Is creationism a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?
Debate Rounds (3)
Creation is the true and most viable explanation of human origins and should be the scientifically accepted and school taught model. Not only don't I believe, but I believe that any reasonable person should believe it because the evidence is right in front of you. In fact, I think anyone with eyes should believe it, because it's so obvious.
The Truth and Beauty of Creation is Obvious:
If you have sight, and have ever looked at nature, the work of God should be as plain as day. The science in everything around us and the perfect relationship between certain things are too complex to exist from a Big Bang. How could life, us, trees, plants, animals, be created from an explosion? What is the essence of life? How did all the systems of the body form, and learn to work together perfectly? How could our Solar System have such a perfect pattern, with a Sun that meets every need of the planets? How could the planets be the right distance away from the sun, without getting too hot or too cold? Where did the pattern of day and night come from? These are honest questions. I don't see how an explosion do all of that? It's like the hand grenade in the bedroom example I used in the first round. If I'm missing something, please tell me. It just doesn't come across as logical or reasonable to me at all. I feel it takes a lot more faith to believe that a bang did all of that.
The Existence of the Universe itself proves Creation:
Christian author Mark Cahill writes in his book "One Heartbeat Away" that (my summary, not a quotation) the fact that we exist should be the evidence that God exists and created us. He was once talking with an atheist, who said that there was just no proof that God exists or that He created the universe. Cahill responded by pointing to a building and saying, "Where is the proof that someone created that building?" The atheist replied something like , "Well, it's right there. You can see it. It couldn't have gotten there without someone creating it!" That's when he got it. See, Mikal, we are here, and that itself should prove God exists.
Culture doesn't accept Creationism because they don't want to:
This may be the most controversial statement in my entire argument. But the Bible says that deep inside every one of we know that God exists because we were created in His image and because we can see in the world the Creation of God, as I posted in my second section. We reject and deny this belief because that calls for submission to an authority on our part. It calls for us to realize that there is something, someone, more powerful than us, that we aren't as big as we think. So those who say that are atheists, I do think really don't believe in God. But deep down in everyone of is is that belief.
I didn't make this nearly as long as I could have. But before I begin my conclusion, I have a request. Go to Google Images and search "Whirlpool Galaxy X-Structure". The Hubble Telescope found this image and sent it back here to Earth. This is the blazing center of the glory of God's creation, His ultimate revelation to us. So, the main point of my argument I guess is that we have all the proof that we need around us. Any person with two eyes, knowledge and reason should be able to conclude that Christianity is real. I pray for you and that you can see the truth in creation and in God's Word, and respond to it. Good luck!
I would like to thank Pro for proposing this debate
Lets check the resolution
"Is creationism a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era"
Before I get down to the contentions, there are a few things we need to address
Creationism - a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis 
Viable - Capable of success or continuing effectiveness 
Modern scientific era is logically today or in the present.
Note : They key word in this argument is viable. Basically we are going to be arguing is the theory of creationism capable of maintaining success and also is it logically acceptable when compared with today's modern scientific data that is available.
An Impossible Stance
Atheism and Christians share one common issue. The issue is they both claim a positive statement. Atheist claim "God does not exist", Christians claim that "God does exist". The fundamental failure in both of these stances, is that we are discussing something that cannot be tested or proven to be factual.
This is commonly explained through an analogy called Russel's Teapot.
" Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God." 
This is the most logical way to try and address an argument like this. It is psychically impossible for Christians to claim that they are correct because there is no way to they can be proven wrong. Atheist have the same issue in a similar way. It is impossible to say that they are right because there is no way to prove it either.
No need for Creationism.
This is a simple appeal to Occam's Razor. If we have a working model of how the universe began and was created, why add unnecessary changes to the model that is already working. Through modern science we can clearly see how the universe began, and that it does not need a creator to jump start it.
There are things that are called quantum flotations that can explain how matter and space first began to exist. To first address this question we need to ask can something come from nothing? Let's ask the novel prize winner David Gross
Gross showed that the space between quarks in a proton can produce matter and energy randomly from nothing. They can exist and come into place through quantum fluctuation. So yes something can come from nothing. The next thing we have to address is what type of universe do we live in.
We can live in an open , flat , or closed universe. This is also addressed with curvature. The universe can be Positive, Negative, or Flat.
All three geometries are classes of what is called Riemannian geometry, based on three possible states for parallel lines
never meeting (flat or Euclidean)
must cross (spherical)
always divergent (hyperbolic) 
The universe is commonly accepted as a flat universe.
" Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."
The perfect part about this is that a flat universe yields total energy 0. Which is the only universe that can produce quantum fluctuation and actually spawn random universe into existence. 
When determining if something is actually a working model or viable model, there are a variety of factors that go into play. One of which is probability.
Let's examine this statement
"Chickens like to peck the ground"
Now lets have a little thought experiment. Pretend we have no idea what a chicken is. We have just discovered them and we are observing facts about them. We have ten chickens in ten different pens. We notice that the first 8 chickens like to peck the ground. The ninth does not. So when we go to watch the tenth, what is the most logical conclusion we are going to arrive at? The chicken will probably like to peck the ground. We can assume this because it is a trend among the majority of other chickens.
Through experiments like this, hypotheses and theories are developed. Working theories often share a common theme and can be proven through verifiable evidence. How do we know chickens like to peck the ground? Because 99 percent of chickens like to do this. Even if 80 percent of chickens liked to peck the ground, if we were going to make a theory it would be something like "most chickens like to peck the ground"
Creationism is an outdated idea that should have long since been discarded. We have working models such as evolution, and even the string theory to help us understand how we began to exist. When we are normally dealing in terms of logic and rationality we take basics facts and compare it to other basic facts
The issue with God is that you can insert any variable in place of God and it would have the same tone and argument. You could say (x) created the universe. There is no way to prove it or disprove it, the only logical way to address this is the previous ones that I mentioned. Do we need (x) to explain how and why the universe operates? No we do not, we have working models in every way, shape, and form that help us understand how and why we exist
The resolution we are looking at is
"Creationism is a viable model in the modern scientific era"
Perhaps you could prove it is rational to believe in creationism but it is almost impossible to prove that it is viable. When compared to modern scientific data and facts. There is no need for it.
 Lawerence Krauss ; A universe from nothing
Evolution is not appropriate for children:
Famous television scientist Bill Nye (the Science Guy) posted a YouTube video a few years ago which gained millions of views. The video was titled "Creationism is Not Appropriate for Children" which led into the the recent debate between him and Ken Ham, that was based off of the same question as ours. In his video, he stated that creationism should not be taught to children, because we need kids to be engineers. Wait a minute. What does evolution have to do with engineering. See, Bill Nye actually isn't a scientist. He has a degree on engineering. He began his career with Boeing. So, imagine how much trouble we would be in if he applied his evolutionary beliefs there. He would have said the planes should be put together randomly, just assemble the parts together randomly and lay them on the runway. No. Evolution and engineering have nothing to do with each other. Yes, he did great experimental science and taught me many things. But when it comes to real world things like these, he's clueless. When he said creationism is abuse to children, he didn't know what he was saying. I said it in the first round and I'll say it again. Abuse to children is telling them they weren't meant supposed to happen, that they were an accident. Once life is over, they die, and that's it. What's the purpose of living. We then have nothing to live for. But, on the contrary, teaching kids they were created by a loving God, and they were created with purpose, will encourage kids to do something with their lives. After they die, that isn't the end.
Finding Evidence of Intelligence:
In "today's modern scientific era", finding tools or artwork in caves is a big deal. Scientists know that the tools or art were created by ancient humans, and that they couldn't have gotten there by themselves. Because of this, we can conclude that an intelligent creature made it. Similarly, we wouldn't look at the Great Wall of China and conclude that it was the result of an explosion in a brick factory. Our world is full of man made items, and no one would suggest that any of them were created through time and change. We would never think that if we left metal to itself it would produce an automobile. William Paley said ""the watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use." Paley says that a watch implies a maker, and living things imply a designer.
Does the idea of Natural Selection create design?:
The information that builds up our life is mostly contained in DNA. So if you want to argue that Natural Selection backs up evolution and is a part of evolution, you must be able to prove that produces the design seen in all living things. Natural Selection is a process that anybody could logically observe. But, it cannot create any new information, it only operates on the information already contained in the genes. This actually goes along with the Bible's model if origins. It shows that God distinctly created plants and animals to reproduce after their own kinds. For example, coyotes, wolves, and dingoes have in fact developed over natural selection, based off of the information found in the genes of the dog/wolf species. "no new information was produced"these varieties of dogs have resulted from a rearrangement, sorting out, and separation of the information in the original dog kind. One kind has never been observed to change into a totally different kind with information that previously did not exist. Without intelligent input to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution." (Quote taken from Answers in Genesis)
Conclusion: Once again, thank you for accepting this debate. I hope I can debate you again. Hopefully this will be a light to you and help you hear God calling desperately for you. You are a very smart person. Just reading some of your previous debates shows that. I just wish and pray that you could see the truth in Creation and in God's Word and use that intelligence and knowledge that you obviously have in a way that gives God glory. You have a mind. Use it. Look around you. The evidence is all around you. Good luck in Round 3.
(Most research was done on answersingenesis.org.)
Evolution is not appropriate for children
This literally has no point in this debate. There is no need to refute it. We are debating where it is a viable model, meaning is creationism a working model in today's scientific era. To come up with the answer to that, we must compare it with other scientific theories and models and see if it is viable. My adversaries opinion on whether or not children should be taught evolution in no way is a part of this resolution.
This analogy often is refereed to as the watch maker argument. There are some fundamental flaws in this as well. First it is assuming the watch is different from nature. It then states that because of intelligent design the universe is so precise it to must have a creator. When you actually review this the argument gives nature two incompatible qualities.
Dawkins also addresses this in his book "The Blind Watchmaker"
"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future porpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker." 
This is also referred to as a false analogy. It assumes two different items have a common quality
(1) A watch is complex and cannot create itself
(2) Therefore the watch has a watchmaker
(2A) The universe is complex and cannot create itself
(2B) Therefore the universe has a watchmaker
The two major flaws in that argument is that the universe in has different properties than a watch and it actually could create itself, just because a watch maker created something that is complex does not mean that this is the case in every scenario
This comes down to correlation does not always entail causation.
Does natural selection create design
This argument is almost irrelevant but still is slightly on topic so I will address this as well breezily.
" One kind(species) has never been observed to change into a totally different kind with information that previously did not exist. "
One type of species does not actually "turn into" another or several other species not in an instant, anyway. They are magically not just going to poof into existence. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
Species A is Breeding with Species A
If you Separate them or isolate them from each other
A ::::::::: A
I :::::::::: I
I :::::::::: I
I :::::::::: I
AA ::: AB
Due to certain factors that have occurred over a lengthy period of time, while both started out as species A. Boundaries and other factors prevented them from being near each other and isolated the species. Thanks to the different variables that occurred there are now two different groups that are distinct and different from each other.
Creationism is not a viable model of origins in today's scientific era.
 The Blind Watch Maker ; Richard Dawkins
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: This definitely was an interesting debate. I think pro could have expounded more in depth and not linger into a different topic so much, (but you still did good) so Con gets the points for convincing argument and also pro never used any resources; whereas, Con did so he gets the points for reliable resources. Good job though guys! This was fun to read!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.