The Instigator
dtaylor971
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Cooldudebro
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution is more scientific than 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
dtaylor971
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 714 times Debate No: 42809
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

dtaylor971

Pro

First round for acceptance. Here are layout and rules:

Round 1) Acceptance
Round 2) Arguments
Round 3) Rebuttals
Round 4) Only say "no arguments agreed upon." That's all you are allowed to say.

Breaking this format will be treated as a loss of conduct and arguments points. Upon agreeing, you agree that if you break it, you get the full punishment.

My BOP is that Evolution is more scientific than Creationism.

Scientific: done in an organized way that agrees with the methods and principles of science (1)

Good luck.

(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Cooldudebro

Con

I accept. good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
dtaylor971

Pro

Just to clarify:
I mean the structure of Evolution and Creationism, not the only evidence that we have for either side. Just the actual theory. Evidence may be used to prove some points, but not overused. Remember, this is not a debate about which theory is correct. Only which one is more scientific.

Good luck to you too. Thank you for accepting. First, I would like to dissect the main points of Evolution and Creationism.


Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the Earth (1).

Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution (2).

May I point out that creationism says "rather than natural processes." Natural science is indeed a type of science. It even has multiple museums (3).


(1) https://www.google.com...
(2) https://www.google.com...
(3) http://www.hmns.org...


-Argument I: Laws of the Universe.-
My first argument in why Evolution is more scientific than Creationism is the very scientific structure of Evolution.

First, I would like to turn to the laws of the universe to help the scientific theory of Evolution. The first law, the law of vibration, states:

"The Law of Vibration states that everything vibrates and nothing rests. Vibrations of the same frequency resonate with each other, so like attracts like energy. Everything is energy, including your
thoughts. Consistently focusing on a particular thought or idea attracts its vibrational match.(4) "

P1, R2: Why Creationism doesn't follow this:
However, in the theory of Creationism, it says that God rested on the seventh day (5). How could he rest if literally nothing, as said by the laws of the universe, can rest? Humans use "rest" as a figure of speech for sleep. However, God is not human. So had the the theory of Creationism really have been scientific, it must follow the laws of the universe. You may argue that God rested in the way humans do, but that would mean the Bible is not literal. Had the Bible been taken literally, it means God literally rested. And nothing can do that. If the Bible is not literal, the theory of Creation can not be taken literally, making the exact theory false. If the Bible is taken literally, then God could not have rested, causing a universal paradox that goes on and on.

P2, R2: Why Evolution follows this:
However, Evolution is a much different story. In the theory of Evolution, all life evolved from one cell (6). The cell then divided, making more complex life forms. At no point did Evolution ever stop, as proved by a Nat Geo test (7). Since it never stopped, it followed this law of the universe.

Another law of the universe states this:

The Law of Gestation states that everything takes time to manifest. All things have a beginning and grow into form as more energy is added to it.

P3, R2: Why Creationism doesn't follow this:
In Creationism, God created vegetation without allowing it any time to grow. He created Adam in full grown-up form without any time to grow. This does not follow the laws of the universe. Had God actually created life, as Creationism says, he would've had to let life grow. Plus, he created the stars in a day. And he created all of them in the adult form. Stars would've taken MILLIONS if not billions of years to properly form (8).

P4 R2:Why Evolution follows this:
Evolution, on the other hand, does follow this. Evolution started 4.6 BYA (9). Over time, life started to develop, getting greater and bigger as more energy from cells were transmitted, which follows the law of the universe PERFECTLY. The beginning of the theory of Evolution is clearly shown when the Earth formed.

(4) http://gittefalkenberg.wordpress.com...
(5) http://biblehub.com...
(6) http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
(7) http://www.npr.org...
(8) http://www.ask.com...
(9) http://www.talkorigins.org...

--Argument 2: How deep we can go--
For my second argument, I will turn to something that most evolutionists do not say: how far science has to go to prove this.

In Creationism, you don't hear about fossils proving it or using carbon dating to trace back fossils, or even discovering skeletons! However, Evolution requires all of these things... scientific things that Creationism does not need. However, I have to go deeper into the theory for my first point.

P5 R2: In the theory of the Great Flood, fossils were laid down beneath the Earth. However, if fossils had been laid down by a great flood such as the Genesis flood, as Creationists argue, then complex and simple life forms should be mixed together, with no clear order or progression, just things scattered all about. But the fossil record shows a clear progression in complexity. The science of Evolution shows that there should be a progression, which there is, while science of Creationism shows that there should not be.

P6 R2: For this point, I will show you just how 'scientific' Creationism is.
If you have looked closely at Creationists, you see that they try to prove Creationism because of the "faults" with Evolution and have no real, rock solid evidence for themselves. For example, this is a main Creationist argument: "Huge gaps in the Evolution model shows that Creationism is true." In that statement, they have no evidence for themselves [10]. Same with many other statements. There is one more statement I would like to make that further proves that Evolution is more scientific. Apparently, most people think that Creationism is not scientific enough to be taught in schools, including the government, while Evolution is [11]. If you want to argue against this, you are arguing against our educators and government alike.

[10] http://www.geosociety.org...
[11] http://ncse.com...

Cooldudebro

Con

Cooldudebro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
dtaylor971

Pro

It is unfortunate my opponent forfeited the last round of our debate.

May I remind all readers that my opponent can only post rebuttals from here on out, and nothing in round four. My opponent has presented no arguments and can not present any arguments. He can't meet his BOP.

I wish this would've been a better debate.
Cooldudebro

Con

I don't have time for this debate, I ask that he cancels the debate, and challenges me again when I am ready!
Debate Round No. 3
dtaylor971

Pro

No arguments agreed upon.
Cooldudebro

Con

Cooldudebro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
Furthermore, look at the definition of science we provided. It was good that I chose the laws and principals of the universe for this.
Posted by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
Those are two of the seven laws of science. I was showing how Creationism does not follow the laws while Evolution does. You need to read the whole entire thing; It's only about the theory itself that is more scientific.

As for your second point, you also need to read the start of the second round. The debate is not about scientific evidence, but rather the theory itself. Why were you so amazed about it? Did I do something wrong>
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
I was expecting science, not mysticism in dtaylor's arguments.
Then I looked at his words (The first law, the law of vibration) and references (round 2, #4).
In future rounds I hope that PRO gets back to science.

As I continued to read PRO round 2 I was amazed that his second point for "evolution" is that "God rested" which goes against his statement of a "metaphysical law" rather than some evidence that can be measured.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
dtaylor971CooldudebroTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: full forfeit
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
dtaylor971CooldudebroTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by Con so full points to Pro. Simple rules for voting in this circumstance.