The Instigator
prodigyinmathandscience
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
IceHawk2009
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Is creationism a more viable model than evolution?

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...
IceHawk2009
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 503 times Debate No: 45507
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

prodigyinmathandscience

Con

Rules

If either Pro or I fail to comply with the following rules, 7 points will automatically be deducted from that person.

1. No plagiarism; Don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.

2. You may only troll when things get completely out of hand.

3. The BoP is shared.

Presentation

1. Wood wobbles. It is also very brittle. So, according to "Noah's Ark", his ark was constructed with wood. So, from a flood which struck, it would've demolished the ark. Not only that, but because of how much it had to carry, it would've collapsed.

2. According to the bible, God forgives everyone for their sins. So, some pray in their everyday life, yet, they don't receive an answer. Neither do their prayers comes true.

3. Scientists have observed that galaxies repel us (Moving outward).
IceHawk2009

Pro

Hi my name is Ken Ham and Creationism is correct because these scientists agree with me and the bible told me so. End of Debate. Just kidding I am not Ken Ham and boy did Bill kill him on this topic. In the interest of full discloser I believe in evolution I am simply exercising my critical thinking and researching skills. I am new to this website and this is only my second debate. So please forgive me for any mistakes I make on format.

Presentation

1) The universe and solar system were created spontaneously. We can prove this by the 1st and 2nd law of thermo dynamics. The 1st law of thermo dynamics simply states that energy can change forms however energy cannot be created or destroyed[1]. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics states the energy is going from order to disorder[2]. This would show that the universe could not have created its self or lasted as long as what evolutionist claim, if it had lasted this long the solar system would have depleted itself of usable energy by now[3].

2) How could I argue creationism if I do not make the claim that Life appeared spontaneously? If you look at the fossil record you will notice that there are gaps and then all of a sudden complex life comes around[4][5][6]. How can you discredit an explanation as to why there are gaps in the fossil record?

3) According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics would make it impossible for DNA and RNA to form. As stated earlier the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter are headed to a state of chaos and disorder. How would a very well organized molecule such as DNA or RNA form knowing this law of thermodynamics?

4) Mutations are just about always harmful in living organisms in the wild. With mutations being so rare is It really logical to think that it is possible for at least 16 millions different species to evolve based on a mere chance[7]?



In the interest of time I am going to move on to the rebuttal of your presentation.

1) So? I have not mentioned that there was an ark. This has nothing to do with creationism.

2) So? I have not mentioned God or the bible.

3) So? What does this have to do with evolution?

Debate Round No. 1
prodigyinmathandscience

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate! :)

Rebuttals

"Hi my name is Ken Ham and Creationism is correct because these scientists agree with me"

No, no, and no! Now you're using the "Appeal to Popularity fallacy". Just because most people believe in one things, doesn't mean it's true.

"
the bible told me so."

Atheists don't accept the bible to have an accurate history? So, if I may ask: WHY ARE YOU DERIVING ARGUMENTS FROM SUCH A SOURCE!?

"Just kidding I am not Ken Ham and boy did Bill kill him on this topic."

Definitely agree. Haha.

Moving on to the actual presentations.

1. "The 2nd Law of thermodynamics states the energy is going from order to disorder[2]."

Yes. There was a cataclysmic explosion. So, according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, everything tends toward disorder. So, all that matter that was distributed in all directions are doing so, thus not violating that law.

"We can prove this by the 1st and 2nd law of thermo dynamics. The 1st law of thermo dynamics simply states that energy can change forms however energy cannot be created or destroyed[1]"

However, some evolutionists (Like me) believe that there was an infinite time (And former Universe existed all the way through) before the cataclysmic explosion (Definitely not from how compact matter was because, how did all the energy hold for so long?).

2. (Skipped)

3. "According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics would make it impossible for DNA and RNA to form. As stated earlier the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter are headed to a state of chaos and disorder. How would a very well organized molecule such as DNA or RNA form knowing this law of thermodynamics?"

That's not what it meant. Matter can fuse into something complex. However, according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, mass tends towards disorder, meaning that overtime, it's going to rot.

4. "Mutations are just about always harmful in living organisms in the wild. With mutations being so rare is It really logical to think that it is possible for at least 16 millions different species to evolve based on a mere chance[7]?"

Didn't you just defend MY position? How so? Because: If mutations are rare (Meaning that not often do animals change into another), then that supports the possibility of the claim that at least 16 million species (Most of which aren't discovered yet) evolved into what WE are.

Rebutting opponent's rebuttals

1. "So?"

Alright. Like said, wood wobbles. It is also very brittle. So, according to "Noah's Ark", his ark was constructed with wood. So, from a flood which struck (Which according to my friends, was very powerful), it would've annahilated the ark. Not only that, but because of the amount it had to carry, it would've collapsed, thus exposing the Bible's innacuracy of historiacy.

2. "So?"

Like said, according to the bible, God forgives everyone for their sins. So, some pray in their everyday life, yet, they don't receive an answer. Neither do their prayers comes true. According to the Bible, the people mentioned did. They also have committed sin. So, how does that make us any distinct from them in a sense that we don't receive answers, neither do our prayers come true, thus, again, exposing the inaccuracy.

3. "So?"

This shows likeliness of evolution.

I already concede. You are correct; That's why I skipped your 2nd contention. But let's continue the debate anyway, with the others. Let's no longer bring up the 2nd contention. In order to be logically able to debate the 3rd and 4th contention, let's just assume that we originated from animals, evolving into us.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.


IceHawk2009

Pro


Let me reiterate the fact that I do not believe in creationism and I am seeing how well I can defend this “theory.”



Rebutting a rebuttal


1) Your belief of what happened does not qualify as scientific evidence (much like the bible) to support your claim. Saying “However, some evolutionists (Like me) believe that there was an infinite time (And former Universe existed all the way through)” is an argument from incredulity.


2) This point was conceded and won’t be brought up again per my counterpart’s wishes.


3) How can matter fuse into something complex if it is headed for disorder?


4) Not really. It would make your case stronger if evolution said that each generation of offspring was a new species.



Rebutting a rebuttal of a rebuttal.


1) The point was that my argument does not rely on an ark so this is irrelevant.


2) My argument is not based on the bible so the inaccuracies do not matter for this debate.


3) How?


Debate Round No. 2
prodigyinmathandscience

Con

Rebuttals

Rebutting a rebuttal of a rebuttal

1) "Your belief of what happened does not qualify as scientific evidence (much like the bible) to support your claim."

Yes. However, you're arguing against what I (And I stress the "I") believe in. So, I can use happenings of my belief and provide it as evidence to support my claim.

2) "
This point was conceded and won’t be brought up again per my counterpart’s wishes."

Yes. However, unless my opponent successfully refutes my arguments, it'll be a tie.

3) "
3) How can matter fuse into something complex if it is headed for disorder?"

Because external functions cause it to fuse into something complex.

4)
"Not really. It would make your case stronger if evolution said that each generation of offspring was a new species."

If that's what you mean, then your 4th contention is irrelevant. I thought you said so because (Let's assume so) according to evolution, we originated from amongst one of 16 million varying species, which evolved into what we are now. If so, then I would've been correct, seeing as
if mutations are rare (Meaning that not often do animals change into another), then that supports the possibility of the claim that at least 16 million species (Most of which aren't discovered yet) evolved into what WE are.

(P.S. Evolution is inanimate; IT DOESN'T SAY THINGS!)

Rebuttals of rebuttals of rebuttals of rebuttals

1) "The point was that my argument does not rely on an ark so this is irrelevant."

Creationism relies on the Bible. So, I'll repeat again: Wood wobbles. It is also very brittle. So, according to "Noah's Ark", his ark was constructed with wood. So, from a flood which struck (Which according to my friends, was very powerful), it would've annahilated the ark. Not only that, but because of the amount it had to carry, it would've collapsed, thus exposing the Bible's innacuracy of historiacy.

2) "My argument is not based on the bible so the inaccuracies do not matter for this debate."

Definitely not your arguments, but CREATIONISM does, which is your position (Not. You're playing devil's advocate).

3) "How?"

Because, according to evolution, there was a cataclysmic explosion; Matter was distributed into all directions. And the fact that, to this day, galaxies STILL repel away from us (Move outward) shows likeliness.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
IceHawk2009

Pro


Rebutting the previously rebottled rubtts



1) I was under the understanding that evolution was a scientific theory based on scientific evidence. If so you’re arguing from incredulity. If not the God rode a flaming purple unicorn that crapped out a rainbow that contained life is an equally valid argument for my case.


2) Still working on it


3) Source please? I am assuming you are not an expert in this field therefore I think you should cite your information here.


4) Most evolutionist believe that life originated from a single point and spiraled out. I am saying that this is unlikely due to the fact the rate of genetic mutations are so low and how long it would take for a single mutation to spared across a population of species.


(You know what I meant when I stated “evolution says.” It’s just like the expression the books says or that’s what the map says. Let’s not argue of linguistics in order to try to prove a point.)



A rebuttal for the rebuttals by the rebuttals.


1) You can repeat it all you want but the fact that the ark was impossible does not make my case any weaker. I have not relied on the bible nor mentioned. While were on the topic of repeating things have you seen this video this song is stuck in my head now


2) Not all creationism relies on the bible. Biblical creationism does, however there are some who believe that aliens left us. I do not know much about other religions but each religion gives there one explanation of where life originated from. When you started this debate you did not state that you wanted to debate biblical creationism.


3) I think that is part of the big bang theory, not evolution.


Debate Round No. 3
prodigyinmathandscience

Con

prodigyinmathandscience forfeited this round.
IceHawk2009

Pro

I do not have much to add at this point.
Debate Round No. 4
prodigyinmathandscience

Con

prodigyinmathandscience forfeited this round.
IceHawk2009

Pro

IceHawk2009 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Beginner 2 years ago
Beginner
Replace the word 'Pro' with the word 'Con' in the comment below.
Posted by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
Seeginomikata
... To think the debate could have been won over a simple google search...

I think the Pro is a creationist and is purposefully making a poor argument in order to give creationists a win.
evidence: pro skipped the most important con point of "important missing links in the fossil records between simple life forms and multi-cellular life". This could have been easily contended with the fact that fossil records of any kind are exceedingly rare, and only occur under specific conditions, and that the earliest multi-cellular life forms were all soft-bodied and thus left little to no trace as fossils for us to observe.
Posted by IceHawk2009 2 years ago
IceHawk2009
I am sorry I just saw this bring up what ever you want in your next argument. This is just for fun so do what ever.
Posted by prodigyinmathandscience 2 years ago
prodigyinmathandscience
PLEASE READ, PRO: I don't concede. Nevermind. I believe both are equally compelling, seeing as both have flaws (Unless you successfully nullify my arguments). If agreed upon, it'll be a tie. I believe that DEISM is a more viable model than evolution.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
Note that creationism covers a lot of theories/beliefs not just christianity
Posted by prodigyinmathandscience 2 years ago
prodigyinmathandscience
The 1st 2 points expose the inaccuracy of the Bible, as the final point shows likeliness of evolution (Big Bang).
Posted by sengejuri 2 years ago
sengejuri
I'll debate you, but can you clarify your position? You seem to be arguing about 3 different things - noahs ark, prayer/forgiveness, astronomy. How is this related to evolution?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 2 years ago
Buckethead31594
prodigyinmathandscienceIceHawk2009Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F/F.