The Instigator
moonshine311111
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
63 Points

Creationist is true

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 12 votes the winner is...
TheSkeptic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,750 times Debate No: 5520
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (12)

 

moonshine311111

Pro

The concept of earth being created is true because everything couldnt have just appeared out of nowhere in the universe it had to be created by something. What scientists believe is that there was a whole bunch of atoms clumped together and all of a sudden they just exploded creating the universe. This theory or myth is called the big bang, but what happened before the big bang? The universe was blank? No. And there was no big bang. The universe Was created. And how can humans be fish then anphibians then monkeys then us. Unless something's gone wrong in the animal kingdom that's not possible.
TheSkeptic

Con

"The concept of earth being created is true because everything couldnt have just appeared out of nowhere in the universe it had to be created by something."

-I beg of you sir, who or what created the big bad bearded man in the sky who supposedly made the universe?

"What scientists believe is that there was a whole bunch of atoms clumped together and all of a sudden they just exploded creating the universe."

Ouch, some fundamental mistakes there my friend.
-The big bang does not attempt to explain what created the universe, what started the creation of the universe, or even what is outside the universe, etc.
-Rather, it is a model describing the evolution of the universe.
-It expanded, not exploded.
-Eh, more like matter and energy were inseparable, as where the four primary forces of the universe: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak nuclear force.

"This theory or myth is called the big bang, but what happened before the big bang?"

-Two things I have to say about this statement. First of all, who created the Creator, and the big bang never tried to explain what caused the expansion. Asking this kind of question is asking what "came before time", kinda like saying what is "north of the North pole". Frankly, scientists don't agree on what caused the big bang, but this doesn't mean that it validates Creationism.

-The second point is quite a pet peeve of mine, because it's such a fundamental mistake people so commonly make. I'm pretty positive that in your thinking, science kinda goes in like this: Hypothesis< Theory< Law. Obviously, such thinking is false.

-A scientific theory is a model based on a collection of facts that can make predictions and explain natural phenomena. The THEORY of gravity explains why objects of mass attract each other. Scientific laws are analytic statements and are universal facts of the world. In fact, a theory can contain a SET of laws in it.

"And how can humans be fish then anphibians then monkeys then us. Unless something's gone wrong in the animal kingdom that's not possible."

-Ay, caramba! So now you attack evolution, of course. Evolution is not a linear line of progression, it's more like a branching tree. We did not evolve from monkeys, but both monkeys and us humans came from the same common ancestor; this is the basic underlying of evolution. As of now, I won't touch this statement since you haven't argued anything against evolution, instead you have us a nice example of the argument from personal incredulity (it's a logical fallacy if you didn't know). You fail to give any reason or evidence of why evolution is false, so as of now I don't find it necessary to even defend it.

And so, you are committing the informal fallacy of a false dilemma. Even if evolution AND the big bang failed to explain their respective fields, this doesn't give Creationism any merit.
Debate Round No. 1
moonshine311111

Pro

"I beg of you sir, who or what created the big bad bearded man in the sky who supposedly made the universe?"

- God created the universe and everything in it. I did make a mistake not believing the world started with nothing. It says in the bible " In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth". And you asked who created the Creator. No one it also says in the bible that "God was always, is always, and will always be."

"Ay, caramba! So now you attack evolution, of course. Evolution is not a linear line of progression, it's more like a branching tree. We did not evolve from monkeys, but both monkeys and us humans came from the same common ancestor; this is the basic underlying of evolution. As of now, I won't touch this statement since you haven't argued anything against evolution, instead you have us a nice example of the argument from personal incredulity (it's a logical fallacy if you didn't know). You fail to give any reason or evidence of why evolution is false, so as of now I don't find it necessary to even defend it."

- You want me to give you evidence? ok I will. Obviously you know who Charles Darwin is. Well he founded the concept of evolution when traveling. He saw a flock of the same species of bird he noticed that each one had a different beak size so he concluded that all things must have a common ancestor. So evolution is based off beaks.
TheSkeptic

Con

-Counterarguments-

1. So you say God wasn't created. So explain to me, why can't this be the same for the universe?

2. My opponent seems to pass by his dismissal of big bang. Seeing as he gave no evidence against the validity of the big bang, I'll just give one reason why the big bang should be supported.

According to Hubble's law, distant galaxies are redshifted; galaxies are moving father apart. From this, there are two possible explanations. Either we are the center of the universe, or the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere. The first explanation is false due to the Copernican principle, so therefore we can conclude that the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere. Go back in time and it should have all started from a singularity, its kinda like reverse engineering. [1]

3. Wow, talk about a BIG generalization of how Darwin started on his path to confirming evolution. First of all, when Darwin came upon the famous finches, he did not even realize that they were evidence for a common ancestor. He just took many samples, and wrote some notes about how his suspicions are increasing about the possibility of a common ancestor, but he didn't realize the importance of the finches. When he brought samples back, John Gould
identified them to be entirely new species of finches, about twelve of them. Yeah that's right, Darwin didn't even KNOW the finches he brought back were finches, he thought they were different types of birds. [2]

So no, evolution isn't "based off beaks". This realization just led Darwin to help discover the process of natural selection; something fundamental to evolution which sparked support for it in the scientific community. Since then, we have found TONS of evidence, ranging from comparative anatomy to the fossil record. You have nothing so far against evolution, and it's only your personal bias that is preventing you from seeing the truth.

-Contentions-

1. Creationism isn't true for many fundamental reasons. People argue that there's evidence for creationism BECAUSE they claim to disprove or punch holes into evolution. Obviously, this is committing the false dilemma fallacy. My opponent has yet to address this point.

---Reference---
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
moonshine311111

Pro

please watch this video. This is part of my debate also watch part 2
TheSkeptic

Con

Well what a turn of events. My opponent has ENTIRELY skipped his entire argument, and all my rebuttals thereof. He has failed to answer my only contention, and instead turns to posting two videos from Youtube, ones he didn't even create.

As of now, I urge for a STRONG reason to vote CON, but for the heck of it, I will rebuttal the infamous VenomFangX's videos. This youtube weirdo is famous for posting up usually ludicrous-Kent Hovind inspired - Young Earth Creationism videos. He's been refuted COUNTLESS of times, most notably by Thunderf00t, but oh well I'll just do my share here. Oh and by the way, I can't wait for him to be prosecuted for perjury because of those falsely filed DMCA copyright infringements :D

So let's go through the first video, and all the junk he says inside:

1. Ugh, what a horrible analogy VFX makes about Darwin's finches. First of all, Darwin didn't even KNOW they were finches before John Gould identified them. From here on, Darwin was starting to be suspicious. Yes, people have different size arms and such, but these finches had relatively the same size of beak WITHIN their SPECIES. Darwin found around 12 species of finches, and each had different characteristics from each other and the ones on the mainland. He didn't come to this stipulation by individual analysis of one finch to another, he came to this conclusion from the analysis of each finch's ENTIRE species compared to the other. This is called simple comparative anatomy, they teach it in biology in high school.

2. Now onto his "philosophical ramifications of evolution", what a way to use the logical fallacy, argument from consequences? First off, just because we are evolved does not exclude the notion that life has an objective purpose. I know many Christians who are theistic evolutionists, they believe God used evolution to create the diverse life on this planet. He can still have a purpose for you, and in the eyes of those Christians, they still have an objective purpose to life. Besides, what's so bad about a subjective purpose anyway?

You don't have to have morality from only moral absolutism. But I am digressing, this is pointless. Whatever the "ramifications" of evolution may be, it has NO MERIT ON ITS TRUTH VALUE. Einstein's theory led to the creation of nuclear bombs which led to the death of millions of people, so does that mean it's wrong? Heck no.

It's kind of funny. He always this notion that the vast majority of the scientific community is in some kind of "conspiracy" to deceive everyone about evolution. WHY in the world would they do this?! Because they don't like the "alternative"? As I have stated before, CREATIONISM is not the only alternative to evolution! And even if it was so, why would scientists want to deny God if they he was real? Why would they rather burn in hell for eternity rather than go to heaven?

Now onto the second video:

1. Yeah, I've always hated this cartoon anyway. Two fundamental mistakes: this blatant misunderstanding of what a fact and a theory is, and supposing that creationism is the only alternative. I have already addressed these points, and going over them again is tedious, so I'll just copy paste from my previous rounds, the ones YOU HAVEN'T REFUTED YET.

A scientific theory is a model based on a collection of facts that can make predictions and explain natural phenomena. The THEORY of gravity explains why objects of mass attract each other. Scientific laws are analytic statements and are universal facts of the world. In fact, a theory can contain a SET of laws in it.

And so, you are committing the informal fallacy of a false dilemma. Even if evolution AND the big bang failed to explain their respective fields, this doesn't give Creationism any merit. Creationism isn't the only alternative.

2. Wow, VFX just gets more and more ridiculous every moment. Scientific experiments in the context of "making life" try to get what possible components were in the world back then, and if they could create life or not. If they could show that a possible combination of components that were available billions of years ago could create life, then they are on the right path.

3. Now VFX talks about the Big Bang. Matter, energy, and the four primary forces of the universe have always existed. The Big Bang doesn't "create" these components. VFX goes into this list of what could possibly make these components...how in the world can he come to these conclusions? Can't I say a super powerful ultra mega super saiyan level alien made matter and such? God isn't the only answer, once again the fallacy of false dilemma.

4. Wasn't an explosion. Actually it was 13.7 billion years ago, you probably got this information wrong because it wasn't from a secular source, but the twisted Kent Hovind. The singularity isn't "nothing", but an area of zero volume and infinite density. We CAN get evidence for the big bang, such as observations and physics. I already have shown this from my previous round, something you have YET to refute.

5. The archaeological evidence says humans weren't here more than 5,000 years? What textbook says this? OH YEAH, he's using creationist crap. Tell me, then how do you explain the Neolithic Revolution? This is the first agricultural revolution from hunting, and it shows evidence from 10,000 BCE or earlier. [1] Hmm why don't we have remnant of human civilization dating millions of years back? MAYBE CAUSE WE DIDN'T ALWAYS HAVE CIVILIZATIONS. The reason why the human population increases so much now is because of science and civilization. We are much more capable now of living longer lives than back then, and thus that means more babies and more people. Mortality rates change as societies benefit the longevity of its people, duh.

6. The past is "untestable, unrepeatable, and unobservable"?! It's funny how VFX attempts to use history to prove Creationism, and in the same breath says we can't use it as evidence. Ever heard of HISTORIANS? ARCHAEOLOGISTS? GEOLOGY? ANTHROPOLOGY? PALEONTOLOGY?

7. "The bible mentions dinosaurs many, many times and that would be impossible if dinosaurs went extinct..." I beg of you to show me where the bible talks about dinosaurs. If dinosaurs went extinct because of the worldwide flood, we would find dinosaur bones mixed up with human remnants of civilization, but the fossil record clearly shows nothing of this.

8. Oh yeah, you record the human lifespan in history from the Bible, GEE that's historically accurate!

9. Animals were big back then because there were double the amount of oxygen? WHAT THE HECK. Should I even address this?! Animals don't grow bigger because there is more oxygen, and theres no canopy of water in the atmosphere. Such huge concentrations of water molecules would've led to humans suffocating due to their lungs collapsing. Unless of course, humans were much "bigger" like all the dinosaurs. So how come they didn't "suffocate" after the flood like the rest of the dinosaurs? Or better yet, why don't we find giant human bones?

*Conclusion*

My opponent has failed to address the point I made about the false dilemma fallacy he is repeatedly committing, and he doesn't address my points about the Big Bang or evolution. Instead, he brings up various different points from a video he didn't even create. I have refuted them all and my original points still stand. I will be expecting his rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 3
moonshine311111

Pro

1. Darwin's finches wasn't my point it was just in the video.

2. I don't know about you but I would rather go to heaven than hell because the bibles says "hell is a lake of fire, and as you lay there burning for eternity you'll scream out and satan the deciever will laugh and spit in your face." It also says in the bible " As Satan is laughing at you you will have a swarm of maggots crawling through your body and laying eggs in your entrils." Heaven on the other hand is described as paradise with streets of gold and buildings made of jasper. People who go to heavens will also get to spend eternity with their loved ones.

Second Video:

1.So if creationism isn't the only alternative what do you suppose are the other alternitives

2.Here's your proof the big bang is false again please watch this video

3.watch his earlier videos he does actually show a text book
TheSkeptic

Con

*Counterargument*

1. You present the video in your argument, so every point it makes in the video I should be able to refute accordingly unless you said otherwise. Besides, you did address Darwin's finches, and it's only logical for me to conclude that your point will be made through the video in the previous round.

-But more importantly, you haven't refuted my points! Are you conceding this argument? Have I won this point already? Already one thing for the voters to take note of.

2. I'd rather go to heaven then hell also, as would most rational human beings. Does it mean that I believe it is real? Of course not, in the same way you don't believe a god called Hades rules the Underworld.

3. There could be tons of other alternatives. Aliens, other dimensions, etc.

--> This is VERY important. So far, my opponent has dodged every point I have made and refuted about evolution. He hasn't given me any argument against my side, and this leaves open a wide gap of unanswered points I have made. Unless he resolves this, may the voters realize how big of a reason they should vote for Con is.

*Refuting the video*

A pure propaganda video. Dramatic music, but no valid scientific points. Yeah, right off the bat it states why "The Big Bang Theory will never become a law of science...". I gave a lesson on theories and laws, just refer back to my previous arguments.

1. In cosmological scales, the speed of light hasn't much significance, since interpretations of recession velocities are inherently general relativistic, ruling out special relativity.

2. The Big Bang is an intrinsic expansion - it's relative. The Copernican principle directly addresses this, dang I talked about this point in my previous round already.

3. What started the Big Bang has nothing to do with the validity of the theory in itself. Man I am repeating myself a lot in this debate, I have already addressed this issue in my previous round.

4. The expansion is due to a cosmological constant unknown as of now, and of inertia from the initial point when all matter was expanding from a singularity.

5. I fail to see the connection, so please clarify.

6. When was the singularity expanding a supernova? It's not.

7. What kind of "argument" is this? I need a reference to check up that claim, but for the sake of argument let's say it was true. So basically, we don't have computers powerful enough, a null point.

8. The metric expansion of space is valid on the scale of galactic super clusters and anything above that in size. That is why galaxies can and do collide.

*Kent Hovind Section*

1. His "5-minute argument against evolution" is complete crap. What mean by "evolution mister Hovind is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Refute that bub.

2. I rather not address his objection to Earth's age as that's another big topic. But eh, I'll just throw in radiocarbon dating and the fossil record for some proof now.

3. Or maybe the MATTER WAS ALWAYS THERE.

4. The Big Crunch is only one of the possible scenarios, though this doesn't undermine it's validity in anyway.

5. The Big Bang doesn't postulate that the universe came from "nothing". It doesn't even address that issue! Man I hate repeating myself. Though, a hypothesis about this is the Hartle-Hawking state.

The Big Bang hasn't been exposed as a fraud, especially not from the doctorate-faking Kent Hovind.

*Conclusion*

ONCE AGAIN, my opponent has supplied NO evidence for creationism, just what he thinks to be flaws in the Big Bang theory and Evolution, all of what have been refuted. He has skipped many of the previous points in previous rounds, and I have an inkling feeling he'll do the same in the next round.
Debate Round No. 4
moonshine311111

Pro

*counter arguments*

2. obviously you would rather go to hell because you constantly reject Jesus.
3. So your saying it's possible aliens could have created the universe, that would still be creationism.
4. thus the big bang isn't real

*Kent Hovind Section*

1. I have a question, if you were to put me in Antartica for 100000000 years with a girl would I become some new species of ice fish? NO.

If this doesn't save you then theres nothing else I can do but watch get thrown into the hell on judgement day. PLEASE GET SAVED.
TheSkeptic

Con

*Counterarguments*

Since he forgot how to count, I'll number mine relative to his order.

1. Obviously you haven't a good argument, seeing that your creationist myth has been thoroughly debunked.
2. Or other means, such as dimensions, etc. I never said it had to be a WHO, it can be a WHAT.
3. Thus you have no valid argument.

*Kent Hovind Section*

1. For millions of reasons no. First, you would probably die, but for the sake of argument let's say you don't. Humans are unique from every other species on this planet because we bend the rules. While animals adapt to nature, as is the core of evolution, humans make nature adapt to us. We have tools and technology, so evolution is hardly a factor. But assuming that you and your generations after you had no knowledge of science or technology and can not discover science or technology, which is VERY VERY unlikely given human intelligence, then yes you could evolve into some other kind of creature with perhaps amphibian like details.

If rational arguments don't daunt your belief, then nothing will. As is the nature of blind faith. PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES.

*Conclusion*

In the progress of this 5 round debate, my opponent has supplied nothing. He drops all his initial points, fails to refute any of mine, and switches the topic in every round. This is why it's obligatory to vote for Con ;D.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by monkeyyxxsun 8 years ago
monkeyyxxsun
vote bombed?
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
I'm pretty sure he was referring to the vote bombed debate monkeyyxxsun haha.
Posted by monkeyyxxsun 8 years ago
monkeyyxxsun
no! let`s all vote for the guy with the cooler picture!
the one who thinks we`re a bag of douche -_-x
teehee he doesnt mean it right skeptic? :D
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
Let's all vote for rezz. I just did.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
LR, I think the guy in the video sounds like an idiot. If he is going to attempt to dispute a theory, he is obliged to have some basic understanding of what the theory. He did no show the slightest understanding at any level.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Rezz, I noticed in the voting profiles in the debate you cited that large numbers of people claimed to have no prior opinion on Young Earth Theory, yet nearly have voted in favor of it. This defies logic, as Young Earth Theory is only believed by ideologues. So, yes, it must be vote bombing. I have noticed the extreme religion tends to require an enormous amount of self-confirmation.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
The guy in the video sounds smart, but he's an idiot.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Vote bombed overnight.
My opponent's score went from 83 to 111.

http://www.Debate.org...
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
Yay 21-24.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Did everyone catch in the first video that the YouTube guy called Darwin's ship the "Bugle," despite the title of Darwin's book being "The Voyage of the Beagle." Knowing nothing about Darwin or the Theory of Evolution is consistent with misstating it and being unable to debate it. I think TheSkeptic did a fine job of patiently sorting through the stuff presented.

I noticed that virtually all the Pro votes seem to be from kids under 17 who were pro before the debate started.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Marader 8 years ago
Marader
moonshine311111TheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by moonshine311111 8 years ago
moonshine311111
moonshine311111TheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
moonshine311111TheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
moonshine311111TheSkepticTied
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 
Vote Placed by wrestlenrun 8 years ago
wrestlenrun
moonshine311111TheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
moonshine311111TheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by monkeyyxxsun 8 years ago
monkeyyxxsun
moonshine311111TheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
moonshine311111TheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
moonshine311111TheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
moonshine311111TheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70