The Instigator
Spud
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
rigadoon
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is there any scientific evidence for creationism

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,355 times Debate No: 98622
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (33)
Votes (0)

 

Spud

Con

I'm a fairly passionate person about science and I've been debating creationism for nearly 6 years. If you've got any evidence to present for creationism, I'd like to hear it. It'd be good to hear a new argument to be honest, and I'm hopefully going to get more competent opponents than I do on YouTube comment sections, considering that this website is made for the soul purpose of debating XD. Anyways, if anyone would be able to debate me about this, would be cool; thanks.
rigadoon

Pro

If you've ever been on a jury or visited a courtroom, you've seen that evidence is always presented by someone testifying. Someone must testify as to what it is, where it came from, and their judgment as to what it signifies. The same is true of evidence in science, too: it is ultimately based on testimony.
That is why creationists look first for testimony about the distant past. In the jumble of ancient material that is available now, one document stands out above all the others: the Bible. It stands out in the number and quality of manuscripts available, the exacting methods used to ensure its transmission, and in the amount of corroborating archaeological material that has been found.
Having said that, what other evidence is available? In fact, there are many phenomena that may indicate something about the age of things. Here is as much as I can include from an article for Creation Matters, a newsletter of the Creation Research Society (Vol 4, No 4, 1999):
Evidence for a Young World by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
Here are a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000 to 10,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the biblical time scale.
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.
2. Comets disintegrate too quickly
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years.
3. Not enough mud on the sea floor
Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters.
The main way known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 24 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.
4. Not enough sodium in the sea
Every year, rivers and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, 3 billion years.
5. The earth"s magnetic field is decaying too fast
The total energy stored in the earth"s magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years. Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate.
6. Many strata are too tightly bent
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.
7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic "ages"
Strong geologic evidence exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone - formed an alleged 500 million years ago - of the Ute Pass fault west of Colorado Springs was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time scale.
8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale. "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.
9. Helium in the wrong places
All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the earth's atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in 5 billion years. This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age.
10. Not enough stone age skeletons
Evolutionary anthropologists say that the stone age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between 1 and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts. By this scenario, they would have buried at least 4 billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, and if buried bones are able to last for much longer than 100,000 years (as is the case with "70 million-year-old" dinosaurs), then many of the supposed 4 billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the stone age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.
11. Agriculture is too recent
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the stone age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago. Yet the archaeological evidence shows that stone age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the alleged 4 billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the flood, if at all.
12. History is too short
According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time scale is much more likely.
References omitted for brevity.
Debate Round No. 1
Spud

Con

Hey Con & thanks for accepting my debate. To keep matters as brief as I possibly can, I'll just focus on the meat of your comment.

1) This is a creationist claim which is often brought up. Spiral arms can develop whenever and this is vindicated by computer simulations. Source: (https://books.google.com.au...).

2) We have new comets appearing all the time from the Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt - that is why these comets which are appearing are so young, so this creationist claim is rendered frivolous unfortunately. Now whilst it is true we don't have direct observational evidence of the phenomena I would also like to point out that we do not have to directly observe a phenomena to observe its effects or know what takes place. We can use gravitational lensing to detect the effects of dark matter for instance, we haven"t observed Pluto"s entire orbit, we have a large amount of evidence which supprots the current model of the Big Bang theory etc. It also helps that the Oort Cloud and Kuiper belt offer explanations which don't contradict almost every field in science, as Young Earth Creationism does.

3) I"ve heard a similar claim to this before, but you seem to be offering a different take; the most often claim from creationists is that 30 million years is the most amount of time; haven"t heard of this one before, so I"m going to have to ask you to cite this claim.

4) I"m just going to point you to this letter (http://www2.asa3.org...). This is what I"d like to call an intellectual spanking of astronomical proportions. Glen has done such a good job of this, I don"t even need to offer any further explanation; I can just let the letter speak for itself.

5) This is another creationist claim I've had to refute often unfortunately. Let's look at a journal on the matter to give better information (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org...). It is to be noted that this journal is from 2000 and currently has 629 citations. I'm afraid to say that you're 17 years behind the times on this one. As evidenced by this journal, there is something you are omitting from your argument; that is that the Earth's magnetic field fluctuates. I"m going to quote a piece from the Discussion of this journal (pg. 986)

It seems increasingly likely from palaeomagnetic studies that the mantle in"uences
the " eld-generation process. Analyses of both sedimentary (Laj et al. 1991; Clement
1991) and volcanic (Love 1998) recordings of the last reversals suggest geographical
biasing in the reversal paths of virtual geomagnetic poles (VGPs), an e"ect that
would be predicted to be absent in the presence of homogeneous boundary conditions.
The interpretation of the data is not incontrovertible however (e.g. Pr"evot & Camps,
1993; Merrill & McFadden 1999). Similarly, when examining the long-term stable
magnetic " eld over the last few million years, persistent features can be found in
some authors" models (Gubbins & Kelly 1993; Johnson & Constable 1995), although,
again, the results are refuted by other authors (McElhinney et al. 1996; Carlut &
Courtillot 1998).

So there you have it.

6) Did you forget your science classes mate? Strata can bend when put under immense heat and as long as the rock is bent slowly, fracturing is very unlikely. This is high school level stuff, may I ask as to why we"re even discussing this? I would have assumed that this would have been too basic and arbitrary to even bring up. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)

7) And this is something I"ve never even heard of before. I"ll need a bit more time to actually research this. So you"ve got one point out of 12 which I haven"t heard of before, and just doing very basic searching on this point only brings up fringe Young Earth Creationist sites. Which isn"t a very good sign I might add.

8) No, that"s not how any of this works, and this claim requires extensive knowledge to debunk; which is something I don"t have in physics, chem or geology; I have a fairly rudimentary grasp of these topics, and therefore I"m forced to refer you to 2 YouTubers on this issue: (https://www.youtube.com...). That link is a basic summary of the issue and goes over some chem and geology. This link (https://www.youtube.com...) is a far more in depth talk and is focused on physics. I really do not like referencing YouTube videos for obvious reasons, but these two people are much better at explaining why this is erroneous and they are far, far more competent at science than I ever will be. Therefore, whilst I don"t like the thought of referencing YouTube videos in a debate, I am forced to do so here, and these two are very good at what they do.

9) First thing's first, just because there's a lack of helium in our atmosphere, that does not mean that there is a limited amount in the universe; in fact there's an over-abundance of Helium from the radioactive decay which you are talking about. As for the lack of Helium in the atmosphere I'll have to refer you to this journal (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...). Essentially, Helium gets ionised and in the process, due to the light weight of Helium is able to escape the atmosphere due to an increase in its velocity.

10-12) I"m combining these, because they"re all the same thing and the refutation is the same. What does the history of men, agriculture or stone age skeletons have to do with anything? Those things are all independent to the age of the Earth. Your point is therefore moot I"m sorry to say.

I've also taken the liberty of looking around CRS as it's a site I've never heard of before (and I've heard of quite a number of creationist sites). Unfortunately, it's nothing short of a joke mate. I mean, really? "Human Uniqueness and Accelerated Storytelling: How Conserved Regulatory Regions in the Genome Challenge Evolution" - even the abstract is jaw-droppingly abysmal. The first sentence of that "journal" references Genesis! This is the sort of tosh that is put in a "journal" on that website? I don't even... When I was writing up an essay in grade 8 about Bilbies; even that would be more competent than this, because I didn't start off the essay with a completely unrelated reference to Genesis! That's like talking about avida simulation and then prefacing it with a reference to the Rig Veda. Like, just what?! Why would anyone do that? And judging by the way the abstracts of these "journals" are written on this site, I"d be inclined to guess that the vernacular is used for the rest of the "journals." Since when is a journal so easy to understand that even a kid in high school would be able to read it? When I was reading a journal called, "Morphological Evidence for the Phylogeny of Cetacea," I was not under the impression that I was reading something that most 14 year olds could understand; rather unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the "journals" on that website. I am legitimately speechless that you actually gave this website as a source and expect this to fly in a debate bro. I'm really am trying not to be rude here, but why on Earth did you source this website?
rigadoon

Pro

Thanks for the response. I'll use more of Dr. Humphreys' article in this response.
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for over fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies.
2. Comets disintegrate too quickly
Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed. So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.
There has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists" problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.
3. Not enough mud on the sea floor
Since you asked, here are Dr. Humphreys' references:
Gordeyev, V. V. et al., "The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world"s rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams," Dockl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980) 150.
Hay, W. W., et al., "Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction," Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No B12 (10 December 1988) 14,933-14,940.
Maybeck, M., "Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans," Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979) 215.
Sayles, F. L. and P. C. Mangelsdorf, "Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979) 767.
Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, "The sea"s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists," in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991).
4. Not enough sodium in the sea
The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
5. The earth"s magnetic field is decaying too fast
Your quotation didn't come through very well. Regarding fluctuations: reversals and fluctuations of the earth's magnetic field would not have halted the loss of energy. Using data from the International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) Dr. Humphreys showed that from 1970 to 2000, the dipole part of the field steadily lost 235"5 billion megajoules of energy, while the non-dipole part gained only 129"8 billion megajoules.
6. Many strata are too tightly bent
Since these formations were deeply buried and solidified for (allegedly) hundreds of millions of years before they were bent, the likelihood of hairpin bending without cracking is low. Science works with probability, not against it.
7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic "ages"
This was uncontested.
8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years
I agree this is a complex matter that doesn't fit well in a short debate by non-experts, so as you have, I'll give references. From Humphreys:
Gentry, R. V., "Radioactive halos," Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973) 347-362.
Gentry, R. V. et al., "Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification," Science 194 (15 Oct. 1976) 315-318.
Gentry, R. V., "Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective," Science 184 (5 Apr. 1974) 62-66.
Additional reference:
Snelling, A.A., Radiohalos in granites: evidence for accelerated nuclear decay, in: Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E.F. (Eds), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2005. pp. 101"207.
9. Helium in the wrong places
A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years. (Gentry, R. V. et al., "Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management," Geophys. Res. Lett. 9 (Oct. 1982) 1129-1130)
10. Not enough stone age skeletons 11. Agriculture is too recent 12. History is too short
These were uncontested.
The debate question is about evidence for creationism, which asserts that the earth and the life on it were recently created. So these are relevant points.
The Creation Research Society (CRS) is the oldest of several groups of creation scientists around the world. As with all creationists, they do not receive government or state university funding, but their work is done by credentialed researchers as part of an international effort to develop the creation paradigm.
Creationists build their case on a wide array of evidence. The case for creationism begins with ancient records of the human beings who were far closer to the beginning that we are.
Science does not work in a cultural vacuum. It is incumbent on scientists to be aware of all sources of knowledge.
Debate Round No. 2
Spud

Con

1) So, in essence you just gave up for this point. You have no refutation to offer, you have no objection, you just say that it fails because you say so and that's that. Hint: That's not how debating works mate. Also, "evolutionist" is a silly term; and it doesn't even make sense in this context; we're talking about astrophysics, not biology for this point. So good job. Because you use "evolutionist" for the remainder of your "rebuttal" towards me, I'll just ignore the term from this point forward.

Credentialed creationists. Lol. There's your problem right there. That CRS website is an utter joke bro, and I'd like to recommend you refrain from using that website for any future debates you have. A creationist website is inevitably going to be incorrect; that's just the nature of creationism unfortunately. Whether that be CRS, ICR, AiG, 6000years.org, AllAboutScience or some other obscure creationist website that I have not heard of before, you'd do well to stay well away from them. All you'll find in creationist websites is a compilation of failed arguments thought up by academic puppets who serve as nothing more than cheer-leaders for the creationist cause. That may have been a tad blunt, yes, but I've since learned that creationist sources are never to be trusted. Heck, the website which you have gotten lot of your information from (ICR), is nearly *3 centuries* behind the scientific consensus by claiming that different populations of organisms are different kinds, since Systema Natur" was published in *1735.* And CRS falls into the exact same trap by labelling different populations of organisms as "kinds" (see "Adaptive Genetic Changes by Design: A Look at the DNA Editing by Activation-induced Cytidine Deaminase (AID)" on the CRS website. When your sources are that far behind the scientific consensus, I think you need to get better sources and seriously re-evaluate what type of sources are acceptable to bring forth to a debate. And all you have done here is copy and paste from ICR and CRS. Whilst you at least were upfront with were you got your "information" from, simply copying and pasting a large portion of your arguments from ICR, CMI and apparently CRS, is not meritorious.

Actually, you know what? I think we're done here. As you can tell, this comment is nowhere near finished (probably wouldn't even have the room to finish it in this comment anyways come to think of it), but tell me. Why should I expend my time on this debate when my opponent is taking the easy way out and copying and pasting arguments *verbatim* from creationist sources? A huge portion of your arguments against me are copied and pasted verbatim and I know you copied and pasted your most recent response in point 5 from CMI (http://creation.com...). Until my opponent can actually stop copying and pasting arguments from creationist sources verbatim for all of his arguments, then I see no reason to waste any of my time further. 'Til you decide to take this seriously, have a good day.
rigadoon

Pro

Thanks for your response. I'll reply though it looks as if my opponent is dropping out.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
Since I am not an expert, I relied on the expert testimony of Dr. Humphreys, who is qualified. His 1972 Ph.D. in physics was awarded with a dissertation on cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon"nucleon interactions. Most of his career was with the U.S. Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. His long-time interest in creationism has led to many publications. His cv is online at http://creation.com....
The term "evolutionist" applies to those who promote cosmic evolution as well as those who promote an evolutionary paradigm in other sciences.

2. Comets disintegrate too quickly 3. Not enough mud on the sea floor
4. Not enough sodium in the sea 5. The earth"s magnetic field is decaying too fast
6. Many strata are too tightly bent 7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic "ages"
8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years 9. Helium in the wrong places
10. Not enough stone age skeletons 11. Agriculture is too recent 12. History is too short
There was no response concerning these 11 examples of evidence for creationism.

I would like to add one more piece of evidence: the eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State on May 18, 1980. Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity to study transient geologic processes which produced, within a few months, changes which geologists might otherwise assume required many thousands of years. (Steven A. Austin, Ph.D., Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism, http://www.icr.org...).
This is a key point of creationism: that much evidence has been mis-interpreted and needs to be re-evaluated in light of knowledge from historical sources of catastrophic events.
Dr. Steven A. Austin is a field research geologist with a Ph.D. from Penn State University in sedimentary geology. There are many other creation scientists, fully credentialed and experienced in their fields. Here is a list with links for further information: http://creation.com....

Since the response brought up Linnaeus' Systema Naturae, let me say something about the history of science here. Carolus Linnaeus (1707"1778) introduced the Linnaean taxonomy, which is the basis for the biological taxonomy still used today. In that sense his work is not out of date. Linnaeus was looking to classify organisms into different kinds, as he was convinced on biblical and observational grounds that organisms differ in kind. However, many of the species (Latin for kinds) that he described were different in degree but not in kind, as he realised later in life. This led biologists to a search for a way to separate organisms by degree and kind. But this effort was set aside after Charles Darwin argued that organisms were only different in degree, not in kind. Creationists in the 20th century picked up the search for different kinds of organisms.

Regarding the "scientific consensus": the best response is by author Michael Crichton who gave the Caltech Michelin Lecture on January 17, 2003 (available here: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...). Two quotes:
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled."
"Let"s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Creationists do challenge those who think science is settled. All those whose minds are not closed should consider the claims of creationists seriously.
Debate Round No. 3
Spud

Con

I said until you can stop copying and pasting arguments, then I see no reason to waste any more of my time. I had no intentions of giving up back then. Though, to be fair, I feel like giving up now. know why that is? You have taken me for a simpleton, a complete idiot and I fell right into your trap. I was reading last night and I was about to go to bed. Before I went to sleep, I actually laughed. I started giggling like a school-girl at 1:30 in the morning. And that was because I realised I had just been gish galloped. Now I know what it feels like to be on the receiving end. Even worse, you didn't even respect your opponent enough to gish gallop me with your own arguments. That would be much too hard. Instead you decided to copy and paste every single one of your arguments from ICR or CRS or wherever the heck you got these from. You've made me look like a half-wit because I did not call you out for this when you first copied and pasted that nonsense. And now of course, I cannot respond to all, most or even half of your arguments because you treated your opponent (me) as a complete buffoon. Now I know to actually set up rules before debates to make it so that I'm not taken for an idiot again. And even now you're doing it again, with the Mt. St Helens trash.

Stuff it. You're right; I'm giving up. I'll forfeit my other rounds, and I'll let the voters decide when it comes around to it. Even if you "win" this debate, know that you "won" it by some of the most egregious measures possible. You didn't give respect to your opponent as a debater and inundated me with so many arguments that I do not have the time, effort or even word count to properly address most of them. Even if you won, you won by dirty tactics which any competent debater would not employ, because they have respect for debates and their opponents. You may have been polite in your mannerisms, but you did not respect me as an opponent and you don't even respect the notion of why it is we debate; and that is to learn. So good job mate on your empty win. Thank-you for reminding me the nature of Young Earth Creationism; and that nature is dishonesty. I'll take this loss if the voters feel that I deserve to lose; I really don't care. At least I'll come away from this with my integrity as a debater still intact.
rigadoon

Pro

I have participated in formal debates before and always had sources for my points. Everyone should be free to adopt or quote material as long as their sources are cited. There are online sources my opponent could have used but chose not to.

Let's return to the question that started this debate: "Is there any scientific evidence for creationism?" That was certainly a challenge to present a variety of evidence in favor of creationism. I did that by adopting some online material, which I cited. My opponent started to respond to each point, citing sources as well. Then he stopped arguing about these points and turned to personal attacks.

At this stage it's up to the voters to decide who made the better case. I could have gone on, though I am not expert, and we could have had a more productive debate. Since my opponent refuses to further contest the points I made, they still stand. With that, I rest my case. Thanks for your interest and attention.
Debate Round No. 4
Spud

Con

This is a copy and paste of a post I made in the comments of this debate (with a few alterations here and there).

Upon further retrospection, I won't forfeit each round as I just learned that would mean that I would have to wait 2 days. Instead what I'll do is leave a response here, so that this mess can be done with asap. The more this lingers on, the more irritated I am going to be at myself for my own sub-par performance in this debate by falling into Rigadoon's gish galloping, and the more irritated I am going to be at Rigadoon for the employment and utilisation of such dishonest tactics. So, in order to keep my annoyance down to a bare minimum, this is probably the best way to go. The quicker this debacle can get into the voting period, the better, regardless of if I win or lose. Rigadoon can use the last round to copy and paste more rebarbative tripe if he is inclined, but as for myself, I am at my wits end with this nonsense and refuse to continue any further. This debate has been a learning curve as I forgot just how dishonest YEC tactics can be, though it has been a very frustrating learning curve for me.

I would also like to point out that I did not resort to personal attacks against you; if anything, I made these attacks against myself, by stating that I was an idiot fore falling for your nonsense. The worst I have done is point out that Con utilised an exceptionally dishonest tactic (which you did at the start of this debate), and state that you have no respect for me as an opponent (which you don't), because you utilised this tactic and you didn't even give me the dignity of gish galloping me with your own arguments. Like i pointed out before, you just copied and pasted every single one of your points from a creationist hack of a website, and the poor bugger who has to respond to it (in this case me), cannot even keep up with the number of arguments. Any person who respects their opponents, or even just the concept of debates, doesn't inundate their opponents with arguments which then traps them into not being able to respond to all, or even most of them, due to time constraints, word count and effort.

If voters think I should lose this debate, then that is fine by me. I fell into a trap set up for neophytes and I took the bait, hook, line and sinker. I just think it's a pity that my opponent cannot wrap his head around why gish galloping such as this would make his winning of this debate absolutely meaningless. It also is my hope that Con does not resort do such disgraceful tactics again for future debates, as Con will not learn anything from these debates if he gish gallops his future opponents and takes them for a rigmarole too.
rigadoon

Pro

In order to avoid this debate getting off track, let me remind readers of the original topic: Is there any scientific evidence for creationism? In answering Yes (Pro), I presented twelve instances of such evidence:

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
2. Comets disintegrate too quickly
3. Not enough mud on the sea floor
4. Not enough sodium in the sea
5. The earth"s magnetic field is decaying too fast
6. Many strata are too tightly bent
7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic "ages"
8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years
9. Helium in the wrong places
10. Not enough stone age skeletons
11. Agriculture is too recent
12. History is too short

At this point there is no further response concerning these examples, so they stand as fulfilling the original challenge of the debate.

The personal attacks by my opponent have consisted of ridiculing scientists who support creationism and me for using them as sources. Such ad hominem arguments are well-known fallacies.
Debate Round No. 5
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
And I also screwed up by referring to Rigadoon as "Con" in round 5. Far out, I did badly.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
Some people might look at the comments on here, when it comes time to voting, so I'm putting this here. I cannot even begin to convey just how important it is to remember your basics. I didn't remember the basics, and because I responded to this guy gish galloping all over me, I completely screwed myself, as I did not have the word count to make adequate refutations to him. No matter how long you've been debating for, not matter how confident you are in your abilities to refute nonsensical arguments, do not let your opponent dictate the conversation. If they use logical fallacies, bring them up on it.

Take this debate for instance, because I forgot my basics, Con gish galloped all over me. Subsequently, I ended up looking like an incompetent half-wit who has just been on a roller-coaster joy-ride. If your opponent is going to use dishonest tactics, do not play into their hands by forgetting the basics. If they try and flood you with asinine, nonsensical arguments, take on 3 arguments at a time, ignore the rest, and point out that your opponent just tried to gish gallop you. State to your opponent that you will not let them try and flood you with stupid arguments and that gish galloping is not a tactic which any debater worth their salt, would utilise. This is where I screwed up; Con took me for a fool and an idiot, and I played the part.

I can offer no excuse for my incompetence in this debate. Believe me, I'm kicking myself because I performed so badly XD. What a way to enter the Debate.org community; by making a complete and utter fool of myself.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
Upon further retrospection, I won't forfeit each round as I just learned that would mean that I would have to wait 2 days. Instead what I'll do is comment "forfeiting round" so that this mess can be done with asap. The more this lingers on, the more irritated I am going to be at myself for my own sub-par performance in this debate by falling into Rigadoon's gish galloping, and the more irritated I am going to be at Rigadoon for the employment and utilisation of such dishonest tactics. So, in order to keep my annoyance down to a bare minimum, this is probably the best way to go. The quicker this debacle can get into the voting period, the better, regardless of if I win or lose. Rigadoon can use the remainder of the rounds to copy and paste more rebarbative tripe if he is inclined, but as for myself, I am at my wits end with this nonsense and refuse to continue any further.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
@Ozzz169 Lol, so it is claiming that? You have got to be kidding right? And have a good day to you. Must admit though; it's funny being called a "zealot" when I'm simply calling you out for spreading utter nonsense about science.
Posted by Ozzz169 1 year ago
Ozzz169
Have a good one. Your like talking to a wall. But, this is common with zealots of all stripes.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
@Ozzz169 Please tell me that second book isn't arguing that the Higgs Boson is fake.
Posted by Ozzz169 1 year ago
Ozzz169
Nobel Dreams - Taubes
Higgs Fake - Unzicker
Constructing Quarks - Pickering

Just to name a couple books off the top of my head, there are many more.

I think you misunderstand what skepticism is, If you tell me a theory and I say ok... but this and this and this don't make sense, then its not my job to prove it wrong, I don't have to prove they are wrong. I can point out the major problems and its the person putting forth the argument to overcome the skeptics objections.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
@Ozzz169 Once again, you are asserting yourself with no backing whatsoever. You have not explained why positing hypothetical particles is wrong; you have just asserted it so, and you have not even given an explanation as to what scientists are supposed to do if they cannot posit new explanations for natural interactions.
Posted by Ozzz169 1 year ago
Ozzz169
I use to believe everything I heard from the "experts" it didn't make any sense at all, but I believed it. I am a chemical engineer, so I think I am capable of understanding complex math and science. but the standard model was always counter logical, and when you learn more about it it gets worse and worse. So if they are right, nature is a cruel joke. The story they tell reads like a good science fiction novel though and is very engrossing, and I have no question most of them believe it, which is no difference than a fundamental religious person believing without a doubt in God. The problem is we are on 3rd generation now, and they have all been taught that this is the truth, the standard model has become God.

I do predict this charade will go on for many many years and you will not see theoretical physics contribute anything useful to the real world (because its way off base and will not correct in the near future, but the rumblings are starting, and maybe we will get lucky), and they will continue to extort money from the public for many years to come... just like the "climate scientist". Progress will all be done by the electrical engineers and the chemists/chemE's, they have a better understanding of the universe and can actually apply it to new technology.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
HAHAHAHA. Even with my mistake it turns out that Pro copied and pasted from point 5 from CMI too. Far out.
No votes have been placed for this debate.