The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
RainbowDash52
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Geocentrism

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 3 votes the winner is...
GarretKadeDupre
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,099 times Debate No: 66494
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (68)
Votes (3)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I will scientifically prove that the entire universe rotates around the immobile Earth.

To win this debate, I must prove the following points:

1. Earth does not orbit/revolve around the sun.
2. Earth does not spin/rotate.
3. The universe does spin/rotate around Earth.

If my opponent appeals to Special Relativity or General Relativity, I will refute those theories as needed.

The first debater to forfeit a round automatically forfeits all 7 points to their opponent.

I'm looking forward to this, and welcome RainbowDash52 to my debate!
RainbowDash52

Con

I accept.

I look forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

1. Earth does not orbit/revolve around the sun.

Around a century ago, Michelson and Morley tried to experimentally confirm that Earth orbits the sun at 66,000 mph. They did this by shooting a light beam in the direction of Earth's orbit, and shooting a light beam from North to South. They then measured the differences in speed of the two light beams.

Their hypothesis was this. If Earth is moving at 66,000 mph, then the speed of light traveling with Earth's movement would be measured as slower than the speed of light traveling from pole to pole, and the difference in speed between the two light beams would confirm Earth's 66,000 mph orbit.

The results did not confirm Earth's 66,000 mph orbit. They only confirmed a movement less than 1/20th of 66,000 mph, but it wasn't certain whether this movement belonged to Earth moving in the ether or the ether moving against Earth.

By the way, the ether is the substance through which light travels. Just as water waves travel through water and sound waves travel through air, light waves travel through the ether. The ether is everywhere; it is practically omnipresent. It even exists in the tiny spaces between the atoms of your body.

If Earth had really been moving at 66,000 mph, which it must do if it is to orbit the sun within a year, the experiment would have detected such movement. Since it didn't detect movement even 1/20th of 66,000 mph, Earth's orbit around the sun is falsified.

2. Earth does not spin/rotate.

Also about a century ago, Airy performed an experiment to confirm Earth's movement. He placed a regular telescope and a water-filled telescope side by side, and pointed them at the same star.


His hypothesis was this. Since light travels slower in water than in air, the water-filled telescope would have to be bent at a different angle than the other telescope to see the same star, if indeed Earth were rotating, or moving at all.

To understand this reasoning, a thought experiment is needed. Let's say you have two people walking side by side in a thunderstorm, each person holding an empty cup. Pretend that one of the cups has a mysterious quality that makes raindrops fall slower than normal once they enter it.

In this analogy, the two cups represent the two telescopes, and the mysterious cup represents the water-filled telescope. The rainfall represents starlight.

Although the rain is falling in a straight line, it is hitting the cups at an angle since they are moving. This means that for both cups to catch the rain so that it hits the bottom, and not the sides, they wil have to be tiled slightly. Similarly, for a pair of telescopes situated on a moving Earth, they will have to be tilted slightly to 'catch' the starlight properly.

In the case of the magical cup that slows down rainfall, it will have be tilted even more than the other to catch the rainfall straight on the bottom of the cup. The reason is best illustrated with a simple GIF animation:

http://i.imgur.com...

Note how the cup that has a substance in it that slows rainfall is catching the rain at a very bad angle compared to the empty cup. For it to catch rainfall as well as the other cup, it would have to be tilted at a different angle.

In the analogy, rainfall making it's way to the bottom of the cup represents starlight making it's way down the telescope to the eyepeice. If Earth were moving, and thus the two telescopes moving, then the water-filled telescope would have to be tilted differently than the empty telescope to 'catch' the light of the same star; in other words, to see the same star, both telescopes would have to be tilted differently, if Earth is moving. If Earth is not moving, however, and thus the telescopes aren't moving, both telescopes will catch the same starlight equally well at the same angle, and the water-filled telescope will not have to be adjusted.

Airy found that, indeed, the water-filled telescope did not need to be adjusted in the least. This falsified the idea that Earth moves at all, proving it neither orbits the sun nor spins on an axis.

3. The universe does spin/rotate around Earth.

According to NewScientist,
  • "we are[...] positioned to look along the universe's unique spin axis"(1)

The only way for us to be able to look along the axis is for the axis to pass right through Earth. This means the universe is spinning/rotating around Earth.


The universe rotates around the immobile Earth.

(1) http://www.newscientist.com...

Public access copy: http://stirling-westrup-tt.blogspot.com...

RainbowDash52

Con

Debunk 1
My opponent"s first argument boils down to this:
P1: If light comes from a moving source, then is should alter the velocity of that light in the same direction and speed.
P2: Light from Earth is the same speed regardless of the direction.
C1: The Earth is not moving

I challenge the validity of P1. P1 would be valid if light followed Newtonian physics, but I do not believe there is evidence to support that is true. My opponent has the burden of proof to show P1 to be true. I also request my opponent gives evidence for the existence of the ether.

Debunk 2
For my opponent"s second argument,
The assumed speed of Earth"s rotation is almost nothing compared to the speed of light (in water or vacuum) and it would be very likely that measurements used in the water telescope experiment were not accurate enough to measure the microscopic change expected with the standard model of the solar system.

Debunk 3
The actual quote states:
"Let's start with what that does not mean: Earth is not in a special
place. Although it might look as if we are ideally positioned to
look along the universe's unique spin axis, all of space expanded
from just one infinitesimally small point at the big bang."


This does not suggest that the universe rotates around Earth.

Gravity Contradicts Geocentricism
(I will give evidence for the existence of gravity if my opponent challenges it)

For everything else in the universe to rotate around the Earth, the Earth must be the most massive object in the universe. But we know that there are other planets and stars that are bigger than Earth so it does not follow that Earth should be in the center with everything else orbiting it.

On the other hand it does follow that the Earth rotates around the Sun as the Sun has much more gravity than Earth which would result in the Earth orbiting around the Sun and not the other way around.

Geosynchronous Orbit
A geosynchronous orbit is an orbit where the rotation is at the same rate as the planet"s rotation. This results in the satellite hovering over the same spot of the planet. [1] Earth has geostationary satellites (satellites with geosynchronous orbits) so if the Earth is not spinning, that would mean that these satellites are levitating instead of orbiting which also contradicts gravity.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

1. Earth does not orbit/revolve around the sun.

Premise 1 is, indeed, that light emitted from a moving source will travel at the speed of light + the speed of the source. However, Premise 2 is not that light's speed is a constant. My cited experiment measured a small difference between the speed of light of two beams traveling in different directions, enough to account for the ether orbiting Earth at 1,000 mph but not nearly enough to account for the Earth orbiting the sun at 66,000 mph. Con seems to have glossed over the fact that my experiment proved light's speed isn't a constant.

Assume the ether exists (I'll prove it does in a minute). Let's contrast two scenarios.

A) The sun is stationary: Since the sun is stationary in the ether, Earth must revolve around the sun at 66,000 mph in order to complete it's annual orbit, and spin at 1,000 mph to complete the day/night cycle within 24 hours. This means that any light beam emitted in the direction of Earth's orbit will always travel at least 32,000 mph slower than a light beam emitted perpendicular to Earth's orbit, and at least 65,000 mph slower than a light beam emitted in the opposite direction of Earth's orbit. I say 'at least' to account for the 1,000 mph spin of Earth, but if you don't understand that little detail, don't worry. The important thing to note is that there will be a massive difference in the speed of two light beams travelling in opposite directions, or even perpendicularly, if Earth is actual orbiting the sun, which it must do at a great speed. Now, since it turns out that the difference among the speed of light beams emitted perpendicularly, as measured by the Michelson-Morley experiment, is less than 1/20th of 66,000 mph (in other words, less than about 3,000 mph), Earth cannot be orbiting the sun. But there's still a pink elephant in the room that I must address: if the light beams fired in different directions on Earth travel at different speeds, doesn't this prove that Earth is performing some kind of movement, even if it's not orbiting the sun?

The answer is no. While this result is consistent with Earth spinning at 1,000 mph, since a difference in the speed of multiple light beams of less than 3,000 mph is at least consistent with such a spin ('less than 3,000 mph' is consistent with '1,000 mph'), it does not prove the spin, since a rotation of the ether around Earth at 1,000 mph is equally consistent with this result.

B) The Earth is stationary: Let's look at the immobile Earth model now, and see why it fits the data perfectly. In this universe, Earth is neither orbiting the sun nor spinning on an axis. Rather, the entire universe, which entails all the ether, is revolving around Earth. It completes one revolution every 24 hours, carrying the sun with it, causing day and night, which is exactly what your eyes tell you whenever you look at the sky. At the surface of the Earth, the ether must travel 1,000 mph to complete the revolution in 24 hours. This means that light emitted in different directions near Earth's surface (like in the Michelson-Morley experiment) will vary in speed by about 1,000 mph only. This is exactly what the experiment confirmed.

Now I'll get back to Con's request for the existence of ether. The first proof of ether is a simple appeal to intuition: light waves must travel through something, just like water waves and sound waves travel through water and air, respectively. If light waves don't travel through anything but empty space, then what are the light waves waves of? Waves of nothing? That's absurd. Waves of energy? Might sound logical at first glance, but saying that light waves are waves of energy is an incoherent concept, since energy is immaterial and thus can't take any physical shape, much less the shape of a wave. Just as the energy of one dominoe is transmitted to another dominoe by physical contact, creating a wave in a long line of dominoes, so must the energy of light be propogated from one particle of matter to another, creating a wave of particles just like the energy of sound and water create waves in their respective mediums. The substance in which waves are created by the energy known as light is called ether, and I have proven it's existence by showing it to be absolutely necessary to explain the wave nature of light.

Con said that he denies my first premise that the speed of light is affected by the speed of it's source. He says I have the burden of proof to show this is true. I'm rather confounded that Con challenges this extremely obvious and intuitive concept, and it really seems to me like it would be his burden to disprove what common sense and experience suggest: that anything emitted from a moving source will travel at the speed it was emitted + the speed of the source. For example, if I'm running and throw a ball, it will travel faster than if I'm standing still and throw a ball.

My claim that Earth does not orbit/revolve around the sun remains proven and unrefuted.

2. Earth does not spin/rotate.

Con doubts the precision of the experiment I cited to prove the absence of Earth's rotation, so I'll offer another proof.

If Earth were spinning, it would lose angular momentum over time due to friction against the ether (whose existence I have proven). However, throughout record history, the length of Earth's day has always been recorded as being 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds (temporary, minor fluctuations notwithstanding). In contrast, the length of a day on Venus has increased by almost 7 minutes in only 16 years, meaning it's spin is slowing down.(2) That's obviously due to a loss of Venus' angular momentum by friction with the ether. Earth's day has not gained even a single second in the past 6,000 years of recorded history, therefore, it cannot be spinning, and the explanation for why we see the stars revolve around us at night must be the most straightforward one: they really are revolving around us, and we are not tricked by our eyes everytime we look up at the sky.

3. The universe does spin/rotate around Earth.

Con says my source doesn't suggest the universe rotates around Earth. Apparently, he has glossed over the fact that the very thing he cited implies that the universe is spinning around Earth, and reading the full article confirms this. However, since the author of the article doesn't want to admit Geocentrism, yet cannot deny the evidence that the universe is spinning around Earth, he makes the outrageous claim that the universe isn't spinning only around Earth, but it's spinning around every single point in the universe too. This is logically absurd and therefore scientifically impossible. So, although it is true that my article from NewScientist agrees with me that the universe spins around Earth, it wants to disagree that the universe spins only around Earth. Because of this, I shall cite hard evidence to prove my case instead of appealing only to the fallible authority of NewScientist:
  • Longo sampled over 15,000 galaxies[...] Looking northward, above the plane of our Milky Way, he found that more than half of the spirals were spinning in a counterclockwise direction in the sky[...] If the whole universe is rotating, then an excess number of galaxies on the opposite part of the sky, below the galactic plane, should be whirling in a clockwise direction. And indeed they are according to a separate 1991 survey of 8287 spiral galaxies in the southern galactic hemisphere[...] In other words, the universe has a preferred axis, which means there is indeed a special direction in space[...] It has also been used to bolster biblical creationist arguments that we are at the “center” of the universe.(3)
This proves that the universe spins at least roughly around Earth, but there is even more precise proof; namely, that the universe doesn't just spin around Earth, it spins exactly around Earth (as opposed to possibly some point slightly away from Earth). Let me explain.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which spans the entire universe for as far as we can see, has a pattern in it. There are spots of relatively cool temperatures, and spots of relatively hot temperatures. These spots are arranged in pairs on opposite sides of the universe, and it turns out that if you draw an imaginary line, or axis, between the spots, it intersects perfectly with Earth's alleged spin axis:
  • This alignment is considered to be so bizarre that it has been referred to as "the axis of evil"[...] The alignment[...] is especially problematic because this would suggest a serious bias in the [CMBR] data that is related to the direction of the Earth's spin axis[...](4)
Alright, cool, there is a pattern in the universe that forms an axis that happens to intersect perfectly with Earth's alleged spin axis. The significance is that that the axis of the universe's rotation, which I previously discussed, is also aligned with it:
  • [The] agreement of the [universe] spin alignment axis with the [CMBR axis of evil] reinforces the finding[...] and suggests that this special axis spans the universe[...](5)
So, the universe spins along an axis, the same axis found in the CMBR, which is the same axis around which Earth is alleged to spin. I've already proven Earth doesn't spin, and it can't be that both the universe and Earth are spinning at the same time around the same axis, since simultaneous spin of Earth and the universe around the same axis would mean the stars would never appear to move in the sky, as they'd be spinning along with the Earth. Therefore, only the universe spinning, and it's doing so around Earth, and this explains why we see the stars revolve around the night sky.

I'll rebut Con's last two arguments in the next around since I'm out of space.

(2) http://www.universetoday.com...
(3) http://news.discovery.com...
(4) http://arxiv.org...
(5) http://arxiv.org...
RainbowDash52

Con

First of all my opponent completely dropped my arguments. My opponent never argued against the existence of gravity. My opponent never argued that the Earth has enough gravity for the rest of the universe to orbit it. My opponent never gave an explanation to how geostationary satellites could just hover over the same spot of a non-rotating Earth despite the existence of gravity.

My opponent states that some difference in the speed of light was measured by the Michelson and Morley experiment. But the measurement was so small it could be accounted for by measurement error. "Although this small "velocity" was measured, it was considered far too small to be used as evidence of speed relative to the aether, and it was understood to be within the range of an experimental error that would allow the speed to actually be zero" [1] Therefor my opponent has not successfully made the case that the speed of light varies.

Pro attempted to prove the existence of an ether by appeal to intuition. But intuition is often wrong, for example: quantum mechanics. At the quantum particles behave in a completely unintuitively. I will explain in more detail if my opponent requests. Since quantum particles do not behave intuitively, an appeal to intuition can"t be used to prove the existence of an ether.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

  • First of all my opponent completely dropped my arguments.
I didn't drop them. Like I said, I'll deal with them in this round since I ran out of space in the last one.
  • My opponent never argued against the existence of gravity.
I accept the existence of gravity.
  • My opponent never argued that the Earth has enough gravity for the rest of the universe to orbit it.
The gravity of the Earth has nothing to do with whether the universe will spin around it or not; rather, it is Earth's location that matters. I already proved the universe is spinning. I also proved Earth happens to be located in the center of it's spin axis. Instead of saying the universe is spinning around Earth, say the Earth happens to be positioned in the center of it's spin axis. Hopefully that clears things up.
  • My opponent never gave an explanation to how geostationary satellites could just hover over the same spot of a non-rotating Earth despite the existence of gravity.
Geostationary satellites hover because there are two equal but opposite forces being exerted on them. One is Earth's gravity, which tries to bring the satellite down. The other is the centrifugal force created by the spinning universe, which tries to pull the satellite up away from Earth.
  • My opponent states that some difference in the speed of light was measured by the Michelson and Morley experiment. But the measurement was so small it could be accounted for by measurement error[...] Therefore my opponent has not successfully made the case that the speed of light varies.
Miller repeated the experiment with better equipment and methodology. This is his conclusion:
  • The method of observing [is] so developed that there [is] perfect confidence in the readings[...] it [will] certainly have to be considered as real[...] These observations all show a positive periodic displacement of the interference fringes, as of an ether-drift[...](6)

Displacement of the interference fringes proves the light beams travelled at different speeds, that they did so due to an ether drift, and also that the speed of light isn't a constant.

  • Pro attempted to prove the existence of an ether by appeal to intuition. But intuition is often wrong

It's usually right. But it doesn't matter, since I proved the ether's existence with Miller's experiment.

All my arguments stand.

(6) http://www.anti-relativity.com...

RainbowDash52

Con


My opponent argues that the gravity of Earth has nothing to do with if the universe spins. For all the stars, galaxies and the rest of the stuff that makes up the universe to rotate around the Earth, there must exist a centripetal force strong enough to keep these objects in orbit. Without this centripetal force, objects will travel in a strait trajectory. Since my opponent didn"t claim that Earth has a strong enough gravity to give the rest of the universe enough centripetal force to orbit Earth, my opponent must give an alternate explanation for the missing centripetal force for geocentricism to be plausible. Without this explanation for the missing centripetal force, there is no explanation as to how the rest of the universe could rotate Earth.

My opponent claims the centrifugal force of the universe cancels out the force of gravity on geosynchronous satellites, but my opponent fails to understand what centrifugal force is.

"Centrifugal force (") is the apparent force that draws a rotating body away from the center of rotation. It is caused by the inertia of the body."[1]

Since under the geocentric model, geostationary satellites are just hovering in place as opposed to rotating with the earth, which means these geostationary satellites don"t move and therefor don"t have inertia and therefor can"t have a centrifugal force. Even if the rest of the universe did spin, that cannot give nonmoving objects a centrifugal force.

My opponent sited this source [6] in attempt to prove Miller"s experiment. The source is dozens of pages long; my opponent gave no information as to where in this large pdf the quote is; and to make things worse, the entire pdf is just images of text as opposed to text so I can"t use ctrl f to locate my opponent"s quote to verify that it is there and used in the implied context. It is unreasonable to expect me or the judges to read through that entire source to locate the relevant information, and therefore it has not been made known to me nor the judges if what my opponent sited from the source is correct or not.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.anti-relativity.com...
Debate Round No. 4
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

  • [M]y opponent must give an alternate explanation for the missing centripetal force for geocentricism to be plausible. Without this explanation for the missing centripetal force, there is no explanation as to how the rest of the universe could rotate Earth.

You know how the entire solar system orbits it's center of mass? The center of mass is actually not necessarily the center of the sun, but only a point near it, and at times, such as when the planets are more or less aligned on one side of the sun, the center of mass will be found closer towards the planets, significantly displaced from the sun's center, and even the sun will orbit this point.

Cosmologist Fred Hoyle puts it nicely:
    • [W]e find[...] that the center of the solar system must be placed at an abstract point known as the "center of mass," which is displaced quite appreciably from the center of the Sun. And if we imagine a star to pass moderately close to the solar system[...] it could be essential to use a "center of mass" which included the star. The "center" in this case would lie even farther away from the center of the Sun. It appears, then, that the "center" to be used for any set of bodies depends on the way in which the local system is considered to be isolated[...] If a new body is added to the set from outside, or if a body is taken away, the "center" changes.
Thus, considering the universe as a whole as an isolated system, then if Earth were to occupy the center of mass of the entire universe, the entire universe would orbit Earth (by virtue of the fact that it orbits the center of mass that Earth happens to occupy), just as even the sun orbits the solar system's center of mass (when the solar system is considered a closed system).

I'm sure readers are familiar with the Big Crunch, where the universe is proposed to collapse in on itself due to it's own gravity, if it were not for the supposed expansion of space and dark energy to counteract this tendency. This tendency of the universe to collapse in on it's center provides the centripetal force my opponent demands, since the barycenter is where gravity is 'concentrated', so to speak. In the Geocentric model, it is not dark energy or space expansion that counteracts this inward gravitational pull, but rather an opposing, outward gravitational pull that arises from the universe's spin, which is analogous to the centrifugal force, except it's real and not fictitious. In fact, both Einstein and Rosser refer to this as a type of centrifugal force, and this is what I was talking about whenever I said a centrifugal force caused by the spinning universe holds geostationary satellites up. Since this 'centrifugal' force is not the typical, fictitious force, but a real force, it explains the geostationary satellite 'problem' perfectly.

Anyone who understands General Relativity can easily grasp this concept. Since the spinning, spherical universe has immense velocity at it's outermost edge, it's outer edge posseses immense mass, and thus, immense gravity. This gravity pulls outwards, preventing the Big Crunch and holding up geostationary satellites. According to An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity:
    • Relative to the stationary [Earth], the distant stars would have[...] velocities exceeding [c][...] If one considers the [Earth] as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field [of the outermost universe] assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed [c] under these conditions.
Con complains:
    • Even if the rest of the universe did spin, that cannot give nonmoving objects a centrifugal force.
As I've demonstrated, it indeed can give nonmoving objects a real centrifugal force (to be distinguished from a fictitious one), and even Einstein agrees with me here. I can quote him if Con demands it.
    • It is unreasonable to expect me or the judges to read through that entire source to locate the relevant information
Sorry. Page 221 at the top right.
RainbowDash52

Con

If hypothetically geostationary satellites are hovering over a nonrotating Earth because of the gravity of the spinning universe, since gravity gets weaker with distance, any object past the distance of Earth"s geostationary satellites would not be pulled by Earth"s gravity strongly enough to counter the gravity of the spinning universe, and thus we would expect these object to accelerate away from Earth, but this does not happen. Earth has satellites above geostationary orbit [1] and they aren"t accelerating away from Earth. This contradicts my opponent"s claim.

" A modern analysis by Roberts shows that Miller's experiment gives a null result, when the technical shortcomings of the apparatus and the error bars are properly considered.[B 7] Additionally, Miller's result is in disagreement with all other experiments, which were conducted before and after. For example, Georg Joos (1930) used an apparatus of similar dimensions to Miller's, but he obtained null results.[2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 5
68 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Calibur 1 year ago
Calibur
Garrett, you are a dumb f&ck.
Posted by Atmas 1 year ago
Atmas
If you want to put it like that, then yes. Logically, every outcome is determined by previous variables, so humans thinking about the concept of determinism was determined to happen.

We just gave the idea a face, so to speak.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 1 year ago
GarretKadeDupre
You said "Determinism is the idea that the universe is predictable by logically inferring outcomes through its rules."

This means that it was predictable that the idea of Determinism would be made up by humans, which means that the idea of Determinism was determined by Determinism.
Posted by Atmas 1 year ago
Atmas
Eh? Mathematics is a series of symbols that are arranged in a way to describe the mechanics of reality, it's a concept developed by humans to better understand the natural world.
Humans are still subject to mathematical law because math describes nature, and humans are apart of that nature.

Determinism is the idea that the universe is predictable by logically inferring outcomes through its rules. As I already said, it's a human concept that aids in understanding the nature of cause and effect. Humans are still bound by deterministic laws, we did not 'create' the process of determinism, we understand it and express it with our language.

This is the same issue with math, people ask if humans created math or does the universe actually run on math. The answer is both. Humans created the idea that symbols and equations can represent outcomes in real life, the universe works in a defined way that when expressed as mathematical equations, works itself out. This is entirely because the universe is predictable and deterministic. Because we know that, adding 1 to another 1 will always make 2 and only 2.
The universe does this automatically, not because something the it laws to follow, but because that is the only way it can be. This is where necessarinism comes in, to say, not only is the universe defined, but it's pre-defined. That, everything happens because there's no other way it could have happened due to the unyielding nature of logic. With necessarinism, no other universe type could exist except for the one we see today because no other way of creating a successful universe exists. Is necessarinism correct? Maybe, maybe not. It's a human concept and difficult to prove, but if we find enough evidence for it, it will mean humans and the rest of nature follow logic necessarily.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 1 year ago
GarretKadeDupre
If determinism is developed by humans, then that means determinism was developed by determinism; else, humans are not subject entirely to deterministic laws. Pick one. Are humans entirely governed by deterministic laws or not?
Posted by Atmas 1 year ago
Atmas
That's a meaningless question. Determinism is a concept developed by humans to explain that a rule-based universe will always have a predictable outcome if the rules are always followed. If you knew every variable when flipping a coin, you could always predict how it will land every single time. If there was ever a situation where the coin flip didn't land on what you predicted, you either missed a variable, or a law of physics was broken and the entire system falls apart, becoming useless. Since the latter is much less likely than former, we should always assume we missed something.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 1 year ago
GarretKadeDupre
If everything's deterministic, then what determined Determinism?
Posted by Atmas 1 year ago
Atmas
If nothing is deterministic, then anything could happen, if anything could happen, everything will eventually happen, no matter what "rules" the universe seems to play by. So this turns into, "Does the universe follow rules?" If it does, then what could happen is limited to only those rules, and are then deterministic. I need no faith in something constantly proven true.
Do you mean to say the law of thermodynamics prevents order from disorder? Because, if it does (which it doesn't) then the universe would either be perfectly ordered or perfectly disordered. The problem here is the understanding of what disorder is.
Evolution is a theory, not a law, and a theory is higher than a law in most cases. Also, evolution says nothing about how life began, it only refers to how species change overtime due to various factors.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 1 year ago
GarretKadeDupre
When I said "nothing" I meant the absence of information. The human genome won't evolve naturally; there are no physical laws that allow this, least of all the laws of thermodynamics. If there were actually a law of evolution, it'd have been identified and quantified by now.

You don't have science. All you have is blind faith in determinism.
Posted by Atmas 1 year ago
Atmas
Incorrect, as it does not go "bacterium to person". Our cells, all animal cells, and all plants cells are eukaryotic cells, which is different from prokaryotic cells, or bacteria. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
While it's easy to think of us as one being, we are just a conglomerate of many tiny beings all reacting to external and internal stimuli. This 'Legion' of 'wills', as it were, creates us. This is testable, continuously provable, logic.
In fact, determinism requires life to have been borne out of evolution, as any other process would break the chain of logic.
It is obvious you have no source to back up why science isn't scientific, nor do you have any evidence to the contrary against Evolution. I'd venture to guess that you are also against the Big Bang, and basically anything ever said by anyone in the scientific field. So I must ask, what evidence do you have? You can't use science to disprove science, and there is no other game in town, so I ask again, what evidence or system will you employ?

Aye, you are correct, "from nothing, comes nothing" (the proper way of saying it), however, you must first prove that "Nothing" exists. For, if there can never be a perfect state of disorder, there can also never be a perfect state of order, and nothingness is the only perfect state of order. If one or the other is perfect, then it's opposite cannot exist, yet we know that both exist, therefore neither one is perfect.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
GarretKadeDupreRainbowDash52Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: pro actually had sources. both sides have convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
GarretKadeDupreRainbowDash52Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Since all but one of Con's sources is Wikipedia, I give Pro points for more reliable sources.
Vote Placed by joepalcsak 1 year ago
joepalcsak
GarretKadeDupreRainbowDash52Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I have only recently learned that a case is being advanced for a geocentric model and this debate is my first real exposure to the case. I will be taking a deeper look as a result. Pro offers several compelling reasons to consider geocentrism. Moreover, he has an answer for each of con's challenges. The same cannot be said for con. On at least two points ( the existence of the ether and the Miller experimental results ), pro offers multiple attestations and con does not rise to the occasion. Indeed, con offers very little of anything beyond his second round while pro continues to reinforce his points and answer con's objections. I can't say that I am fully persuaded, but geocentrism is certainly on my radar much more now than it was. I expected a very robust and well supported argument from con. Instead, he seemed to lose any momentum he may have had and all but one of his citations were from wikipedia. Wikipedia? Really?!