The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheArtist
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con)

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: 12/27/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 676 times Debate No: 98292
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
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]"


Definition of God

"(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...
TheArtist

Con

Hi, I accept this debate and the defined structure. I will be taking the Christian creationist position. Please state your opening arguments in Round two, and I will follow with mine. Looking forward to this debate.
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...
TheArtist

Con

I believe that the universe and the world and everything in it was created by the almighty God of the Christian Bible. However, for any belief to be rational, there needs to be reasonable evidence.

The Bible mentions that creation itself is evidence of God (Psalm 19:1-6, Romans 1:19,20).

Below I will list just some of the reasonable evidence for the belief that God exists and that He created the universe.

The facts below point to a Creator of the universe:
  • The law of thermodynamics (Physics)
    • First Law: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another [1]. If energy cannot be created, the universe could not have created itself or come into existence by itself. All energy in the universe had to be put there in the beginning. The Bible give a clear indication that God did it.
    • Second Law: The entropy of any isolated system always increases. Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium [1]. Objects in the universe are constantly burning out and cooling down, eventually all stars will burn out, including our sun. The stars have not yet burnt out and we're slowly moving towards a point where they will be burnt out. Thus there is a beginning to the universe and it is moving towards and end, and thus the universe is finite. It had to be created by a being greater than the universe itself.
  • Radioactive Decay: All radioactive elements decay and ultimately become lead [2]. This shows again that there was a starting point to the universe as radioactive elements are still decaying from a certain starting point. A supreme being had to put the initial amounts of radioactive elements there to begin with.
  • The law of causality: Considered to be fundamental to all natural science and it states that every effect has a cause [3]. Since matter and energy cannot cause itself into existence, there had to be a greater cause for its existence, which again points to a very powerful and eternal God.

What does all this show? The laws of physics shows that the universe could not have created itself (that it could not have come from nothing) and that it is not infinite i.e. it had a beginning. If it had a beginning and could not have come from nothing or itself, then it is perfectly reasonable to believe that God, who is almighty and infinite created it. Why would I come to that conclusion and not assume that something else defied the known laws of physics and science to create the world? The Bible says He created everything and the Bible itself provides very reasonable evidence that it is truthful, correct, internally consistent and historically accurate.

Some reasonable doubts that living things came about by itself, without a divine Creator i.e. God:

  • Male and female counterparts to most living species. Did the male form evolve by itself and the female by itself? It would seem much more convenient if mating rituals, wooing, courtship etc. was out of the equation and all living things had only one gender. Why would a system based on survival of the fittest have opted for such a complex convention? Why do plants rely on wind, bees and other animals to pollinate if it would be better that they could pollinate themselves? God intended it this way (Genesis 1:27)
  • Animals and humans dying of old age. Why is there an expiry date built in for all living things if the goal for all living things is to survive and thrive? Probably the most obvious attribute I would identify as being an effective element in preserving a certain species is to make them live much longer and procreate as much as possible in its long lifetime, instead of being pre-programmed to get old, weak and eventually die.
  • Irreducible complexity [4]. A spider, for example, has a gland filled with poison and specifically designed poison ducts that allow the poison to move from the poison gland to the fangs, and into its prey [5]. If its poison developed first, the spider would die from its own poison. If the poison gland developed first, how many generations would it take before the poison developed within the gland to justify the gland and the poison ducts and the mechanism behind the way the spider squeezes the venom into its prey? Spiders would have to carry these precise mechanisms, which are useless them, for countless generations while it awaits a complex venom to develop.

Have a blessed new year.

Sources:
1: https://www.boundless.com...
2: http://www.ccnr.org...
3: https://en.wikipedia.org...(physics)
4: http://www.ideacenter.org...
5: http://animals.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Round three rebuttals


"I believe that the universe and the world and everything in it was created by the almighty God of the Christian Bible. However, for any belief to be rational, there needs to be reasonable evidence. " TheArtist


This seems like an oxymoron to me. A belief by its very nature is irrational. Unless, you are thinking of a different definition

Belief "3. religious faith" [9]


Religious faith is irrational, since we have no way of knowing whether God exists or not. In fact, some call religion and conspiracy theories one in the same. Both have a person believe in something that is extremely unlikely to exist. Otherwise the conspiracy theory would be proven, and thus no longer a theory.


"As the names indicate, patternicity refers to seeing meaningful patterns in meaningless noise." [10]

"The first mistake is what’s called a ‘Type 1’ or false-positive error; the second one is a ‘Type 2’ or a false-negative error. Humans seem more prone to committing false positive errors because the cost of (literally) living with those errors is often less than the cost of (literally) dying from the false negatives. " [10]


As you can see from an evolution point of view, humans are programmed to believe in conspiracy theories, ghosts, aliens, and religion. A person who commits too many false negative errors is more likely to be selected out of the gene pool as opposed to someone who commits too many false positive errors.

Think about it, what is the cost of believing in some ridiculous conspiracy theory. Pick the least probable conspiracy theory. How much cost is there to believe in that theory? Very little. Now compare that to the off chance that theory is true. Remember, conspiracy theories are occasionally proven true. Let's say a friend had the notion that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer back in the 40s.

That person would be considered a crazy, a nut job, and so forth. Nevertheless, if you listened to that person, your chances of dying from lung cancer would be significantly less. This is because the conspiracy was true, the tobacco industry was conspiring against the public, this conspiracy theory was proven.

Yet, this is the exception. Most conspiracy theories never get close to be proven, and despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, the dis-proven theory persist in the publics' mind.

This is a long winded way of stating that religious faith is an irrational conspiracy theory and thus, my opponent has stated an oxymoron.


"Below I will list just some of the reasonable evidence for the belief that God exists and that He created the universe.

The facts below point to a Creator of the universe:

The law of thermodynamics (Physics)
First Law: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another [1]. If energy cannot be created, the universe could not have created itself or come into existence by itself. All energy in the universe had to be put there in the beginning. The Bible give a clear indication that God did it." theArtist


I contest that this evidence is reasonable. The multi-verse theory can explain how the universe began. [11] Coming from another universe. Also, the Bible does state God, but is that answer correct? There is no way to observe God or test God or falsify the God hypothesis. How did God come into existence any how?

Simply stating God performed action x is a non-answer. Where did God come from? How was God created? How do you get past the infinite regressions problem, the creator must be more complex than the creation? The answer of God, is an answer that creates more questions than answers.


"It had to be created by a being greater than the universe itself." TheArtist


Again, the multi-verse theory. "And in some of these bubble universes, the laws of physics and fundamental constants might be different than in ours, making some universes strange places indeed."[11]


Next, at the beginning of the universe the law of thermodynamics might not be applicable.


"A supreme being had to put the initial amounts of radioactive elements there to begin with." TheArtist


You have no evidence of this supreme being. Furthermore, the Big Bang Theory explains how the elements got where they are.


"The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today." [12]


"Since matter and energy cannot cause itself into existence, there had to be a greater cause for its existence, which again points to a very powerful and eternal God." TheArtist


Again, multi-verse theory. [11]


"The Bible says He created everything and the Bible itself provides very reasonable evidence that it is truthful, correct, internally consistent and historically accurate." TheArtist


There are 1001 Bible contradictions. [13] There is no evidence for Noah's flood. Jonah surviving three days and three nights within the belly of a great fish seems very improbable. Then, there is the issue of translations, mistranslations, and forgeries. [14] The Bible in its current state claims the Earth is 6,000 years old, Flat, and the solar system is geocentric.


"Male and female counterparts to most living species." TheArtist


Sexual reproductions occurs in a large percentage of single celled organisms.


"Animals and humans dying of old age." TheArtist


This is probably why a large percentage of people convert to religion, the fear of death. Yet, historically many snake oil salesmen and charlatans have made a pretty penny selling false hope. Just as Christian missionaries still sell false hope today. Evolutionary speaking, old age makes sense. If there was no expiration date, the gene pool would likely stagnant and pathogens would infect and kill the immortal.


" A spider, for example, has a gland filled with poison and specifically designed poison ducts that allow the poison to move from the poison gland to the fangs, and into its prey [5]. If its poison developed first, the spider would die from its own poison." TheArtist


The same question has been phrased in many different ways by creationists. How would a wing develop? Wouldn't the half formed wing be useless. The answer is no, no it wouldn't. Think of a person would only four fingers, he/she could still use those fingers. Same with three, two, even one finger would be useful.

Now lets reduce further, an arm and wrist without a hand. That would still be purposeful. Could be used to hold down a tree branch while the other hand picks fruit. Even half an arm could be used, and so forth. Perhaps the gland had another use, like storing toxins, but didn't produce any toxins.

The ducts could be use to transport other substances than the poison. Most likely the poison developed last. Another explanation is the gland was a gill or sorts, to help the spider breathe under water. Often, it is difficult to isolate the exact transitional purpose, but rest assure, natural selection would force the half formed system to have a use.


Thanks for debating.

Sources
9. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
10. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...
11. http://www.space.com...
12. http://science.howstuffworks.com...
13. http://www.1001biblecontradictions.com...
14. https://goddidntsaythat.com...
TheArtist

Con

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]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fossil record, however, is quite incomplete...

...Important links in the fossil record also remain unaccounted for, such as the ancient last common ancestors connecting entire phyla. Research into the fossilization process continues to illuminate just how much of the record we're missing...

...So, taken on its own, the fossil record is considerably lacking in many areas...” [1].

How is the fossil record a test for evolution when we see such large gaps? A leap of faith is required to fill these gaps and believe that living things evolved from one type of animal to another. These gaps show how unique and distinct all types of animals are and that they have not evolved from one to the other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...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]"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This slick feat of molecular maneuvering is not an example of evolution. Please refer to [2]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"evolution can be observed via natural selection. [4].

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are no references to any scientific studies or facts in this article. What is claimed here is purely the writer's opinion. As for natural selection, species can change according to their environments, but limited in scope to their pre-existing genetic pool. Natural selection means selecting something from a pre-existing set, not changing it, it should have been called natural invention. Mutations have been used as “proof” for natural invention, but creatures that have mutated have all been worse off in nature.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"This is the same experiment in which an E. coli population produced the ability to utilize citrate under aerobic conditions, which it couldn't’t before. This was widely hailed as an example of ‘evolution’, but it actually involved a breakdown in regulation, which increased citrate­utilizing biochemistry that was already present in the bacteria" [3]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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.
...

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in claiming that evolution is scientific as per your given definition, the assumption is made that what is being tested, observed and falsified IS in fact evolution, but my responses show that the outcomes of the observations and tests are not proof of evolution so it can not be scientific.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"""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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a difficult topic indeed and I probably do not have the best answer. I believe slavery in biblical times were not the same as in more recent times in many respects. Thus we have to look at what slavery was like in biblical times before casting judgement on it. As per Leviticus 25:47-49:47, people sold themselves as slaves to avoid destitution (but they could redeem themselves as well). A slave could have a better life under the roof of his owner rather than dying of hunger, being executed for crimes committed etc.. Where does the Bible condone slavery? It defines rules against mistreatment of slaves (Exodus 21:26-27, Colossians 4:1)

In contrast to what God commanded, other cultures at the time would do whatever they wished with their slaves as slaves were not seen as human beings. The bible mentions that they are human beings and God sees them as being perfectly equal to their masters (see below).

How slaves were to be treated according to the Bible:

  • The death sentence for kidnapping someone (human trafficking): Exodus 21:16

  • A slave who was harmed, shall be set free: Exodus 21:26-27

  • Do not harm a slave that has escaped or return him to his master but let him be: Deuteronomy 23:15-16

  • Treat a slave with respect and fairness, as we are all equal in the eyes of God, whether we are slaves or masters, man or woman or from any race: Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:11, Colossians 4:1, Galatians 3:28

  • A slave could be redeemed by his family or himself: Leviticus 25:47-49:47

  • Abraham's servant was part of his household and was in charge of all his belongings: Genesis 24:2

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the discussion so far.

References:

1 http://science.howstuffworks.com...

2 http://creation.com...

3 https://creation.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Pro

Round 4 Defense


"“The fossil record, however, is quite incomplete...

...Important links in the fossil record also remain unaccounted for, such as the ancient last common ancestors connecting entire phyla. Research into the fossilization process continues to illuminate just how much of the record we're missing...

...So, taken on its own, the fossil record is considerably lacking in many areas...” [1].

How is the fossil record a test for evolution when we see such large gaps? A leap of faith is required to fill these gaps and believe that living things evolved from one type of animal to another. These gaps show how unique and distinct all types of animals are and that they have not evolved from one to the other." TheArtist


"So, taken on its own, the fossil record is considerably lacking in many areas. Yet like fingerprints at a crime scene, it's just one piece of the puzzle. Fossils, cladistic and molecular sequencing work together to form a larger picture that correctly documents the evolution of life " [15]


There are other forms of evidence including cladistic and molecular sequencing.


" the absence of barking is at least weak evidence that the noises were caused by something other than the dog." [16]

While your argument is correct, that the fossil record is incomplete, it is weak evidence.


"This slick feat of molecular maneuvering is not an example of evolution. Please refer to [2]" TheArtist


You claim there is evidence within your link. Since it is more difficult to prove a negative than a positive and burden of proof it to be equally shared, my opponent has tried to put an unfair burden on me. My opponent wants me to prove there is no evidence within the link. I will not attempt to prove a negative, my opponent should have quoted and explained how the link was relevant thus meeting his/her burden of proof.


"Burden of proof
Burden of proof will be shared equally." Stupidape round one.


"There are no references to any scientific studies or facts in this article. What is claimed here is purely the writer's opinion. As for natural selection, species can change according to their environments, but limited in scope to their pre-existing genetic pool. Natural selection means selecting something from a pre-existing set, not changing it, it should have been called natural invention. Mutations have been used as “proof” for natural invention, but creatures that have mutated have all been worse off in nature." TheArtist

Natural selection is the process in which a mutation either A. Is advantageous and thus the non-mutated organisms are naturally selected out or the mutation is B. disadvantageous in which case the mutated organism is selected out. The end result is that the more fit to survive organisms survive and the others are selected out.

"Natural selection

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.

Darwin's grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood. To find out how it works, imagine a population of beetles:

There is variation in traits.
For example, some beetles are green and some are brown." [17]


"End result:
The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown." [17]

"but creatures that have mutated have all been worse off in nature." TheArtist


That is patently false. As seen above the brown beetles have an advantage over the green beetles. [17]


""This is the same experiment in which an E. coli population produced the ability to utilize citrate under aerobic conditions, which it couldn't’t before. This was widely hailed as an example of ‘evolution’, but it actually involved a breakdown in regulation, which increased citrate­utilizing biochemistry that was already present in the bacteria" [3]" TheArtist


This seems like an ad hoc fallacy. Evolution has been observed many times between super pests, super weeds, super bugs. All of which have resistance to drugs used to kill them, herbicides, pesticides, and antibiotics respectively.

"Description: Very often we desperately want to be right and hold on to certain beliefs, despite any evidence presented to the contrary. As a result, we begin to make up excuses as to why our belief could still be true, and is still true, despite the fact that we have no real evidence for what we are making up." [18]

"Herbicide-Resistant 'Super Weeds' Increasingly Plaguing Farmers " [19]

"Fears of GM super-pests" [20]

"But First: What's a Superbug?

It's a term coined by the media to describe bacteria that cannot be killed using multiple antibiotics. "It resonates because it's scary," says Stephen Calderwood, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. "But in fairness, there is no real definition."

Instead, doctors often use phrases like "multidrug-resistant bacteria." That's because a superbug isn't necessarily resistant to all antibiotics. It refers to bacteria that can't be treated using two or more, says Brian K. Coombes, PhD, of McMaster University in Ontario.

Any species of bacteria can turn into a superbug." [21]


"So in claiming that evolution is scientific as per your given definition, the assumption is made that what is being tested, observed and falsified IS in fact evolution, but my responses show that the outcomes of the observations and tests are not proof of evolution so it can not be scientific." TheArtist


Evolution can be falsified not is falsified. It is very easy to claim you falsified evolution, very difficult to prove you have falsified evolution. Otherwise, there would be scientifically peer reviewed journals reporting, "evolution has been falsified."

I beg to differ that you have shown that evolution is not scientific. Even if I argued badly, this doesn't mean I am incorrect.

I don't have enough characters to quote you about slavery. I will respond anyways. The problem with quoting religious scriptures, including the Bible, is that there are many contradictions. Therefore, if you want to make the claim that God allows Christians to be brutal to slaves, there is evidence for that. Simultaneously, there is evidence that slaves should be treated with respect and kindness.

These contradictions within themselves are puzzling. My opponent has made a new argument against Christian creationism by introducing these contradictions.


Sources.
15. http://science.howstuffworks.com...
16. http://rationalwiki.org...
17. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
18. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
19. http://www.usnews.com...
20. http://news.bbc.co.uk...
21. http://www.webmd.com...
TheArtist

Con

Stupidape: “ A belief by its very nature is irrational”

Do you believe this statement? If you do, you would be irrational too as the statement itself claims that beliefs are irrational – a circular argument. These types of statements are often used as a clever ploy to discredit or make the belief in God look foolish or nonsensical when often the statements themselves are nonsensical.

Stupidape: “This is a long winded way of stating that religious faith is an irrational conspiracy theory and thus, my opponent has stated an oxymoron.”

I'm not exactly sure what the point was here but let's say for a moment that faith in Jesus Christ is a conspiracy theory and someone believes in Him, what is the worst that could happen to them? Christ's burden is light and as many have realised, living according to His guidelines improves life on earth. If someone dies after having accepted Christ, they get saved and go to heaven. Off coarse, we have autonomy and can make our own decisions so no one is forced into believing in Him.

Stupidape: “I contest that this evidence is reasonable. The multi-verse theory can explain how the universe began. Coming from another universe. Also, the Bible does state God, but is that answer correct? There is no way to observe God or test God or falsify the God hypothesis. How did God come into existence any how?”

Do you contest to the idea that the most fundamental known laws of physics gives reasonable evidence? And substitute a theory of multiple universes which cannot be seen by us even with instruments, or tested in any way, or proven in any way since it lives in other dimensions and does not conform to our laws of physics?


Stupidape:
"And in some of these bubble universes, the laws of physics and fundamental constants might be different than in ours, making some universes strange places indeed."

Again, there is absolutely no proof of this at all since we cannot see, test these hypotheses, or sense these universes as they would not conform to our laws of physics and are not detectable by us.


Stupidape: “Next, at the beginning of the universe the law of thermodynamics might not be applicable.”

This is purely speculation as we have no way of testing this. It would be against our fundamental understanding of physicals.

Stupidape: "The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today."

From the same article you referenced: “Eventually, you can't make any scientific theories about what is happening, because science itself doesn't apply” So this theory is not scientific after all. I thought evolutionists are basing everything on science? Apparently not.


Stupidape: “Again, multi-verse theory.”

How did the multi universes cause themselves into existence? This is simply moving the initial cause to some other universe that, in turn also needed a cause to exist.

Stupidape: “There are 1001 Bible contradictions. There is no evidence for Noah's flood. Jonah surviving three days and three nights within the belly of a great fish seems very improbable. Then, there is the issue of translations, mistranslations, and forgeries...”

Regarding the claimed 1001 contractions in the Bible from your link, it took me 10 minutes to see that the first 4 aren't contradictions, I don't have much confidence in the rest, I did not cherry pick either as I just took the first 4 in order. Obviously I won't have time to go through all 1001.
1: Regarding the passages used in this “contradiction”; they are from non-biblical origin – the book of Wisdom. "Protestant churches generally consider it to be non-canonical (apocryphal), and thus not Biblical "scripture"" [1]

2: Elohim and Jehovah is one and the same. The Lord and God is the same. No contradiction

3: Again, God is the same as Jesus Christ is the same as The Lord. They are one and the same God. The Bible clearly teaches this.

4: “Heaven was reserved, planned, and prepared in the mind of God when the earth was created. The divisions of heaven and earth were established at that time. In John, Christ specifically references mansions WITHIN heaven that He is even now preparing specifically for each of His followers. “ If you read the verses in context, it makes sense that it isn't a contradiction [2]. Also, there are many clarifications available to refute the claimed contradictions, this one seems to be directed to the 1001 you are referring to: [3]. Some claim that the gospels contain contradictions as well and they point to insignificant things such as word order, but this only affirms the truth that the gospels were indeed different accounts written by different people, if they were exactly the same in every respect, it would show that the one copied from the other.

See: the startling evidence for Noah's flood [4]


Stupidape: Then the “issue of translations, mistranslations and forgeries”.

Problems here are very quickly discovered and dismissed as they do not conform to the many thousands of manuscripts available. To get some idea of what is available:

“There are over 6,000 early manuscript copies or portions of the Greek New Testament in existence today. When we include the Latin Vulgate and other early versions, we have over 24,000 early copies or portions of the New Testament (twice that many when including quotes by early church fathers). Some of these date only twenty to thirty years from the original autographs. By comparison, of works by Plato and Aristotle very few copies exist at all, and those were written 1,200 to 1,400 years after the autographs” [5]


Stupidape: Sexual reproductions occurs in a large percentage of single celled organisms.”

Single celled organisms are genderless so they do not do much, if anything to attempt to explain how two different sexes supposedly evolved alongside each other.


Stupidape: “Now lets reduce further, an arm and wrist without a hand. That would still be purposeful. Could be used to hold down a tree branch while the other hand picks fruit. Even half an arm could be used, and so forth.”

This is missing the point. Half an arm would be immediately useful to the owner of the arm, whereas empty tubes and glands with seemingly no purpose do not. Half an arm would not be of any apparent danger to the owner of the arm whereas toxins that could leak out of half formed tubes and glands, would be deadly to the spider.



Stupidape: “The ducts could be use to transport other substances than the poison. Most likely the poison developed last. Another explanation is the gland was a gill or sorts, to help the spider breathe under water. Often, it is difficult to isolate the exact transitional purpose,”

Which other substances could that be? It would be a pretty weird gill ending exactly at the spider's fangs.


Stupidape: ...but rest assure, natural selection would force the half formed system to have a use.”

Can you logically think of any use other than it's fully formed version?


Thank you for this debate.


1: https://en.wikipedia.org...

2: http://www.godsholyspirit.com...

3: http://www.tektonics.org...

4: http://creation.com...

5: http://www.provethebible.net...

Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by TheArtist 1 year ago
TheArtist
No, I've just been delayed! Please see my opening arguments
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
TheArtist have you given up?
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 year ago
Unstobbaple
"There's no reason to argue that point, posing it as a debate lends legitimacy to a nonsensical position that is clearly ruled out by the scientific evidence." HeyllovA/Theist

*fixed
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
"There's no reason to argue that point, posing it as a debate lends legitimacy to a nonsensical position that is clearly ruled out by the scientific evidence." HeyTheist

I disagree, religion is still going very strong.

"The religious profile of the world is rapidly changing, driven primarily by differences in fertility rates and the size of youth populations among the world"s major religions, as well as by people switching faiths. Over the next four decades, Christians will remain the largest religious group, but Islam will grow faster than any other major religion. If current trends continue, by 2050 "

The number of Muslims will nearly equal the number of Christians around the world.
Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion " though increasing in countries such as the United States and France " will make up a declining share of the world"s total population."

""As of 2010, Christianity was by far the world's largest religion, with an estimated 2.2 billion adherents, nearly a third (31 percent) of all 6.9 billion people on Earth," the Pew report says. "Islam was second, with 1.6 billion adherents, or 23 percent of the global population.""

Atheism is shrinking in percentage to world population. The Theists are winning. Sure, the sheer number of atheists are increasing, but so is world population in total. Simply ignoring religion will result in a theist victory. Atheists will be such a small % of the population they won't be taken seriously. More specifically if left unchecked, the entire world will be Muslim.

http://www.pewforum.org...
http://www.npr.org...
Posted by HeyTheist 1 year ago
HeyTheist
There's no reason to argue that point, posing it as a debate lends legitimacy to a nonsensical position that is clearly ruled out by the scientific evidence.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
There is no god...So what is creationism.
Posted by dr.jimmythefish 1 year ago
dr.jimmythefish
I would like to point out that some people are creationist and then think the God/s began to tinker causing evolution.
No votes have been placed for this debate.