The Instigator
Tom_Tom47
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

Evolution and science cannot disprove God or creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,896 times Debate No: 7419
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (7)

 

Tom_Tom47

Pro

So my first go at this was a little vague, so I'll give it another go. I am looking for someone to argue the fact that science and evolution can disprove God or creationism, as the title states
rougeagent21

Con

Alright, this should be an interesting topic. As you will notice, my opponent is PRO. The burden of proof falls on him. I await your arguments. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Tom_Tom47

Pro

Very well, I will begin

I have one main argument that I will open up with for you to rebut

First off, science, as most of us know, is the study of the natural world, examples of which are biology - the study of life, and physics - the study of matter and energy. Scientists use these different fields to study, make hypotheses about, et cetera, the universe.

God, as according to the Bible, is an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being of the supernatural, who is exempt from the numerous laws of nature. Whether or not you believe God to be real or not, this is not arguable.

In such, science, which is used to study things of the natural universe, cannot be used to study or make claims about things not of the natural world, namely God. Ergo, you cannot use science or evolution (which arose from scientific studies) to claim that God does or does not exist.
rougeagent21

Con

Alright, lets begin. Most of my opponent's arguments are simply facts, so I will attack his conclusion as follows:

"you cannot use science or evolution (which arose from scientific studies) to claim that God does or does not exist."

So, as my opponent pointed out earlier, science is the study of natural laws. If you would, recall Newton's Laws, as well those of thermodynamics, and conservation of mass and energy. "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed during the process of a chemical reaction." This is science. Now notice, that you exist. You are here. How did you get here? Well, people have tried to explain this for a long time. The Big Bang? Flash Particles? Creation? Given the above "scientific" rule, the only way for us to have come about is through a God putting us here.

==BIG BANG==
"According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread."
OK, so the universe sprang from a dense singularity. Where did this singularity come from? How did it come about? Well, using science, we can only assume that-if the big bang were true-it would have to come from God. There is no other way the singularity could have come about.

==Flash Particles==
The same theory applies here. These particles must have come from somewhere. Since they could not have come into existence by themselves, God must have made them. Since they could not exist within science, a Supernatural must have created them.

==Creation==
This is in fact how the universe came to be. In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. There is no other option, since according to science, matter, energy, light, and others can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, God must have made the matter, energy, light, and so on. There is no other scientific explanation. That being said, I conclude round two. Thank you.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Tom_Tom47

Pro

Though my original plan for this debate was for my opponent to argue that science cannot be used rather than it can be used to prove God's existence, I won't worry to much, because I must say, my opponent has presented a well structured argument, though there is one major flaw I see in it.

My opponent has said that "the only way for us to have come about is through a God putting us here" and such things to that extent to account for the Big Bang, Flash Particle Theory and Creation. Now, the only problem is that the statement that "God just put it there, and that's why it's there" is not a scientific statement. These acts of God being the reason for singularities, flash particles, et cetera, are supernatural acts, since the laws of nature, such as thermodynamics, Newton's laws and the Law of Conservation of Mass mentioned by my opponent, did not yet exist at that time, and therefore cannot be studied using science.
rougeagent21

Con

Hmm, you seem to miss the point of my arguments. I will address what you have said.

First of all, I am not advocating the Big Bang, or flash particles. Those were just common examples of Earth theories. My point was that even if they were the reason for the universe, only God could have put them there.

Second, you use a strawman attack on my case. I do not use circular reasoning, as you would have the voters believe. I presented you with the fact that these phenomena could only have come about by God putting them there. You have yet to provide another option. Given that, I can only uphold my case.

(So are you saying that since at one point man did not know what a trilobite was, it did not exist? A galaxy? What are you saying?)
Debate Round No. 3
Tom_Tom47

Pro

Well it is obvious that YOU are missing the point of the argument itself. So I will in return address your statements.

Firstly...

"First of all, I am not advocating the Big Bang, or flash particles. Those were just common examples of Earth theories. My point was that even if they were the reason for the universe, only God could have put them there."

I understand your argument, but whether or not God could have put them there is not part of the argument. The fact that this is not able to be tested and therefor proven or disproven by science, because this action cannot be recreated, is the point of the argument.

Secondly...

"Second, you use a strawman attack on my case. I do not use circular reasoning, as you would have the voters believe."

I am in no way trying to have the voters believe you are using circular reasoning, and if that is how I am coming across, then I apologize, but I honestly don't believe I am.

Thirdly...

"I presented you with the fact that these phenomena could only have come about by God putting them there. You have yet to provide another option. Given that, I can only uphold my case."

Whether or not God was the reason of these events is irrelevant to the debate. The topic is whether or not science can be used to prove or disprove God and creation, not what "options" there are for creation.

Fourthly...

"(So are you saying that since at one point man did not know what a trilobite was, it did not exist? A galaxy? What are you saying?)"

I can only assume that you are addressing the point at which I stated "...since the laws of nature, such as thermodynamics, Newton's laws and the Law of Conservation of Mass mentioned by my opponent, did not yet exist at that time, and therefore cannot be studied using science..." I am not saying that just because we didn't know about them doesn't mean they existed, I'm saying that they didn't exist because space and time didn't yet exist at the point in time I was addressing.

In conclusion...

My opponent has gone entirely off topic and and in his last round, seemed as though he was debating an entirely different argument. I, on the other hand, stayed true to the topic presented at the beginning of the debate. I can only hope the voters see this.
rougeagent21

Con

rougeagent21 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
hmm
Posted by Tom_Tom47 7 years ago
Tom_Tom47
it'll let me debate, just not vote
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Wow, then how can you debate?
Posted by Tom_Tom47 7 years ago
Tom_Tom47
nope, i can't because I can't confirm my account because I don't have texting
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Yes, as I am assuming you did as well?
Posted by Tom_Tom47 7 years ago
Tom_Tom47
hey rougeagent, did you vote for yourself
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Can you guys post RFDs please?
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
That is what the opponent made it sound like originally. Anyways, he agreed to it.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
You're trying to prove God exists, when the debate resolution, and opponent, is arguing that evolution can't disprove God.
Posted by Tom_Tom47 7 years ago
Tom_Tom47
I-am-a-panda, I know this, but what I said was that WE can't study this with science, and I really don't understand what your statement means
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Teucer32 7 years ago
Teucer32
Tom_Tom47rougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Tom_Tom47rougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
Tom_Tom47rougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Tom_Tom47rougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
Tom_Tom47rougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
Tom_Tom47rougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Tom_Tom47rougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07