The Instigator
EggsAndSam
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
toocoolblue
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Does God Exist?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 505 times Debate No: 97159
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

EggsAndSam

Con

God - the creator and ruler of the universe; worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes

Rules-
1.) No forfeiting
2.) No swearing
3.) Stay on track
4.) Be civil and respectable
5.) No new arguments in the last round
6.) No "K's" on any topics
7.) Include citations at the end of the text

Violation of these rules will result in the loss of my opponent

Structure:
1st round is acceptance only
No new arguments in the last round

I want to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate and I look forward to debating my opponent.
toocoolblue

Pro

I will accept your challenge, but could you please explain what you mean by -
6.) No "K's" on any topics
And you don't mind if I include my references in my text. rather than following it.
Debate Round No. 1
EggsAndSam

Con

A "K" refers to a kritik, kritiks are pretty difficult to explain, you will find some definitions on google. Put pretty much, a kiritik looks at issues lurking within the presentation of one side of the debate, rather than taking the presentation at its face value. The result of this is that the debate shifts away from policy discussion, often toward discussing questions of fact or value.
And it's fine to put citations in your text, just put the actual links at the end of all your text.

Reasons which seem the existence of God high unlikely-

Point 1- No evidence
Religious people often use the absence of proof for something as proof for God. For example, we don't have any solid proof for what happened before the Big Bang, therefore, people assume that God created the Big Bang. However, it is unwise to make this conclusion, because with the same reasoning I could argue that a conscious butterfly created the universe.
Others use the Bible, Torah, etc. (for now I will use the Bible) as evidence. However, the Bible is highly unreliable. In the book of genesis, it states that the Earth is 6000 years old, something that we have now proved wrong via radiometric dating by showing that it is roughly 4.5 billion years old [1]. The Bible also states that humans could live up to 900 years, now this is just foolish to believe because people in 1st world countries with access to the most advanced medicine we have developed so far are considered lucky to pass 90 years. In fact, the world-wide life expectancy is roughly 71 years. Nevertheless, compare that with the life expectancy 200 years ago of 30-40 years [3]. People should not focus their lives blindly on a book that has so many unreliable aspects of it, most religious texts were written around 2000 years ago, people should not value such old texts over our modern knowledge of science, nature, astronomy, etc.

Point 2- Ignorance
Here is my theory on why some people are religious: they are too ignorant to find the truth. Take the Greeks as an example, they used Gods to describe the weather, the oceans,etc., something that we view as silly with our modern-day knowledge. However, we are doing the exact same thing. As stated above, religious people are taking the unknown and just putting a sticker on it labeled "God's doings" without looking deeper and trying to discover what is the source of it. If we just assumed everything was "God's doings" we would never make any advancements in science. For example, in the scientific revolution, it was primarily because people started to challenge the church with new scientific ideas that were contrary to that of the church's teachings that people started to make scientific advancements. Copernicus perhaps started the scientific revolution with his heliocentric theory that challenged that church's own geocentric theory [4]. After Copernicus challenged the church, many famous individuals (including Galileo, Kepler, Brahe, Bacon, Newton) started to make very important advancements in subjects ranging from anatomy to botany to astronomy. When members of the church had their ignorance challenged, they responded violently; executing or imprisoning many of the scientists and banning almost all of their books.

Point 3- Imperfections
While Earth is perhaps very much suitable for life, the Earth and us humans are not perfect.
Between 1994 and 2013, natural disasters claimed 1.35 million lives and 218 million people were affected by the natural disasters [5]. If Earth was created perfectly by a superior being whose sole purpose was the preservation of our species, then there would not be so many natural disasters. Speaking of preservation of our species, how can there be a God with all the morally disgusting genocides, slaughters, and murders that have taken place throughout history? The Holocaust took roughly 6.2 million - 7 million lives, the Holodomor took roughly 7.5 million lives [6]. , the Native American genocide took millions upon million (90% of native Americans died... that's somewhere around 50 million to 90 million lives), the Cambodian genocide took 1.8 million to 3 million lives, I could just keep going on and on and on. If there is a so-called "loving God", why would he allow all these genocides and slaughterings of innocent people, why did slavery persist for so long, why were there so many deadly diseases throughout history? I can not think it logical that all these genocides and slaughterings can exist parallel to a God. Since these mass slaughterings exist; there is no God. If there is a God; these mass slaughterings would not exist.

Point 4- the universe and non-uniqueness
If we are so selfish and greedy to think that are are the sole purpose of the universe, then why is the observable universe alone 92 BILLION light years (a light year is the amount of distance light can travel in a year) in diameter? The fastest man-made object right now can travel 25 miles per second, light can travel 186,282 miles per second. Meaning, the fastest man-made object only travels .0134% the speed of light. So, it would take roughly 100,000,000,000,000 (100 trillion) years to go across the observable universe with modern technology. Also, there are billions of stars in our milky way galaxy and billions of galaxies in the observable universe. We aren't the center of ANYTHING, not our solar system, not our galaxy, not our cluster of galaxies, not our universe. If the universe is infinite, however, every point would technically be the center... but that still doesn't make us unique. It is predicted that around 2,000,000,000 planets in just our own Milky Way galaxy are capable of holding life [7]. The only thing that truly makes us unique is that we are the only known planet with life, but that is just because we do not have sufficient technology yet to be able to reach out to distant exoplanets. We haven't even ruled out the possibility that there may be life in our own solar systems, for some moons of Jupiter and Saturn have sub-surface oceans and Pluto just recently was discovered to have a sub-surface ocean as well.

Point 5- Amount of religions
There are roughly 4,200 religions in the world [8]. Why would one single religion ,that you were probably born into, be the correct one out of thousands? There is such a variety of beliefs among all the religions that it's illogical, to me at least, to assume that one single religion is the correct one; if there even is a "correct" religion.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://ourworldindata.org...
http://users.clas.ufl.edu...
http://reliefweb.int...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.physics.org...
https://www.reference.com...
toocoolblue

Pro

Con offers many well thought out objections and questions.

All of which, I, as a person of faith, have been forced to ask myself. In fact, I could offer many more compelling questions than the few Con has mustered. This is because my religion requires me to question it, not just blindly accept anything being preached from a bully pulpit. The truth can withstand interrogation, lies and fraud cannot. This, in part, answers one of Con's questions, "Why would one single religion ,that you were probably born into, be the correct one out of thousands?"

Personally, I am not a member of the Religion I was born into to; my study of scripture caused me to make that change. But first, I had to be willing to question what I had been taught, and actually be willing to do the research necessary to make an informed decision.

Failure to do this, in large part, leads to many of the statements made in Con's overall argument.

Con states -
Point 1- No evidence

What Con should have stated was -
Point 1- No evidence that I have been made aware of.

To state that there is no evidence of God wrongly implies that Con knows every Scientific Fact that exists: and is therefore qualified to make blanket statements regarding what all of Science has or has not proven. To make the assumption that what you have been taught is actually true, simply because it's the only idea you were ever taught, and you were never presented with opposing viewpoints, is exactly the same error Con just accused Religious people of making.

Con is more than willing to question what others believe, but has never put his own beliefs on trial. If he had, he could never have made the arguments he has offered.

Does Con (or anyone else reading this) realize that there is a nasty little word attached to everything that the State has ever taught about how life came to be?

That word is THEORY. And "Theory" has literally been defined as - an idea that has yet to be proven true, a mere conjecture, a guess,etc.

Yet, that is not how the State teaches these ideas, is it?

Instead, the State tells you, learn these ideas or else.

But what is more troubling than teaching theories as though they were proven facts, is that the State only teaches small parts of these theories, leaving the limitless failed tests and the countless miracles that these theories require, completely unmentioned.

If I ask, what does the Monopole problem mean? How many can answer?
What about the Anti-Matter problem, the Flatness Problem or the Lithium Problem or the Coincidence Problem? Have you ever even heard of these? For about 99.9% of people, the answer is no.

Con accuses Religious people of being ignorant, yet most likely could not explain or answer questions about the theories he believes are proven science .

Con alleges that Radiometric Dating proves the Earth is roughly 4.5 Billion years old - but if I ask Con to explain the difference between Alpha Decay and Beta Decay, could he? What role does Helium diffusion play in proving or disproving radiometric dating? What is the difference between Carbon-14 dating and Potassium Argon dating? Better yet, if radiometric dating is accurate, explain why, Atheist Professor William D. Stansfield, who teaches Biological Sciences at California Polytechnic State University would write in his book- The Science of Evolution, Page 84

It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock." The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists

We were never taught that a given rock may produce a vast array of different ages, depending on what type of radiometric testing is used.

Has Con (or anyone else) ever heard of the Axis of Evil? Con States - We aren't the center of ANYTHING,..
Really? Not according to Science.
Lawrence Krauss is a Prof. of Theoretical Physics at Arizona State and arguably the loudest spokesperson for Atheism on the planet. He states -
That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun " the plane of the earth around the sun " the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.
https://www.edge.org...

Not that I believe this, but there are currently four independent, direct measurements which confirm the Earth IS the center of the Universe. And even more indirect measurements which also seem to prove this. But why haven't we been taught any of this?

Does Con realize that Humans and Chimps are not remotely genetically similar? But why is our government still teaching this, knowing that it has been proven wrong?

The point here is that all of us were never actually taught what science really proves. We have to find out on our own.

There is a reason, the most accomplished Rocket Scientist in the history of the world, Wernher Von Braun, was an outspoken Creationist. There is a reason, arguably the world's most accomplished Brain Surgeon; Dr. Ben Watson, is an outspoken Creationist. There is a reason, the inventor of the MRI, Dr. Raymond Damadian, is an outspoken Creationist.

And that reason is not because they don"t understand Math, Science and Physics; it's because they do.

The arguments Con posted are nothing new, in fact, a simple internet search is sufficient to rebuke all of them. It may be shocking to Con to realize that he is not the first person to have these ideas. If they actually held any weight, people would have rejected Religion long ago.

But since I am running out of space, let me answer the TWO BIG QUESTIONS before I go further.

WHAT and WHY.

What is the meaning of life? And the question every Atheist asks-
Why would a loving God allow? (Fill in the blank - Earthquake, Fire, Flood, etc.)

What is the meaning of life, is answered in 1 Peter 4:12, which tells us that life is a fiery trial, and we are here to either pass or fail this trial.
This notion is supported in Hebrews 9:27 - And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

So what will we be judged on? The answer is whether or not we accepted Jesus Christ as our savior and his atonement for our sin.

Which brings us to the second question, Why would a loving God allow?

The answer is because we are not forced to accept anything. Not God's laws, not God's companionship, not God's Plan of Salvation. Nothing -We have free will.

Imagine if God did interfere. In even, the most insignificant way. Suppose that everyday a penny supernaturally appeared under the pillow of every member of the XYZ church. If you left the church, the penny would not appear, but if you rejoined, then once again, the penny appeared.

Of course, a penny isn't going to make any difference in anyone's life.

But it would offer proof that the XYZ church is the only "real" church.

And thus, you would be forced to follow the doctrines of that church.

In my opinion, God seems to have no interest in forcing you or bribing you to do anything, that you don't wish to do. Even the Angels in Heaven were free to rebel. But there were and will be consequences to these actions.

Thus, good things sometimes happen to bad people and bad things sometimes happen to good people.

It is the only way our trial can be fair.

Does this mean he never intervenes? No.
But from my experience, God seems to intervene much more often once you have accepted his Plan of Salvation than if you want nothing to do with him.

Atheists ask for proof God exists, but if provided with that proof, would call God a tyrant who forces their obedience.
You have the freedom to choose. What more could you ask of a loving God?
Debate Round No. 2
EggsAndSam

Con

As you can see, throughout his argument, Con has just mostly made assumptions and accused me of not being knowledgeable enough to make the points that I did. Something I view as disrespectful. I will not be answering his little quizzes for they are not important to the debate.

Firstly, like most religious people, Con has no idea what a scientific theory truly means. Con describes it as "a mere conjecture, a guess". I have been in arguments with many religious people in the past, and they almost all love describing theories as "guesses" when in fact the very definition of a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment" [1]. The heliocentric theory is just that, a theory, yet we know and have proved that the Earth revolves around the Sun via the Sun's gravity.

Con describes the "limitless tests that these theories have failed" yet isn't able to produce a single one. Instead, he goes again trying to show how "intelligent" he is. Con clearly misunderstands the scientific community and how it works, otherwise, he would know that if a theory failed just one test; it would be either restructured or swapped with another more accurate one.
While I said earlier that I wouldn't answer Con's little "quizzes", I will provide a viable explanation for each of the problems he listed to show the readers that these, in fact, don't disprove major theories.

Anti-matter problem; The problem of no anti-matter. In the Big Bang, a very slight asymmetry of matter to antimatter was produced (by an unknown process that caused oscillating particles to decay as matter more often than as antimatter [6].), leading to the annihilation of most if not all of the antimatter particles for matter and antimatter annihilate when they collide. And since there were more matter particles than antimatter... the universe (that we know of) is now made up of just normal matter.

Flatness problem; The problem of a "flat' universe. The theory of inflation [7](says that the universe expanded exponentially during the first 10^ (-36) seconds) has accounted for a flat universe. The theory of inflation, before Con says is "just a guess" it has been backed up by the cosmic microwave background along with other elements of the universe

Lithium problem; The problem of not enough Lithium in the universe as predicted. The standard theory of electromagnetic cascades describes redistribution of energy by predicting a specific shape of the spectrum of photon energies in the cascade. When the energy of the colliding photon falls below a certain level, the spectral shape deviates from the normal predicted shape. As a result, more high-energy photons are present in the correctly computed spectrum than in the approximation typically used in the literature. Such energetic photons are more effective in destroying lithium [8].

Coincidence problem; Why did the acceleration of the Universe happen when it did? Many models of quintessence have a so-called "tracker" behavior, which solves this problem. In these models, the quintessence field has a density which closely tracks (but is less than) the radiation density until matter-radiation equality, which triggers quintessence to start behaving as dark energy, eventually dominating the universe. This naturally sets the low energy scale of the dark energy.) [9].

I am already well-aware that radiometric dating isn't 100% accurate, however, the point I was trying to make was that the Earth was well over 6000 years old. Radiometric dating can be off by a couple hundred million years when you're dealing with very old rocks, that is true, but even if it was off by the most extreme amounts; it would still be older than 6000 years old as is stated in the Bible.

Con states that there are "four independent, direct measurements which confirm the Earth IS the center of the Universe.", but yet again, fails to list any. In fact, throughout the argument Con seems to list little to no evidence at all, making his claims very weak for they have nothing to back them up. It is true that almost everything, except the Andromeda Galaxy, is receding from us. But that is not because we are the point of expansion but because spacetime itself is expanding. Think of it like this, you have a balloon with flies stuck on it, as you inflate the balloon, every fly gets farther away from its neighboring flies. In fact, it is thought that there is no center of the universe at all [2], for the expansion is the same everywhere since, as I said, spacetime itself is expanding.

Yet again, Con makes a claim that he provides no evidence with; humans aren't remotely similar to chimps. Yet we share 96% of our genetic material and we both branched off from a common ancestor? [3]. How has this been proven wrong? Con yet again does not elaborate and show how it has been proven wrong.

I like how Con describes three particular elite scientists as creationists when 93% of elite scientists are atheists. 84% of the world is religious, compare that with the 49% in the scientific community, and then with the 7% in the elite scientists [4]. As the reader can clearly see, as the level of education goes up... the percentage of religious people goes down.

I also looked up some of the people Con listed; for Con's accomplished "Dr. Ben Watson" all I got was a certain Dr. Benjamin L. Watson who has 3.1 stars [5], and not even a Wikipedia article about him. For the most accomplished brain surgeon in the world, I would expect to at least be able to search his name on Google.

Then Con concludes by "answering" 2 questions. Con says that the meaning of life is to be judged by our acceptance of Jesus Christ. Again, his answer does not have any evidence apart from the Bible, something I earlier showed to be unreliable.
Then Con states that all these tragedies have happened because God has allowed "free will". Yet, as I stated before, according to religious people, God's main purpose is to preserve our species, so why would he, despite us having "free will", allow these slaughterings? Even though Con has admitted in his argument that at times we don't have free will?

In conclusion, Con throughout his reply has shown little to no evidence and has evaded the majority of my questions by questioning my intelligence. He has used false definitions (such as that of "theory") as well as false claims (such as "limitless tests that these theories have failed", and about a certain Dr. Benjamin Watson). Instead of doing this, Con should've instead made his arguments for why God exists; not challenge my arguments. That was meant to be for the 3rd round, but since I didn't specify, I won't hold him/her accountable. Con has yet to show any solid evidence for why God exists. I encourage Con not to question my accountability from here on out and be on topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://math.ucr.edu...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
http://www.seeker.com...
https://www.healthgrades.com...
https://home.cern...
https://en.wikipedia.org...(cosmology)
http://phys.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
toocoolblue

Pro

Undeniably, there are certain problems with rebuking a lifetime of brain washing with a tiny 8000 character internet post.

The premise of my first post was twofold.

1. Con does not understand the Bible - as proven by statements such as this -
Bible is highly unreliable. In the book of genesis, it states that the Earth is 6000 years old

But Con cannot provide us with the chapter and verse of Genesis that makes that statement. This is because Genesis implicitly states no such thing.

Con clearly bases his ideas of what the Bible does or does not say solely on what other people have told him to think, not on what is actually written in the Bible. Making false statements and then "proving" them to be untrue, while calling other people ignorant, speaks for itself.

2. Con does not understand Science - as proven by, well...pretty much his entire last response, he states -
While I said earlier that I wouldn't answer Con's little "quizzes", I will provide a viable explanation for each of the problems he listed to show the readers that these, in fact, don't disprove major theories.

Showing that these problems don't disprove major theories, would require a SOLUTION. A viable solution to ANY of the problems I listed would guarantee a NOBEL PRIZE and numerous multi-million dollar awards and worldwide fame. Apparently, Con believes that internet search results which DESCRIBE problems he obviously doesn't understand - is the same thing as providing a SOLUTION to these problems. I guess this is how he will, and I quote, " show the readers that these, in fact, don't disprove major theories."

Con has proven that he has no idea what the Bible teaches and no idea of what Science teaches, he simply "knows" what other people have told him to think and nothing more.

Con does make one valid point, in that I did not provide many references to support some of my statements. This is because of the Character Limit, not because they don't exist.

Because of space limitations, I was going to offer Con the choice of which of the major frauds, which we have been taught, he would like to see debunked. As undermining any one of these fictions should be more than enough to cause any reasonable person to question everything they have been told was "Science".

1. The biggest lie of them all, the notion that we have 99% similar DNA to Chimps.
2. That Radiometric dating proves the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old.
3. The Earth is/is not the center of the Universe.

Of the three, I was hoping that he wouldn't choose no.3 as this is the most complicated. You see, I do not believe the Earth is the center of the Universe (although it may be) my objections to this conclusion are strictly Religious and not Scientific.

As far as Science is concerned, the case is closed. The Earth IS the center of the Universe. Because of the ramifications, the scientists who have discovered this are simply too afraid to make this data widely available. I mentioned four independent direct measurements and even more indirect measurements that conform this finding. I will now list some of these.

Measurement 1. The CMB or Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
This is what Dr. Krauss was referring to in my previous post where he stated
That would say we are truly the center of the universe.
https://www.edge.org...
Dr. Krauss currently tours the world with Prof. Richard Dawkins advocating Atheism. He has authored at least 10 books, and hundreds of papers, produced films such as "The Unbelievers" all with the theme of advocating Atheism. In short, he has taken up the mantle from Prof. Dawkins as Atheism's loudest voice.

So why is he claiming the Earth is the Center of the Universe?

Researchers at MIT were looking over data from NASA's WMAP satellite when it was noticed that there IS a special direction in space. This direction is defined by the equator of the Planet Earth and it's equinoxes. Cosmologists have dubbed this the "Axis of Evil". You can read more about this here -
http://www-personal.umich.edu...
Dragan Huterer is a theoretical cosmologist and a professor in the department of physics at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

At first, scientists simply laughed this off as some kind of fluke or mistake, because it just couldn't be real. Even though the findings were confirmed by looking back at the earlier COBE satellite data , rather than admit what they had discovered, NASA tried to prove the WMAP satellite was broken. quote -
So perplexing is the axis of evil that Hinshaw and WMAP's principal investigator, Chuck Bennett, have obtained a grant for a five-year examination of the WMAP data. They hope to explore the possibilities that the WMAP instrument was in error, or that something else went wrong. "There's no question there's stuff that looks unusual," says Bennett.
We will have to wait and see whether the study reveals the axis of evil to be a cosmic mirage, or shows the big bang model to be in serious trouble.
http://www.independent.co.uk...

After about 10 years of failed attacks on the WMAP data, the scientists figured that the European Space Agency's PLANCK Satellite would finally discredit the data. Here's what they found -
Matthew R. Francis is a physicist, and was director of the MD Anderson Planetarium form 2007-09 he writes,
Finally, the strange anomaly WMAP first observed in 2001 at the largest scales is still there. Some people held out hope that the WMAP results were a fluke, an error arising from the observatory"s basic construction. However, Planck is sufficiently different in design to make that hope futile. The effect is real. (Some sources made this sound like it"s something new, but maybe that"s because cosmologists tried not to call attention to it in the last decade.)
https://galileospendulum.org...

The Planck satellite's director took this approach -
"Why characteristics of the CMB should relate to our solar system is not understood. ... I was explicitly told not to say anything about God in this talk " which I've just violated," Efstathiou said half-jokingly.
http://www.nbcnews.com...

The approach our so-called "Scientists" have taken toward this data is to simply pretend it doesn't exist. This is the rule, not the exception, "Evolutionary" Scientists cherry pick the data they like and only teach that, while leaving the errors, flaws and failed experiments completely unmentioned.

Measurement 2. The Polarization of Light from Quasars

Now, two independent studies seem to confirm that it does exist. Damien Hutsem"kers of the University of Li"ge in Belgium analysed the polarisation of light from 355 quasars and found that as the quasars get near the axis, the polarisation becomes more ordered than expected. Taken together, the polarisation angles from the quasars seem to corkscrew around the axis. "This is really promising," says Hinshaw. "Cosmologists should sit up and take notice."

https://www.eurekalert.org...

As we are approaching the character limit, this Post containing references to the other measurements, is continued in the COMMENTS section.
Debate Round No. 3
EggsAndSam

Con

As you can see, Pro still has yet to provide evidence for God"s existence, even though I"ve reminded him/her in previous replies. But since this is the last round, Pro can not provide any new argument, and so, consequently, Pro has essentially failed to do their part in this debate.

The website "answers in genesis" states "Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11. Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).
So a simple calculation is:
5 days + ~2,000 years + ~4,000 years = ~6,000 years
[1].

While it directly does not state the Earth is 6000 years old, it implies it, as shown above by a creationist. Either way, I would expect not to understand the Bible since I"m not sitting in a church for hours and reading the same thing over and over until I"m essentially brainwashed by the church as numerous people across the ages have been.

2.
Again, Pro hypocritically states "Con does not understand science". When before, Pro stated that major theories have failed limitless tests (clear misunderstanding of how the scientific community operates, and has also failed to show which tests they have failed), that a scientific theory is a "mere guess" [5] (false definition), that humans aren"t remotely similar to chimps (completely false, for we share 96-99% of our DNA , we came from a common ancestor, we have similar eyes, similar skeletons, etc.) [4], said elite scientists are religious for a reason (when 7% of elite scientists are religious, Pro simply cherry picked a few), etc.

Again, Pro assumes that "I don"t know science", that I"m "ignorant", and tries to attack me instead of focusing on the debate topic

Then Pro goes on trying to show how the Earth is the center of the universe for the rest of his reply (personally, I would"ve preferred the chimp to human problem), even though that doesn"t really contribute to the existence of God, for even Pro admitted he/she did not believe the Earth was at the center of the universe, making Pro"s argument practically useless except to show how I"ve been "brainwashed" and "told what to think" (Ironic isn"t it? I"m not the one being taught that same thing over and over again for hours a week throughout my life). Since I think it is not beneficial to the debate, I will post evidence that the earth is NOT the center of the universe in the COMMENTS.

It"s typical of a religious person to attack the educational system for spreading lies, while shamelessly defending the church. Even though the church spreads lies much more obviously, and spreads much more of those lies. Such as that there is a heaven (no proof of that), that you are forgiven for your wrongdoings simply for praying to a God (you should be held accountable for your wrongdoings), that there is a "loving God" (even though he has allowed numerous genocides), that you can simply pay for your sins (indulgences), that people should be killed on "witch hunts" [2]. They have spread dis-accurate scientific information (throughout the centuries, these lies have ranged from the Earth being at the center of the solar system/geocentric theory to people have life spans of 900 years), they have censored science (imprisoning or executing many of those who contradicted their teachings, such as during the scientific revolution. Including the imprisonment of Galileo [3]), controlling what people think by force (ranging from the censorship of science to no freedom of religion throughout the country/area/kingdom etc.), the list just goes on and on. Many of things that you accuse the educational system of "doing" appears throughout the church"s history. But of course, keep saying that our education is flawed, not your church!

Then Pro states that "Evolutionary scientists cherry pick data", again, a clear misunderstanding of how the scientific community works and is evidence that Pro has been fed false information about science throughout his or her life. I admit that sometimes scientists don"t present the full data, but that is primarily because they need to be 100% it"s not a fluke before presenting it to the public. It won"t look "good" if it breaks out that scientists found life, just to find out they"ve been mistaken.

Conclusion-
In conclusion, Pro has failed to provide evidence for God's existence and throughout this debate has made an abundance of misleading or false claims. I have clarified which claims were false/misleading throughout the debate that ranged from Elite scientists being religious to a scientific theory being a "mere guess". Pro's statements are full of hypocrisy as he states that "Con does not understand science" while displaying clear symptoms of not understanding how the scientific community functions or about science in general. Pro has gathered up conspiracies that "our educational system is lying to us" yet not ever quite showing how they have lied. While I agree that our educational system isn't the best it can possibly be, it does not feed children lies or facts that have disproven by "limitless tests". Yet at the same time, Pro is being hypocritical, for the church has been guilty of misleading and lying to society throughout the ages with examples that I showed in this reply. Additionally, Pro has failed to show examples/evidence for the vast majority of his/her claims that he/she blames on "the character limit". Yet links barely take up any space, and I have absolutely no problem of including them in my reply, along with the majority of debators on this site. Maybe if Pro spent less time calling me uneducated and trying to persuade the reader how "intelligent" Pro is, Pro would have no trouble as well. It was quite foolish of Pro to spend half (or more) of their 3rd reply listing arguments for why Earth is the center of the universe when Pro doesn't even believe it in the first place, and further, we are not debating whether or not Earth is the center of the universe.
Regardless, I would like to thank Pro for a good debate.

[1] https://answersingenesis.org...
[2] http://www.religioustolerance.org...
[3] http://www.inquiriesjournal.com...
[4] http://www.amnh.org...
[5] http://www.livescience.com...
toocoolblue

Pro

There are only two possible explanations to explain how life came to be.
1. A rock crawled out of a mud puddle, and somehow through an infinite number of miracles which can never be observed occurring in nature or recreated in a laboratory, this rock became both your great, great, great..Grandfather and Grandmother......or -
2. An Intelligent Designer created us.

Like it or not, that's all we have to choose from.

And if you disprove one, you have provided significant proof of the other.

But once again, Con struggles to follow what is being discussed here.

Again and again, Con cut and pastes "scientific" data that he doesn't quite understand. Con says, Pro stated that major theories have failed limitless tests (clear misunderstanding of how the scientific community operates, and has also failed to show which tests they have failed)

Con has listed the "Lithium Problem" apparently not realizing that this is one of limitless tests the "Theories", wrongly taught as facts, have failed.
Fusion experiments show that the Big Bang can't account for lithium.
http://arstechnica.com...

The Big Bang Theory"s acceptance was based on two predictions
1. The Abundance of Light Elements, which is disproven by the Lithium Problem, although, based on the above linked research, it should now be called the Lithium Catastrophe.
2. The CMB, which has now been proven by 3 different satellites to say the Earth is the Center of the Universe. Thus, disproving that the CMB is the "Big Bang's Afterglow of Creation" or anything important for that matter.

Thereby removing any reason to give credence to the Big Bang Theory.

Unless, of course...you want to insist that the Earth is the Center of The Universe and there is no Intelligent Designer...but hey, good luck with that.

Con knows so little about the "Theories" he is trying to defend, that he doesn't realize the problems being discussed ARE tests his theories have failed. And that they are only a small fraction of these failures.

Cern physicist Sabine Hossenfelder originally wrote this in Forbes, from the article, The LHC "nightmare scenario" has come true. -
During my professional career, all I have seen is failure...What worries me much more is our failure to learn from failure. Rather than trying something new, we"ve been trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com...

The top Physicist at CERN recently said this -
"It"s striking that we"ve thought about these things for 30 years and we have not made one correct prediction that they have seen," said Nima Arkani-Hamed
https://www.quantamagazine.org...

Here Prof. Neil Turok, the former Chairman of the Math and Physics Dept. at Cambridge admits all the theories have failed.
https://vimeo.com...

The Star Formation Theory has failed -
The Big Problems in Star Formation: the Star Formation Rate, Stellar Clustering, and the Initial Mass Function
https://arxiv.org...

The Planet Formation Theory has failed -
Why all we knew about planets is wrong
http://www.bbc.com...

The Moon Formation Theory has failed -
'Giant Impact Theory' of Moon's Origin--Nixed by New Research
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

This article states -
The field in its current state "doesn't make much sense", says Norm Murray of the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics in Toronto.
http://www.nature.com...
What the heck does he mean by CURRENT STATE!!! It NEVER made any sense. 1+1 NEVER equaled 7. The physics never worked.

Here the World's top Genetics Expert explains that Darwin's Tree of Life is a Fiction.
https://vimeo.com...

And this brings us to Con's latest error, quote - that humans aren't remotely similar to chimps (completely false, for we share 96-99% of our DNA , we came from a common ancestor,

We did not have a Human Genome to compare to a Chimp Genome until approximately 2005. However, starting in approximately 1970 Evolutionists began making claims that Humans and Chimps had 99% similar DNA.

This claim was based on comparing a tiny, insignificant part of Human DNA to a tiny, insignificant part of Chimp DNA through what can best be described as pseudo-science.

Eventually, the Pseudo-Scientists also decided that 97% of DNA was useless Junk and did not matter.

This nonsense has recently been debunked -
Junk DNA" concept debunked by new analysis of human genome
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.independent.co.uk...

All DNA is important, in fact, when Atheist Prof. Craig Venter (quoted above debunking the Darwin's Tree Of Life) was creating his so-called "synthetic life" he stated, "We found just from one letter being wrong out of 1.1 million, it made the difference between life and no life."

But the critical function of all DNA was unknown in 2005 when the Human Genome was compared to the so-called Chimp Genome.
So, among the first actions the Pseudo-Scientists who were conducting the Genome Project took was to THROW OUT THE DIFFERENCES - BEFORE THE COMPARISON!!!
Here, in this Atheist Propaganda film for children, it somewhat explains their actions.
https://www.youtube.com...

So what this means is, when people tell you that Humans and Chimps have 99% similar DNA, what they actually are saying is AFTER you DESTROY a vast part of both genomes, the Cherry Picked parts that are left over are 99% similar. As long as you don't care where these parts are placed in the Genome and you don't mind the fact that the parts which are left over couldn't possibly form life...and therefore don't represent a Human or a Chimp in any way...Then sure...

But this far from details all the deceptive, dishonest, despicable actions the Genome Project Pseudo-Scientists took to produce the data that is currently being taught. You see, the "Chimp" Genome is really just another Human Genome with a few pieces of Chimp DNA inserted.
Source -
http://www.nature.com...

Human genome sequence (NCBI build 34) was also used in a limited fashion. We created two distinct assemblies, one called the modified de novo assembly (MDN) and the other called the validated chimpanzee-on-human assembly (VCH). We then performed a partial merger to obtain the final assembly described by the Consortium.
http://www.nature.com...

Humans and Chimps are not remotely genetically similar.

I couldn't ask for a better example of how dishonest EVERYTHING you have been taught about life, truly is. NOTHING will stand up to the slightest bit of research on your part.

I believe in a God who came down from his throne, was beaten to a bloody pulp then was nailed to a cross where he died, to pay for my sins. This paid a debt that I could never hope to. And what does Jesus require from me? That I love God and treat other people the way I would like to be treated.

Jesus's entire life and death were prophesied thousands of years in advance and this is what separates Judeo-Christianity from other religions and failed "scientific" theories. The ability to consistently and correctly predict the future.

Con, good luck with your future, I pray that some small grain of what has been said here will cause you to start to fairly research what you believe and what you don't. The truth will make itself known.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by toocoolblue 1 week ago
toocoolblue
To answer your question -
I respect that you listed all the measurements for how "we know the earth is at the center of the universe", however, you never quite connect the measurements to the earth being at the center of the universe

I provided a tutorial here "
Why is the solar system cosmically aligned?
http://www-personal.umich.edu...
I and also explained how the Equator of the Earth and the Equinoxes define the "Axis".
But if that is too complicated, then are the words of the World"s most respected Atheist too hard to follow?
Quote - That would say we are truly the center of the universe. " Prof. Lawrence Krauss
Posted by EggsAndSam 1 week ago
EggsAndSam
Essentially there can not be a "center of the universe" because, as stated before, spacetime itself is expanding. The mysterious dark energy is accelerating this expansion, making distant objects appear that they are receding faster than the nearby objects. Also, the expansion of the universe is measured to be at or over the speed of light at distant lengths, it is impossible for them to recede over the speed of light unless it's spacetime that is expanding for it's governed by general relativity which does not have a speed limit that special relativity has. Further, if the universe in infinite, every point in the universe is considered as "the center".

By the way, I respect that you listed all the measurements for how "we know the earth is at the center of the universe", however, you never quite connect the measurements to the earth being at the center of the universe
Posted by EggsAndSam 1 week ago
EggsAndSam
The measurement of distant Type 1a supernovae indicated, in 1988, that some "dark energy" was causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. On the other end Void theory proposes that the Earth is near the center of a giant "bubble," or "void," mostly empty of matter, and strongly violating the Copernican Principle. However, these void models have been put up against recent data, such as the afterglow of the Big Bang and ripples in the large-scale distribution of matter. Void models do a very poor job of explaining these things. However, the standard dark energy model does an excellent job of explaining these phenomena.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://www.universetoday.com...
Posted by toocoolblue 2 weeks ago
toocoolblue
Continued From the Debate"

http://arxiv.org...
Ashok K. Singal
Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Physical Research Laboratory
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies, which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic. This Alignment has been dubbed the "axis of evil" with very damaging implications for the standard model of cosmology.
Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations"

What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth"s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon"..
Posted by toocoolblue 2 weeks ago
toocoolblue
There is certainly a cause for worry. Is there a breakdown of the Copernican principle as things seen in two regions of sky divided purely by a coordinate system based on earth"s orientation in space, (that) shows a very large anisotropy in source distribution? Why should the equinox points and the NCP (North Celestial Pole) should have any bearing on the large scale distribution of matter in the universe?
But irrespective of that there is no denying that from the large anisotropies present in the radio sky, independently seen both in the discrete source distribution and in the diffuse CMBR, the Copernican
principle seems to be in jeopardy".
Posted by toocoolblue 2 weeks ago
toocoolblue
Measurement No.3 The Expansion of The Universe
https://arxiv.org...
I. Antoniou and L. Perivolaropoulos
Department of Physics, University of Ioannina,
We start from the Union2 SnIa dataset and use the hemisphere comparison method to search
for a preferred axis in the data. We find that the hemisphere of maximum accelerating expansion
rate is in the direction "" while the hemisphere of minimum acceleration is in the opposite direction"

However, when combined with the axes directions of other cosmological observations (bulk velocity flow axis, three axes of CMB low multipole moments and quasar optical polarization alignment axis), the statistical evidence for a cosmological anisotropy increases dramatically. We estimate the probability that the above independent six axes directions would be so close in the sky to be less than 1%. Thus either the relative coincidence of these six axes is a very large statistical fluctuation or there is an underlying physical or systematic reason that leads to their correlation.

https://arxiv.org...

In addition, it has been shown recently (Antoniou & Perivolaropoulos, 2010) that the Union2
SnIa data hint towards a direction of maximum accelerating expansion that is abnormally
close to the directions of the above preferred axes. In Table 1, I show the directions of the
preferred axes from different cosmological observations along with the corresponding references.
Posted by toocoolblue 2 weeks ago
toocoolblue
Measurement No.4 Quantized Redshifts
SIXTEEN years ago Dr. William G. Tifft found evidence of an astonishing phenomenon: the shifts in the spectra of light coming from distant galaxies are grouped in abrupt, regular steps, not a smoothly random distribution. The observation was so heretical and difficult to explain that it was dismissed by most scientists".
But several new studies intended to find suspected flaws in Dr. Tifft's work have not only failed to demolish his observations and calculations but appear to have reinforced them.
If this "quantized" shifting of light proves to be real, as some skeptics have begun to suspect, astronomers, physicists and cosmologists will face a major challenge in adapting current assumptions and theories to the phenomenon.
The latest such study, by astronomers associated with the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh, Scotland, focused on 89 spiral galaxies the group picked at random. The red shifts of these galaxies proved to be randomly distributed, exhibiting no evidence of periodic "quantization." But when the Royal Observatory astronomers corrected their calculations to take into account the Sun's motion around the center of the Milky Way galaxy, a periodic bunching of red shifts appeared in their data at intervals close to those found by Dr. Tifft's group.
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
http://cds.cern.ch...
http://www-old.ias.ac.in...
Posted by toocoolblue 2 weeks ago
toocoolblue
The Data presented from a Creationist perspective "
Tifft noticed a surprisingly strong peak corresponding to an interval between z"s of about 0.00024, or 0.024%. That means the values of z tend to cluster around preferred values with equal spacings between them, such as: 0.00000, 0.00024, 0.00048, 0.00072, 0.00096, "
http://creation.com...
The Data presented from an Atheist perspective "
The very existence of this quantization alone, is sufficient proof of the failure of the idea that redshift is only an indicator of recessional speed (and therefore distance). This quantization means (under the redshift equals distance interpretation) that quasars all must lie in a series of concentric shells with Earth at the center of the entire arrangement. Copernicus found out a long time ago that Earth isn't at the center of anything!
http://electric-cosmos.org...
A site containing the most links to research on this data -
https://sites.google.com...
Posted by toocoolblue 2 weeks ago
toocoolblue
Measurement No.5 Spiral Galaxies
In a study of over 15,000 galaxies by Michael Longo and co-investigators at the University of Michigan, the researchers report that spiral galaxies preferential spin clockwise or counter clockwise depending what hemisphere of the sky they are in"
On the face of it, the claim of a spin axis would seem anti-Copernican. In other words, the universe has a preferred axis, which means there is indeed a special direction in space"
What is very curious to me is that the Milky Way"s own spin axis roughly aligns to the universe"s purported spin axis within just a few degrees, as deduced from the two galaxy surveys. That seems very anti-Copernican too. It has also been used to bolster biblical creationist arguments that we are at the "center" of the universe.
http://www.seeker.com...
The researchers found evidence that galaxies tend to rotate in a preferred direction. They uncovered an excess of left-handed, or counter-clockwise rotating, spirals in the part of the sky toward the north pole of the Milky Way. The effect extended beyond 600 million light years away
http://ns.umich.edu...
A preference for spiral galaxies in one sector of the sky to be left-handed or right-handed spirals would indicate a parity violating asymmetry in the overall universe and a preferred axis. This study uses 15158 spiral galaxies with redshifts <0.085 from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. An unbinned analysis for a dipole component that made no prior assumptions for the dipole axis gives a dipole asymmetry of -0.0408\pm0.011 with a probability of occurring by chance of 7.9 x 10-4. A similar asymmetry is seen in the Southern Galaxy spin catalog of Iye and Sugai. The axis of the dipole asymmetry lies at approx. (l, b) =(52{\deg}, 68.5{\deg}), roughly along that of our Galaxy and close to alignments observed in the WMAP cosmic microwave background distributions.
https://arxiv.org...
Posted by toocoolblue 2 weeks ago
toocoolblue
And it goes on and on, just conduct your own research.
Strangely, you might think after all of science says the Earth was basically used to determine the structure of the Universe why would I dispute this?
There are a few scientific issues,
1. Too much ISW
The "ISW mystery" deepens considerably
https://trenchesofdiscovery.blogspot.de...
2. Too little SZ
"Either it (the microwave background) isn't coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or ... there is something else going on," said Lieu
https://www.sciencedaily.com...
But the reason I object goes back to my previous post. If it is admitted that the Earth is the Center of the Universe, how can you deny Intelligent Design?
No votes have been placed for this debate.