The Instigator
dsavage1998
Pro (for)
The Contender
iamcoffee
Con (against)

Creationism (pro) v. Evolution (con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
dsavage1998 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 236 times Debate No: 96514
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

dsavage1998

Pro

I have been a Christian for about 13 years, and I would like to test my knowledge against an atheist, no hard feelings ;). I'd like my debate opponent to be an atheist , thank you. So Here goes

I think that creationism is true, and Darwinian evolution is false, evolutionists might have an excuse for lack of evidence, but that still does not change the fact that there is no evidence. There is no document that has never been proven to have false information in regards to evolution, but creationism has the Bible, which has never been disproven in the 2016+ years that the Bible has been in existence.
iamcoffee

Con

Hey Dsavage1998

Nice to meet you and discuss this interesting topic.

I'm an Atheist but don't walk around with it as a label, I just don't believe in creationism because is seems highly flawed and a man made construct

You mentioned that there is no proof for Evolution but I would beg to differ, there is thousands of observations that all point to evolution being not only true, but how all animals, plants and you and I came to be.

There is a short video that can shed light on it here :
https://www.youtube.com...

This video talks of :

Links between Anatomy
Embryology & Development
Fossils
DNA Compassions
Species Distribution
Observed Evolution
Predictive Power of Evolution
Nested Hierarchies of traits

"..
Now you talk of the bible, a scripture that has also evolved over time, what version are you reading?

And what makes you sure that your version is the correct version ? What about the Quran? This is also a scripture that hasn't been proved wrong, couldn't this be the correct text?

My point here is that even though you may choose not to believe the facts about evolution, I feel it's quite an assumption to believe something (the bible) that has less proof than what you claim Darwins theory has. Especially when there are plenty of other scripture to read and follow.

Looking forward to your reply
IAMCOFFEE
Debate Round No. 1
dsavage1998

Pro

This topic is interesting indeed, I am happy to hear that you don't use your atheist views as a label as some people do. You say that You don't believe in creationism because it appears highly flawed and that it seems to be man-made... I am assuming that you do realize that Darwinian evolution did come from the mind of Charles darwin? While Christianity was written in a series of books, those books are all part of a larger story... Each book is a chapter if you will.

I find it funny that you say there are thousands of observations that point to evolution, but as a creationist, I believe that some of those same observations point to Creationism! If you would allow me to bring up several bullet points that I believe bring up holes in the evolutionary theory, I would greatly appreciate it...
- The Cambrian explosion
- I am assuming that you know that this actually happened, but whenever I have asked an Athiest about it, I have 1. never gotten the same answer, and 2. Never gotten a straight answer. It is the rapid and seemingly instantaneous appearance of many different kinds of phyla, This does not seem like evolution to me, this seems to point to creationism as this is (as i have stated before) the rapid and seemingly instantaneous appearance of phyla! I could be incorrect, but doesn't evolution mainly state that change comes from slow and minor changes over millions of years at a time?
- Irreducible complexity
- Exactly what it sounds like, Irreducible complexity is the point where an organism can no longer be broken down and still function, If you have ever watched the film Expelled (and I suggest you do as it is quite interesting) they state that the very minimum amount of protein an organism can have is 260. 260 perfectly aligned proteins, if even 1 of those 260 proteins was just slightly misformed, the organism can no longer survive.
- Life
- Life itself cannot come from nonliving objects, for example, we cannot get a living cell to come from a nonliving rock. This brings up the Idea that perhaps life came by random chance. to which I would say that life is far too complicated for random chance. Take 2 Lines of Shakespeare, "To be or not to be, That is the question" and take a bunch of scrabble pieces and throw them up in the air, and hopefully they make these 2 lines from Shakespeare. The odds of this happening are slim, but the odds of life happening are like doing the same thing hundreds of times in a row.

I will watch that video, thank you.

I usually read the English Standard Version.

The debate at the moment is not upon which religion is correct, but if you would like to ask this question I would say that Christianity could have easily been proven false if one person would have spoken up and said, "that didn't happen". And yet no one did. Christianity is also the only religion that has had a dead man come back to life!

I said that the bible has never been proven false, and perhaps I am incorrect, But as I said, Christianity could have been proven false by one person stating that the information was false, but nobody did, and since Christianity states that every word in the bible is true, I choose to believe that it is true.
iamcoffee

Con

Nice points, I can see where you are coming from and you seem like you are attempting to be reasonable in your thinking but your conclusions don't align with your proof.

"The Cambrian explosion"
This is an interesting time in earth history and I'm glad you brought it up.
There definitely was an explosion of life 541 million years ago.

Key organisms that appeared over a 20-25 million year period : [1]

Ediacara biota
Kimberella
Vernanimalcula
Burgess-type
Marrella
Anomalocaridids
Halwaxiids
Opabinia
Odontogriphus
Small shelly fauna
Helcionellids

Was man not meant to be made in gods image rather than the image of an 'Opabinia' [2] ?

The sudden appearance of life has many different explanations, the common thought on the issue is that it was a sudden change in environment such as increased oxygen levels, ozone formation or increased calcium in the seawater.

It's not outlandish to conclude that change in environment would have a ripple effect on life forms. A modern example of this maybe seen in the next 5,000 years because of green house gasses.

The chain of events :
Gasses make a hole in our ozone " the earth warms up a few degrees " Polar icecaps melt " the earth will become more covered in water effecting aquatic and terrestrial life.
If this could all happen in 5,000 years you can imagine what changes could occur over 20-25 million years (like in the The Cambrian explosion).

If you are claiming that 'god' was the cause of this, I don't see how it relates to your holy book and if your holy book doesn't align with our knowledge of the history then doesn't that make your bible invalid as a history book?

Science is a powerful tool for explanation because it uses observable and reproducible facts.
If you would trust CSI to use science to solve a murder, then why wouldn't you trust similar fields to explain history.

Being open for debate is what makes science a strong tool and what makes the bible and theory of creationism weak.

Example:
When black holes were predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity some scientists refused to believe their existence.
They then set out to prove that they didn't exist.
To do so they needed to provide a different theory than Einsteins relativity theory but the more they tried the more they ended up with the same prediction that black holes do exist.
You can't accept Einsteins theory of relativity without also accepting that black holes exist.
[later in our history we found some black holes thus proving the predictions correct]

My point here is that you can't cherry pick ideas from science because it's a package. A package that people are constantly trying to prove wrong and in turn solidifying or disproving theory's.
The Cambrian explosion is amazing yes, a miracle that has theory's of explanation.
In science if you don't like something, you need to provide proof, this is where creationism fails.

I maybe missing something but I'm failing to see how the Cambrian explosion example you gave is helping your argument

-----------

"Irreducible complexity"
Yes, life is amazingly complex it is a true marvel and something everyone should be thankful to be a part of. As our species develop we learn more about it's complexity's but because we are a part of it, it's truly an uphill battle on the road to absolute knowledge.

You are quite hasty to assume that complexity is proof of creationism though. It is defiantly something to be in awe of but assuming that your god has created life because it's complex is far fetched and egotistical of the church. Like thinking the planets revolve around the earth.

The information of how things are put together and came to be is out there, perhaps not entirely known to us at present, but though constant progress and discovery more is becoming clear.

To rely on a book that was written by 40 philosophers and historians in 6th century BC isn't logical.
Although they [the many chapters] are great philosophical books about supposed history, they are still written with a motive and agenda by people who are of a different mind than we are today.

Over the years the book has changed as we talked about earlier but to stay valid the book should change constantly with the times.
Unfortunately the bible has opted out of the logic race by claiming gospel and although it does modify slightly with time, it is only does so after much deliberation in regards to fact, fiction and ethics. The slow and slight changes that are made, in my opinion, hold back human discovery, ethical forward movement and morality that it is supposed to hold paramount.

If there is a creationist, wouldn't that creationist be pro education, discovery and evolution of our species? Wouldn't he/she want us to explore and clearly map out the genius of his/her creation?

Without a constant update the bible, in future years, will be whittled down to dated philosophy and mysticism and debates like ours will be more so about things that can't be proven by either party. The creationism party will always end up making assumptions, generalisations and false dichotomy and veering away from logic and reason.

----------------

""Life itself cannot come from nonliving objects, This brings up the Idea that perhaps life came by random chance, to which I would say that life is far too complicated for random chance"

You used an example of throwing individual words of a single phrase of Shakespeare into the air and stated that the odds of them landing in order were slim.

This is true, the chances of them landing in order are slim. It is possible though, the words would eventually land in order, it maybe on the first throw, you never know.

In fact, you could take all the individual words from all of Shakespeares works and if you were to throw them into the air enough times you would eventually have all his complete works in the exact order he wrote them.

This can relate also to your point about the complexity of proteins needed for an organism to survive.

Yes the chance of this happening is slim, ridiculously slim but it is still possible. The fact of the matter is, that if it were any other way but the perfect way it is now, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So, like the Shakespeare example because of chance we have landed perfectly with the right amount of proteins and we are able to have this talk. I'm glad.

We are proof that however slim the odds, the odds are still there.
Isn't' this the reason people buy lotto tickets?

Again, this fact you bring up doesn't help your argument but brings to attention a hasty generalisation that you assume complexity is because of a creator.

--------------
"Christianity could have easily been proven false if one person would have spoken up and said, "that didn't happen""

Faulty claims in our history happen (and i'm sure we are still are making assumptions and that will be later proved incorrect) however with time and more knowledge, claims of truth fall apart as facts emerge.

Example:
When I was young I believed Santa-clause brought me presents at christmas, when I got older I observed that Santa clause was just my parents and what I once believed as a fact [Santa being a real guy living I in the north pole making presents with elves] became fiction.

Over the years holes have been poked in Christianity from the sciences, logic and reason.
This is not a conflict of Science vs Religion because Science doesn't (and can't) claim to offer the wild claims religion does, but it does demosntrate how not everything in the bible can be true.
Which must surely make you think 'what is true, what isn't'

Returning to my Santa clause analogy in regards to how lies can become truth.
If my friends had told me that Santa didn't exist.
I could have chosen ignore them because I saw the proof, I saw that there were presents under the tree every year at christmas from Santaclause, but it doesn't make Santa real. Just my reinforces my belief.

If my parents never given up the act and I never caught them putting presents under the tree, I could have lived my entire life believing that my friends were lying and that a fat man called Santa climbed down my chimney and gave me presents on christmas.

I hope this Analogy is clear in demonstrating how we can easily be deceived.
The difference between this Santa analogy and Christianity, is that Christianity has never delivered presents, so has even less proof of being a reality than my childhood Santa.

Without being sceptical and open minded to new possibility's and proportioning our belief to evidence, we handicap ourself in regard to finding truth.

If there was a creator, why would he only ever set up this laboratory once? Why not keep creating things and thus test us continually as our minds evolve to truly weed out the bad seeds?

Why would he need to have a testament written, why not just watch us from afar and let us prove ourselves moral?

I would rather not debate religion because under scrutiny the books fall apart.
As for your arguments on PRO creationism, they also don't hold up as any sort of proof so would like to hear more from you to see if you can put forward some evidence, logic or reason rather than assumptions and generalization

Thanks for your first argument and I'm looking forward to your reply.
IAMCOFFEE

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by kylet357 1 month ago
kylet357
*Cambrian Explosion*
"This does not seem like evolution to me, this seems to point to creationism...doesn't evolution mainly state that change comes from slow and minor changes over millions of years at a time?"

Yes and no. There is a theory called Punctuated Equilibrium that states most species seen in the fossil record will have long periods of very little change, and rapid periods of large change. But even if that's not what was happening, and it is still gradual change over time, the Cambrian Explosion is still something that took several million years (around 25 my).

*Irreducible Complexity*
This is the concept that a system can't be broken down and still function. Thus, there's no way it could have evolved separately over millions to billions of years of generations and be functional. However, this has already been proven false (through analogy, since Michael Behe, the inventor of the concept, said a mouse trap can't be reduced in complexity without function and Ken Miller showed it could taken apart and still serve a new function as a tie clip. Then through scientific evidence, such as the evolution of eye for which we know the lineage of progression). Expelled is nothing but inaccurate or purposely deceitful propaganda trying to self-project their faults onto actual science or creating faults that don't exist.

*Life*
Looks like we'll have to repeat the common correct of this misconception again: EVOLUTION IS NOT THE THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. Evolution is the theory of the DIVERSITY of life. However, the current hypothesis of Abiogenesis has seen significant amount of evidence towards it (especially the Urey-Miller experiment, which actually had more success than was reported by Miller).

You could literally Wikipedia all of this and understand why some of the things you said were wrong.
Posted by missmedic 1 month ago
missmedic
Evolution is not an explanation of how space time began. Creation is based on magic and belief. Creationism gives no knowledge or understanding of how it works and contradicts our background knowledge. Creation is based on magic and belief.
Here is a list of the branches of science you have to ignore to believe in creationism.
Astronomy
Cosmology
General physics
Physical chemistry
Thermodynamics ...............all the laws of thermodynamics are violated in a creation event.
Tribology
General biology....Botany .........Zoology..............Anatomy
Medicine...........Immunology............Pharmacology " disease causing bacteria and viruses mutate and become immune to our attempts at destroying or immunizing against them. This is one of the more powerful and very much real observations of evolution that supposedly doesn't happen in creationism belief.
Molecular biology
Planetary science.......Geology.............Palaeontology
Evolution is the unifying idea that ties it all together, allowing one not only to know the facts but to understand them and to know where the facts come from. from.http://www.nas.edu...
https://www.britannica.com...
The more you know the less you believe.............................
Posted by Zaephou 1 month ago
Zaephou
PRO: You are wrong in saying that the book has not been disproven, because that goes against the burden of proof. It is the Bible's/Your job to prove the book is right!
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.