The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
The Contender
Lois_gray
Con (against)

(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con).

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Lois_gray has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 398 times Debate No: 98846
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con)

I will take the atheist evolution point of view, my opponent the Christian creationism side.

Common defintions are assumed unless otherwise argued and agreed upon. Definition of Creationism via wikipedia.


"Creationism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Creationism" can also refer to creation myths, or to a concept about the origin of the soul. Creation science refers to the pseudoscientific movement in the United States.[1]

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation,"[2][3] as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes.[4] The first use of the term "creationist" to describe a proponent of creationism is found in an 1856 letter of Charles Darwin describing those who objected on religious grounds to the emerging science of evolution.[5]

Creationists base their beliefs on a literal reading of religious texts, including the biblical Genesis creation myth and Islamic mythology from the Quran.[6][7][8] For young Earth creationists, this includes a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and the rejection of the scientific theory of evolution.[9] Literalist creationists believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth.[8] Pseudoscientific branches of creationism include creation science,[10] flood geology,[11] and intelligent design,[12][13] as well as subsets of pseudoarchaeology,[14][15] pseudohistory, and even pseudolinguistics.[16]"

"(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." [1]


Structure
R1 Acceptance & definitions
R2 Arguments
R3 Rebuttals
R4 Defense


Burden of proof
Burden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am the instigator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof.

Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon.

Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person' argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case.

Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws.

Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round three in response to my opponents round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect.

Thank you in advance for accepting the debate.

My opponent must take a literal Christian approach to creationism. This is because, I don't want to have to hit a moving target between different versions of creationism, Islam, metaphorical Christian, Hindu, and deism.

Previous debate [2], feel free to use it for reference and to anticpate my argument.



Sources.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org...
1. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
2. http://www.debate.org...
Lois_gray

Con

I will gladly accept this challenge

~Although not Christian myself , I will use a Christian approach to argue for creationism.

I'm an atheist- however, I believe this would help me for my upcoming exams in philosophy. So, I thank Pro for this opportunity.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

R2 Arguments

Evolution is scientific because it meets the following three criteria. Evolution can be falsified, tested, and observed.

""With respect to the fossil record, evolutionary hypotheses are routinely tested as new fossil data are collected and matching that data against hypotheses about evolutionary relationships." [3]

"But decades ago, theorists also proposed that a new species could evolve without any such changes, but instead simply as a result of large DNA strands' moving from one chromosome to another within a genome, a change known as a chromosomal rearrangement.While the theory sounded promising, since such rearrangements can be quite common, it eventually waned in popularity, in part because scientists had no way of testing it.Now in a slick feat of molecular maneuvering, a team of researchers has reorganized huge portions of one yeast species' chromosomes, rendering its chromosomal map identical to that of a closely related species, just as it was once, in the distant past. " [3]"

"evolution can be observed via natural selection. [4] Evolution can also be observed in the lab. The most notable is drug resistant pathogens becoming dominant via natural selection.[5] "

"Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory:

If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species. " [6]

Therefore, I have proven that the theory of evolution passes three test of being scientific, can be falsified, observed, and tested. The same cannot be said of Creationism. We cannot observe nor test Creationism.

"""20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money." [7]

"“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;” " [8]""


Jesus Christ cannot be God because he cannot be the source of all moral authority due to condoning slavery and beating of slaves. Therefore, I conclude that Christian Creationism is disproved. Thank you for your time and energy reading this debate.

Sources
3. http://www2.ljworld.com...
4. http://atheism.about.com...
5. http://listverse.com...
6. http://rationalwiki.org...
7. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
8. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
Lois_gray

Con

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse." [Romans 1:19-21]

"We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; and this being we call God" -Thomas Aquinas ~Summa Theologica, Article 3, Question 2

We can indeed use our five senses to analyse the existence of divine design.

"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there." [1]
"Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.
If we take the well-known, William Paley's "watch maker argument" it can be understood that for this world to be working so that it is not absolute chaos, similarly to a watch, there must be a designer" [2]

By taking Paley's watch analogy, we can understand that such complexity requires a designer, You can take anything in front of you and ask 'how is this here?' as you would well know, it did not just suddenly appear in front of you, it would first have required to be designed for it to fulfill it's purpose, for it to even exist.

we can take a step further to look at the Cosmological argument.
Cosmos; the world or universe as a well-ordered system.
Necessary being; a being in which is essential, unique & special. it does not depend on anything else to exist/be true, to deny it, it would be contradiction. it COULD NOT be false. e.g. 1+2=3
contingent being; relies on something else- depends on something else for its existence or truth. it COULD be false. e.g. if you sunbathe without sun protector, you will get sun burnt.

basics of the cosmological argument (summed up); The argument is based on the claim that everything existing in the universe exists because it was caused by something else; that 'something' was itself also caused by something else. However, it is necessary for something to have started this all off- something that did not and was not itself caused/created, that 'something' is God.
"In the case of the argument from contingency, the distinction drawn between the universe and God is that the existence of the universe is contingent, i.e. that the universe could have not existed. Everything that exists contingently, the argument from contingency claims, has a cause of its existence. As the universe is contingent, then, the universe has a cause of its existence, and that cause is God." [4]

We can agree that everything around us is indeed contingent. we can also conclude that the universe is contingent, i.e. the big bang caused our universe as it is today. There must be a necessary cause in which began the chain of causes.
[see 4]

One can ask, if God is an uncaused cause, why can't the universe itself be uncaused?
The answer to this is God's nature. [see ontological argument below]
We naturally know of god's nature
" It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), "the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the existence of God is self-evident." [3]

Moving on to the ontological argument,
This argument does not start from some feature of the world (e.g. design) but rather from a definition of God. It therefore seeks to move from a definition of God to the reality of God. It was put forward by St Anselm. Kant was considered to have demolished it but the argument ha recently generated new interest.

proving god deductively
P1: God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived
P2: That than which nothing greater can be conceived must exist
C: God must exist
~in this context God's existence is held to be logically necessary, i.e. God cannot not exist.
[5]
Alvin Plantinga gives an example of such an argument;
"Either God exists or 7+5=14
therefore God exists" [5]

proving God inductively;
P1: all events require a cause
P2: The universe is an event
C: God is the cause of the universe
~ In this context God's existence is held to be highly probable as the best explanation of the universe.
[7]
~we can claim that scientific explanations of the universe are simply theories, therefore, we can understand the explanation of the universe through God; is in balance with the explanation of the universe through science.

God was the beginning of a chain of events, making the universe and all beings as it is today. Thus i have proved that the existence of a God can be proved using our 5 senses.

You claim "Jesus cannot be God because he cannot be the source of all moral authority"

First, i would like to point out that we are not even sure or clear if Jesus was or was not the messiah. [8]
Jesus sometimes claims to be the messiah, and sometimes denies being the messiah. He also did not live up to the prophesies. (amongst other reasons- see source 8)

We also need to understand that Biblical times were very different to our modern day society. Jesus was born as a human being and so grew up in this environment, he would have learnt his morals from that day and age, not as the world is today. There is not much that one man can do in order to stop slavery everywhere. Especially since the Roman empire ruled at this point in time. Going against the emperor would result in severe punishments. Jesus already has enough publicity.

Also, I would like to point out that you have misinterpreted """"20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished." This quote is saying If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished.
we should be careful not to take the bible out of context; "5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear and sincerity of heart, just as you would show to Christ. 6And do this not only to please them while they are watching, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve with good will, as to the Lord and not to men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, do the same for your slaves. Give up your use of threats, because you know that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with Him." (Timothy 6:1-2)

sources;
1~ http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
2~http://www.pantheism.net...
3~ http://www.newadvent.org...
4~ http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...
5~ https://www.uky.edu...
6~ http://www.csus.edu...
7~ http://commonsenseatheism.com...
8~http://www.shamash.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Round three rebuttals


"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse." [Romans 1:19-21]" Lois_gray

First, my opponent has used the Bible as a source. First, the Bible is not a trustworthy source due to self-promotion, think of why a defendant hires a lawyer in lieu of defending him/herself. Second, the Bible has many contradictions, up to 1001.

"1001 CONTRADICTIONS & DISCREPANCIES
in the CHRISTIAN BIBLES" [9]

A good example is that Christianity claims monotheism, when in fact it is a polytheistic religion. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. That's three Gods, not one.

The over reliance on physical impossibilities and and all miracles fitting into ad hoc fallacies. The ambiguity of the Bible, the Lord works in mysterious ways. The sheer number of translations and possible mistranslations and forgeries. Second, there are alternative explanations to how the universe came to be as it is today.


""We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; and this being we call God" -Thomas Aquinas ~Summa Theologica, Article 3, Question 2" Lois_gray

This could be attributed to instincts and information stored with DNA.


"We can indeed use our five senses to analyse the existence of divine design." Lois_gray

You have not provided any proof that this is divine design, there are alternative explanations that are more rational.


""In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there." [1]
"Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.
If we take the well-known, William Paley's "watch maker argument" it can be understood that for this world to be working so that it is not absolute chaos, similarly to a watch, there must be a designer" [2]

By taking Paley's watch analogy, we can understand that such complexity requires a designer, You can take anything in front of you and ask 'how is this here?' as you would well know, it did not just suddenly appear in front of you, it would first have required to be designed for it to fulfill it's purpose, for it to even exist." Lois_Gray

This a word puzzles little different than that of Zeno's Paradox of the Tortoise and Achilles. [9] Btw, Achilles catches the tortoise. I may not be able to personally prove Paley's watch analogy wrong, but I do know that it is either wrong or provides very weak evidence for the existence of God. I could also make a word puzzle that claims God doesn't exist.


"Cosmological argument" Lois_Gray

Another word puzzle. See above.


"ontological argument" Lois_Gray

Ditto as above.


"P2: That than which nothing greater can be conceived must exist" Lois_Gray

There is no logical reason to believe the above is true.


"Alvin Plantinga gives an example of such an argument;
"Either God exists or 7+5=14
therefore God exists" [5]" Lois_Gray


This makes no sense. Why would mathematics be dependent upon God's existence?


"C: God is the cause of the universe" Lois_Gray

God leads to the problem of infinite regressions. A creator is inherently more complex than the creation. There are alternative explanations like the Multi-verse theory. [10]


"~we can claim that scientific explanations of the universe are simply theories, therefore, we can understand the explanation of the universe through God; is in balance with the explanation of the universe through science." Lois_Gray

While it is true that we can look through the Christian lens or the scientific lens, one is much more probable, more rational, and logical, that is science.


"God was the beginning of a chain of events, making the universe and all beings as it is today. Thus i have proved that the existence of a God can be proved using our 5 senses." Lois_Gray

Simply stating "God did it" is a non-answer that creates more questions than answers including infinite regressions.


"You claim "Jesus cannot be God because he cannot be the source of all moral authority"" Lois_Gray

My opponent has violated the round structure by making a rebuttal in round two, which should have been saved for round three. I will respond to this in round four.

"Also, I would like to point out that you have misinterpreted """"20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished." " Lois_Gray

My opponent has violated the round structure again.

"Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person' argument. " stupidape round one.

Thanks for debating.


Sources.
9. http://platonicrealms.com...
10. http://www.space.com...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 9 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Evolution is false
1. Name the sentient animal created by evolutionists during experimentation:

Answer #1 here:__________________________________.

2: Must have EVOLVED from microbe to a sentient living air breathing, crawling, walking, flying ,egg producing, reproductive animal :

Answer #2 here:__________________________________.

.... because Sentient creatures ARE the recognized Life on earth. Otherwise it's a bacteria, and while they may be a form of life, not a single example of one ever becoming a creature sentient OR otherwise exists in the History of Science.

Medical Definition of Microbe
Microbe: A minute organism typically visible under a microscope. Microbes include bacteria, fungi, and protozoan parasites.

Not excuses please.

3. Name the scientist and the experiment that SUCCESSFULLY produced that specific sentient Life form.

Answer #3 here:__________________________________.

4. Name a single animal that changed from one species to a completely different species in history that IS 100% proveable!

Answer #4 here:__________________________________.

Like dog to fish, bird to lizard, elephant to flea, ape to Man, pig to dog, must be 100% factual OR it CANNOT BE CALLED TRUE as defined by dictionary.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
FollowerofChrist1955 challenge me to a debate on evolution. Also, have you read Bill Nye's evolution undeniable?

https://www.goodreads.com...
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Better review this debate;
Atheism- A lost reality! A hopeless, helpless cause!
Hell, Who will go there, and Why?

Evolution- completely false, proven false by experimentation by scientist no less! They did however prove life COULD NOT have evolved naturally so that is to their credit.

Easily provable!

Name for the world, just 1 bacteria or microbe that evolved into a living, air-breathing, mammal, insect, fish, crustacean, by evolutionary experimentation? or under any circumstance for that fact? Let alone evolving into 8 million distinctly different species.

If it couldn't become one not gonna become 8 million distinctly differnt species is it! Are we learning yet?
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Your round two argument is long, taking a while to fully refute it.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 1 year ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Your definition of Creationism is overloaded. If you just have it as:

"The belief that the Christian God created the universe and life."

I will accept.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.