The Instigator
yoyopizza
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
mubaracus
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

For someone to believe the bible literally they must either not understand or be ignorant of science

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
mubaracus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,177 times Debate No: 37058
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

yoyopizza

Pro

Firstly I must apologize to grammar nazis everywhere, because I wan out of space to put a comma in my title.

When I say ignorant of science, I mean that they do not know/understand the big bang theory, evolution via natural selection, etc.

Forfeiting a round is counted as a loss of all points

I would say first round acceptance, but you probably don't have an argument yet anyways since I haven't presented mine. Regardless, you may begin at the first round if you have anything to say or I'll start at round 2.

mubaracus

Con

I now accept your argument! :)

Though with these 8,000 word limits I rarely find myself typing that much. Please try to keep your arguments concise that I won't have to read excessive gibberish.
Debate Round No. 1
yoyopizza

Pro

I don't think I've ever used all 8,000 or even close, I just don't like having a limit so I set it as high as possible.


Premise: If you deny 2+2=4, you either cannot understand it or do not want to understand it. There is no way to say that 2+2≠4, because it has been proven otherwise.

Scientific poufs however, are much more difficult to understand than 2+2. The age of the earth, for example. It is a fact that the age of the earth is about 4.6 billion years. The age of the universe is about 14 billion years, another fact. Large numbers are incomprehensible to us, and many are turned away from even trying to understand when the bible claims that the earth is about 6,000-10,000 years old (a much more comprehensible number). The proof is everywhere, literally by looking at the stars you can tell the universe isn't 10,000 years old (assuming you knew how far away they were). The Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away. Well, what does that mean? It means that light will take 2.5 million years to get to us. The mere fact that we can see it should be proof enough that this isn't a biblical world.

When it comes to radiometric dating, many young earth creationists like to say that it's inaccurate. To quote a friend of mine during one of our debates, "Carbon dating has given us so many different results to the earths age. If a calculator gives you incorrect answers math answers you need to get rid of it right?" This is a pretty typical response when I try to explain inaccuracy in the bible, and there are two main parts to the fallacy I like to focus on. 1) The variability of radiometric dating, and 2) variability=Inaccuracy. I'm going to assume you understand the basics of radiometric dating, but let me know if I need more detail. First of all, I want to get something straight. Scientists do not use carbon dating to date the earth. That's like using a AAA battery to power a city for a month. It's going to run out long before the month is up. Same with carbon, it has a half life of 5,730 years. So after about 57,300 years there will be almost no carbon left to measure. What scientists use to measure the age of the earth is other radioactive materials with much longer half lives, such as uranium. Uranium has given different ages of the earth, but many confuse these different ages with variability. It's not that dating does not differ, but that their differences are minute. When dating any radioactive material, there is always a margin of error of about 1%. This means that when dating the age of the earth in billions of years, there is a possibility of error ±millions of years. So just because we get different numbers, does not mean that the calculations are wrong, just a margin of error.

These facts are just as proven as 2+2=4, the only difference being that one is obvious, and the other requires an effort to understand. Many do not want to understand and I personally am very frustrated by this. Since it takes a conscious effort, and most are satisfied with "Jesus loves you", people do not take the time to understand science and therefore are ignorant.

Thanks for accepting the debate and I await your response :)
mubaracus

Con

I don't really find it neccesary to rebuttal most of your arguments during this specific round because I feel the point I have to make stands firm against it.

My School:
I am in highschool and in highschool and many students I know, whom are pretty religious take lots of science classes including ones that are very extensive such as AP Biology and AP chemistry. Even with these intense understandings of science, they still generally choose to believe in God.

In my school is practically mandatory to take biology your freshmen year. All Christians I know that take biology are still Christians in believe in the Bible. So basically they have made the personal choice to not accept science as their reasoning on life but Christianity and the bible as it.

However I do feel the need to rebuttal one point which sounds a bit silly to me.

Rebuttal
"Premise: If you deny 2+2=4, you either cannot understand it or do not want to understand it. There is no way to say that 2+2
≠4, because it has been proven otherwise."

I don't think any of the scientific theories are as full proof as 2+2=4. If you could show me evidence of any of these theories however which appear so full proof I would be more then happy to examine them. And I understand that you are saying that they are complicated and therefore difficult to define but in my opinion and through experiences many things which are full proof appear to be able to defined into simple terms.

For example: E=MC^2. This is a simple equation defining a process which is quite complicated.
Debate Round No. 2
yoyopizza

Pro

E=MC^2 is simple and people can understand it, sure. However, what if I told you E=MC^2 is false? And scientists knew it? The equation e^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2 is often simplified to E=MC^2 just so the average person can "understand" it. The energy mass equivalence formula is complicated. People can know, energy equals mass, okay. However, to truly understand what that means requires a lot more dedication, and I myself do not feel qualified to attempt to explain in depth.

Religious do choose god over science. I am also in High School, and in my very first biology class we were asked what evolution was. Every religious person said it was the sacrilegious theory that we came from monkeys. They, just like many people think of E=MC^2, thought that through their limited knowledge they understood it. The difference was, religious claim it to be false, without even understanding it.


You want a theory as sound as 2+2=4? If your going philosophical you could claim that only mathematics can be proven because we may not be able to trust our senses. But for practical purposes I'm going to assume our senses are reliable. Evolution has been directly observed. (1) The earth has been dated(I went over this earlier). The heliocentric theory:) (2)

You also have yet to rebut most of my points from round 1.


1) http://www.talkorigins.org...
2) http://io9.com...
mubaracus

Con

I shall begin with rebuttals :)

Rebuttal:
"E=MC^2 is simple and people can understand it, sure. However, what if I told you E=MC^2 is false? And scientists knew it? The equation e^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2 is often simplified to E=MC^2 just so the average person can "understand" it."

This argument does not support your point because teachers would not be teaching something that is incorrect if they knew it was wrong. Therefore your hypothetical situation is not sound.

Rebuttal of Link 1:
This link provides numerous points attempting to support evolution beyond the scope and understanding of any person who really has not extensively studied biology so you can hardly say it simplifies the concept of evolution. However on this site I noticed on the FAQ section is supports evolution as an fact and a theory and also supports that a person does not need to be an atheist to believe in evolution (1).

Rebuttal:
"You also have yet to rebut most of my points from round 1."

I didn't rebuttal your points because they all were mentioning theories and conclusions that scientists have made about the world. Your question states "For someone to believe the bible literally they must either not understand or be ignorant of science".

By mentioning the fact that many students go to school and learn about biology and still believe in the bible and their religion negates any ignorance of science they might have.

Rebuttal:
"Religious do choose god over science. I am also in High School, and in my very first biology class we were asked what evolution was. Every religious person said it was the sacrilegious theory that we came from monkeys."

This quote actually counters the question you posed in your debate. As I said before the question was, "For someone to believe the bible literally they must either not understand or be ignorant of science". Yet you are saying that people in your biology class learned all the same things that you learned about biology in the class but rejected it. This shows that they are not ignorant of it but choose not to accept it. If your question is something like "People that believe in the bible are in deniable about scientific facts" than that the statement makes sense. But not in this argument.

Furthermore you are using the students in your school to exemplify the opinion of every person that believes in the bible yet learns science. Yet I mentioned students in my school that believe in the bible but can accept scientific theories. Furthermore the link you gave me supports that some Christians believe in Evolution (1).

In conclusion, many of your arguments seem to be attempting to support a different question. Your second link represents an idea that many people support including people that believe in the bible.

1). http://www.talkorigins.org......
Debate Round No. 3
yoyopizza

Pro

"... teachers would not be teaching something that is incorrect if they knew it was wrong."
Yes they would, and they do. Math is a good example. If you have ever heard of PEDMAS, you know it stands for parenthesis, exponents, division, multiplication, addition, and subtraction. Teachers use it to help their students understand the order of operations, but what they don't tell kids first learning PEDMAS, is that it is misleading. If you were to show people this math problem, 6/2(1+2), about 2/3 of them would tell you the answer is one. I have been lied to on many occasion by teachers so that people can understand things, then taught differently after people get the hang of it.

"This link provides numerous points attempting to support evolution beyond the scope and understanding of any person who really has not extensively studied biology so you can hardly say it simplifies the concept of evolution. "

I said earlier, evolution is not a simple concept. It can be explained simply, but to prove or fully grasp it requires study.

"However on this site I noticed on the FAQ section is supports evolution as an fact and a theory and also supports that a person does not need to be an atheist to believe in evolution (1)."

True, you can be a Christian and accept evolution. However, a person who believes that man was literary formed from dust and woman from his rib, cannot also believe that man evolved from billions of years of natural selection.

"Yet you are saying that people in your biology class learned all the same things that you learned about biology in the class but rejected it. "

No, I am saying that they remained ignorant. They went to class but refused to understand. Like I said, evolution is complicated, and because they would rather believe the bible, why try to understand something they have already dismissed? They go in with a closed mind and despite the evidence presented persist in faith by closing their eyes and plugging their ears (figuratively speaking, of course).

And my second link was a bit of a joke. I was showing what the word theory means in science, you cannot call evolution just a theory.
mubaracus

Con

I will begin with my rebuttals :)

Rebuttal:
"If you were to show people this math problem, 6/2(1+2), about 2/3 of them would tell you the answer is one."

I have never been taught that and don't know what statistic you are using to prove this statement as valid. I was taught order of operations since basically the third grade along with thousands of other students with me.

However your point in that statement is that they are not taught the full situation all at once because they don't want to confuse them. Rather they are using a more effective method of first making sure they understand one part then teaching them the next. This is not a valid point showing the teachers would intentionally teach somebody something wrong because the teachers you are citing in your example have the intention of teaching the students something right.

Rebuttal:
"However on this site I noticed on the FAQ section is supports evolution as an fact and a theory and also supports that a person does not need to be an atheist to believe in evolution (1)."

The article cites that many Christians support evolution as symbol of the biodiversity of life and believe in bible.

Rebuttal:
"They went to class but refused to understand. Like I said, evolution is complicated, and because they would rather believe the bible, why try to understand something they have already dismissed?"

Unless they failed the class it does not show they refused to understand but simply refused to accept

In conlusion my opponents arguments are cited mostly from experience which varies from place to place and therefore can't acurately represent all Christians.

Debate Round No. 4
yoyopizza

Pro

"I have never been taught that and don't know what statistic you are using to prove this statement as valid. "
The statistic is a personal experiment of mine, consisting of 10,000+ people, so I'd say it's fairly accurate.
However, you are right, the order of operations was a bad example. Here's a better one, when I took physics in high school, I was taught that F=MA, among other equations. This equation is wrong. (1)If fact, Newton never even said F=MA. It contradicts relativity and teachers should know that, but they tell their students that F=MA, which isn't far from the truth, but still not the truth. You say you're in high school, ask a physics teacher, does F=MA, they'll say yes, then tell them it contradicts relativity. This opens up the floodgates, because then they know you actually want to learn, not just be able to solve question 14 on your homework.

"The article cites that many Christians support evolution as symbol of the biodiversity of life and believe in bible."

Yes. Yes it does. Not sure I see a point here. They can still be Christians and accept evolution, that's not the point of this debate. They cannot, however, accept the bible literally, without not understanding or remaining ignorant of some scientific concepts.

"Unless they failed the class it does not show they refused to understand but simply refused to accept"

No, they don't need to have failed the class. Firstly, any biology class talks about more than just evolution, so they could get by failing the parts on evolution. However, I'm not claiming that they did, just that they didn't fully understand it. Like I said before, teachers teach that F=MA, not the whole truth. People are then tested over it, and can pass, even though they didn't understand the full picture. Without understanding evolution, I could remember phrases from a book, or just know about it without understanding it. (2)

Knowing is not understanding. There is a great difference between knowing and understanding: you can know a lot about something and not really understand it.

-Charles Kettering


1)http://usersguidetotheuniverse.com...
2)http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg...
mubaracus

Con

Hello, if you are reading thanks for sticking around to this last and final round. I will begin with my rebuttals :)

Rebuttal
"Here's a better one, when I took physics in high school, I was taught that F=MA, among other equations. This equation is wrong. "

My opponnent continues to generalize that anything he is taught wrong must be globally taught wrong in all schools. Furthermore he is assuming that it is impossible for a particular school to make an honest mistake and not correct it.

"They cannot, however, accept the bible literally, without not understanding or remaining ignorant of some scientific concepts."

I feel like this is my fault because we should of clarified this from the begining however I will now cite webster's definition of ignorance.

Webster's Definition
Ignorance: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

The opponent is obviously expressing clearly that he does not believe in creationism because he is assuming that a person that does not accept any scientific theories fully is ignorant.


My the website my opponent has cited shows that a person can believe in evolution, a scientific concept, and the bible fully. However my opponent seems to be implying that if a person learns about another theory, lets say "the big bang theory" and chooses not to accept that as his/her truth. They are living in ignorance.

Conclusion:
My opponent's arguments is clearly based on the idea that all religion is fallacy and untrue and that all science holds all the answers. Therefore anybody in his class who may have learned about any scientific theories about the creation of worlds but chose not to accept it would indicate to him that they are ignorant of science.

How they can be ignorant of science yet he is seems to understand so much better yet they are all in the same class is something I don't understand.

-Vote Con
:)
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mubaracus 4 years ago
mubaracus
For most of you guys that are reading this debate I was honestly pretty lazy and didn't feel like adding sources cause it just seemed boring.. lol
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 4 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Frankie, are you the moderator of the comments section?

yah, I didn't think so
Posted by Albert 4 years ago
Albert
Its not ridicule. In order to replicate the Big bang, you need to have an environment without Time, Space, and Matter. Without such elements, the theory cannot be tested.

If my theory has 4 elements and I can only test 2, how can I prove my theory can be tested without involving the other 2 elements?
Posted by yoyopizza 4 years ago
yoyopizza
@Frankie, I'd love to debate you on biblical evidence if you're up for it.
@Albert forgot to tell you you're using the logical fallacy appeal to ridicule.
Posted by yoyopizza 4 years ago
yoyopizza
Scientists use particle accelerators to repeat the process on a small scale. Also the cosmic background radiation has been measured , and is great evidence for the big bang
Posted by Albert 4 years ago
Albert
"The big bang is a theory in the scientific sense, meaning it's been tested over and over,"

Please explain how something which cannot be repeated is tested repetitively.
Posted by yoyopizza 4 years ago
yoyopizza
Because of your post I devoted most of my first argument to "carbon dating", and the whole reason I'm debating is because I have an opinion, otherwise what's the point?
Posted by frankiebowman 4 years ago
frankiebowman
History has just as much, if not more, "evidence" to prove the Bible's stance.
Carbon dating, one of the major crutches of the big bang theory has been proven inaccurate to the nth degree.
I'm not saying that it isn't possible, because by all means it is. What I am saying is that it is unlikely.
Please refrain from including opinion from debate, regardless of this being the comment section.
Posted by yoyopizza 4 years ago
yoyopizza
Loled so hard when I saw this.
"The big bang theory is a theory.
Just like the Bible is a theory."
The bible cannot be compared to the big bang, they are not both theories. The big bang is a theory in the scientific sense, meaning it's been tested over and over, no contradictory evidence, and agreed upon (among those who accept it), can you say the same for the bible?
Posted by frankiebowman 4 years ago
frankiebowman
The big bang theory is a theory.
Just like the Bible is a theory.
You put yourself into it and believe it out of faith because it can never be proven or solved.
Once we die, we can see what happens.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Bordenkircher 4 years ago
Bordenkircher
yoyopizzamubaracusTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made numerous implications without justification. However, Con did not always seem to address the issue in question.