(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs creationism (con)
Debate Rounds (4)
Atheist evolution vs Creationism. I will take the atheist evolution point of view, my opponent the creationism side.
Definition of Creationism via wikipedia.
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.
Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation," as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes. 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.
Creationists base their beliefs on a literal reading of religious texts, including the biblical Genesis creation myth and Islamic mythology from the Quran. For young Earth creationists, this includes a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and the rejection of the scientific theory of evolution. Literalist creationists believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth. Pseudoscientific branches of creationism include creation science, flood geology, and intelligent design, as well as subsets of pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, and even pseudolinguistics."
R1 Acceptance & definitions
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.
Thank you for accepting this debate and complying with the rules thus far.
First, I will built up evolution and other atheistic natural processes. Second, I will show why Christian creationism is an extremely unlikely scenario. Finally, I will merge the two and show how atheistic evolution is a much more likely scenario than creationism.
From my point of view the origins of the universe are in this order. Multi-verse theory, big bang theory, abiogenesis, and evolution. The universe formed from another universe, and thus the multi-verse theory. A big bang or a series of big bangs occurred creating the galaxies and solar systems, including Earth. Despite a series of big bangs or a single big bang being mutually exclusive they both reinforce my argument. Just at there are multiple multi-verse theories. Each one supporting my argument, despite being mutually exclusive.
Next, abiogenesis again, multiple ways this event could of occurred, all of which are scientific. I will only use Darwin's theory of evolution. Note, there are again multiple ways in which certain characteristics could have occurred like photosynthesis, yet each one reinforces the hypothesis of Darwin's theory of evolution.
Based upon the evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution, I think it is the correct series of event. There are four main lines of evidence for evolution. 
A. Fossil evidence
C. Distribution in time and space
D. Evidence by example
The fossil evidence for evolution is particularly impressive. 
I don't want to spend too much time reiterating common scientific facts, therefore I will focus on obliterating creationism. Since my opponent has graciously shown that he is Christian, I will focus on Christian creationism. Since he will most likely be defending from this point of view as opposed to a Native American religion or Hindu religion point of view.
Why Christian Creationism is false
If you read the Bible you will know according to the scriptures the Earth is flat, 6,000 or so years old, and the solar system is geocentric. In sharp contrast most scientists state that the Earth is spherical in shape, over five billion years old, the Earth and Sun revolve around the barycenter of the solar system.
Next, there is the obscenity in the Bible. Without getting into too much detail, understand the Bible should be rated x and sold at Adult Bookstore. Then, there is the morals of the Bible. If you read Drunk with Blood it will be difficult to think the God of the Old testament is moral.  Since most Christians accept that the God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament, a person can only conclude that Jesus performed the genocides in the Old Testament.
One key example is Noah's Ark. A story about God committing genocide against the entire world, except for Noah and a few others. This include many animals. Jesus comes to the rescue in the New Testament with Eternal Damnation. Making Jesus even more malevolent than his father. Both Gods, The Father and the Son approve of slavery.
"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." 
"“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;” " 
Then, there is the contradictions in the Bible. 
Finally, there is the impossible scenarios in the Bible. For example, Jonah staying alive for three days and three nights in the belly of a great fish. Noah's Ark not being ocean worthy, let alone for a year. 
Conclusions, on one hand we have the vigorous scientific method that scientists from around the world and from many different races and religions have competed to find the truth, and an enormous amount of empirical evidence to back up evolution. On the other hand we have a series of old books that tell us the world if flat, 6,000 years old, the Earth is stationary, that contains obscenity, with a genocidal character who condemns people to infinite punishments for finite crimes, promotes slavery, full of impossible scenarios, contradictions, and with no empirical evidence to support these extremely unlikely claims.
There can only be one answer, and that answer is evolution. Thanks for reading. I put a lot of effort into this round, I hope you reciprocate in kind.
My argument will be based on four key points, to show that evolution is false, could not have possibly happened, and that these said barriers to evolution theory can exist in harmony with a created earth.
1. Origin of Evolution
While there are many theories as to how the evolution process began, they usually involve some sort of major event. A large bang perhaps, or several small ones.
The problem is, where did these supposed "bangs" come from? Did they just happen to appear or were they the result of something, like another universe? And if they were the result of something, where did that thing come from (again, like another universe)?
One could assume that the bangs came from something that had been there for all eternity. After all, what else would make sense? We can assume something has always been, but not that something comes from nothing. For when have we ever found in science, or anywhere else, that something came from nothing?
That is what Creationists believe. That a divine creator created the all of existence, and that this creator was, is, and always has existed. Though we do believe he created everything out of nothing, that is much easier to believe from a Creationist view. After all, to create something out of nothing would defy natural law, and the evolution theory claims to be part of natural law. But if the said divine creator is the one who also created natural law, and is not held by it, then he could certainly do things that defied such a law, wouldn't he? In fact, one could even go so far as to say that he could step in and change such a law at his own pleasure, if he was thus inclined.
2. Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics is another barrier to evolution theory. According to the law, any system in place becomes disorderly when left by itself. Only with intelligent influence can any system be maintained. 
The law is constantly observed in nature, historic and current. For example, take our physical bodies. Left to their own devices, they will die, by lack of needed resources. It takes an intelligent brain to tell our bodies how to go about getting food, water, and other necessities to keep our bodies alive. This can also be observed in single cell organisms, and plants and other things that might be considered "unintelligent life forms". They are directed by their own source of intelligence (commonly referred to as "instinct") to keep their systems going and to direct their own organisms to action. While evolution teaches that things can become more organized and efficient when left to their own devices, the second law of dynamics says the exact opposite.
And again, while instinct has regularly been observed in present day nature (such as with honeybees, being a beekeeper I am quite familiar with the instincts of bees), evolution offers no explanation to it's origin, unless you assumed that it "evolved" as well.
3. Interdependence in Nature
In nature, everything is dependent on everything else. The tides on the distance of the moon to the earth, the animals on the plants, the plants on the bacteria and natural processes such as rain and so on and so on and so on.
Evolution dictates that everything around us came into being over a long period of time, slowly, over billions of years. It also teaches the principle of survival of the fittest, that is, that which is best capable to survive in its surroundings will be what survives.
Both former teachings are contrary to one another, simply because of the interdependence in nature. Interdependence is so rooted in nature that economic laws reflect it, such as the laws of absolute and comparative advantage.  But what it means for nature as a whole is simple: if one area of the cycle of nature fails, then the entire system will fail, and every living thing will perish.
Take the tides for example. If the moon was but a bit farther from the earth, then the tides would stop, or at least slow down, which would cause the ocean waters to become stagnant. Life in the oceans would cease, plankton would die, and we would lose the majority of our oxygen supply.  But the opposite is also true. If the moon were too close, then the tides would become too quick, causing tidal waves of mass destruction, and also causing the oceans waters to be much too turbulent, again cutting off the possibility of life.
This is massive evidence against evolution. Assuming that it was once possible for things to survive without interdependency, as evolution seems to imply, then why is there now in place a system of so much reliability? Would that not be an example of things becoming less fit for survival? Because where they once could survive in an inhospitable climate, they now cannot survive without everything else working properly?
4. Life From the Non-living
Evolution would have us believe that living things evolved from non-living things. The problem with this is that there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that such an action is possible. It has never been observed that things have come to life on their own, without being given life. Once something is dead, life cannot be put into it, and once a living thing has died, life cannot be put back into it (naturally that is, though it is certainly possible supernaturally, by some force that is not governed by natural law). Thus, the question arises: how is life brought about into non-living things, if it is not naturally possible to bring life into something that is dead, without the power of supernatural force? The answer is that it is not possible, nor logical, nor scientific, assumed at best, and fabricated at worst.
5. More Evidence of Intelligent Design
An automobile is an amazing invention to say the least. Many millenniums of creative and intuitive research in accurate and efficient transportation means have resulted in the invention of the automobile. It is indeed a fine example of intelligent design.
But could it be possible that an automobile could have, if not for human design, been brought about by natural construction? Could all of the parts have become fashioned in such a way that they would fit perfectly with the other parts, together creating a fine piece of machinery that ran with such efficiency, almost as if it had been designed by many people collectively, building off of past generations' successes and the introduction of new technology?
Of course not! The concept is completely ridiculous and absurd, not to mention an insult to the various contributors of such a masterpiece. There is no natural process which can create from scratch a complicated machine. And even if there was a process in place which might possibly bring about such a feat, the odds against it would be so large as to make the prospect of winning a one million digit lottery seem but a certainty. And if all that is true, how much more so would the probability be of creating an interdependent, ecologic system, so that it would not only work, but work well? I can tell you: impossible with a capital "I".
I could continue, but do to character restrictions, it would not be feasible. Which is a pity because I did not even have space to make an argument on the fallacies of the carbon dating system. No matter though. I believe that even putting all that aside, I have made an effective case for creationism by showing that, due to the many inconsistencies that evolution has with natural law, and with the complexity and interdependence of the earth, one must draw a single conclusion: The Universe and all that is within it was created by an intelligent creator, more powerful then all his creation combined.
Summary of opponent's r2 argument.
First, I want to comment on my opponent's r2 argument. My opponent has done little to explain what version of creationism he is supporting. The contender has failed to build up creationism, focusing almost completely on the offensive.
I've learned from previous debates that going all defense is a poor decision strategically. If my opponent throws 8,000 characters of attacks and zero characters of defense I can effectively lock myself in trying to defend against my opponent, and let them take control of the debate. Instead, I will split 50/50 offense and defense. First, attacking and showing how my opponent has not mentioned Jesus once in the debate nor quoted the Bible.
My opponent could easily be backing up deism, another religion, another denomination of Christianity, and finally failed to explain their interpretations of the Bible in regards to flat Earth vs round, old vs young Earth, geocentric or barycenter, and so on.
If my opponent chooses to take the Bible metaphorically, then my opponent's case for creationism is immediately weakened. Since, how can my opponent believe in creationism and not flat Earth? This would be a deviation from the scriptures and my opponent would have to explain why to believe the Bible literally in one passage and metaphorically in another.
The other route is to take the entire Bible literally. Forcing my opponent to back up Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Great fish, flat Earth, geocentric Earth, and Young Earth in additional to creationism.
I must assume this is a tactical decision on my opponent's part. To not commit and not build up their argument for creationism hoping I would miss the gaping hole. I have noticed the hole, the absence in my opponent's argument, and I plan to exploit this weakness fully.
I will exploit my opponent's non-committal approach by forcing my opponent to adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible. If my opponent attempts a metaphorical approach, I will call him on that, since my opponent will have gained an unfair advantage by me having to hit a moving target.
The Earth has proven to be round. Yet, my opponent sticks to a literal interpretation of the Bible. As seen here from answering-christanity.com an awesome website for showing the flaws of Christianity in my opinion.
"The Earth has Edges?!
"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:13)" " 
Yet, satellite pictures have shown the world to be round. A flat Earth would have trouble with the theory of gravity. After-all, all those rotation would gradually turn a flat Earth into a spherical Earth.
Then, there is the problem that all the other planets are round. Why would Venus be round and the Earth flat. Next, is the problem with Young Earth creationism and light speed. Distant galaxies are over a billion light years away. Meaning the age of the Universe must be at least a billion years old.
Most young earth creationists don't realize that the young earth model contradicts God's account of the fourth creation day in Genesis 1:
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, (Genesis 1:14)" 
Taken from the godandscience.org website. An awesome website for destroying Young Earth Creationism.
"Age of moon rocks 4.5 billion19
Age of meteorites 4.5 billion24
Accumulation of space dust on the moon (at the measured rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter per year) 4.5 billion25
Age of earth rocks 4.2 billion17
Relaxation times of star clusters 4 billion26
Erosion on Mercury Mars, and Moon 4 billion27" 
Finally, there is the problem of polytheism, multiple Gods, within the Bible. The trinity, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. How can we trust a book that claims there is one God, and then promotes polytheism? We can't. This ought to destroy literal interpretations of the Bible, thus discrediting the main source of my opponent's argument.
Now, I will attack your arguments that attack evolution.
"While there are many theories as to how the evolution process began, they usually involve some sort of major event. A large bang perhaps, or several small ones." Kescarte_DeJudica
My opponent's argument has blended evolution, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang Theory. These are three separate theories. Someone who believes in deism for example could believe in evolution but not abiogenesis nor the Big Bang Theory. Instead, having a faith based approach that a deism God created the universe, thus Big Bang, and the first microorganisms than this God disappeared. Evolution, would then be completely scientific.
"One could assume that the bangs came from something that had been there for all eternity. After all, what else would make sense? We can assume something has always been, but not that something comes from nothing. For when have we ever found in science, or anywhere else, that something came from nothing?" Kescarte_DeJudica
A different universe is a more likely scenario. We would have little knowledge of this other universe that our universe came from. Something may come from nothing.
"That is what Creationists believe. That a divine creator created the all of existence, and that this creator was, is, and always has existed." Kescarte
While I cannot prove you false, you have no proof that your statement is true either. This is also an answer that creates more questions. How can God have always existed? How can such a being sustain himself? Can mundane object have always existed?
"While evolution teaches that things can become more organized and efficient when left to their own devices, the second law of dynamics says the exact opposite." Kescarte
Often, two forces oppose each other, yet they do not always cancel each other out. Think gravity for example, in order to jump I must overcome gravity. Since I am able to jump, I can conclude that my muscular system was able to overcome gravity. Instincts and self-repair systems are able to overcome entropy.
"evolution offers no explanation to it's origin, unless you assumed that it "evolved" as well." Kescarte
Plants have and microorganisms have primitive instincts. This is how an amoeba is able to engulf prey and how plants are able to turn towards the sun. Single cell organisms were created via abiogenesis with simple instincts which evolved to more complicated instincts.
": if one area of the cycle of nature fails, then the entire system will fail, and every living thing will perish." Kescarte
Living organisms are tough, there are microorganisms on Mars.  Despite, less than ideal circumstances life manages to persist. There is life from polar bears in the arctic and Emperor penguins, to scorpions in the desert, to deep within the ocean, dry, cold, humid, and hot.
"Evolution would have us believe that living things evolved from non-living things. " Kescarte
Abiogenesis is not evolution and evolution is not abiogenesis. 
"5. More Evidence of Intelligent Design" Kescarte
Bad analogy of a car and evolution. This seems to have nothing to do with evolution at all. This has more to do with abiogenesis and the big bang theory. 
"carbon dating system" Kescarte
The carbon dating system has been proven to be effective by other Christians. I don't see how over a billion Christians, many of them experts, could somehow mess this up. I also fail to perceive a motive for lying in this scenario.
Thanks for debating. I look forward to your response.
While I appreciate that Pro was focusing on the Christian perspective of creationism, I believe he over-specified in that area. His main argument consisted of first stating what he believes to be true about evolution, and then proceeded to list all the reasons the Christian Bible cannot possibly be correct.
The main problem with that sort of argument is simple: The Bible does not have to be correct for creationism to exist. It is perfectly possible that perhaps the entire Bible, or at least the majority of it, is mistaken, and that it has no place in the field, of science, as my opponent appears to believe.
But even given the above, evolution is no more a legitimate theory than before, and creationism no less. Why couldn't some other god (like the god of the Hindus or the Indians) have created all of existence? The debate is about whether evolution or creationism is the more valid theory. Pro didn't make an argument for evolution using scientific data, or explain why it was a more valid theory than creationism (or "obliterate" creationism"). He merely stated how he believed evolution, abiogenesis, etc., happened (without presenting any real proof other than his first two sources) and then went on to point out all the reasons the Bible is wrong and cannot be valid.
And did anyone else notice that when he mentioned portions of the Bible, he never once mentioned the actual story of Creation? He had plenty to say about Noah's Ark, and God's approval of slavery, but didn't mention "let there be light" or "let us make man in our own image"
Because of this, I personally believe his argument contained little weight. That is, as far as the topic of this debate is concerned. But his accusations against the Bible as a whole certainly have merit. And they can, and should, be addressed. So, I believe I will spend the rest of my allotted character space to refute as many of Pro's points as possible.
First of all, Pro states that the Bible maintains the Earth is around 6000 years old, the Earth is flat, etc. I do not deny this. In fact, Pro is quite correct. The problem is, neither of those two ideas are illegitimate, nor are they completely unaccepted. Many people (including Christians) believe in a young earth, and there still are various communities and individuals who believe in a flat Earth. And they are not all loony, mentally disturbed, idiots for that matter, even though some are. For a conversation on why the Earth is (possibly) flat, I strongly recommend you get in touch with Edlvsjd. You'll notice he commented down below.
Secondly, Pro is again correct, the Bible is very adult in content, extremely violent, etc. In fact, I am often puzzled as to why some Christian adults are horrified at the thought of their children reading about graphic violence, etc, when the Bible is perfectly "safe". But then again, I don't have children, so...
I also don't deny that God (and Jesus) ordered many violent acts throughout the Old Testament. I do disagree however, with the idea that such acts are immoral. Why? Because if God is the creator of all things (including morality) then it stands to reason he and he alone decides what is and is not moral. We as humans, aka, the creation, have no right to question the morality of our creator. And I can probably tell you why God is so violent. Because he demands purity, as he cannot tolerate any impure thing. Thus, if we as his creation are impure (which we are, by our own actions), then he is nothing less than just by absolutely annihilating us. But if God forgives us our trespasses, and does not punish as we deserve, then he has shown us mercy. And if he gives us something wonderful, which we also don't deserve, then he has shown us grace. That is why the Jews were/are his chosen people. He showed mercy and grace on the Jews in the Old Testament and justice to many others. Also, with the example of Noah's Ark, he showed justice to those he had slain, and mercy to Noah, as he favored Noah.
As for the matter of slavery, I do not consider slavery an immoral thing, as far as the slavery in the Bible was concerned. You must understand, slavery in the Bible was far different then it was in this country many years ago. In the Bible, you were a slave for 7 years maximum, and then were allowed to go free. Since those who were not captured as prisoners of war willingly sold themselves into slavery for a sum of cash, it might be considered more of a binding labor contract than slavery. As for those who were captured in war, should they serve faithfully, they were required by law to receive the same benefits as an Israelite native: 7 years maximum service, and permanent residence in the country afterwards, should they choose to stay.
The one exception to the 7-year rule was that of a slave who voluntarily wished to stay with his master. In such a case, the slave would have his ear marked, and become a slave for life.
I would also like to point out that Israelite slaves had legal rights, again much different than those in America hundreds of years ago.
And please, do not take my word for it. Read the Bible yourself and see if I am correct.
Finally, we have the "impossible scenarios" bit. Again, if the Creator of the Universe wishes to do impossible things, he may do them freely. After all, he is the one who created natural laws that would make such tasks impossible. But not being bound by laws of his own creations, he may intervene within them as he pleases. This would allow for Jonah surviving for three days within a fish, or Noah surviving for a year on the ark. Things such as these are what is often referred to as "miracles". Though, miracles also exist within the boundaries of natural law as well, such as events like the story of Ester. This is a fine example of "Divine Conspiracy".
This concludes my rebuttal. I believe I have made excellent case for why my opponent argument in favor of evolution was unsound, as well as refute some of his arguments against the soundness of the Bible. Again, I personally think that part belonged in a separate debate, but I certainly don't object to debating that portion, if Pro is thus inclined.
Thank you once again for the debate. Thus far, it has been most enjoyable. Round Four should be good as well, and I happily await Pro's defense.
I will now defend my r2 argument against my opponent's r3 rebuttal.
"But even given the above, evolution is no more a legitimate theory than before, and creationism no less. Why couldn't some other god (like the god of the Hindus or the Indians) have created all of existence? The debate is about whether evolution or creationism is the more valid theory." Kescarte_DeJudica
Creationism is not a theory but instead a belief also known as faith based approach. Creationism is the belief in the literal interpretation of teligious texts.
"Pro didn't make an argument for evolution using scientific data, or explain why it was a more valid theory than creationism (or "obliterate" creationism")." Kescarte_Dejudicat
I thought it was overkill to explain any more about evolution. Evolution is common knowledge and commonly accepted within the scientific community.
"Many people (including Christians) believe in a young earth, and there still are various communities and individuals who believe in a flat Earth. And they are not all loony, mentally disturbed, idiots for that matter, even though some are. For a conversation on why the Earth is (possibly) flat, I strongly recommend you get in touch with Edlvsjd. You'll notice he commented down below." Kescarte_Dejudicat
Ad populum fallacy, there is no merit to this argument. Instead, my opponent focuses that some people believe the Earth is flat without giving any details.
"I also don't deny that God (and Jesus) ordered many violent acts throughout the Old Testament. I do disagree however, with the idea that such acts are immoral. Why? Because if God is the creator of all things (including morality) then it stands to reason he and he alone decides what is and is not moral. We as humans, aka, the creation, have no right to question the morality of our creator." Kescarte_Dejudicat
Appeal to authority. Authority figures are not supposed to break their own rules and create seemingly arbitrary double standards. Furthermore, killing someone just for being impure is an overly harsh judgment and thus unjust.
People can often be reasoned with, a better solution would be to tell the person why such an action is wrong and ask them to halt the action. If the person continues apply incrementally harsher penalties. For example, if God wanted to halt someone who was committing the sin of Sloth, God could attempt to reason with the person, and then punish that person with a fee of $500, $1000, $2000, and so on for each offense respectively.
"Also, with the example of Noah's Ark, he showed justice to those he had slain, and mercy to Noah, as he favored Noah." Kescarte_Dejudicat
Drowning is a painful way to die. This was by no means justice. Imagine if someone body was to drive drunk, but not have an accident, and the person was sentenced to death for the trespass. Breaking the drunk driving law was unjust, but so was the overly harsh punishment. This is not justice, two wrongs do not make a right. This is a twisted gnarled version of justice so much that it is the complete opposite, and unjust.
"The one exception to the 7-year rule was that of a slave who voluntarily wished to stay with his master. In such a case, the slave would have his ear marked, and become a slave for life." Kescarte
Slavery is immoral, even when the master is kind.
"Finally, we have the "impossible scenarios" bit. Again, if the Creator of the Universe wishes to do impossible things, he may do them freely. After all, he is the one who created natural laws that would make such tasks impossible. But not being bound by laws of his own creations, he may intervene within them as he pleases. This would allow for Jonah surviving for three days within a fish, or Noah surviving for a year on the ark." Kescarte
You still haven't explained how a divine being could exist in the first place. Stating the creator always existed is a non-answer and creates more questions than answers. A human can create a stone wall, but may not be able to destroy the wall. Just because God can create a natural law, there is no reason to believe that God could break such a natural law.
Thanks for the debate.
First off Pro, you accuse me of explaining what version of creationism I support. There is a reason that I have not committed to a particular one, arguing in favor of it. That is because this debate is not about"Christian Creationism versus Evolution". It is simply about creationism. So, I am free to argue in favor of creationism in it's most basic form: that a supreme being created the world. I hold personally to the story in Genesis, but that does not mean that I am required to argue my case from that point of view.
Secondly, I have a reason for "focusing almost completely on the offensive". It is because evolution is currently the only major theory for explaining the coming about of existence without being by a creator. Thus, if I can prove that evolution is not a valid theory, then I have proved indirectly that creationism is correct. A somewhat indirect manner of doing it, yes, but a valid manner all the same.
Also, in response to the matter of taking the Bible metaphorically versus literally: I take the Bible literally. That includes the part about Noah's Ark, Jonah, flat Earth, Young Earth, etc.
The theory of their being a round earth is simply that: a theory. Same as evolution. Neither are proven. As human beings, we are incapable of knowing "absolute truth". We simply can deduce what the most legitimate idea is for how something is or for how something acts, and assume that is true until proven otherwise. Scientific reasoning has usually followed that line. A scientist makes an observation, comes up with a hypothesis, tests it multiple times, and after going through rigorous testing, it becomes a theory.
Thus, a theory is what we believe to be true, based on evidence in testing. But it has not been "proven" to be true, only shown to be likely based on current evidence. After all, theories are only as good as their evidence. Once evidence is submitted that destroys the theory, a new one must be created that takes into account the new evidence.
That is the problem with a round earth. Like evolution, the theory has several flaws. Not as many evolution perhaps, but many all the same. But this does not belong in the debate. round earth versus flat earth is a separate matter entirely. If you only brought this up to attempt to get me to concede that the Bible promotes the theory of a flat earth, then you certainly have it, I concede. But that is a separate debate for a separate time.
As for the age of rocks, I could go into detail as to how the means by which scientists determine the age of such things is faulty at best, but won't as this would constitute a new argument. In fact, I believe that by making that statement like that, you introduced a new argument against creationism, which would have violated your debate rules, as we are supposed to make our arguments in the second round. Introducing a new argument in the third round would certainly not be valid.
The Bible does not teach polytheism, though that is certainly one of the most common arguments made against it. The matter of one God being a trinity is easily explained, and goes back to what I said about natural law. God, being the creator of all things, is not bound by his creation. To do so would make him subject to his own creationism, something he could not do because he all powerful. True, he could become subject to his creation if so chose, but he would still have the ultimate power over them. Think of it like human being creating robots. We are not subject to the robots, but could be if we wanted to. However, we are still in control, as we were the ones who programmed them. They can't rebel against their programming, unless they were programmed to do that. But even then, they cannot rebel against that programming. This is why robot uprisings are nothing more than Hollywood fantasy, and could never occur in real life.
And thus, not being subject to natural law, God can do things that we, who are subject to such law, cannot fully comprehend. That is why we are not able to fully grasp eternity. In the same way, we cannot grasp the concept of one being three. But I suppose the best way to describe it would be like this: Suppose you have three people. Physically, they are very different. But they are one in mind. They have the same mind, and thus act similiarly, because they are truly one in mind, though separate in body, or being. Why the trinity is not quite like, I believe that paints a very good picture of how it is.
My opponent then goes on to say that abiogenesis, evolution, and the Big Bang theory are separate theories, and that they cannot reasonably be blended for an argument. While he is right in saying that someone could believe in a God as a creator of the universe through evolution, he is incorrect in trying to argue that such theories are unique to themselves. Why? Because, assuming, as my opponent does, that all of existence was brought about by evolution without the help of a creator, then the other theories would have to be included in order for the entire theory as a whole to work. They would all depend on each other. For example, evolution cannot work without abiogenesis, for otherwise there is not a theory to explain the existence of living things coming from the non-living.
A different universe is not the answer either. If we assume this universe came from another one, then we must ask ourselves: where did this other universe come from? We cannot scientifically say that it came from nothing because evolution is subject to natural law, and in natural law, things do not come from nothing.
My theory about a creator may not be able to be to be proven true directly, but if all other theories are proven false and mine is the only theory in existence not proven false, (hypothetically speaking of course) then it is most likely true. Thus, it is proven indirectly that there is a creator.
Your explanation of gravity does not adequately refute the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That there are opposing forces is a given. But there is still the matter of cost: lost energy. If you jumped, the energy it took to complete that jump is now gone from you, and can only be replenished through constructive intelligent activity (i.e., eating). "Self-repair systems" need energy. Thus, the force of gravity has already taken a toll, albeit a small one, on your body. This is natural law in action, and is a valid weakness in the theory of evolution.
My opponent attempts to claim that abiogenesis is not only the source of organic matter (living things) arising from the in-organic (non-living things), but also the source of the instincts that living things possess. This is not valid because, again, natural law does not allow for nothing to come from something, an idea without which abiogenesis cannot function. There is not a means by which life can be created, except from other living things, naturally. Thus, abiogenesis must either be 1. supernatural or 2. Impossible. To prove it possible, one would have to exhibit an example of life coming from non-life, that can readily be observed in the present, not something which has been assumed to have happened in the past. As this cannot be done, abiogenesis is thus disproved.
Abiogenesis may not evolution, but evolution cannot exist without it and explain the existence of life by natural cause.
The car example illustrates many particles coming together to construct a functioning object. Such a thing is possible by evolution without abiogenesis and the big bang theory.
a billion Christians once believed the earth was flat, but you believe they messed that up. Once better evidence is submitted (discovered) adjustments in thinking must be made.
Unfortunately I ran out of space. I would like to go, and go into better detail, but cannot. Suffice it to say, I believe have made an excellent case why evolution is not scientifically and naturally possible and how creationism is the answer. Thank you
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Edlvsjd 3 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Rfd here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15pSZ6EE-J5j7QPemfh0EXgw13v-OEBOWkbTuL0uEZiE/edit?usp=drive_web
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.