Evolution can no more be proven true than creation can be proven fake
Debate Rounds (3)
Creationism is based on no facts, just a self contradictory book of fairy tales written by iron age goat herders. Creationism relies on the self contradictory notion of a god to create which can be dismissed with this argument
""I think, therefore I am" is the only thing we can objectively know to go any further you must make three assumptions (the basil assumptions):
The assumption that we experience the universe through our senses,
The assumption that knowledge exists,
The assumption that models with predictive capability are more effective than models with only descriptive capability.
Any sentient being cannot know that any of these assumptions are true (even a god) and therefore there is an impossibility in the definition of a god ("A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.") and as a being cannot achieve omniscience it cannot fulfill all the characteristics necessary to be considered a god.
Further more there is a contradiction in omnipotence which is very easy to highlight. Can god create an object god cannot object effect? If god cannot create the object then god isn't omnipotent and if god can then god has something god cannot do either way omnipotence is impossible.
I have shown you that there are two impossibilities in the definition of god and therefore god cannot be either omnipotent or omniscient. And as any being cannot be omnipotent or omniscient god by definition doesn't exist and it is impossible for god to exist."" (copied from a previous debate because I don't see why I should re-write something yet to be refuted).
Furthermore creationism is based on faith which is belief without adequate evidence and despite all the facts, something that cannot be changed is known as unfalsifiable which is a test of a positions weakness, not its strength.
Creationism has been proven false in a court of law and every endeavour by creation "scientists" has been dismissed by actual scientists.
My "few biblical errors"
You make the claim that Moses rote the genesis account, this is not true. The series of ancient tales now known as genesis were edited together by several different authors . Furthermore if you want to claim Moses wrote the Pentateuch you must realise that the Pentateuch records the death of Mosses . Also my opponent has not cited any evidence for the existence of Mosses.
Also the iron age is the period from 1200 BC to 500 BC, the period where many biblical books were written.
And the Jewish tribe were predominately goat herders.
God Cannot be Comprehended
You say that "The reason you think god can't exist is because you are putting him on the same level as us but in truth is he is so much more than us that we can't even begin to fully comprehend him." no, I used logic to show that NOTHING could be either omniscient or omnipotent. You didn't even attempt a refutation.
Creation is a Theory?
A theory must:
1. Have predictive capability. Evolution can predict changes in an organisms morphology. Creation has no predictive capability (I challenge you to show otherwise).
2. Be the simplest logical solution. Evolution has withstood occam's razor every time it has been attempted. Creationism relies on unproven hypotheses such as the idea that the rate of radioactive decay changes.
3. Be consistent with all the facts. Evolution has been shown to be consistent with all the facts otherwise it would be changed. Creation needs to distort scientific disciplines such as palaeontology in order to maintain itself.
As you can see Evolution is a theory and Creation is not.
You have not even attempted to refute what I see as my trump card and instead attempt to say that it is not necessary to argue for the existence of god. This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis which should be dismissed.
 Gooder (2000), pp. 12–14
 Deuteronomy 34
I got the infomation on Moses from the eygpt national muesum
Finally I would like to address earths age
In evolution the earth is millions of years old
In creation earth is thousands of years old
Oil rigs in Saudi Arabia that have been dry for years have been drilled on again for a decent amount of oil but according to science this should take millions of years to refill the oil deposits. This is good grounds to question just how old te Earth really is!
"What you forget is that both have fact and both have a missing piece for creation the missing piece would be where did God come from and for evolution the missing piece would be we're did the orignal bacteria come from"
Evolution can be defined as "descent with modification" this means that it doesn't take effect until after life comes into existence. Abiogenesis is a totally different field of study to evolution and not remotely related.
Macro and Micro evolution
"we have never personally seen evolution occur on a macro scale only micro which is a completely different from macro we only see common species and fossil and assume through similarities they evolved from this organism"
The distinction between macro and micro evolution is first of all completely irrelevant. Second by all definitions macro evolution is evolution from one species to another here are some examples .
The evolution of all of life can also be seen through the system of phylogenetics, grouping organisms into classes based on their genetics. For instance our order is Primates which consists of monkeys and apes as well as us, anything grouped into the order Primates is a monkey and we are not excluded from that. Hominidae is our taxonomic which contains all the apes and because we are classed in this family we to are apes wether we like it or not. Our genus is Homo which contains us along with all the extinct homonids. The system of taxonomy was purposed by a christian creationist who lived before darwin ever published his theory and yet this is some of the best evidence for evolution, the fact that we are all subdivided into categories which are identical to the categories of descent with modification.
Age of the earth
Notice that Pro has not been able to site a source for his claims about oil deposits magically filling back up again in a process that breaks all the laws of thermo dynamics .
The age of the earth can be confirmed in so many ways, including the models of reality we use to send men to the moon, they have practical application and predictive capability, two things creationism lacks.
There are no records of any great plagues nor Jewish slavery in Egypt. Pro has not been able to site a source for this either just said "Egyptian manuscripts". Nor are there historical records for moses existing as described.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro simply didn't fulfill his burden. He provides no reason why creationism cannot be proven wrong that Con directly address, and doesn't respond to Con's analysis. Nor does Pro adequately address Con's points on evolution, which appear to prove it factual (though there are plenty of points of attack that are never tried). Con wins arguments. He also wins S&G due to Pro's R3 post, which is one long run-on sentence and a number of spelling mistakes. Con presents at least some evidence, though it's highly limited and two of them aren't given as accessible online evidence.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.