Evolution true and creationism is not
Debate Rounds (5)
Now, I will be treating this first round as a sort of validation round. I will explain why I think Creation should be considered alongside evolution. In the second round, as the Con, I will rebut my opponent's arguments and create some of my own. Let's get started!
Science is both a fabulous body of knowledge and a fantastic method of investigation. Most people just assume evolution can be studied scientifically"but not creation. According to a slogan popular these days, "Evolution is science, and creation is religion," and that"s supposed to stop the discussion even before it starts. Let"s start, then, with the most basic question of all: Is it really possible to talk honestly and fairly about scientific evidence of creation?? For many people, that question is a major stumbling block. Some even use it as an excuse to throw creation out of the courtroom or classroom without even hearing the evidence. But nothing is really easier for scientists and just "ordinary people" than finding and recognizing evidence of creation.
To illustrate, let me borrow your imagination for a moment. Imagine that you are walking along a creek on a lazy summer afternoon, idly kicking at the pebbles along the bank. Occasionally you reach down to pick up a pebble that has an unusual shape. One pebble reminds you of a cowboy boot. As you roll the pebble around in your hand, you notice that the softer parts of the rock are more worn away than the harder parts, and that lines of wear follow lines of weakness in the rock. Despite some appearance of design, the boot shape of the tumbled pebble is clearly the result of time, chance, and the processes of weathering and erosion.
But then your eye spots an arrowhead lying among the pebbles. Immediately it stands out as different. In the arrowhead, chip marks cut through the hard and soft parts of the rock equally, and the chip lines go both with and across lines of weakness in the rock. In the arrowhead, we see matter shaped and molded according to a plan that gives the rocky material a special purpose. You have just done what many people dismiss as impossible. In comparing the pebble and arrowhead, you were easily able to recognize evidence of creation. I am speaking here only of human creation, of course. The arrowhead might have been carved by one of my ancestors (a Cherokee), for example. But the same approach can be used even when we don"t know who or what the creative agent might have been.
What does it take to recognize evidence of creation? Just the ordinary tools of science: logic and observation.
Using your knowledge of erosional processes and your observations of hard and soft rock, you were able to distinguish a result of time and chance (the tumbled pebble) from an object created with plan and purpose (the arrowhead). If we had found such objects as arrowheads on Mars, all scientists would have recognized them immediately as the products of creation, even though in that case we would have no idea who made them or how. Carl Sagan, the evolutionist of Cosmos television fame, wants the government to listen for signals from outer space, because he knows full well that we can tell the difference between wave patterns produced by time and chance and those sent with design and purpose.
I once heard a man say, But creation can"t be scientific. Science deals only with things you can see and touch. Take energy, for example " ." Then he stopped: "Whoops! Made a mistake, didn"t I?" I agreed with him, take gravity for example. We cannot see or touch it, but we can witness the effects it has upon us. Similarly, God is a Spirit and can"t be seen"but you can see His effects on matter. Even the Bible tells us that "the invisible things of God are clearly seen in all the things that have been made" (Romans 1:20).
Even when we don"t know who or what the creative agent is, then, there are cases where "creation" is simply the most logical inference from our scientific observations.
Although the pebble and the arrowhead are made of the same substance, they reflect two radically different kinds of order. The tumbled pebble has the kind of order that results from time and chance operating through weathering and erosion on the inherent properties of matter. Those same factors will eventually destroy not only the pebble, but also the arrowhead, which has the kind of order clearly brought into being by plan and purpose, mind acting on matter.
In a way, the tumbled pebble represents the idea of evolution. As I once believed and taught, evolutionists believe that life itself is the result, like the tumbled pebble, of time, chance, and the inherent properties of matter. The arrowhead represents the creation idea, that living systems have irreducible properties of organization that were produced, like the arrowhead, by plan, purpose, and special acts of creation.
In our daily experience, all of us can differentiate these two kinds of order (inherent and "exherent"). On the basis of logic and observation, for example, we recognize that wind-worn rock formations are the products of time, chance, and the inherent properties of matter. But those same techniques (logical inference from scientific observations) convince us that pottery fragments and rock carvings must be the products of plan, purpose, and acts of creation giving matter irreducible properties of organization.
Let"s suppose for a moment you are willing to agree, even tentatively and reluctantly, that "creation" (the model, the process, and the products) can be studied scientifically. Does that mean you have to be (shudder) a "creationist?" Not at all! Indeed, there are a couple of teachers at a California university who are convinced, as I am, that creationist ideas can be tested scientifically"but they think that scientific tests have proven them false! So we can agree ahead of time that both classic models of origin can be compared on the basis of scientific merit, but that still leaves it up to me to convince you that the bulk of scientific evidence available supports the Bible, not evolution.
So far, we"ve only agreed to discuss, to "reason together." Now, let"s apply these ordinary scientific techniques to the study of living systems. When it comes to the origin of life, which view is the more logical inference from our scientific observations? Time, chance, and the evolution of matter? Or plan, purpose, and special acts of creation?
Before I answer your last question I would like to point out the Evolution didn't occur by "chance", it is a natural process. It is also more logical to infer Evolution as the explanation of the origin of life. I will give you 2 reasons:
1. Scientists have determined the age of the universe to be somewhere around 13.8 billion years old. Scientists also know the age of the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old. However, the Bible claims the universe, along with Earth and everything else, to have been created 5,000-6,000 years old. It is about equivalent to suggest that the distance from New York to San Francisco is seven yards. The scientific evidence crushes the bibles account of the age of the universe which leads me to believe the Bible is not a reliable source of evidence.
2. The Bible also claims that all life on Earth was intelligently designed 5,000 years ago when we have fossils dated back millions of years. The fossil record suggests organisms changed overtime because bones from older geological strata were not the same as bones from more recent geological strata.
His first point is that it is wrong to compare energy and gravity to God. He says that there is no proof or reason to claim that there is a God. I would just like to point out that he offered no warrant for his claim He just blatantly said that there was absolutely no proof for God. Well I would like to share with you some definitive proofs that show that God does exist. These are all arguments from this website. http://www.everystudent.com... The writer, Marilyn Adamson, is a former atheist who has written and defined these proofs for God.
1. The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents. The earth is the only planet that can support life. To say it came about by random chance, or evolution is simply ridiculous.
2. Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that various chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.
Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.
Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.
Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.
Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.
3. The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands. The human brain processes more than a million messages a second. Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.
4. The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously. Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.
5. The beginning of the Universe...Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."
Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."
The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
I would like to mention that this is perfectly consistent with what is told in the Bible. Genesis 1:3 "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light"
Now I know I've spent a lot of time on that, but I have barely scratched the surface of showing why we must have been created, and the proof for it. Is it easier to believe that random chance created your emotions, our perfectly livable world, and that the universe just exploded into being? Or that someone, a divine, all powerful being created us and our universe? Also, I would like to say that belief in evolution is in fact contradictory to science. One thing is for sure: the Universe did not create itself! We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create matter. If we take a rock that weighs 1 pound and do 50,000 experiments on it, we never will be able to produce more than 1 pound of rock. So, whatever caused the Universe could not have been material. Hold on just a minute! If we contend that every material effect must have a cause, and we say that only God could have caused the Universe, then the obvious question is: "What caused God?" Doesn"t the law of cause and effect apply to God, too?
There is a single word in the law of cause and effect that helps provide the answer to this question"the word material. Every material effect must have a cause that existed before it. Scientists formulated the law of cause and effect based upon what they have observed while studying this Universe, which is made out of matter. No science experiment in the world can be performed on God, because He is an eternal spirit, not matter (John 4:24). Science is far from learning everything about this material world, and it is even farther from understanding the eternal nature of God. There had to be a First Cause, and God was (and is) the only One suitable for the job.
Now, my opponent has said that Scientists have determined the age of the universe to be billions of years old, and that fossils have been dated back farther. Before I refute this claim, I would like to say that the Pro has the burden to prove that what he says is true. I can claim that there is scientific evidence that we are ruled by a race of aliens, but until I offer evidence, there is no reason to believe me. So, you should disregard my opponent's claims of "Scientific evidence" until he actually offers some. Once my opponent provides actual scientific evidence that he thinks supports his case, I will happily refute it. But until then, all he has done is make an unwarranted claim, and you as the voter have no reason to believe him.
Now, over the course of this argument I have shown you that logically, there is absolutely no reason to believe that we were created by some random chance called evolution. The perfection of our universe could only come from one thing, a creator. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Now for an evolutionist, this provides a serious problem. They believe either that there was eternal matter, or that it just popped into existence. In essence, this is how evolutionists believe the universe was made. In the beginning, there was nothing, then nothing exploded and created everything. Here is the view of creationists. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. I'll leave it up to you to decide which is more logical.
Tomas154c forfeited this round.
Although the human brain is a magnificent phenomenon, it isn't perfectly designed. The brain can be easily prone to illusions and many people are born with dysfunctional brains. Flaws such as ADHD, autism, and mental illnesses caused by traumatic experiences should be somewhat proof that at least, if brains were truly designed, they are certainly flawed. Also our brains evolved, through natural selection, in order for strictly survival purposes. They didn't develop to understand complicated ideas such as quantum mechanics and general relativity. Our brains are also not able to concept large amounts of time, which may have been the reason why it took until the 19th century to come up with the idea that all of life we see today gradually evolved in a slow process of billions of years.
Sight had evolved because it was neccesary for evolution. Although half of an eye may not seem to be very useful for survival, it is more useful than no sight at all. That is why organisms who had the simplest forms of sight passed on their trates because they were better able to survive rather than organisms who had even lesser sight, whom didn't survive and pass on their traits. Gradually over time the eye evolved to have better sight because natural selection favored sight as an essential heritable trate for survival.
Although the bibles explanation for creation could be translated to be similar to the big bang, it also mentions that God created planet earth and all life on it in the same week, which is contrary to what scientists claim that the earth formed around 10 billion years after the big bang. The bible claimed that the universe was created 5,000 years ago, which is contrary to what's scientist claim that it happens about 14 billion years ago. The bible claimed that all life on earth as we see it today, all the different types of species, were created instantly when scientists tell us life evolved from a common ancestor.
Although we don't know what caused the Big Bang, it is not reasonable to say that it must have been a divine creator. It just raises more questions. Although it may seem like it had to be created by a designer, there is no evidence to suggest that it was. It may seem like it had to have been created by something because matter cannot come from nothing, we now had 2 different types of nothing. There is nothing #1, which I the nothing that you may be thinking of, which is exactly how it sounds: nothing whatsoever. But your claim that the universe is made of matter is only true for 4% of the universe. The other 96% of the universe is not matter, but is still something, which I will refer to as nothing #2. it is referred to as dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter, which is not matter at all actually, is in empty space all around us. If you were to take a clump of space and take out all the particles, you will find that it still weighs something, and so far scientists have no idea what the nature of it is. Dark energy is an energy throughout the universe that is causing the universe to expand rapidly, we know this because the energy that we can account for and measure should be causing the universe to slow its expansion. So there must be a significant amount of energy we aren't able to measure if the universe is accelerating. With the discovery of dark matter and dark energy, scientist are able to make plausible theories of how the Universe truly can be created from nothing, by "nothing" I'm referring to nothing #2.
Evolution is just as much of a fact as the fact that the planets orbit the sun. We know that through the fossil record. Bones from older geological strata were not the same as bones from more recent strata. Here is a link that shows proof of evolution through the fossil record: http://biologos.org.... Another source of evidence came from similarities of embryological development in species that otherwise seemed very different from one another: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... Most importantly, there is the DNA evidence: http://jacques.janin.free.fr.... The means by which evolution occurred is mostly by natural selection, as well as additional means such as sexual selection and genetic drift. Natural selection explains how adaptations arose as as a consequence of successful survival. Those who had traits more suitable for survival were more likely to survive and reproduce and pass on their traits. Sexual selection focuses on adaptations that arose as a consequence of successful mating. Either organisms had to compete to between members of one sex to have matting access to the other sex: which explains for differences in size and structure of sexes in some species, or organisms of one sex had some consensus about the qualities that are desired in members of the opposite sex: which explains how some traits found in species, that had nothing to do with survival, increased in frequency with the passing of each generation. Genetic drift is random changes in the genetic makeup of a populations. It includes mutation, Founder effects: occurs when a small portion of a population establishes a new colony and the founders of the new colony are not entirely genetically representative of the original population, and genetic bottlenecks: only a subset of genes are carried on from an original population as the result of a random catastrophe. I would advise my opponent or any of the viewers to read any book by any biologist about evolution. I don't see how you wouldn't be persuaded.
It is important to correct you that evolution did not occur by chance, rather it it a completely natural process. It is also wrong to say that our universe is perfect. There are many potential threat for the future of our earth such as asteroids or comets colliding, the inevitable death of our sun, gamma ray bursts, solar flares, rogue black holes...etc. Not to mention threats for life on earth such as earthquakes, super volcanoes such as Yellowstone National park in Montana, Global weather change, disease epidemics...etc.
Our new understanding of "nothing" has been changed and has made the theory of the big bang not only logical, but some physicist claim it is inevitable. American theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, Laurence describes the new scientific theories and observations that demonstrate how the universe could have spontaneously arisen from nothing in his book "A universe from Nothing". He makes the case that this is not only plausible, but inevitable. Krauss presents evidence to show how the universe began and evolved, and theorizes about its ultimate end.
drewster forfeited this round.
drewster forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.