No actual reasoning or arguments were given by pro. He only give statements that were not supported by sources.

FritzStammberger

Pro

Fine tuning of the universe.

"The premise of the fine-tuned Universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionlessfundamental physical constants would make the Universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the di-proton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. However, some of the fundamental constants describe the properties of the unstable strange, charmed, bottom and top quarksand mu and tau leptons that seem to play little part in the Universe or the structure of matter.

The precise formulation of the idea is made difficult by the fact that physicists do not yet know how many independent physical constants there are. The current standard model of particle physics has 25 freely adjustable parameters with an additional parameter, the cosmological constant, for gravitation. However, because the standard model is not mathematically self-consistent under certain conditions (e.g., at very high energies, at which both quantum mechanics and general relativity are relevant), physicists believe that it is underlaid by some other theory, such as a grand unified theory, string theory, or loop quantum gravity. In some candidate theories, the actual number of independent physical constants may be as small as one. For example, the cosmological constant may be a fundamental constant, but attempts have also been made to calculate it from other constants, and according to the author of one such calculation, "the small value of the cosmological constant is telling us that a remarkably precise and totally unexpected relation exists among all the parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics, the bare cosmological constant and unknown physics."

http://en.wikipedia.org...


5 arguments for Gods existense

  1. the cosmological argument from contingency
  2. the kalam cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe
  3. the moral argument based upon objective moral values and duties
  4. the teleological argument from fine-tuning
  5. the ontological argument from the possibility of God’s existence to his actuality

"These are, I believe, good arguments for God’s existence. That is to say, they are logically valid; their premises are true; and their premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their negations. Therefore, insofar as we are rational people, we should embrace their conclusions."

http://thegospelcoalition.org...;


The conclusion is that God exists therefore "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"

Debate Round No. 3
jh1234l

Con

1. Fine tuning

Victor Stenger has stated that the fine tuning is the modern version of God-of-The-Gaps.[1] By using this argument, you are assuming that everything not yet explained is done by God.

Plus, there are two possibilities for this: 1. The organisms adapt to the universe and 2. The universe adapts to the organisms because God made it do that.

By using this argument for the existence of a God, you assume that the second one is true. However, you have to prove the second one is true or else it is not a correct argument.

Let's do an analogy.

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the Sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."--Richard Dawkins

Does the liquid assume the shape of its container or did the container assume the shape of the liquid?

the cosmological argument from contingencythe kalam cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe
the moral argument based upon objective moral values and duties
the teleological argument from fine-tuning
the ontological argument from the possibility of God’s existence to his actuality

Pro has made no arguments to support those that he claimed to be evidence for God's existence.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
FritzStammberger

Pro

I am limited in power and knowledge.

- If I were to try and build a nice car it would probably take me the rest of my adult life. (if I could even do it in one life time.)

But the Lexus car company with vastly greater knowledge and power can probably build a car in about 3 hours.

Now let's imagine a being with infinite power and knowledge.

If that being wanted to create a universe with humans in it, how long would it take?

The answer is simple. No time at all.

The bible say's that God created the heaven and the earth in 6 days and on the seventh day he rested. We still follow this 7 day pattern today.

God knew exactly what He was doing and did not need to wait billions of years until he could finally get on with the business of Man.

God wanted to create children in his image and likeness.

The bible says that God CREATED the heaven and the earth about 6000 years ago according to the generations from Adam to Jesus.

God came to earth as Jesus and authenticated the books of Moses in which the creation account exists.

The more that modern science advances into the realms of quantum physics, the more comfortable Genesis 1 reads.

Everything is energy vibrating.

what is vibrating it?

God is.

God is the transcendent, all powerful, all knowing, all loving, personal creator of the universe. I believe him when he says he created the heavens and the earth in 6 days.

People believe in an earth that is billions of years old for 1 reason only, because the false theory of evolution requires these vast ages. (and these vast ages are not even enough for evolution to be correct). What difference does it make to you whether the earth is 6000 or 6 billion? it makes 0 difference except for the fact that if it is 6000 years old then evolution can not be true.

Thus

All scientific AND biblical data points to an earth that was created about 6000 years ago.

The theory of Darwinian evolution is perhaps the most evil idea of all time. It leads more people away from God than almost anything else.

I have debated this topic many times and I am yet to see a convincing argument for evolution.

I defer the rest of my case to Kent Hovind. He has dealt sufficiently with this topic, I encourage anyone who is interested creation science to check out Kent Hovind on youtube.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
jh1234l

Con

Your argument in this round was based on the assumptions that:

1. Genesis is true
2. Evolution is alse

And you also dropped the fine tuning argument.

Now let's imagine a being with infinite power and knowledge. If that being wanted to create a universe with humans in it, how long would it take? The answer is simple. No time at all. The bible say's that God created the heaven and the earth in 6 days and on the seventh day he rested. We still follow this 7 day pattern today. God knew exactly what He was doing and did not need to wait billions of years until he could finally get on with the business of Man.

So 6 days is no time at all. No time at all technically means no time not a few days.

God wanted to create children in his image and likeness. The bible says that God CREATED the heaven and the earth about 6000 years ago according to the generations from Adam to Jesus. God came to earth as Jesus and authenticated the books of Moses in which the creation account exists.

This is not evidence at all as Pro has not put any evidence that the bible is true.

People believe in an earth that is billions of years old for 1 reason only, because the false theory of evolution requires these vast ages. (and these vast ages are not even enough for evolution to be correct). What difference does it make to you whether the earth is 6000 or 6 billion? it makes 0 difference except for the fact that if it is 6000 years old then evolution can not be true.

Evolution is true. In fact, there are many known speciation events. [1]

Thus
All scientific AND biblical data points to an earth that was created about 6000 years ago.
The theory of Darwinian evolution is perhaps the most evil idea of all time. It leads more people away from God than almost anything else.

You have given no scientific evidence, no evidence that the bible is true, and then you say that you have got evidence. Your evidence is like the king's clothes, which is nonexistent.


I have debated this topic many times and I am yet to see a convincing argument for evolution.

Now I know why you never refute evolutionist arguments. You never read them! You probably should read microsuck's arguments.

I defer the rest of my case to Kent Hovind. He has dealt sufficiently with this topic, I encourage anyone who is interested creation science to check out Kent Hovind on youtube.

I defer the rest of my case to thunderf00t and doubtingdave.

http://www.youtube.com...

[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
FritzStammberger

Pro

"If my theory holds true, as will most certainly be indicated by copious findings in the years to come, then who knows what breathtaking an array of fanciful species we may uncover? It is not unreasonable - yea, it is fair certain - that the archeologists of tomorrow will uncover the winged horse, the underwater pachyderm, the crocoduck, the serpentine ape, and a host of other incredible creatures, hitherto regarded as impossible by the rigid, Christian-driven dogma of modern day science."

Charles Darwin
"On The Origin of Species"
chapter 7



"Congratulations on your belated discovery. Indeed 'God IS Dead' for you see, I have killed Him."

Charles Darwin
in a letter to Friedrich Nietzsche




"If we are to rid the world of the burdensome moral requirements imposed by christianity me must create a religion of our own. Fear not gentlemen for I have already done the groundwork for us. The name of our new religion shall hereafter be
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION."

Charles Darwin
at an 1868 meeting of naturalists



Evolution is a false religious system.



In the name of Jesus Christ open your heart to the true word of the living God


John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Whats intersting fitzhamburger dressed like Butters, is this message is going to punk you so hard, its a World Record Punk, and its going to follow you until you delete your profile or genuflect in front of the Genie :)

I knew something was up. I just knew it! You have redefined Pathetic!

"I used to be an atheist, but . . ." That is one of the oldest tricks in the book, practiced by, among many others, C S Lewis, Alister McGrath and Francis Collins. It is designed to gain street cred before the writer starts on about jesus, and it is amazing how often it works. Look out for it, and be forewarned."

You love those 3 clowns like mother theresa loved suffering :)

Ouchies 11:6--Proliferating a religious fairy tale in front of the Genie is akin to jumping off a high dive platform into an industrial sized wood chipper :)

That any many more fun facts in this link:

http://old.richarddawkins.net...
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Take a gander at--

http://paleo.cc...
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
I made it through 1 minute, 40 seconds (the "out of place artifacts") before concluding your source is no better at argumentation than you. First, his claim that scientists dismissed this phenomena (without attempting to analyze it and formulate an educated guess as to what happened) is dubious. Second, he presents a false dichotomy that either many was alive millions of years ago or our dating methods are wrong. This is fraudulent and indefensible when there is a third hypothesis which is the main one proposed by scientists. If this is where you are learning your debate skills, it's no wonder you conclusively lost the conduct and sources points in this debate's voting.
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Fritz, in debate you have to actually defeat your opponent's arguments. Pretending they said something else, and then defeating that, will not win you many debates.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
I am most bothered by Fritz attributing text to Darwin, Origin of Species, ch. 7 that bears little resemblance to anything written therein.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Is Fritz a troll?
Posted by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
jh1234l look at his recent debate against me, Watch he will use the book in his final round.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
jh1234lFritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I am most bothered by Fritz attributing text to Darwin, Origin of Species, ch. 7 that bears little resemblance to anything written therein. For that, I deduct conduct and sources. Now, pertaining to the arguments themselves, Fritz presented Wikipedia's fine-tuning argument. Unfortunately, that article itself notes that it's disputed by Stenger and Con presents that dispute. Rather than addressing it or gracefully conceding, Fritz drops the argument completely. Fritz also references several others arguments but doesn't actually present them. Thus, Pro presents no unrebutted evidence in support of his perspective. Arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
jh1234lFritzStammbergerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro starts with an argument from ignorance, then in R3 gives arguments. Then he drops his arguments for new ones. Poor performance by pro.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
jh1234lFritzStammbergerTied
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 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: Plagiarism is a Full Forfeit: all seven points.
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
jh1234lFritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments clearly go to Con. Pro made numerous unfounded claims throughout the debate and in the end basically dropped all arguments. Sources go to Con because of Pro's complete misrepresentation. Nowhere in "On the Origin of Species" is there any mention of a crocoduck or the like. I entirely unsure where that quote came from. Conduct to Con for this gross misrepresentation.