The Instigator
hielispace
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Drillzack
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is Creationism true?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
hielispace
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 424 times Debate No: 77781
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

hielispace

Con

The reason I think that Creationism is not correct is rather simple. If it were true, then the world we live in and the science would show very different results. For example: In the story of Noah's Ark. The ark is no where near big enough to fit even every family of spices let alone all of them. The amount of genetic disease that would occur due to incest would kill off everything. And if God used a miracle to prevent this, then the flood is pointless as he can just kill everything. Positive Claims Require Positive Evidence and Creationism has no positive scientific evidence for it.
Drillzack

Pro

Greetings, I was browsing through the archives of debate.org, when I came across this straw man of creationism that you have so crudely put together. I was thus called to defend the gospel, the one and only true science of Creationism. As we all know God is a necessary conclusion in the argument for the universe since everything in our finite universe has a cause and a beginning. God, being the infinite entity that he is, is thus the only thing that is not caused. Furthermore, if we are going by Occam's razor, he is the only conclusion that puts an end to the infinite regress that would otherwise follow, and is then the simplest explanation.

Now, once you concede that much, it logically follows that since evolution is incapable to date of finding the true origin of species, and instead simply refers to vaguely similar organisms which it deems as "ancestors" of current ones, that evolution cannot be the answer to the origins question. This is not the case with the biblical account of creation however, which talks extensively and clearly about how God created everything ex-nihlo, and takes a more logical approach. Evolution says there were always organisms before the one you are looking at but that, like all atheistic arguments simply brings you to an infinite regression for which nature cannot account, why? Because life originated. If you concede that life originated and then accept evolution then there is an exception to evolution because the first organism, the one that went through abiogenesis did not evolve from a lower species. So evolution as usual has gaping holes, many of which just dismantle all its bases like the Cambrian explosion. That is however besides the point and thus I digress.

In your opening you referred to creationism as if it included the whole bible, but that is preposterous. The bible is mostly an agglomeration of parables that teach moral lessons, and guide us down the road of Jesus Christ himself, these lessons are further edified in the teachings of Christ himself who deals more with human and spiritual issues than worldly and mundane ones. The bible is thus not a book of science but of revelation, and because we were not there at the beginning it had to reveal to us that through the first scientific theory and the ultimate one: Genesis/Creationism. But because we are here today and can figure out the other facts about are universe it needs not to reveal to us things like quantum mechanics and/or the composition of the stars. Noah's ark is a parable that teaches obedience and I think it was one of the first stories to emphasize the dangers of argumentum ad populum, commonly known as the bandwagon fallacy. It showed us that the majority are not always right, and that they may very well lead you to damnation. It makes one's faith stronger and reminds us that only if we are a minority of one we can still be correct.

Now onto creationism itself, the theory of Creationism is covered by genesis and is only in genesis, and it extensively outlines the intricate details of God's creation process. It is very logical, it denies the regresses ad infinitum that evolution embraces and tells you straight up that the universe had a beginning, and that the human race did too. It was Adam and Eve. The evidence is in the mitochondria as modern day biologists have put it. Mitochondrial Eve is the accepted origin today of all human females, and there is no disputing it. Also, it is a fact that our DNA is extremely similar to all other animals and yet slightly different, which is why Adam could not find a partner despite him trying several times. God thus needed to create the human female vagina which was perfect for Adam and allowed for his genes to be transferred.

In conclusion of my first argument, science does not disprove creationism and does not prove evolution, and at an even more fundamental level, logic disproves and does not allow for evolution. Creationism is common sense and is more probable to be true given the evidence.

That is my argument for now.
Debate Round No. 1
hielispace

Con

This debate is about whether or not Creationism is true. So evolution has no bearing on that. You are in the "pro" position, which means you must present evidence and it is my job to try and show why that evidence is invalid. Similarly, the existence of a "creator" has no bearing on this debate. The only thing in consideration is Genesis. As you pointed out, Noah's flood is impossible, and so the reminder of this debate will only be about Genesis chapter one.
That being said, positive claims require positive evidence, and the only evidence you have shown for creationism is the bible. So I request that you show evidence (that is verifiable and testable) to why the first chapter of the bible is an accurate account of the creation of the universe and not just another fable to teach a moral.
Drillzack

Pro

Drillzack forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
hielispace

Con

I'm not quite sure what to say here. As my opponent has either refused to grant my request for evidence or simply didn't answer.
Regardless, I think it is important to show the evidence against Creationism as well as people outside the debate realm aren't always kind enough to even give a logical response much less listen to yours. So that is what this augment is about.
First off, on day three the Plants were created, and a day four the sun was made. Plants need to the sun to live, so how was there plants before the sun? Even if God can suspend the laws of reality, why would he, he made them, why not make them so he can do what he wants without contradicting every single observation about the universe in the process and make it harder for the humans he cares so much about to save themselves, and thus sending more people to the worst fate possible.
Even if all of that is to be ignored, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so I will ask again, what evidence is there for Creationism?
Drillzack

Pro

Drillzack forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 64bithuman 1 year ago
64bithuman
Get ready for a long twisty-turny quicksand wormhole of an argument from Pro, whoever that might be.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
hielispaceDrillzackTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con as Pro forfeits twice. Arguments to Con based entirely on the burden of proof. Pro had the BoP to prove the resolution true, but the *sole* argument Pro presented is a defensive one, i.e. it hinders Con's case instead of giving the voters a good reason to vote for Pro. Voters are not obligated to vote on any defensive argument, and even Con points out that disproving evolution =/= proving creationism. As such, a basic impact calculus holds that all impacts go to Con, simply because Pro's argument (1) is defensive, and (2) lacks any links to the resolution. Ergo, I vote Con.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
hielispaceDrillzackTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
hielispaceDrillzackTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited twice. This is bad conduct.