The Instigator
Pboy21
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
crossfade102495
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Evolution vs creation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 5 votes the winner is...
crossfade102495
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,345 times Debate No: 22249
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

Pboy21

Pro

lets begin with the inerrancy of scripture as Truth ... while continuing on to the existence of the universe and God .. ill show how these are truths why you show why not . ill use the bible and you use whatever you can find?
crossfade102495

Con

Sure, why not? I'll allow you the first argument, my friend. Please be sure to cite your sources though, and so will I.
Debate Round No. 1
Pboy21

Pro

okay sorry for the delay internet is slow but i like to say thank you ...
now lets start with The existence of universe in view of a creator .
as that is taught in the bible i will be using the Nasb
while i dont know what youll be using but anyways
now it says in Genesis 1:1 , That God created the Heavens(universe) and the earth .
now lets begin with the ex nihilo the breathing out of .
God created the world with out any pre-existent material.
Meaning that in the beginning it was God alone, that the world would have been made out of nothing, because it had to have a beginning unlike God who always existed.
The universe and the world within it is known as finite meaning temporal and always changing while God can not be none of these because then contradict his eternality.
The only difference is this in the beginning of Genesis one the author never assumes any mystical battle of gods but only specifies a God as its creator. I
In verse 1 we see in the beginning God was what? Alone, this does not say God was with the heavenly host and they created. But He alone created. While seeing the" beginning" of creation in Genesis 1:1. R .K. Harrison says "it should be translated by way of beginning" That it is the beginning of what? –Time! As John H. Walton said "it introduces a period of time" What is this "Period of time" mean? Is then answered, by Utley saying; "This is the beginning of history but not of God's activity." (John17:5; Ephesians 1:4; Titus 1:9)
To conclude to what the authors have said, it is the beginning of the way in which the creating of "time and history" Is placed. "As God willed into being everything but himself." (Psalms 33:6, 9) presenting his involvement with creation
crossfade102495

Con

You actually seem to be arguing against the Big Bang Theory and not evolution, so I shall defend the BBT first.



Scientists speculate that in the beginning, there was an infinitely dense point that was called a "singularity." This point was of an indefinite volume and mass. It alone had always existed. Now, if we incorporate string theory into this, the idea becomes a space-filling object called a "brane." This brane contained an immense amount of potential energy and density. At some point, the brane began to decay and formed an ever-expanding number of minute strings. These strings form the very basic part of matter which we know of, quarks (Bare with me, as I'm not a physicist and am only in high school). Those quarks eventually came together in a complicated process in order to form atoms themselves. From that point, the atoms quickly expanded from the area which they once occupied. This theory explains why the universe is expanding. [This information can be gathered from any physicists' work.]

The idea of Creationism does not adequately explain why nor how the universe is in a continuous state of expansion. It also does not explain why we see new stars. Science, however, offers an explanation: the speed of light. If there was a star that was 10 billion light-years away, it would take 10 billion years before we could see the light from it. If Creationism was true, then either the universe really is billions of years old (or at least older than the common Creationist claim), or all of the stars would have to be created at the same time. But if they were created at the same time, we would be able to see them all, and therefore we would not observe new-found stars. [Also basic physics.]

Also, for evolution, a strong point which cannot be stressed enough is the existence of vestigial structures. A vestigial structure is any organ or body structure which can be found in multiple species, but serves little or no purpose in a particular species. For example, in humans, the appendix has little apparent function. However, the analogous organ in many other species does have obvious function. This means that the organ is being "phased out" by the evolutionary process as it is deemed unnecessary. So, the question becomes, why do humans have an appendix? If Creationism was true, then all organs would have a purpose, including the appendix. While Creationism does not offer any explanation for this phenomenon, evolution does.
Debate Round No. 2
Pboy21

Pro

ill be holding the view of Creationism or fundamentalist
now let us begin
as Christianity,Jewish believe in the 7 day Record of creation
where God created the Heaven and the earth,stars galaxies ,water est est..
i will hold to the Genesis theory and explain with detail why the big bang theory and man existence as well humanity is truth and how Evolution is error. so as we venture through this subject
ill start with the literal 7 day period
now the bible states a God creating humanity and the earth sky and day and night est est total of seven days. now many will hold to as literal or some hold to as thousands years for such state to exist. now as the bible should be taken as literal i will presume this theory
now God created the universe in which God spoke it into existence im not referring to just "big bang " theory as some find but i am saying that all existence everything God created night/ day so on so forth all they way down the list
in studying this theory thermodynamic is involved revealing evidence to the expansion as well the evidence to the universe as well the cosmological theory which states that their needs to be an uncaused cause for the existence of everything.
stating in the theory of cosmological "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"
meaning the universe began to exist
therefore,the universe has a cause
crossfade102495

Con

For the final round, I will include a few rebuttals and bring in some new points.



You claim that since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. This is true (in fact, purely common sense) but it does not assist in the argument against the Big Bang nor against evolution. The BBT accounts for the creation of the universe just as well as, if not better than, Creationism. It even has the reasoning of science supporting it.

If the Bible was to be taken literally, then God created the universe and everything in it in a matter of 6 days (excluding the day for rest). If this was true, then all of the stars would basically be the same age and they would be in the same stage of existence. This, however, is not true. There are stars which are far older than others. Some have been around so long that they have actually gone supernova. Now, if you go with the idea of the BBT, then it only makes sense that we are just now seeing stars which are billions of light-years away go supernova. If God made the universe in only 6 days, there would be multiple stars ending their life cycle at the same exact time. In fact, the universe has to be billions of years old in order for us to see the after effects of the supernova explosion.


In support of the BBT, our telescopes can see into deep space and find things there which reveal the age of the universe and the circumstances under which it came into existence. A good example is the "center of the universe." This area is blanketed in radiation and leftover energy from the Big Bang. Since it is so far away from us, we can actually see what the universe looked like right after it was created. Because this vast field of energy exists, it serves as evidence that there was a singular event which began the creation of the entire universe.


Proof of evolution can be seen on the planet Mars. There are bacteria on the planet which resemble Archaebacteria here on Earth. They must have gotten there somehow, obviously. Evolutionary scientists theorize that an event similar to what happened after Earth was created must have taken place on Mars. In other words, the atmosphere of Mars used to be so different that storms raged constantly. As with Earth, a bolt of lightning hit a group of proteins on the face of Mars and the result was primitive life. We have created proteins in labs here on Earth under similar circumstances to what the atmosphere would have been like at the beginning of the planet's existence. When electricity is passed through these proteins, it yields a very basic form of life: amino acids. These acids combine in unique ways to create DNA and other building blocks of living creatures. In the end, the presence of bacteria on Mars is further proof of the theory of evolution.


Unfortunately, this debate is only 3 rounds long. So I urge the voters to vote for CON. Thank you, PRO, for creating this debate and giving the public a chance to see the differences between Creationism and science. Lastly, I apologize for my sparse use of sources but they truly weren't needed as all of my assertions were common scientific knowledge.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by miketheman1200 5 years ago
miketheman1200
That was painful to read.
Posted by ru2religious 5 years ago
ru2religious
Very good debating style crossfade102495
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Pboy21crossfade102495Tied
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 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: Wretched debate. Con inexcusably gives no sources and make the preposterous claim that bacteria have been discovered on Mars; no such thing has happened. Pro gives no scientific sources and is very hard to follow. Pro, however, has the burden of proof, and didn't make a case.
Vote Placed by WriterDave 5 years ago
WriterDave
Pboy21crossfade102495Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not even address Con's arguments; he seems to have cut and pasted text from his other debates on the same issue. I have no idea what he was trying to prove there. I think a school assignment was mentioned, and if he was soliciting responses for that, the forums would have been much more appropriate. But anyway, yeah.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Pboy21crossfade102495Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: ....Pro confused evolution with a cosmological construct and failed to respond to Con's arguments; using arguments pertaining to the cause of the universe, as well as the literal interpretation of Genesis proved flawed in rebutting Con's point about the Big Bang theory. Con's spelling, arguments, as well as conduct (for a poorly made resolution or rather, an inability to stick to the evolutionary model), were superior to those of Pro.
Vote Placed by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
Pboy21crossfade102495Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor spelling on Pros part and he didn't not argue against evolution. Con had the better agruement
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Pboy21crossfade102495Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct because Pboy21 didn't argue evolution vs. creation. Spelling for obvious reasons. Arguments because Con gave a better argument for TBB. I'm leaving sources a tie because while I believe in the bible one should use better sources.