Is science the creation of all things??
Debate Rounds (3)
I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. Unfortunately for my opponet, the wording of the resolution is very vague and begs many questions, so before I begin with actual argumentation, I will clarify on what I believe the resolution means. The pro may, by all means, challenge what I am saying. But this is what I believe the resolution says and what is debatable ground.
Resolved: Science is the creation of all things.
This resolution can means either one of two things:
1. Science only talks about the creation of all things. Anything outside of this is not science.
2. Science, itself, created all things.
I am more of the opinion that it is the former, but I am prepared to debate the latter if my opponent so chooses. This round will be used to disprove the first resolution, that science isn't JUST about the creation of things, as well as responding to the arguments made by the pro debater.
The very definition of what science is envelopes more than just creationism theories. Dictionary.com defines science as systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines science as a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge.
These definitons, while obviously encompasing creationism theories, talk about far more than just creationism. Thus, science isn't JUST the creation of all things. It includes far more.
As for my opponent's case, I feel that he has misinterpreted what he made the resolution to be. His case is set up to disprove God. I'm not advocating for God's existence, but only that science involves more than what the resolution states that it does. If he wished to scientifically debate God's existence, he may have wished to title his resolution something along the lines of "God's existence is scientifically disproven" or something like that. Since this is not the case, his position is, more or less, irrelevant to discussion.
For the above reasons, I urge a con vote.
Day 1: God commanded the presence of light and its separation from darkness. (POZA Light and Darkness)
*The Scientific Truth Day and night exist since the Earth was created. This phenomenon is caused by the planet's spinning motion given by the collision of young Earth with another planet about four billion years ago. This collision that also gave birth to the Moon.
Day 2: God separated the sky and oceans. (POZA Skies and Oceans)
*The Scientific Truth The skies (atmosphere and clouds) were created about 1.5 billion years after the birth of planet Earth due to the major volcanic activities on the planet's surface. At that time the Earth's magnetic field was also established thus preventing the stripping of the atmosphere by the solar winds.
The oceans were created about 1 billion years later by condensing water vapors and the melting of ice from asteroids and comets that frequently struck the Earth in its early days.
Day 3: God separated land from the oceans; spreading of plants and grass and trees across the land. (POZA Oceans, Land , Trees)
*The Scientific Truth
The oceans and continents were always separated. The only changes that occurred during the 4.6 billions year of Earth's existence are the continental drifts that separated the Supercontinents of Gondwana, Laurasia, Pangaea, Pannotia, Rodinia, Columbia, Kenorland, Nena, Ur and Vaalbara into the 7 continents we know today: Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and South America.
Day 4: God caused the sun, moon, and stars to be attached to the underside of the firmament - a dome that covered the earth. (POZE Sun, Moon si Stars)
*The Scientific Truth
The Sun was also born about 4.6 billion years ago however most of the stars in our Galaxy -- The Milky Way were born much earlier.
As for the Moon, it was created when young Earth collided with a "wandering" planet about 4.5 billion years ago.
Day 5: God ordered the sea to "teem with living creatures" and birds to fly in the air. (POZE Fish si Birds)
*The Scientific Truth
While bacteria were born about 3.8 billion years and single cells evolved about 1.8 billion years later, complex life form began to form in the oceans only about 1 billion years ago. It took another half billion years for the Earth's atmosphere to be saturated by oxygen and allow life to evolve on the surface.
Day 6: God ordered the land to produce land animals. God created humans, "someone like ourselves" (POZE Animals si Humans)
*The Scientific Truth
While land animals evolved at the same time with airborne ones, humans evolved from a species of bipedal primates only 200.000 years ago and evolved to the form we know today about 50.000 years ago.
Day 7: God rested.
*The Scientific Truth Science has already proven that it actually took over 4 billion years for the Earth to form and life to evolve unlike the 6 days that the Bible tells us. So this 7th day, when God supposedly rested was meant just to give working people a day off. The Earth will continue to change and life will continue to evolve, however it's very unlikely that people will stop believing in God, even if all scientific evidence proves that HE doesn't exist.
At the current moment, I am sorely dissapointed with the direction this debate is currently heading. I believe that there has been some misunderstanding of the resolution and my opponent and myself are not on the same page as with what the resolution says and implies is pro ground and what is con ground.
My opponent conceded my case position. While this is generally detrimental in any debate, it has added implications in this debate:
1. My opponent concedes to what my definiton(s) of science are. So that is how we will be defining science.
2. My opponent concedes to the resolutional interpretation I give saying that my opponent must prove that science is ONLY the creation of all things and nothing else. Since it was conceded, you must hold the pro to proving this BOP. If he fails to meet this BOP, you must vote con.
Since he conceded to my entire case and didn't even mention in his second round, don't let him suddenly refute it in his third. He had the perfectly legitimate opportunity to do this last round, but since he didn't, that ought to be counted as a concession.
With these two things in mind, let's adress the pro's second round arguments.
Basically, the arguments he's making here is Darwenism refutes the possibility of God creating the Earth. I never argued against this. Heck, I'll even agree that Darwenism refutes the possibility of God. BUT THIS ISN'T SUFFICIENT TO VOTE PRO. My opponent MUST prove that Science talks about ONLY the creation of all things. He fails to do this at all. Because of this, he is not sufficiently fulfilling to his burden of proof, which means you as the voter HAVE TO VOTE CON.
Even at this point in the debate, we can call it over and declare a clear winner. My opponent is proving that, sure, science refutes God. But my opponent is not sufficiently fulfilling the burden of proof that HE CONCEDED. He MUST prove that science ONLY talks about the creation of all things AND NOTHING ELSE. This is going to be VERY IMPORTANT in today's debate because if he is not doing this, YOU HAVE TO VOTE CON.
Jeremy forfeited this round.
Since my opponent forfeited the last round, he in essence conceded to all of my arguments.
Extend all of my arguments. They take out my opponents case.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Yep 5 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||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Two reasons to vote con (besides the FF) 1)Con is topical, while pro relays information regarding god, Con clearly in his first speech gives pro the only 2 ways to debate this topic. Pro concedes in his second speech to these topics because he does not address the topicality issue con brings up. So now, we look at the first topic given by con. Con successfully refutes this through a definition debate, and cites sources that are topical (and not biblical...) Thus it is an easy con vote besides FF
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.