The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
The Contender
thomas302
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
thomas302 has forfeited round #1.
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: 1/11/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 401 times Debate No: 98860
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
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 definitions 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, don't respond to opponent's arguments yet.
R3 Rebuttals respond directly to opponent's round two.
R4 Defense respond directly to opponenet's round three.


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...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
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
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by David_Debates 1 year ago
David_Debates
I would accept, but your definition of creationism is that it is a myth. I don't think anyone would accept here.
Posted by NothingSpecial99 1 year ago
NothingSpecial99
You should probably define atheistic evolution
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Just for the fun of it...What chemicals made a god ?
https://www.youtube.com...
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
No god = No creationism....
This debate has 6 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.