The Instigator
yoshidino
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TrustmeImlying
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Evolution/Big Bang Atheism vs Creation by God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
TrustmeImlying
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,069 times Debate No: 65056
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

yoshidino

Pro

I am not a "Christian" to western standards. I believe In the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic Old covenant and the Aramaic Peshitta new covenant as completely true history. I believe the Creation account in B'reshit (Genesis) to be literally true, and done in six literal days. I believe that scientific facts, laws, evidence and logic support Creation by God and completely destroy the Evolution/Big Bang theory. No insults, and a rebuttal for every argument. Besides this, no rules. I am almost positive you will bring up quantum mechanics and physics. So I want to Let you know that no unproven theory can count as a proper rebuttal. Please give me facts, and evidence to support your theory as I will do the same for mine. If you make a claim, please back it up with evidence and example.
TrustmeImlying

Con

I will be CON in this debate.

PRO's assertion:
"that scientific facts, laws, evidence and logic support Creation by God and completely destroy the Evolution/Big Bang theory."
I claim this to be false.

As per the requirements mentioned in round 1:
1. No unproven scientific theory can count as evidence to support a claim.
2. Only facts and theories supported with evidence should be considered.

Burden of proof is on PRO to demonstrate how science supports creationism and "destroys" the Big Bang.

Thank you, Yoshidino, for this opportunity to debate, I look forward to it.
The floor is PRO's!
Debate Round No. 1
yoshidino

Pro

First of all I would like to validate the Scriptures as a trust worthy reference to history, apart from the stories that may seem "unbelievable" to some readers:
For one, we have very much manuscript evidence that prove to be unaltered and unchanged. We have many ancient manuscripts of what is called The Syriac Aramaic Peshitta Old covenant that all match each other Probably about 95-99% word for word. The New Covenant holds even more evidence. We have 365 manuscripts written in Aramaic (called the Peshitta) that date back to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries that all match each other word for word letter for letter 99.9% all the way through. This shows clear proof of preservation of these writings. This shows that, apart from how unbelievable an event may seem, it is more trust worthy than the American and world history books of today which everyone regards as fact.
You may know of many passages in the Scriptures that seem to contradict. I would like to hear a couple, because I see this happen too often due to either miss translation or miss interpretation of the Scriptures.
Now touching on the things that are hard to believe, or deemed impossible:
Many say that miracles that are written in the Scriptures didn't happen based on impossibility under the laws of physics. Let me ask, how did the universe BEGIN? Newton's first law states: "An object that is at rest will stay at rest unless an external force acts upon it, and an object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless an external force acts upon it. "http://en.wikipedia.org.........'s_laws_of_motion
Antoine Lavoisier's law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation states that mass can neither be created nor destroyed. http://en.wikipedia.org.......... Within these two laws of physics alone it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to simply "come to be" out of absolutely nothing. But we know for sure that is did, somehow; and "how" is the debate. Likewise, as the BEGINNING of the universe is impossible and yet we do not deny the existence of it, we also must not deny the existence of the happenings of the miracles in the Scriptures strictly on impossibility. Rather, we investigate the probability if the God that did things deemed impossible under laws of physics in the Scriptures, Is the same God that did the impossible thing of CREATING the universe. You may ask, "what proof do you have that it had to be a God that did the impossible?" My answer: What or who ever did this thing impossible, had to be something or someone that was able to operate outside of the laws of the universe, being that the universe did not exist. something or someone this powerful, whether animate or inanimate has to be considered a God. And if done alone, the only God.
So now the question is, animate or inanimate? First of all let us define animate and inanimate.
Animate: adjective-
1. alive, possessing life
2. of or relating to animal life
3. able to move voluntarily
http://dictionary.reference.com.........
Inanimate: adjective-
1. not alive, especially in the manner of animals and humans
2. showing no signs of life, lifeless
From Google translate.

Think of this.. Can a rock DO anything by itself? how about a plant? water? a tree? no, because none possess life. What about a cat? dog? lion? human? The answer is yes to all, because all possess live, or are living. So we see that it is not an inanimate god that can DO something as impossible as CREATE the universe, or let alone be a god at all, But It has to be an animate God or, living God, that brought all things into existence. (ps. A tree or plant is not living given the definition (animate) that I used.)

So recapping, we see that all of creation demands there to be an intelligent and living creator that operates outside the laws of physics. And if this is so, it would be no big thing for any of the miracles of the Scriptures to happen.
Links to Manuscript evidence:
http://tanakh.info...
http://www.truthnet.org...
http://en.metapedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.skypoint.com...
The Big Bang: I will start with just one argument;
When a spinning object breaks apart in a friction less environment, the particles will all spin in the same direction. This is called the Conservation of Angular Momentum. If the Big Bang theory is true, explain to me why Venus, Uranus, and possibly Pluto spin backwards? Also, 6 of the 63 moons spin backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. Why?
TrustmeImlying

Con

PRO's Initial Argument
"I believe that scientific facts, laws, evidence and logic support Creation by God and completely destroy the Evolution/Big Bang theory."

I will give a (very) short summary of the Big Bang theory, along with supporting scientific evidence, and give the floor back to PRO.

Next round I will defend all points given and counter all of PRO's points.

The Big Bang Theory
Obligatory reminder: The Big Bang theory does not state the universe came from nothing
The known universe had humble beginnings. A single, unfathomably hot and dense point, and upon expansion, the exponential energy created quarks and leptons, the most elementary particles of existence. The heat and energy combined with these building blocks would eventually lead to nucleosynthesis, and pave the way for the creation of light isotopes. This would eventually lead to stellar nucleosynthesis that would form the heavier elements within stars, this would provide the opportunity for life. An incredibly simplistic version of the theory, more can be read below:
http://books.google.nl...
http://www.nytimes.com...

We can support this theory with the following:

Cosmic Background Radiation - a faint glow left over from the Big Bang, and supports the idea that the universe expanded from a single point, and condensed into galaxies and clusters.
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu...

Type Ia Supernovas - the measurement of distant binary systems that aided in our discovery that the universe is expanding and accelerating.
http://arxiv.org...

Particle Physics - which can mimic the conditions and parameters of the Big Bang in experimentation.
http://home.web.cern.ch...

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis - the formation of lighter isotopes.
http://www.einstein-online.info...

Hubble's Law - Expanded understanding of observable universe and supports Big Bang model.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au...
http://www.pnas.org...

Redshift and spectroscopy - observation of expansion and light elements
http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...
http://www.ipac.caltech.edu...

Abundance of primordial elements - the predicted (large) amount of light elements, hydrogen, helium, deuterium, lithium, matches that of the Big Bang theory.
http://www.einstein-online.info...
http://www.astronomynotes.com...

Dating back the stellar evolution of globular clusters to the beginning of the known universe.
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu...

Radiometric dating of population II stars.
http://astro.berkeley.edu...

Oldest White Dwarf - supporting the predicted age of the known universe
http://www.astro.ucla.edu...

In the 1970's the majority of the scientific community accepted the Big Bang as the answer to our questions, and it's increased ever since. Generations of scientists with increasingly powerful tools and more precise experimentation have not been able to come up with a serious problem with the theory, or come up with a better one. By no means does this imply that one should agree simply because of majority consensus, but the overwhelming majority of experts in the field agree with a theory, it offers support to it's dependability.

A helpful video that simplifies the theory with non-scientific explanations for the curious:
https://www.youtube.com...

Conclusion
All of this scientific evidence not only supports the Lambda-CDM (standard) model of the Big Bang theory, but suggests it.
Our math, observable evidence, and experimentation all is mutually supportive with one another and fits with incredible accuracy an event that happened billions of years ago.

PRO must explain how all of this evidence not only supports the divine creator narrative of the Christian God, but also how it disproves the Big Bang theory.

The floor is PRO's
Debate Round No. 2
yoshidino

Pro

Almost all of this evidence supports both the Big Bang theory AND my Scriptural Creation story. I understand and belief 100% in the expansion of the Universe.
Isaiah 40:22; "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; That stretcheth out the heavens like a curtain, and spreadeth them out like a tent to dwell in."
Yes the Universe is expanding, but this can not be your only proof for the Big Bang? The same is my proof that the Scriptures are correct about the heavens being stretched out. Now if science found that the universe was NOT expanding, than we would have a problem. But you did not answer my question about the Conservation of Angular Momentum which contradicts the idea of the universe "blowing up" (in a spinning manner) as a means for expansion.
We mentioned that we would not get into evolution upon your request, but then you mention stellar evolution:
In reading the links that you posted, I noticed that their way of determining the age of the universe is all on the "theoretical" level. And touching on the white dwarfs: They claim that they know how old one is by how long it has been cooling. But in order to know how long it has been cooling you have to know both rate of cool, and how hot it was to begin with. While there is a possibility to know the rate of cool, it is impossible to know how hot it was to begin with. It is the same concept as carbon dating. So allow me to also explain the problem with carbon dating:
Carbon dating does not work and can not be used to date anything. Carbon dating is done by measuring the remaining C14 in a decaying fossil in which the animal possessed that ate plants that absorb C14 from the atmosphere. This C14 is very radioactive and decays quickly. Half of it decays every 5,750 years. You can measure rate of decay and how much is left, but without knowing exactly how much it had in the first place you can not know how long it has been decaying. This being said, I'll give a couple of examples of carbon dating failures: In 1949, the lower leg of a mammoth was carbon dated 15,380 RCY (radio carbon years) while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. In 1963, living mollusc's shells carbon dated as being 2,300 years old. 1971, a freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago. Shells from living snails were carbon dated 27,000 years old in 1984. Just a couple of examples. It is proved many times not to work. Here is something recent that happened (18 years ago) In 1996 up at Berkeley University, using two advanced and different dating methods, the bones of "Erectus" were found to be between 53,000 to 27,000 years old. That a 26,000 year difference; a 96% error. It's not getting better with time.
I couldn't find the original documents to post as links to these claims, but here is a Kent Hovind video that mentions them with their cites.
https://www.youtube.com...
Carbon dating 1:47:50 into the video.
If they can not properly determine the age of something here on hearth, how much less something in the heavens.
In the youtube video, they mentioned that the Hubble Space telescope has been able to see 12 billion years into the past. How would this be possible? Do they got a star gate in their bedroom? Can they travel through time? The idea that the most distant galaxies are the oldest galaxies is all based on the assumption that the Big Bang/Evolution theories are true, and therefore, this is circular reasoning.
One of my arguments for the age of the earth:
The earth's atmosphere makes carbon 14 when nitrogen gets blasted with fast moving neutrinos in the atmosphere, turning it into C14. As I mentioned earlier, it is also decaying at the same time (1/2 every 5,750 years assumed). At some point, increase and decay will reach equilibrium. Scientists wandered, back in 1950, how long it would take for the earth to reach equilibrium. The consensus was that it would probably take about 30,000 years for the earth to reach equilibrium. The problem is is that we know that radiocarbon is still forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying, which proves that the earth is less than 30,000 years old or else it would all be stabilized by now.
I would Like an answer to my question I asked you about the Conservation of Angular Momentum.
And since the Logic I explained in round 2 demands the Existence of a Living, Animate God, I also need an answer that rebuts my logic and scientific explanation. You have failed to answer ANYTHING said in my previous argument. Remember the rule: A rebuttal for every argument.
All you have done is given evidence that supports both Big Bang and Creation by God, and a couple theories relating to the age of the universe. I asked for no theories please. Only facts, evidence, laws of science, and explained logic. As soon As you either answer my previous argument in some way or admit you have no good answer, I will give archaeological evidence for some of the stories in the Scriptures.
TrustmeImlying

Con

The Rules
"You have failed to answer ANYTHING said in my previous argument."
PRO missed my explanation for this at the start of round 2. Please disregard all statements suggesting otherwise.

"I asked for no theories please. Only facts, evidence, laws of science, and explained logic."
PRO insisted no unproven theories, a rule that I have followed and he has broken. Let us not confuse the definition of scientific theory with the informal definition, and let us not forget the rules we agreed upon only 2 rounds ago.

"Almost all of this evidence supports both the Big Bang theory AND my Scriptural Creation story."
PRO concedes that scientific evidence supports the Big Bang theory rather than "destroying" it.

"What or who ever did this thing impossible, had to be something or someone that was able to operate outside of the laws of the universe"
PRO concedes that scientific law cannot support a creation narrative, as the creator is outside the laws of the universe.

"something or someone this powerful, whether animate or inanimate has to be considered a God. And if done alone, the only God."
My opponent changes the definition of "god" to suit the argument. The debate was agreed upon as the Christian creator, God, and will remain so; all other definitions and incarnations of a creator are off the table and cannot be invoked. PRO must also prove how he knows which creator created the universe.

The Science
"We mentioned that we would not get into evolution, but then you mention stellar evolution"
Biological evolution and stellar evolution are vastly different, the only share similar vocabulary.

"Newton's first law states..."
The biblical creation narrative violates Newtonian physics the Big Bang does not. PRO must explain how the creator in the narrative can exist and cause physical changes without himself having a creation or physical change occur upon him.

"Antoine Lavoisier's law of conservation of mass..."
The biblical creation narrative violates this law, the Big Bang does not. PRO must explain how a creator can bring something in and out of existence and how he himself mustn't comply with this law.

"my question about the Conservation of Angular Momentum"
Angle and direction of capture may dictate rotation of celestial bodies.
http://www.fsteiger.com...
Collisions or close orbits with others may affect rotation of celestial bodies.
http://physicsworld.com...
Atmospheric tides combined with friction between the mantle and core may affect rotation of celestial bodies.
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Here are three possible scenarios that could initially create or alter the rotation of a planet or satellite. PRO has not explained how planetary rotations would imply a creator in any case.

"And touching on the white dwarfs"
Physics and math provide all the parameters required to establish the age of white dwarfs. We know how hot, how large and how long lasting white dwarfs can come to be. Their evolution is observable and predictable, and can be traced backwards.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu...
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

"Yes the Universe is expanding, but this can not be your only proof for the Big Bang?"
An abundance of primordial elements, stellar evolution, radiometric dating of Population II stars and age measurements of white dwarfs that match predicted outcomes lend evidence. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community (especially those in related fields) and the theory's inability to be falsified despite intense criticism and scrutiny for more than 80 years offer some credit as well.

The Pseudoscience
"So allow me to also explain the problem with carbon dating"
Please provide a source.
I referenced radiometric dating. Carbon dating isn't used to measure stars, as it's only good for tens of thousands of years and stars are billions of years old. We don't measure Earth with a meter stick, and we wouldn't measure a star with a kitchen timer.

"The problem is that we know that radiocarbon is still forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying, which proves that the earth is less than 30,000 years old or else it would all be stabilized by now."
Please provide a source. My opponent attempts to discount carbon dating entirely, then fall back on carbon dating in his only argument.
This estimation makes the mistake of assuming that Carbon-14 is in constant quantities rather than acknowledging fluctuations that skew the results. The scientific community understands this to be the case by measuring Bristlecone Pines. By measuring the C-14 of ancient pines, and then comparing the accuracy of the carbon dating to the tree rings, we have observed fluctuations in C-14 quantities, thus skewing the results.
http://ncse.com...
Even if I were unable to provide this information, measuring plate tectonics and the creation of mountains puts us well into the millions, and red-shift from distant star systems lengthens that date. PRO must provide evidence that geology and the scientific law of redshift are either wrong or prove a creator.
http://people.chem.duke.edu...
Carbon dating isn't flawed; it's a specific tool for a specific job. Suggesting that your screwdriver is broken because it can't weld isn't a flaw on the tool so much as the user.

"Think of this.. Can a rock DO anything by itself? how about a plant? water? a tree? no, because none possess life."
Rocks can move under the effects of gravity, wind, and water.
Water flows, freezes, rains, steams, and can cause devastating damage or life providing conditions on our planet, with or without the living organisms.
Plants and trees... are alive, and do all sorts of things that living organisms do.
This is akin to claiming that if a tree fell in the forest, it wouldn't make a sound. Physics still applies with or without life around to experience it, we couldn't have ever existed if this was not the case.

"Likewise, as the BEGINNING of the universe is impossible and yet we do not deny the existence of it..."
The Big Bang does not state that the beginning of the universe is impossible. All science and reason dictate the "miracles" contained in the scripture are impossible. The very definition of miracle, to defy natural understanding and scientific law:
http://dictionary.reference.com...
PRO must explain how a scientifically impossible creator used scientifically impossible actions to create the universe.

"but here is a Kent Hovind video"
Kent Hovind is a conspiracy theorizing young earth creationist in jail for 53 felony charges. He graduated from a diploma mill and parades around as a doctor to trick people into believing that his unproven and unsourced claims have merit. His manufactured evidence is no good to anyone, even fellow Young Earth Creationists suggest to avoid using his evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

The Scripture
"This shows clear proof of preservation of these writings."
The age or degree of preservation of a document does nothing to imply the document is truthful or scientifically accurate.
We have no reason to believe Set tricked Osiris into a box and cast him into the Nile, even though the Egyptians recorded it.
http://ancientegyptonline.co.uk...
We have no reason to believe Inanna battled a mountain, despite what the ancient Sumerians may say.
http://womenshistory.about.com...
We have no reason to believe that Amaterasu created humanity by chewing up swords and jewelry, even though the ancient Japanese would contest that point.
http://www.britannica.com...
And we have no reason to believe that God willed us into existence with a wave of his hand.

With this logic all it takes to become a legitimate source of truth and historicity is continued existence, regardless of the impossible text within. Even if these documents were considered historical, they still wouldn't be considered scientific. Therefor the scripture does not come close to meeting the expectations of a scientific document, and is dismissed entirely.

Conclusion
My opponent has violated his own rules by introducing false theories with no proof into the debate.
My opponent claims that science defends the Biblical creation narrative while simultaneously disproving the Big Bang, yet has only provided false science with no sources.
My opponent has negated his own argument twice by admitting that the Big Bang is supported by science, and that a creator is not.
All my claims remain valid and all PRO's claims remain negated.
Debate Round No. 3
yoshidino

Pro

Con, you have either misunderstood much of what I have said or jumped to many conclusions.

Please tell me what theory I have used to try to support my subject "theory" at hand or rebut yours..??

By "Almost all this evidence," I meant all that related to the evidence that the universe is expanding. The evidence that you provided that the universe is expanding supports both of our arguments, as I explained in my previous argument, and therefore proves neither.

"What or who ever did this thing impossible, had to be something or someone that was able to operate outside of the laws of the universe" - I stated that the laws of physics DEMAND a creating God because all the matter/energy of the universe COMING TO BE from absolutely nothing automatically defies the law of physics that state that nothing can pass in and out of existence (Antoine Lavoisier's law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation). I know that the Big Bang does not stated that something came from nothing, but it does state that there was energy and/or matter all crammed into a small dot. This leaves the question; Where did the energy and/or matter come from? It had to have come from somewhere, or else it would have no beginning, and therefore be eternal and have no end. We know this is not so due to the second Law of Thermodynamics that states that everything is at a state of deterioration. And, according to the Big Bang, the electrons that make energy spun faster and faster, and became more and more unstable and eventually exploded. If electrons were spinning, or even any other type of movement was happening pre Big Bang, logic tells us that some external force had to have set it in motion. What external force was that? WHAT STARTED IT ALL?

"My opponent changes the definition of "god" to suit the argument."
This statement is not true. "The debate was agreed upon as the Christian creator, God." This is not true; I specifically said,
"I am not a "Christian" to western standards. I believe In the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic Old covenant and the Aramaic Peshitta new covenant as completely true history." Might I emphasize, " I AM NOT A "CHRISTIAN." The Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic Old covenant and the Aramaic Peshitta new covenant do not support the Christian "god." Christianity is the mixture of some ideas in the Hebrew/Aramaic scriptures and Greek/Roman mythology. Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337) Is the one the drafted the Hebrew religion in with his own religious practices. But since this is not the debate, I do not need to site this information. If you are interested you can do some studying. According to the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures, the word for "God" is Elohim, which means Mighty one. And So "Creation by God," according to my claim, means Creation by a/the mighty one. Whether or not he is the only one is a different debate all together (I believe he is the only one).
I do not have to prove how I know which "creator" created the universe because "which one" was never the debate.

""Newton's first law states...""
"The biblical creation narrative violates Newtonian physics the Big Bang does not."
I have already showed above how Newton's Law of Motion fitted with the Big Bang demand another force to set it all in motion. The Big Bang does not offer a solution to this, But, obviously, The creation "theory" does. So I have asked, what external force started all the movement??
"PRO must explain how the creator in the narrative can exist and cause physical changes without himself having a creation or physical change occur upon him."
In My first argument I stated that " What or who ever did this thing impossible, had to be something or someone that was able to operate outside of the laws of the universe, being that the universe did not exist. something or someone this powerful, whether animate or inanimate has to be considered a God. And if done alone, the only God." This is part of the definition of God (Elohim, meaning mighty one.) According to the scriptural definition of "God," "God" HAS to be able to operate outside the laws of the universe, otherwise he would not be Mighty enough in the eyes of the universe to Be called "Elohim." He is eternal and self existent and has no beginning. If he did, he would not be God, just like the universe is not God because it all BEGAN somehow. (somehow is the debate). This answer also answers your ""Antoine Lavoisier's law of conservation of mass..." question.

So to recap on a couple of points that I have made so far: The universe is run by laws..... Who gave these laws? If no one gave them than they are self existent, which would mean that you believe the LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE are God.

Conservation of Angular Momentum:
Yea, you could make up this story and that story to try to explain the backwards rotation and spin of different celestial bodies, But how do you explain how a galaxy (NGC 4622) has also been found to be spinning backwards.
http://hubblesite.org...

"PRO has not explained how planetary rotations would imply a creator in any case." One thing you need to realize is that not all my arguments are going to prove my side and disprove your side. Some will prove my side, others will disprove your side. All my arguments are meant to work together to prove Creation and disprove Big Bang. Conservation of Angular Momentum was not meant to necessarily prove Creation, but rather to disprove the Big Bang.

" "And touching on the white dwarfs" "
"Physics and math provide all the parameters required to establish the age of white dwarfs." I disagree with this statement. I do not believe scientists can know how hot a white dwarf was to begin with, which would be necessary (as explained in my previous argument) to properly determine the age of the dwarf. If you have proof that they can do this, please share.

" An abundance of primordial elements, stellar evolution, radiometric dating of Population II stars and age measurements of white dwarfs that match predicted outcomes lend evidence." I see a claim with no evidence or proof to support it. All links you have given me are full of science only on the theoretical level and unproven. You need to provide an explanation on HOW the one can measure the age of the universe. I do not believe that this is possible at this time.
Also I pay no credit to something simply because of majority agreement. It doesn't matter.

Carbon Dating:
"Please provide a source".... This isn't science class. Go study to see if this information about how carbon dating works is true.
Where have I fallen back on carbon dating to support my argument? The equilibrium factor has to do with carbon 14 but nothing to do with carbon dating. And the equilibrium factor is not my only argument to the young age of the earth nor my best. I simply mentioned it because I was talking about carbon 14. Try to keep in mind, this is only suppose to be the Big Bang portion debate. I will give more evidence to disprove the old age of the earth in the Evolution portion debate.

" "Think of this.. Can a rock DO anything by itself? how about a plant? water? a tree? no, because none possess life." "
Rocks can move under the effects of gravity, wind, and water.
Water flows, freezes, rains, steams, and can cause devastating damage or life providing conditions on our planet, with or without the living organisms.
Plants and trees... are alive, and do all sorts of things that living organisms do."-
Yes, rocks can move under the EFFECTS of gravity. I asked if a rock can DO anything BY ITSELF. No, a rock can not move upon its own VOLITION. Water flows, freezes, rains, steams, and can cause devastating damage or life providing conditions on our planet, with or without the living organisms only because it is EFFECTED by gravity, the elements, and wind, but can DO NOTHING upon its own VOLITION. And as I specifically stated in my previous argument, "A tree or plant is not living given the definition (animate) that I used."
The subject word being used was ANIMATE, not living. The word ANIMATE is a more detailed and narrower definition than just living, it only refers to that which lives AND acts on its own VOLITION.

"The Big Bang does not state that the beginning of the universe is impossible." In my first main paragraph of this argument I explained that, although the Big Bang does not offer an explanation to the BEGINNING of all matter/energy, It still requires that there be a cause to the effect. What caused the effect of the "Big Bang?"

"PRO must explain how a scientifically impossible creator used scientifically impossible actions to create the universe."
I already did this in this argument: "What or who ever did this thing impossible..." Because he operated outside of the universe to create the universe, therefore also operating outside of science, there can be no scientific explanation "how," It can only be scientifically proven that the universe DEMANDS that there had to be an eternal, self existent cause (God) to set in motion the effect (non eternal universe). The second Law of Thermodynamics demands the universe to be non eternal. Only something outside of the universe could possibly be eternal.

Kent Hovind:
I now full well that Kent is in prison. I find it unconstitutional to imprison someone for failing to pay taxes. Although I believe that the core reason for the arrest of Mr. Kent Hovind was because he was destroying evolution, which I believe to be the scientific and American agenda. And you can not discredit something someone says just because of who they are and what kind of person they are. If I followed this logic with your evolution theory, I could say that nothing you say matters at all because you are just a mix up of chemicals that came together by chance with no reason or purpose. But this is not who you really are. You are God's creation, and he loves you very much!
TrustmeImlying

Con

"Please tell me what theory I have used to try to support my subject "theory" at hand or rebut yours"

Scripture: Suggesting that ancient texts absent of any science have as much merit as current scientific literature in the scientific arena, and making baseless assertions that cannot hope to be supported with scientific evidence.

" Who gave (the universe) laws?"
It's important not to confuse positive law with natural law. The first is manmade while the latter is inherent within the universe. There's no evidence to suggest that the universe requires a giver of laws, all evidence would lead one to conclude the opposite.

" So "Creation by God," according to my claim, means Creation by a/the mighty one."
PRO previously denied attempting to change his definition of a creator, yet:
"something or someone this powerful, whether animate or inanimate has to be considered a God. And if done alone, the only God."
The creator in question must be a single, living, animate god, the god of the Genesis account, whom PRO refers to as Elohim. PRO offers the possibility that this creator may be multiple, nonliving, inanimate god. Having presented this possibility, the burden is on PRO to use science in explaining how we know Elohim is the true creator.

Newton's First Law, Thermodynamics and Conservation of Mass: My opponent demands scientific proof that the Big Bang does not violate Newton's First Law, Thermodynamics, or the Conservation of Mass while simultaneously claiming a creator is exempt from these requirements.

"the universe COMING TO BE from absolutely nothing automatically defies the law of physics that state that nothing can pass in and out of existence"
The Big Bang theory never asserts this, and no part of the theory attempts to tackle what may have been before the Big Bang. We do know that the matter and energy existed, though, as it was what all current things came from. The Big Bang theory does not necessarily need this to be the case, a creation narrative requires this to be the case. PRO has already stated he knows that the Big Bang doesn't claim the universe came from nothing, so this point must support a creator somehow or be dismissed.

"Newton's first law states..."
The Big Bang theory does not violate Newton's first law, as it theory does not include what happened "before" the expansion of our universe, while a creation theory does. PRO must explain how an infinite creator can exist without an initial cause, as he already knows the Big Bang doesn't claim this.

"He is eternal and self-existent and has no beginning."
This overtly violates Thermodynamics, Newtonian physics, and the conservation of mass; all of which have been invoked by PRO. The Big Bang can potentially comply with these laws, an eternal creator cannot.

"We know this is not so due to the second Law of Thermodynamics."
The second law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems. PRO assumes that the universe was a closed system before the Big Bang, yet has provided to evidence that this was the case. PRO must prove how an infinite creator does not violate the second law of Thermodynamics or provide evidence that proves that prior to the Big Bang everything was in a closed system.

Angular Momentum: My opponent doesn't believe in redshift, which by itself disproves a young Earth, but calls on it to question why a galaxy billions of years old spins the way it does.

" Yea, you could make up this story and that story...But how do you explain galaxy (NGC 4622) has also been found to be spinning backwards."
This evidence wasn't "made up". This is readily testable, highly likely scenarios that experts provided, of which I've sourced. A galaxy can be affected by gravity, collide, combine, capture, or be captured by another just like a planet or moon, upping the scale does not change the nature of the catalyst, only the size.

Carbon 14 Dating: My opponent dismisses carbon dating, which is odd as he's the only one using carbon dating in this debate by referencing the measurement of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere.

"The equilibrium factor has to do with carbon 14 but nothing to do with carbon dating."
The measuring of carbon 14 is carbon dating.

False Dismissal of Evidence
"I do not believe scientists can know how hot a white dwarf was to begin with...If you have proof that they can do this, please share."
PRO has offered no scientific evidence to disprove the objective measurements and calculations provided in:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
http://www.slac.stanford.edu...
http://www.astro.ucla.edu...

"All links you have given me are full of science only on the theoretical level and unproven."
This is the second time that PRO has attempted to avoid dealing with scientific law, fact, and evidence:
Primordial elements: measurements of gasses found in various parts of the universe consistently match predicted Big Bang levels.

Stellar evolution: measurements of light, redshift, and chemical composition that match predicted age and composition of Big Bang levels.

Radiometric dating of Population II stars: Measurements of very predictable amounts of light, chemicals, and sizes from star clusters indicate predicted expansion of Big Bang levels.

White dwarf measurements: Measuring temperature and luminosity of a white dwarf gives ample evidence to accurately predict age of white dwarf in question. This alone could disprove a young Earth belief.

These are highly testable scientific facts, not theories, ideas, or suspicions, but facts. This argument has been thoroughly explained and dismissed, and should not be brought up again.

Refusal to Provide Evidence and Concession
"Some (scientific evidence) will prove my side; others will disprove your side."
PRO misunderstands his obligation to the debate. In the opening round, he says:
"I believe that scientific facts, laws, evidence and logic support Creation by God and completely destroy the Evolution/Big Bang theory."
To suggest that, say, geology agrees with one account, while biology agrees with another is highly indicative of a grave misunderstanding of science. The sciences have overarching observations that complement one another and speak about the objective reality of the universe. All creation narratives fail to withstand the scrutiny of science, while the Big Bang theory emerged from it. The two couldn't be further from equal scientific footing.

"I do not have to prove how I know which "creator" created the universe because "which one" was never the debate."
PRO claims he will not prove that the creator in the Genesis narrative created the universe, which contradicts his opening statement:
"I believe the Creation account in B'reshit (Genesis) to be literally true, and done in six literal days."
PRO should either concede and forfeit, or provide scientific evidence that confirms this creator is the true creator, as claimed in the opening statement.

"'Please provide a source'" This isn't science class. Go study to see if this information about how carbon dating works is true."
PRO repeatedly demands evidence and wrongfully dismisses it, yet openly refuses to provide any evidence to us.

"Because he operated outside of the universe to create the universe, therefore also operating outside of science, there can be no scientific explanation"
My opponent has conceded for the third time that science can offer no explanation to a creation narrative.

"(God) had to be something or someone that was able to operate outside of the laws of the universe... I stated that the laws of physics DEMAND a creating God"
The laws of the universe are scientific laws. PRO claims that a creator operates outside of these laws. This means that it would be impossible for science to defend any creator, negating PRO's claim in every way.

"The evidence that you provided that the universe is expanding supports both of our arguments"
Which contradicts PRO's opening statement:
" I believe that scientific facts, laws, evidence and logic support Creation by God and completely destroy the Evolution/Big Bang theory.

Kent Hovind
"you can not discredit something someone (Kent Hovind) says just because of who they are and what kind of person they are."
You absolutely can, especially if that person is a known fraud and liar with an agenda, as Kent Hovind has proven to be. Young Earth creationists specifically use his arguments to make a list of how NOT to defend creationism.

1. We trust experts more than we trust the unqualified.
2. We trust the intelligent more than we trust the foolish.
3. We trust the honest more than we trust deceivers.
Kent Hovind has proven to be the latter in all three cases.

Conclusion
My opponent has conceded twice that science cannot explain a creator, and once that science supports the Big Bang. He attempts to dismiss valid evidence, while openly refusing to provide evidence of his own. The unfounded assertions that have been provided by my opponent have been negated; and not one point I have given has been legitimately countered.
Debate Round No. 4
yoshidino

Pro

"SCRIPTURE" Is my subject topic of debate. I asked for no theories to support the subject theories being debated, but obviously We both are allowed to mention our subject theories.

It is very clear that you have either not realized, or ignored my logic that I have paired with scientific principles. I explained that, logically, if something not eternal exists than it had to be started in some way from something else. You see this in nature. If you see a man, you know that that man at one time had to have a birth. You then ask, who was the one that conceived him? So my question to you: How did all the matter/energy in the universe first "come to be?" I am saying that logic says that someone greater had to have first set it all in motion.

On the Big Bang, just a simple question. According to the Big Bang theory, how fast did everything blow up? And is the universe still expanding at the same rate as it first "blew up?" If not, what is slowing its rate of expansion?

" "He is eternal and self-existent and has no beginning." "
"This overtly violates Thermodynamics, Newtonian physics, and the conservation of mass; all of which have been invoked by PRO. The Big Bang can potentially comply with these laws, an eternal creator cannot."
I know that my statement violates these laws. According to my theory, God is able to do that. But if we discounted the possibility of a "God," than violation of these laws are not possible. But I have showed that, even with the Big Bang, logic demands that there was a violation of these laws in order to get everything started. Or else how did it all START? How did it BEGIN?

Angular Momentum: I never said that I don't believe in red shifts. Another moment where you jump to a conclusion. I told you that I do believe that the universe is expanding. I'm glad that red shifts prove that.
About the galaxy, What in the universe could have possibly collided with and entire galaxy to cause it to change direction of rotation?? And if something did collide with the galaxy, why did it not set the entire galaxy in disarray? How did it perfectly change the direction of its rotation without messing it up?

I am not using Carbon "dating." I am only talking about C 14. I don't like repeating myself.

White Dwarfs:
"By searching for faint white dwarfs, one can estimate the length of time the oldest white dwarfs have been cooling. Oswalt, Smith, Wood and Hintzen (1996, Nature, 382, 692) have done this and get an age of 9.5+1.1-0.8 Gyr for the disk of the Milky Way. They estimate an age of the Universe which is at least 2 Gyr older than the disk, so to > 11.5 Gyr."
http://www.astro.ucla.edu...
The problem with this statement is that the only way to properly and accurately estimate the length of time the oldest white dwarfs have been cooling, you first need to know how bright, and thus how hot the white dwarf was to begin with. These sites do not show how they have this information. I do not see how it is possible to know. If you know, please post the equation that is used to figure this out.

The Scientific theories:
While I fully support the evidence that shows that the universe is expanding, I still only see equations used that have either not been proved to work or rely on the big assumptions to work to support the theoretic age of the universe. If I am missing something please show me specifically.

Kent Hovind:
I don't care what YECs say about Kent Hovind, that is if what you are saying is true... People are liars. Scientists too. Everybody has a bias, and thus an agenda. You say that you are just a chemical mistake. How can you trust any of your thought patterns? Mr. Kent is not a liar. You only think he is a liar because you disagree with him. He is not a fraud. The feds lied about that. If he is guilty of anything, it is just not paying tax. They made up quite the story to make him look bad. But I can't believe we are arguing about the credibility of Kent Hovind's teachings. What he says is either right or wrong. You haven't showed any evidence that anything he said is wrong. If a murderer tells you that the Sun is hot, the fact that he is a murderer does not mean he is wrong about the Sun being hot.

"My opponent has conceded twice that science cannot explain a creator." You repeatedly take bits and parts of what I say, take them out of their contexts, and then change their meaning. This is the only way to make this above claim. It seems to me that you have closed your mind to anything I say and are just trying to win a stupid debate. It's just a debate, and nobody really votes. If they do vote they just vote off bias. An atheist will not vote for a theist. You have not answered my arguments within their contexts.

God wants you! He loves you. If you gain all the knowledge in the world, what does it matter if in the end you'll just die and be recycled. God created you with a purpose. He doesn't like you throwing your purpose away. Why even live if you have no purpose? "For Elohim so loved the world that he gave his first begotten son that, whosoever believes in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. For Elohim sent not his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved." "He was in the world and the world was made by him, but the world knew him not. He came unto his own, but his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the Sons of Elohim, even to them that believe on his name."
You are not outside of God's reach! I pray that he will show himself real to you. This I pray in the name of Yeshua the anointed one.
TrustmeImlying

Con

The Original Claim
"I believe that scientific facts, laws, evidence and logic support Creation by God and completely destroy the Evolution/Big Bang theory."

The Major Points
Newton's First Law - PRO's creation narrative violates this law, the Big Bang theory does not.

Conservation of Mass - PRO's creation narrative violates this law, the Big Bang does not.

A sentient creator is necessary for life - No proof of this was ever provided and it's logical to assume the opposite. Rivers, oceans, and sunlight have no sentience, but have been largely responsible for all life on our planet.

Conservation of Angular Momentum - This is no way disprove the Big Bang, and in no way supports a creator.

Age of White Dwarfs - Demonstrated to be scientific and dependable, and supports a universe that is far older than 30,000 years.

"I am saying that logic says that someone greater had to have first set it all in motion."
Thousands of other creators have made the same claim with exactly as much evidence and PRO has refused to explain why it must be his creator, he has failed to provide evidence that the creator Elohim created anything. This claim should be dismissed.

A line of reasoning that asserts any infinite being capable of violating physics would require an extraordinary amount of proof. As this claim was made without evidence, it should be dismissed.

"I know that my statement violates these laws."
PRO concedes for a fourth time that science cannot prove a creator, as a creator inherently violates science.

"I never said that I don't believe in red shifts."
PRO cannot believe in redshift without disproving his entire Young Earth belief. Because red shift conclusively proves that even young galaxies are hundreds of millions of years old, surely PRO, who believes that the Genesis account to be literally true, could not agree with redshift measurements. This means that PRO does not believe in a literal creation account, or does not believe that redshift supports a creation account I assumed the latter, despite redshift being scientific fact.

"What in the universe could have possibly collided with and entire galaxy to cause it to change direction of rotation??"
Another galaxy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

"I am not using Carbon "dating." I am only talking about C 14. I don't like repeating myself."
Carbon-14 was utilized in the 1940's by Willard Libby to date carbon. You cannot discuss the age or quantity of Carbon-14 without using carbon dating.

"you first need to know how bright, and thus how hot the white dwarf was to begin with."
We can observe that stars become white dwarfs at a certain point in their life cycle, and we know the life cycle of stars. By measuring how cool a white dwarf is we can work backwards to when it first became a white dwarf based on the very predictable measurements of chemicals, then work backwards from there to the natural evolution of the star. The physics and math I have provided in my multiple links explain this well.

Kent Hovind
"that is if what you are saying is true" You haven't showed any evidence that anything he said is wrong. If a murderer tells you that the Sun is hot, the fact that he is a murderer does not mean he is wrong about the Sun being hot."
Kent Hovind isn't a murderer, he's a fraud.

He received his diploma from a diploma mill:
http://www.bakersguide.com...
The mill was given accreditation by a fake accreditor:
http://www.quackwatch.com...
The "university" has no professors:
http://www.patriotuniversity.org...
The "university" has no campus:
https://www.google.com...
Hovind's dissertation was not reviewed by a board:
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...
And the high-school quality dissertation was refused to the public for scrutiny, (almost unheard) of:
http://wikileaks.org...
He claims to be a doctor, although not recognized by local, state, or federal entities:
http://www.kenthovindblog.com...
He consistently makes erroneous and misleading claims that use bad science (a few of which reared up in this debate):
http://www.talkorigins.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
Christians are as skeptical of his bad science as atheists. Possibly more so, as he makes them look bad by association.
http://www.christianforums.com...
http://creation.com...
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...
Hours of comprehensive critical analysis of every claim made by Kent Hovind:
https://www.youtube.com...

"It's just a debate, and nobody really votes. If they do vote they just vote off bias. An atheist will not vote for a theist."
This is insulting. I've seen plenty of theists vote for things they disagree with, I've even had some vote for me, despite our disagreeing on the topic at hand. The same goes for atheists. It seems that my opponent believes that because he is not capable of challenging his bias, the rest of us are hopeless too.

Conclusion
On four separate occasions PRO conceded that science could not support a creator:

"I know that my statement violates these laws. According to my theory, God is able to do that."
"Because he operated outside of the universe to create the universe, therefore also operating outside of science, there can be no scientific explanation"
" What or who ever did this thing impossible, had to be something or someone that was able to operate outside of the laws of the universe"
"(God) had to be something or someone that was able to operate outside of the laws of the universe... I stated that the laws of physics DEMAND a creating God"


And once conceded that science does support the Big Bang
"Almost all of this evidence supports both the Big Bang theory AND my Scriptural Creation story."

Despite the burden of proof being on PRO, he consistently expected evidence to negate his disbelief rather than provide valid evidence to support his belief.

All of PRO's claims remain negated and unsourced, and sources were openly denied upon request. All of my claims have been extended, and were repeatedly explained and supported with multiple sources.

Thanks for reading, and unlike PRO, I encourage you to vote and challenge your preconceptions, even if that means voting against me.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TrustmeImlying 2 years ago
TrustmeImlying
Should we move on to the topic of Evolution like you wanted?
Posted by TrustmeImlying 2 years ago
TrustmeImlying
Debate's over, man...
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
The very existence of this universe requires a violation of these laws to get it all started. Atheistic Big Bang does not allow for violation, Creation by God does.
Fun Fact:
UNIVERSE - Uni (one) verse (spoken sentence) Universe: A single spoken sentence. "Let there be..."
Posted by TrustmeImlying 2 years ago
TrustmeImlying
No problem! I didn't take it as disrespect, just wanted to make sure it was an oversight rather than intentional, don't worry about it, my friend.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
I meant no disrespect....
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
Also I didn't know if what you said meant you would touch on my first argument or not. Just wanted to make sure.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
People don't vote really on this site
Posted by TrustmeImlying 2 years ago
TrustmeImlying
You'd do well to actually read what I put in my round 2 argument. Especially when I said "Next round I will defend all points given and counter all of PRO's points." Be patient, your rebuttals will come. I'd advise against putting dubious claims that suggest I've failed to respond to your statements, the voters tend to frown on that behavior.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
I think it is very hard to touch on one without touching the others. But on your request, We will try to keep our first debate to Creation vs the Big Bang.
Posted by TrustmeImlying 2 years ago
TrustmeImlying
A quick question before we start, are we debating evolution, the Big Bang, or atheism? Those are very different topics and could each take up 10,000 characters easily. If in the event you wish to discuss all three, we might just have the first debate on the Big Bang vs. the Biblical creation narrative and see how that goes.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
yoshidinoTrustmeImlyingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con gives tons of evidence showing the Big Bang that were unrefuted, while at the same time showing doubt within the Bible's sources
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
yoshidinoTrustmeImlyingTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro set con up to fail with the no unproven theory thing. science has many unproven theory's especially about what happened trillions of years ago in fact the big bang theory is simply an unproven theory. The bible is a worse source then that many scientists.