The Instigator
renonemontanez
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
donald.keller
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Creationism

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,785 times Debate No: 37376
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (63)
Votes (2)

 

renonemontanez

Con

My argument is that Biblical Creationism is nothing more than a religious theory that was made up by Bronze Age myth writers/theologians that literally copied much older creation stories and formed their own. Please prove to me Creationism is a scientific fact and I'll give my reasons why it is nothing more than myths and legends and also non-scientific. Thank you.
donald.keller

Pro

I shall accept this exciting debate.

First is Rebuttals.

Rebuttal 1:
"a religious theory that was made up by Bronze Age myth writers/theologians that literally copied much older creation stories and formed their own."

Con doesn't list any examples. Since we can conclude that Biblical Creationism includes all of Judaism, we will began there. Judaism is estimated to be around 3,700-3,900 years old. This is when Abraham first spoke of God.(1) Of course Moses saw the creation of most the laws and other aspects of Judaism, and virtually every prophecy in Judaism that led up to Christianity, around 3,300 years ago.(2)

This makes Judaism that second oldest religion on Earth, behind Hinduism, which existed outside the known world at this time. Greek Mythology is known to be older than 800 B.C (2,800 years ago) because of Homer's writings, but it's not known how much older Greek Mythology is. With Judaism being as old as 1,900 B.C, it's save to assume that even if the Greek Mythology came (or came into creation) with the Dorian's, it'd be younger than Judaism because the Dorian's Invasion took place in 1,100 BC, around 200 years after Moses and 600-800 years after Abraham.(3) The Dorian's would have no influence at this time, nor would Greece, assuming the actual Mythology is that old. Even if the Dorian's had the full religion made up before the invasion, they weren't influential enough to affect a religion forming 3,600 kilometers away, (although the Dorian's aren't known to be as old as Abraham.)

Con's argument isn't consistent with religions of the time. Abraham's religion bore little in comparison with other religions. First is that it's Monotheistic. Second is an origin story. Most religions in the known world shared a similar Creation Story, where the living and breathing Earth was a life force of some form, and was viewed in a mystical way. Judaism viewed the Earth as a rock crafted by a creator. There was nothing mystic about the planet, and it wasn't a living God of some form. Judaism was very unique from other religions, which is why Greeks saw the Jews as arrogant for denying the existence of other Gods, and the Roman's tolerated the Jew's unwarranted rioting because their Religion/culture was a unique piece of history unlike any other in the region.

[1] http://www.religionfacts.com...
[2] http://www.jewfaq.org...
[3] http://www.britannica.com...

Rebuttal 2:
"Please prove to me Creationism is a scientific fact"

Con must prove that, without a doubt, Creationism is false. Both sides have BOP since I must prove Creationism is possible, but Con has more BOP responsibility since she is instigating the accusation.

I will provide an argument in my Arguments.

Argument 1: Consistency

While Judaism is unique from other religions, it does share text consistent with other hysterical texts of the time. These include a Great Flood. The Great Flood Myth is, in essence, the same across European/Middle Eastern/Far Asian mythologies.(4) The stories are similarly seen in American Mythologies, and some African Mythology, with heavy consistency.(5) Such consistency is reason enough to believe they could have likely been based on an actual World-wide flood. While not provable in nature, it gives some highly reasonable merit. Historical texts with such consistency are often considered indicators of truth to historians.

[4] http://www.academia.edu...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Argument 2: Probability

The probability of Creationism is hard to determine. The probability of Evolution is near impossible, especially with Chromosomes.

When a child is born with a different number of Chromosomes, called Chromosomal Abnormality,(6) it's plagued by physical and mental disorders. No menioned case has been found where the abnormality didn't negatively affect the child. Few animals share the same number Chromosomes, so for Evolution to have occurred, most species can't just change what Genes they have, but must also change number of Chromosomes. We see this between Humans, with 46 Chromosomes, and our "close neighbors/ancestors", Chimpanzee, Orangutans, and Gorillas, who each have 48 Chromosomes.(7) Such successfully evolution is near impossible, especially for the Red Viscacha Rat with 102 Chromosomes.

In-between Evolution would be too. A Myriad of species kill members born with slight mutations or anything that appears to have birth defects, including Monkey/Gorilla species. Evolution would be halted, and Human's wouldn't have made it past the first one or two mutations, especially the mutations that removed chromosomes.

In-between Evolution would be impossible because of the nature of a mutation. Before you got birds, you'd have creatures with awkward feathered arms with no real design. In fact most design would have required biological engineering. A bird could never have obtain a good pair of wings naturally. Nor could they have formed over time. The wings wouldn't be as systematic as they are by random chance. Random and Systematic do not exist together, which would apply to literally millions of species that formed since the beginning. A T-Rex bloodline would have died out long before, as the odds of a mutation staying beneficial or consistent throughout a million years and a hundred thousand births and tens of thousands of mutations, are near to nothing. Unless over 99.999% of all notable mutations are harmless, Evolution would near never be successful. Consistency is also an issue. A long line of mutations would have to be consistent and complete themselves over time. This is almost impossible since close to all mutations aren't hereditary, and the ones that are hereditary would diasppear in a few generaions, especially since the mutation variant would have to eventually mate with a pure-bred variant.

Evolution from Bacteria is impossible. as most bacteria will become a small colony, but long before reaching the cell count of, say, a water bear (40,000 cells), the organism would starve to death much like the ever growing amoeba which starves death once it gets too big. A species couldn't make it passed glob stage, as anything baring enough cells to hold organs would
die from starvation before ever reproducing. The evolution of a working digestive system, assuming it was possible without genetic engineering, would kill off any species operating with a work-in-progress set of intestines.


All this creates a highly reasonable excuse to believe Creationism over the impossible probability of Evolution. With how systemically perfect everything is, from birds so happening to be such systemic feathers AND the bone structure needed to fly with them, while close to no other species on bares similar bones... It's reasonable to conclude that everything had to be created, not random generated.

[6] http://www.marchofdimes.com...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Argument 3: Creationism

The fine-tuning of the human species is beyond random chance. A species that can survive anywhere in the world, subtract Antarctic, with such impossible biological complexecity. No species would have evolved to became more complex than needed. The fine tuning in other species is almost equally beyond random chance. Most adaptations and mutations could only have worked if they had a co-existing mutation along side them. Lungs would required Bronchi and Trachea. The Trachea would have to have formed appropriately for the system to work, and the Lungs would have to immediately know the difference between air and other substances. The Trachea would have needed the open-close mechanism needed to keep water and food out.

Blood is also questionable. Again, most mutations need co-existing mutations to work. Blood needs Veins, and Veins need Blood. Neither without the other. Adaptions like sucking lood as well. Before they could drink, they needed the anticoagulant saliva. Species with blood would have bled out long before coagulation became a common feature. Most adaptions formed through mutations to match a hostile situation would take generations to form and wouldn't have occurred quick enough to save the species.

Another issue is gender. The creation of gender would have been impossible. Every species held one gender, and they had no reason to evolved seperate, and co-operating, sex organs of the
needed complexicity that shocklingly operated together to form a fetus of any kind. For this, you'd need the following all AT ONCE:

-Seperate co-operating Organs
-Seperate co-operating sex cells
-Seperare co-operating hormones
-Complex fetus baring organs
-Complex features of the fetus such as a working umbolical cord
-A fetus that had immediately adapted to such a situation

The amount of co-operating variables and the odds of an immediately efficent operating reproducive organ that doesn't kill the child and keeps it alive and growing are close to zero. No possible mutation could have slowly added such co-existing features. The first fetus to be created in a vagina would have died immidately. The Fetus would have biologic adaptions to an egg, not a vagina.

The amount of fine-tuning and systematically co-existing variables and adaptions in each species matched with the complexity of Earth would make the odds of it having happening without a creator far less than the odds of there being a creator. This also when considering how every known planet is simple in comparison to other space objects, and desolate, but our one planet can not only sustain life, but does it with such complexity of a massive intertwined ecosystem where a current in the ocean slowing down by a mph can cause an ice age in Europe and an earthquake Asia... (that being only an example.)

We find the existence of a God to be as probable as, if not far more probable than, the random and impossible odds of existing without one.
Debate Round No. 1
renonemontanez

Con

renonemontanez forfeited this round.
donald.keller

Pro

Arguments Extended.
Debate Round No. 2
renonemontanez

Con

renonemontanez forfeited this round.
donald.keller

Pro

Arguments Extanded.
Debate Round No. 3
renonemontanez

Con

renonemontanez forfeited this round.
donald.keller

Pro

Arguments Extanded
Debate Round No. 4
renonemontanez

Con

renonemontanez forfeited this round.
donald.keller

Pro

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
63 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Sagey, hun xia xia, nin!
( bows )
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Actually dawndawndawndawn, usually when a Theist becomes Atheist, there is an increase in Rational Intelligence Level, or RQ (Rational Quotient), which is a much better measure if actual Intelligence than IQ.
For an Atheist to become a Theist, there is the inverse, a reduction in Intelligence.
It has been known to happen, in the twilight years of those who suffer dementia where their intelligence lessens and their childhood indoctrination into Theism, rears its ugly once dormant Head.
Though not many people lose their Intelligence (Rationality) which means not many people move backwards from Atheism to Theism.

I hope this explains it adequately M8!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Though when it comes to CREATIONISM, the only creationism I've been studying is related to the Creation of God.
From neurological studies, we now know that the Prefrontal Cortex is where we develop Consciousness maps of not only ourselves (Me-Maps), but for others that we meet (You-Maps) which are all conjured from our perceptions of ourselves and others. Plus when we are in groups, like a family unit, we develop We-Maps. Again, these are often incorrect representations or developed by our own misconceptions of ourselves and others. We really don't conduct much research when developing the consciousness maps, they just rely on observation and our preconceptions.
It has found that illusions of spiritual entities and even God can arise from the Temporal lobes, plus many of us are Indoctrinated by parents and religious institutions at a young age.
Thus our brains develop a You-Map in our prefrontal cortex for these learned characters like God and Satan, etc. So, this is where we can come to believe that we have a relationship with this mythical character, because our prefrontal cortex has conjured a consciousness map for it in the same way we have developed a map for our other friends and groups.
A We-Map develops for the Church group, so we feel we belong in it.
Thus, due to the formation of these (altogether false) maps in our consciousness structure of our brains.
We are often deluded into believing it is all so real and God exists, because we have a You-Map for it.
As I have been saying for decades now: "The Human Brain Is The Mose Deceptive Organ In The Universe"
We are being deceived by it 24/7.
Superstitions like Religions are absolute proof of how incredibly deceptive our brains are.
None of them are real, yet many have been convinced of their reality by their Brain.
Buddhism has also taught that our perceptions are not Real for thousands of years.
Because we don't see/hear/feel reality, our brains reinterpret them to suit our misconceptions.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Sagey, I've seen that religious people become atheists but atheists do not become religious.

THANK YOU!
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Albert, are you reading the original texts of the bible or just a modern
thing in Hebrew and Greek?
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I've studied theology, learned the from a Theologian who studied it in 3 languages Greek, Hebrew and English, I left his training after I started reading the Bible from Genesis to Revelations like a Novel, instead of Cherry picking like the Theologian taught us. I then realized why he skipped many parables as they really didn't make sense and conflicted with the parables he taught us.
I tried to construct a list of these conflicts to confront my Theologian (he has a Bachelor of Theology) who had also been a priest for 25+ years, but the task was massive, as there are so many, I found at least 80 conflicts before I even finished Exodus.
Though before I confronted him with what I had discovered, in order to shock him.
He had become skeptical of the Bible by his own and actually agreed with me.
He is now an Atheist as well. I also met another Theologian who was a preacher for 42 years before coming to a realization that the Bible is not really the word of God, but a fabrication of human manufacture.
This site demonstrates precisely what I discovered over 20 years ago.
http://bibviz.com...
Enjoy it M8z! :-D~
Posted by Albert 3 years ago
Albert
@Dawn.
Whats your opinion on translation? Trust worthy or not?
I read bible from Hebrew/Greek, says the same in English.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
simpleman, if you cannot read the bible in the original Hebrew, you do not know what it says
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
BTW: DK
A dictionary term of Theory encompasses all forms of Theory or non-scientific theories.

You need to specifically look for "Scientific Theory"
which is different to normal, everyday theories like a Dictionary refers to.

I've given you the references for this.
So they are far more correct than your Dictionary.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Yes DK, that is the beauty of Theories.
Theories, unlike Facts are Dynamic, they can be extended to cover other Facts and the more Facts the theory can explain, and if those explanations are plausible with demonstrated significance or a proven connection, the Theory gains strength.

Facts are not fun to work with.
Theories are the highest realm of Science and trying to disprove, strengthen or confirm theories is where some of the fun of scientific research exists.
Though most of the fun is in trying to use these Theories to solve real world issues like curing Cancers.
But, such research can become tiresome and extremely monotonous, but a successful outcome can be the most rewarding experience any person can ever get.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
renonemontanezdonald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
renonemontanezdonald.kellerTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ff