Creationism(pro) vs. Evolution(con)
Debate Rounds (4)
1. Acceptance of challenge
2. Opening statement
I will be going for Creationism(pro) while my opponent will be going for Evolution(con)
As I assume you have read my remark, see my true colors. I offer you the right to disprove my claims as 'the evolutionist".
If you decline, as it may be unfair for a Theist to represent the (Con).
I will offer theology, philosophy, science, history, and personal remarks. All in favor of the Con. please thought, first read my comments bellow in ascending order.
order may not come from Chaos, but Chaos as an entity does not dictate order does not exist within it. The Greeks called God Chaos, because in all his complexity he was unimaginable, unfathomable, unpredictable at times. To state evolution is impossible because order cannot come from Chaos, is simply redeemed by indicating order was part of the chaos. But that alone is not satisfactory: The creation of life is not of a chaotic or orderly credential.
moving along to the previous edges along the rims to your Hammer of Faith.
The Big bang theory, though disprovable, via creation. is still has potential, and is not impossible. As God said, the possible is impossible, so you cannot make such a claim. two particles that are in collision forever is the true theory, not on a path for each-other. For the space between them is endlessly shrinking, and the spaces apart endlessly growing. If something should come from nothing, it simply came from nothing and needs not explanation. For as an atheists says, how did God do this/ where did this come from? = it is not a significant portion of faith to have the answer. > they are satisfied without it.
To say God is all knowing, is not a debate contribution. unless it was: in which case you can stipulate, even God can choose to forget.
People saying carbon dating can prove the bible wrong, is another non evolution statement, but. Because it cannot, seeing as people can eat the dinosaurs an cook the bones and/or burry them, we cannot use such a method. Peoples opinions do not play into the existence of either creationism or evolution. What a person must say however, is that that which is no longer present, can lead to skepticism.
The complexity of earth does not disprove evolution. For if science proves that the world did not come from a an era of meteors forming a molten earth, then we can stipulate, the perfection of earths existence came all at once, and the animals would be well suited. The earth hangs in balance, and does not deviate. This does not support nor conflict with evolution, But although it indicates creationism, one who is a skeptic and extremely adept at philosophies can debate it does not support it, until he is in self denial.
Ur not debating evolution, you're debating atheism. I respect that. but this is a debate.
Evolution: which I do not believe in.
can easily be stipulated to have occurred, despite unique animals like giraffes, hippos, rhino's, moose, whales, lions etc...
because simply that the human race was contacted by God, does not indicate that this was not after he delighted in a prolonged series of evolutionary events.
BobCampus forfeited this round.
recently, the largest dinosaur known to man was discovered, a new species. As if, the fossil was mad of something which could not be directly compared to the substances of prior fossils. I regard this new dinosaur as being sculpted from the stone, and will soon be discovered to be a fake. Used by scientists to either acquire fame, or be used to prove the fallacy of the field of those who interpret the ages of dinosaurs.
however. Because I cannot use evidence that evolution is real, because I do not believe in it. I can support the theory based on skepticism.
As I disregard pepper moths, and rabbits. Which are naturally capable of adapting but not evolving to suit their environment. One can argue, the case, if disregarding the expanse of the planet that;
evolution can be forced to occur. When DNA varieties do not match, they will not match and add up to procreation. but by selective breeding, a new Kind of other animals will occur. (breed of dog, with still poor dog DNA, can create a new variety. dog non the less, never capable of evolving, can be altered into another dog.)
I should just forfeit. I specialize in defeating competitors, not standing up for something I don't believe in... one sec.
Evolution: single cell to modern variety : plausible for the sake that, without evidence, the theory is logical enough to be considered possible. despite no hard evidence is available, because of hunting and catastrophes which cannot be dated via use of a flawed carbon dating method. The 'theory' on it's own, presents no flaw in physics, which we have disproven. But although it can be stipulated to never be observed, as proportions in physical structure don't change and DNA doesn't either, The very existence of multiple species have not been studied thoroughly enough to be sure, that some evolution is not factually occurred/occurred, while other situations are related to no such thing.
ex. perhaps a fish is 100% new to the world since creation, where as the lion is primordial.
in other conditions where animals may have evolved from cells that came up from the dirt in the moment that the energy passed from foundations back into the pre-energized water, one can only stipulate that the amount of knowledge acquired by humans is phenomenal. and the theory stands apart from necessity, when regarding the founding premise of religion:
that life is not only worth living now for our own benefit, but at times it is best not to be lived for our own sufferings sake, and for the sake of others benefits or security. whilst being the provisional provider of our moral code to not rape, steal, murder, or lie.
and so necessity presents no reasons to negate it in the events you regard the creation of earth to be factually provided by a power described in the first pages of the bible, which are sound and provable sciences. sky/water both same molecular composure. earth foundation expanding from within geologically proven. Following star formations rational. light being first is both energy and thus, movement of mater being time. All this does not disprove evolution.
But what one must admit is, there is only one species of human, no matter how superior our structure is. Any lesser form of human was destroyed if humans evolved. our proportions are all equal, and organs equivalent between races.
This is the problem with believing lions evolved. Such a dominant species should thrive in many varieties without any issues.
But Lions, kill the young of the former males when taking the pride. lest the mothers have so many young that they themselves kill the new dominant male instead.
Evolution is supported in that, regardless of faith, a structural formula has been put in place that there is no need to negate it do to it's secure plausability. The necessity becomes to regard that throughout the world, it is the regions without religion where people most abuse eachother. and it is the atheist populous that rapes people, and murders people, that steals from people, and make up political unjust politicians. All from within either religious or not societies, and heretical blasphemers do not represent any religion when disregarding scriptures which institute these laws - and that this law was put in place by a higher understanding which has always credited God since the beginning of time, from the tiniest islands on either coasts of the world.
And so my argument now is. You have no debate worthy of debating evolution. Evolution can co-exist with moralities.
Evolution is not atheism.
and atheists need to know when to admit they are agnostic to avoid debates and conflict.
It is not true to claim ignorance to information one is not given, when they are ignorant to say it is not there, if it could be.
BobCampus forfeited this round.
Evolution has beaten Creationism in this round.
Not because I believe in it, or proved it, but because It in itself cannot be disproven.
-If God created the world exactly as described in the Bible in 4 days: to miraculously pull a man from the dirt and give him knowledge of creation, may or may not have happened many years after creation.
-Because God is undefined, factually being who He IS, but factually being, because what he is defined to be is factually real, and what he cannot be known to be has not been specified. The scientific laws of founding-reality, those laws that give math and physics a parameter that cannot be transgressed being portions of the self-aware universes Wisdom, being, a portion credited to this being, despite our inability to perceive him in his Full Glory, We as Christians are not even required to believe Adam was pulled from the dirt miraculously, Man "could" have evolved. though I have no faith in this* it has no prominent reason to be disclaimed unless one fights to argue on the behalf of atheism in which case they are subliminally advocating a reform in moralities involving jealousy invoked adultery (neglectful boyfriends, abandonment and worse.).
-some animals may have completely evolved from another extinct or continually evolved species since God created the world in a creationist fashion, pulling Adam full from the mud (metallic and gaseous elements). Or, they simply could have evolved and stopped at perfection, which is likely the case for todays situation if evolution; C. evolution may have occurred due tot he scientific laws of the universe playing out how God established the Wisdom of his Glory.
regardless. God, being this Universe, with a self aware energy. Everything is a continual reaction with predispositioned paths. Only inside the human brain (or brains of animals perhaps) does the math of the universe relinquish this predisposition, which after we make our free will decision, the universe is still fully aware of our location and distance and velocities, providing a predisposition to all of our actions, indicating God knows everything (Because God is the Universe(that is the definition: God is in everything and everything in him)). But Jesus the Son(Universal Law, the wisdom of God), the creator who is inside Time and not Outside, only knows US as we make our decisions, pre-aware of everything that is a possible outcome regardless of the decisions you have (all knowing: because he is capable of the logistics).
~ this being so indicates that so long as you are willing to accept moralities, which are factually by definition, and no way are unattached to God, because they are the wisdom of the universe. Then Evolution has no quarrel with Theism.
But Because I feel secure in my debate that Evolution has defeated Creationism:
I feel as though, having waited 1000's more years in a world of rape and murder and negligence would be a nonsensencial way to exist in this world, and especially imagine this universe, when if evolution where real, and life forms formed from the miraculous and likely spontaneous event of the "Bing bang" which is explained more accurately in creation than in any other theory, That the entire form could have established itself in a brief moment, with all the energy and material necessary to establish the entire form in a burst. A quick, masterful chain of reactions establishing man and every animal in the moment that the motes of their DNA took root in reality.
Logic says I win again.
In Creationism and Evolution.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Quite the waste of Con's time. Unfortunate. Conduct for the forfeits, arguments because Pro never really offered up a meaningful case. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.