The Instigator
MacMiller
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheRussian
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God is the best explanation rather than 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 718 times Debate No: 53870
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

MacMiller

Pro

Scientist have heavily flawed explanations as to why we got here and why we are here. The Big Bang Theory for an example. Everything have today started as something small a particle This particle happened to explode and give us all the amazing things we see. Evolution also tells us that we started out as a single cell. This single cell happened to get struck by lightning in a pond and divide. That sounds asburd to me. However, God, on the other hand is not so asburd.

1st Round : Acceptance
2nd Round : Opening Arguments
Third Round : Rebuttals
4th Round : Closing Arguments
TheRussian

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
MacMiller

Pro

Welcome and thank you for accepting this debate. First and foremost I would like to say I am not against science or anything.

Lets get to it. Big Bang Theory explains that the universe was created from a single point. Now that single point spun rapidly until it exploded. If all matter was composed into a single dot how did it get there? Where did this energy come from? In an environment with without friction you would have this dot keep spinning so fast that it would explode. If this was true all the particles would have been spinning in the same direction as the dot they exploded from. This is called Conversion of Angular Momentum. This matter which was to create everything including Planets. If that was true why aren't Venus and Uranus spinning the same way?

The Big Bang also ignores Law of Thermodynamics : matter cannot be created or destroyed.
It also ignores the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Everything tends towards disorder.

The only explanation is that God put it there. How did my house get here? Did it magically assemble itself there? Of course not! It took builders to build it.

Also to your comment you made about the lightning strike. Evolutionist believe that including Charles Darwin its called Single Cell Complexity.

Evolution is next. Single Cell Complexity is a theory that says we came from a single cell in a pond. How did the cell get there? Scientists say that lightning struck pond water and it caused molecules to rearrange causing them to combine and turn into a living cell. Sounds crazy right?

Natural Selection is flawed. It may explain some species but shouldn't it explain it all? It doesn't explain birds? Birds are thought to began to evolve wings. Doesn't add up. How did it evolve wings? How could it adapt to its environment with a stubby wing?

There's so many flaws in both of those theories.
TheRussian

Con

"If that was true why aren't Venus and Uranus spinning the same way?"
Because other celestial objects hit them, changing their direction of spin.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov...

"The Big Bang also ignores Law of Thermodynamics : matter cannot be created or destroyed."
The first Law of Thermodynamics deals with energy, no matter. The Law of Conservation of Matter states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. The Big Bang theory does not suggest that matter suddenly appeared out of nothing (like creationism), but instead that a very dense, tightly packed particle exploded. (It's a bit more complicated, but that's the basic outline).
http://chem.wisc.edu...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

"It also ignores the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Everything tends towards disorder."
Actually, it doesn't. At first, it was all in one place, orderly. Then it exploded, expanding, and entropy (disorder) increased. It does not ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

"How did my house get here?"
By people building it. My opponent seems to have a false idea about the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory does not suggest that once the explosion happened, houses, schools, people etc. were already there, ready to function. The Big Bang theory says that everything exploded outwards, slowly coalescing into planets, stars etc. then, evolution took its course and created the living world we know today. This happened (according to Big Bang theory along with evolution) over billions of years. Hopefully that clears some things up.

"Natural Selection is flawed. It may explain some species but shouldn't it explain it all? It doesn't explain birds? Birds are thought to began to evolve wings. Doesn't add up. How did it evolve wings? How could it adapt to its environment with a stubby wing?"
I do not see how natural selection is flawed, and yes, it applies to all living organisms. Of course it explains birds. Natural selection is basically:
1. Genetic mutation occurs, causing organism to have "defect".
2. Organism survives and reproduces.
3. Organism's offspring are isolated.
4. New gene pool is created, which essentially means the creation of a new species.
5. If the original genetic mutation was favorable, then these organisms will survive.
Same with birds. I do not see how they are any different.

"There's so many flaws in both of those theories."
Please name some.

Unlike most of creationism, evolution/Big Bang has logic and proof behind it.

On to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
MacMiller

Pro

My opponent fails to understand the the Law of Thermodynamics.

The Law of Thermodynamics states matter cannot be created or destroyed. However the Law encompasses several principles and can be state in several ways. The law of conservation of energy : This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. The total energy of an isolated system does not change.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent also fails to understand the Laws of Momentum.
According to the Law of Conservation of Linear Momentum, all the planets should spin in the same direction. We know from observation of the planets in our Solar System that the planets Venus, Uranus and possibly Pluto spin in the opposite direction to the other six planets. In addition to that, there are 63 known moons of the planets. Of these moons, six spin in the opposite direction to the remaining 57. In our Solar System, three of the planets, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune, have moons orbiting in both directions. Facts quoted from : "Astronomical Almanac for the year 1989" (Wash. DC U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989) p. E88.

From the Law of Conservation of Linear Momentum we can see that if our Solar System evolved spontaneously by a Big Bang, all the moons should orbit their planets in the same direction.

- The only exception to this would be if they encountered a large mass, such as another planet.

- However, this event should certainly have left a crater, which it would have been observed by astronomers.

- Observations of our Solar System do NOT support the big Bang Theory.

Difference of angular momentum of the Sun and the planets

The Sun actually spins very much more slowly than the planets. This certainly does not support the Big Bang Theory, as explained in the following quotation:
"This (Angular Momentum) would have caused the Sun to spin very rapidly. Actually, our Sun spins very slowly, while the planets move very rapidly around the Sun. In fact, although the Sun has over 99% of the mass of the solar system, it has only 2% of the angular momentum. This pattern is directly opposite to the pattern predicted for the nebular hypothesis." Quoted from Dr. H. Reeves "The Origin of the Solar System", in "The Origin of the Solar System", Dermott, S.F. Ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York p. 9, 1978.

Evolutionist cannot explain the angular momentum of the Solar System:

"The ultimate origin of the solar system's angular momentum remains obscure." Quoted from solar system Evolutionist scientist, Dr. Stuart Ross Taylor, "Solar System Evolution, A New Perspective," Cambridge University Press, p. 53, 1992, Dr. Stuart Ross Taylor.

My opponent also has lack of knowledge on Natural Selection. Natural Selection is a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare" (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005
Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

The Cambrian Explosion proves Natural Selection is wrong. "The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the seemingly rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals around 530 million years ago, as evidenced by the fossil record.This was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms, including animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species and the diversity of life began to resemble today"s.
The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the "Primordial Strata" was noted as early as the mid 19th century and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection. http://www.genesispark.com...

"Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of many animal groups with few or no antecedents to be the greatest single objection to his theory of evolution:"
note there is little or no evidence in the preceeding geological strata of transitional fossils
thus. http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Darwin himself found the paucity of transitional species to be one of the greatest weaknesses of his theory:"
http://en.wikipedia.org... ... s_theories

Note : The 2nd round was opening arguments not rebuttals. My opponent failed to abide by these rules.
TheRussian

Con

Please forgive me for forgetting the ground rules. Let the voters punish me as they see fit.

"The Law of Thermodynamics states matter cannot be created or destroyed. However the Law encompasses several principles and can be state in several ways."
This is false. Using my opponent's source, I read that "The four laws of thermodynamics define fundamental physical quantities (temperature, energy, and entropy)". Temperature, energy and entropy have nothing to do with the creation or destruction of matter. The Law of Conservation of Matter states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"The law of conservation of energy : This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. The total energy of an isolated system does not change."
This is irrelevant. Energy is not matter.

"- The only exception to this would be if they encountered a large mass, such as another planet."
Yes. The source that I provided previously shows that planets/moons such as those were hit by large celestial masses.

"- However, this event should certainly have left a crater, which it would have been observed by astronomers."
Yes. Large craters have been observed.
http://www.wingmakers.co.nz...

"This (Angular Momentum) would have caused the Sun to spin very rapidly. Actually, our Sun spins very slowly, while the planets move very rapidly around the Sun. In fact, although the Sun has over 99% of the mass of the solar system, it has only 2% of the angular momentum. This pattern is directly opposite to the pattern predicted for the nebular hypothesis."
The Sun is one of the least dense masses in our solar system. Generally, the more dense an object is, the faster it spins. This partly explains the slow spin of the Sun. Also, Celestial objects do not spin forever, their spin gradually slows down, and since the Sun is by far the oldest object in the solar system, it spins slowly. (and will be slowing down even more as time goes on).
http://www.smartconversion.com...
http://www.universetoday.com...
http://physicsfocus.org...

Plus, to support Big Bang theory, recent studies have found "gravitational waves" that create a much better understanding of the Big Bang.
http://www.cnn.com...

"Natural Selection is a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare"
I am fully aware of this. What I previously explained is just the general process of how this occurs. For example, antibiotics promote evolution. Pretend you have three cells, A, B, and C. Antibiotics are introduced and as a result, A and B die. C remains because it has a gene that allows it to survive. C reproduces and creates a new strain of cells that are immune to antibiotics. This is natural selection in action.
http://mmbr.asm.org...
Another example of natural selection in action is the formation of new strains of viruses. Viruses are the most common and observable form of natural selection because it occurs very quickly.

"The Cambrian Explosion proves Natural Selection is wrong."
This is a common misunderstanding. The Cambrian Explosion does not challenge the central thesis of evolution. In fact, many fossil records show a smooth transition. An "explosion" of diversity is actually very common after mass extinctions as shown by the fossil record.
http://biologos.org...

"note there is little or no evidence in the preceeding geological strata of transitional fossils"
There are actually many transitional fossils and here are a few:
http://www.transitionalfossils.com...

"Darwin himself found the paucity of transitional species to be one of the greatest weaknesses of his theory:"
The source that my opponent provided to support his claim is non-existent. It is from wikipedia and says: "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name". Please check my opponent's source and you will see what I mean.

I would also like to note that although my opponent has attempted to disprove the Big Bang theory and evolution, he has done nothing to prove God and why it is a better/more logical explanation.
Debate Round No. 3
MacMiller

Pro

MacMiller forfeited this round.
TheRussian

Con

Since I have nothing to refute, I will sum up my arguments:
1. I have provided proof for evolution that my opponent has failed to refute.
2. I have refuted my opponent's arguments against the Big Bang theory.
3. My opponent has failed to provide evidence for God.

Thank you for the good debate.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
Indeed. I have no idea where my opponent got the "lightning hitting the cell and splitting it" thing....
Posted by Only-Human 3 years ago
Only-Human
If you got more in depth with these theries then you would know that some scientist now believe the bing bang was caused by two preexsisting black holes that cause a large explosion with their energy and gravity. Also the Sun's radiation hitting the Earths water like how sunlight causes allge In water might explain how life got started on earth from simple single celled organisms.
No votes have been placed for this debate.