The Instigator
roark555
Con (against)
Tied
2 Points
The Contender
PurpleSloth
Pro (for)
Tied
2 Points

Is creationism valid?

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 416 times Debate No: 79021
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

roark555

Con

I will be arguing that creationism is invalid, pro will be arguing the opposite.
Round 1 is for acceptance, 2 is for opening arguments, 3-4 rebuttals and additional arguments, and 5 is for closing arguments.
Best of luck to pro.
PurpleSloth

Pro

Due to lack of proof for the Big Bang, that genetically evolution does not work and that a non-living thing cannot evolve I have found an intelligent being is more likely to have created the universe.

How can nothing come from something? How did the matter for the Big Bang come about.

Man's natural moral reasoning or our moral obligations such as our natural hatred for murder or rape also needs a genesis.

There must be a source to the creation of man and the universe.
Debate Round No. 1
roark555

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate.
Theory: a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation. Its usage in science is very different from typical everyday language. Normally when people talk about theories, they put it in the same cashier as guess. However, when I say theory, I am talking about the scientific definition. Examples of theories include germ theory, cell theory, atomic theory, and evolutionary theory.

In order for something to be considered valid, it has to have a well grounded basis . By this I mean, it must be in accordance to observed facts in reality. It must not, in other words contradict the laws of nature. One plus one equals two, and it will always equal two. Now when a topic like this comes up that makes claims about reality, we use the scientific method to determine truth from non truth. I will give a brief rundown of what the scientific method is ( these are not my words, sources below):
-Observe some aspect of the universe.
-Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
-Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
-Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
-Repeat the preceding two steps until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

There is an immediate problem. Creationism is not based on observed facts about reality. It is based on things like faith, which creationists often freely admit. It's a tradition, or it makes them feel good to be part of "God's plan" or whatever the case may be. The start isn't an honest inquiry into observed phenomena, it's a dishonest non-inquiry into claims of the supernatural. It doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis, because a hypothesis has the basis of at least limited evidence. Creationism does, however, make claims about existence, claims which are testable and can be falsified. Here is a brief list:
-the universe was created by a supernatural being called Yahweh in six days, about 6000 years ago.
-It says that man was created by dirt, and then women by the rib of man.
- It says that a man named Noah brought two of each animal onto a large boat, because God flooded the entire world, killing everything else.
These are only a view examples, I just picked perhaps the most obvious ones. Lets look at the first one, the claim that God created everything approximately 6000 years ago. There is no dancing around it, this is simply not true. The earth is about 4.5 Billion years old, and the universe about 13.7 billion years give or take. There are several methods by which this is measured. To quote hubblesite.org, " Because all of the galaxies in the universe are generally moving apart, we infer that they must all have been much closer together sometime in the past. Knowing the current speeds and distances to galaxies, coupled with the rate at which the universe is accelerating, allows us to calculate how long it took for them to reach their current locations. The answer is about 14 billion years. " Another way is the length of time it takes the light from stars to reach us. The light from our sun takes about 8 minutes to reach us, but some stars take millions of years.
One of the main ways we know the earth is about 4.5 Billion years old is through various radiometric dating methods. Radiometric dating is essentially measuring the decay rate of certain isotopes. Different isotopes have different decay rates, for example the half life of carbon-14 is 5,730 years, while potassium 40 has a half life of around 1.3 billion years. Though these various methods, we can calculate that the age of the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old.

The second claim is that God created all forms of life over the course of two days. This is also false. Life didn't just spontaneously appear in it's current form in one fell swoop, it evolved over the course of around 2 billion years. There is a mountain of evidence to support this claim, and I will only name a few and will hopefully expand on this later.
- The universal genetic code. All cells that we know of on earth are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
-Genetic similarities. We share more than 97% of our DNA with chimpanzees, 80% with cows, chickens about 68% etc. This suggests that that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
-Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Through random mutation, the bacteria the most resistant to a certain type of antibiotics will survive while the others die off. In the succeeding generations, most of the bacteria will be resistant to this particular type of antibiotics.
-Comparative Anatomy/vestigial structures/ homologous structures. On a surface level, animals that look very different from one another actually have a very similar physical structure. For example, underneath the fin of a whale, the skeletal "hand" is very similar to the hand of humans and chimps. Humans have tailbones .
Again, these are only a few examples, I will certainly expand upon this in the next couple of rounds.
Now finally, we have the issue of Noah and the flood. I will only point out a few obvious issues with this (more later, if you want).
- Gathering all the Animals. How could penguins, polar bears, moose, and plants have all gotten to the same place?
- The arks ability to support all the different species of animals. The ark was supposedly around 450 feet in length. They had to fit two of every type of animal on the planet, plus there's the issue of dinosaurs. How did they all fit?
-Maintaining animal life on the ark. Most elephants eat around 400 pounds of vegetation everyday, and drinks around 50 gallons of water and . How could they possibly fit all that food and fresh water into the ark for 40 days and 40 nights?

I think that is all I will state for now on the subject. I'm looking forward to your arguments, best of luck. This is an important conversation.
http://ideonexus.com.........
http://hubblesite.org.........
http://physics.ucr.edu.........
http://www.talkorigins.org.........
http://en.wikipedia.org.........
Report this Argument
Report this Argument
PurpleSloth

Pro

"Valid" is not just for the scientific but also for the historical. Something such as the existence of George Washington or Winston Churchill whether we see them or are able to, by the scientific method "observe" them, we can with valid beliefs believe they existed. Such as the numerous writings, the factual evidence of the existence , the predictions of the Bible leading up to Jesus, and the reign and fall of Rome (as predicted in the Bible)
By the "scientific method" macroevolution is also not viable.
-It is not observable
-You are also not able to test your predictions.
The Big Bang or the sudden occurrence of matter, time, and space also takes large quantities of faith. The unguided spontaneous existence is not only improbable but impossible. How did the mass exist to form the universe?
Also say the Big Bang happened how could the non-living matter evolve to create living matter? If macroevolution in and of itself depends on life and death.

"Valid" is not just for the scientific but also for the historical. Something such as the existence of George Washington or Winston Churchill whether we see them or are able to, by the scientific method "observe" them, we can with valid beliefs believe they existed. Such as the numerous writings, the factual evidence of the existence , the predictions of the Bible leading up to Jesus, and the reign and fall of Rome (as predicted in the Bible)
By the "scientific method" macroevolution is also not viable.
-It is not observable
-You are also not able to test your predictions.
The Big Bang or the sudden occurrence of matter, time, and space also takes large quantities of faith. The unguided spontaneous existence is not only improbable but impossible. How did the mass exist to form the universe?
Also say the Big Bang happened how could the non-living matter evolve to create living matter? If macroevolution in and of itself depends on life and death.
Just a few pieces of evidence:
-Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
-Not enough sodium in the sea
-The earth's magnetic field is decaying (losing energy) too fast
-Biological material decays to fast
-Too few supernova remnants
-Not enough mud on the sea floor
-Polystrate fossils
Galaxies rotate are supposed to be about ten billion years old the stars on the inside are moving much faster than those on the inside if our galaxy or others were ten billion years old then they would be a featureless disk of stars.
Four hundred and fifty million tons of sodium is dumped into the ocean per year. By natural process only about 25% of that is removed each year. According to old age scenario the oceans should be about three billion years old. However if you were to use the evolutionary method "that the present is the key to the past" then the max age of the oceans are forty-two million years old.
The Earth's magnetic field loses half its energy every 1454 years. Therefore, again using the key that the present is the key to the past the max age of the Earth is 20,000 years old which largely different to the 4.6 billion years old.
Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils are supposedly 65 million years old. DNA and biological material is very fragile. Scientists claim that this type of material could only last for 10,000 years if left in the best environments. However in 2005 in Montana, United States a scientist found the cross section of a Tyrannosaurs Rex leg bone of which contained red flexible blood cells.
There is not enough Super Nova remnants. For an example our Milky way Galaxy there are roughly only 200 remnants considering a super Nova happens about once every 25 years. That means that when doing the math you are left with only 7,000to fourteen thousand years.
The accumulation of sediment at the present rate all sediment in the ocean would accumulate in no more than 14 million years.
A polystrate fossil is a fossil that traverses many rock layers. According to evolution these layers are represented by millions of years therefore logically the polystrate fossil contradicts evolution.
Also even if evolution wasn't scientifically impossible, evolution doesn't contradict creation. Creation is its genesis but evolution is post genesis. The six day period could be symbolism.
Due to lack of evidence for evolution and the Big Bang, and the fact that we exist and therefore need an explanation as to our existence I have come to the conclusion that creationism is not only valid but viable.
Debate Round No. 2
roark555

Con

roark555 forfeited this round.
PurpleSloth

Pro

PurpleSloth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
roark555

Con

roark555 forfeited this round.
PurpleSloth

Pro

Due to forfeiting there is nothing to rebuttal and I have said what I mean to say. I encourage the con to finish the debate for at the very least those who may read it. I understand the futility of debating evolution due to lack of evidence and for a genesis which is not explained through the Big Bang due to the need for the material for the Big Bang.
Debate Round No. 4
roark555

Con

roark555 forfeited this round.
PurpleSloth

Pro

The underwhelming lack of evidence for the Big Bang and the overwhelming evidence for a young earth makes me come to the conclusion that creationism is not only valid but likely. I apologize for lack of participation and hope the voters will understand the evidence presented and agree with the notion that creationism is valid.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by BrandonHyde 1 year ago
BrandonHyde
I'm not going to state whether I am for or against either of you... but one thing. PurpleSloth, you say how can something come from nothing, well how did a divine being come from nothing then? It's a weak argument because it can be directed back to you. In both sides of the argument there is no explanation for the very beginning of the theory and personally I don't think there ever will be.
Posted by roark555 1 year ago
roark555
Due to round one being for acceptance only and not for argument, I will ignore pro's statements and address them later if he chooses to bring them up again. Also the name of this debate was supposed to be " is BIBLICAL creationism valid?" so sorry for the confusion if there was any.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
roark555PurpleSlothTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used no sources and made unfounded statements that would not have stood up to rebuttal. Only con cited sources. Con did not finish the debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
roark555PurpleSlothTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff more than Pro, so conduct to Pro.