Science is the key/ Not Religion
Debate Rounds (3)
"Science is a collaborative enterprise.. we remember those who pave the way, seeing for them, always."
-science and religion can work together
-Christianity is the "religion" we are talking about
-science is not better nor less important than Christianity
-science IS less important than the God I worship
-Christianity is the key, not science. But I am NOT saying that science can't be accepted along with Christianity. All I'm going to argue is that God is more important than the mainstream, modern-day findings in science.
First of all, science changes. Many times, evolutionists have gotten it all wrong yet they still presented it to the public as fact, not the truth which was that it was hypothesis/assumption. For example: the Miller-Urey experiment, thought to prove how the Big Bang could have happened. The hypothesis remained untested until 1953, when University of Chicago graduate student Stanley Miller reported an experiment in which methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water (thought to be the components of the "primitive" atmosphere) were mixed in a closed glass apparatus. The water was heated and the gases circulated past a high-voltage electric spark to simulate lightning. This provided the energy to break the chemical bonds of the compounds present, and the resulting free radicals combined to form a mixture of simple organic compounds, including trace quantities of some amino acids. Crucial to the success of the experiment was Miller"s water trap in which the amino acids generated could dissolve and thus be protected from subsequent destructive contact with the spark. But on the hypothesized primordial Earth with no oxygen (and therefore no ozone), the products would have been exposed to destructive ultraviolet rays. This is so even if they reached the oceans, because UV radiation can penetrate tens of metres of water. Oxygen, deliberately removed from Miller"s apparatus, destroys amino acids. But geological evidence indicates oxygen was always present on earth. The public got the news that the Big Bang was proven to be able to happen, but they didn't learn that it was a false until nearly 20 years later!
Another whammy to the public was Darwin's Tree of Life. Plenty of suitable sedimentary deposits (i.e. in which organisms could have been preserved as fossils) exist within the late Precambrian and Cambrian strata. One cannot argue the ancestors might have not possessed preserved hard parts. In Africa and Australia, geologists have discovered sediments, dated by evolutionary conventions at over three billion years old, which contain fossilized single-celled organisms. The lack of intermediates where these should have been found lies in stark conflict with evolutionary predictions. Another difficulty is the existence of "living fossils". Some of the fossilized ancestors are allegedly hundreds of millions of years old, essentially identical to those alive, and yet many have left no fossil evidence during this supposed vast interval. The lack of evolutionary change, in spite of a constantly changing physical and ecological environment, is glaring. 
These are just a couple examples of the mainstream science in that time--half a century ago--and it proves that many times, scientists get things wrong and the "facts" that get out to the public and into elementary school textbooks can actually be proven wrong over the next decades or so.
Secondly (before I conclude), religion which is in this case Christianity, can prove some things that science usually cannot do very well if at all. Christianity's Holy Book, the Bible, is filled top to bottom with miraculous, amazing, yet true accounts in history and science . Some people say there is such a thing as historical science. I agree that there is such a concept, and sometimes the science is what proves that the events, accounts, or places in the Bible really happened/were there, although most of the time the science is not as stable or trustworthy as actual journals and people recalling personally what really happened. Science nowadays is dominated by politics. Criticism of Einstein, the big bang, and other mainstream theories is not allowed in the mainstream whereas in all other human endeavors including music, art, literature, business, politics and engineering, opposing ideas are necessary for coming up with the best solutions humans can muster. The NPA encourages diverse opinion, believing that better truths will emerge. 
Bill Maher and Bill Nye agree that "religion is the enemy of science." Why? Because they don't want to admit to the facts in science that prove the Bible. My conclusion is that science and religion are the key and science alone cannot fully explain anything--especially the origin of life.
Thank you and good luck!
To argue your point about the inconsistency of fossils, I must say you, again, warp the evidence a bit. Fossils are, after all, quite difficult to unearth and study. The harsh environments most fossils are submitted to is too much for them to bear, which causes the fossils in question to perish. Again, this is not arguing your direct point: but explaining simple facts about the difficulty of using fossils as evidence for/against evolution. To continue, I admit that you do not cite and provide enough details within your support to gather a vivid rebuttal to. You state that some fossils are observed to be 'un-evolved', while others appear to be evolved differently than what they were expected to be. To argue this, I have provided a number of links to websites to help educate you on why that would be, for the story is too long for this text box. To summarize (very much so), environments and times of death play a large roll has dependent factors on one enough. These mathematics are often used as a system in various sub-units of complex geometry. I encourage further research.
To continue to argue your final main-point, I will summarize what you said: Science always changes and is not reliable to learn because things we learn now are replaced with new facts several years later. Rather, Christianity should be the teachings to study because it offers historical insight into our past. To debate this, I would like to say that I would prefer not to learn how Noah saved all of the animals on the Earth, and how Moses parted the Red Sea and about the magical snake in the garden in my history classes. I would much rather (and every other intelligent person would agree) venture into the proven stories of Napoleon, the Founding Fathers, and ancient civilizations. As for the Bible being able to give historical accounts of events, I will be kind enough to dismiss this. Personal accounts do not belong on this website, as I stated in the opening of this debate. Also, whatever history the Bible does tell of, is severely limited. What of the historical events that happened before and after the writing and conscription of the Christian Holy Book? When I am able to learn vivid and accurate history about the fascinating Mayan culture in the Bible, I invite you to private message me. Until then, I choose to stick with scientific findings and accurate reports made by modern-day anthropologists and historians.
Since I am finished with rebuttals, I will continue to state my own points to challenge you further.
- What of other religions? What of Greek, Norse, Arab, Asian, Native American, South American, African, and many more, beliefs? There are thousands of religions in the history of the world, each with their different story to tell. Why is Christianity the "most right"? For the future, do not say because it is the most populated religion. This can be explained by the militant domination of European-Christian countries through the globe over hundreds of years. The fact that Christianity has over two billion followers does NOT make it correct!
- What of the genetic evidence? Christians often state that God made this huge diversity of life at will. With genetic science, we can pier into the vastness of genes in different species and how they seem to differentiate more and more between species who evolve in different directions. If God was so powerful and mighty to create an entire Universe, why would there be genes? Are genes a way for God to show math for his ultimate design? Either way, genetics offer a great understanding of evolution and how specie-variation works.
- Why would God care about humans? If the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and humans emerged about three million years ago, why do you and other Christians seem to say that God cares so much about us? If the Universe was created to be prosperous for human life, why did it take so long for us to come to be? Also, why weren't we given a larger planet that is more plentiful in natural resources? Perhaps God isn't behind the grand story of our being, but rather accidental events and evolution. Also, as a quick point, the Universe is so large that life is bound to be somewhere. The coming of life should not be blamed on God, but of simple statistics. Perhaps a purple, four-armed alien in a galaxy far away is currently praying to his divine and all powerful God, for how lucky could he be to be alive?!
- Please research further about the Big Bang. I had to wince when I realized you had somehow mistaken the Big Bang with the origin of life on early-Earth.
I was showing how science can easily be refuted over the years, in fact some "facts" have been known to refute themselves over time, therefore science is not very sturdy when thinking long term. The two examples I gave to back up my statements included siting the Miller-Urey Experiment, which was put in science textbooks and said to prove how the Big Bang could've happened. But 20 years later they figured out that, all along, it was wrong and did not prove anything--while the public understood otherwise (didn't know). You must not know anything about the experiment, unless of course the word never got to you that the experimenters were wrong. It just goes to show, then!
Your second paragraph was a bit confusing. In the 1st Round I did not barely mention fossils; show me where I did and what your point is in all your words! The way I understand it, you say that it is difficult to argue against/for evolution with fossils, but then you give three links to fossil records and say "I encourage further research." Is this not a debate about science versus religion, and vice versa? Or are you trying to prove that science IS sturdy and reliable long term, no matter what? Still I do not see what you are getting at, or why. Seeing that I must do rebuttals in order to win any points--(nervous smirk)--I will also provide three websites regarding fossils:
My opponent: "I will summarize what you said...Science always changes and is not reliable to learn because things we learn now are replaced with new facts several years later...Christianity should be the teachings to study because it offers historical insight into our past." No. Not at all. I am simply arguing that science is not the only "key" because religion (Christianity) is also, and God is more important than both of these because He is our Creator and He loves us. But yes, I have proven in some ways how science changes sometimes therefore cannot be TRUSTED ALWAYS: you over exaggerated.
"To debate this, I would like to say that I would prefer not to learn how Noah saved all of the animals on the Earth, and how Moses parted the Red Sea and about the magical snake in the garden in my history classes. I would much rather (and every other intelligent person would agree) venture into the proven stories of Napoleon, the Founding Fathers, and ancient civilizations."
It is quite obvious that the stories told in the Bible are much more ancient (written 3-2,000 years ago) than the date Napoleon lived (200 years ago), so the Bible explains a lot more that we otherwise wouldn't learn of easily. You call miracles magical myths while there is SCIENTIFIC evidence for the events in the Bible.
For example: scientists have calculated that a wind blowing at the speed of 67 miles per hour sustained overnight could have exposed a reef that existed close below the ocean surface. The Israelites could have then fled over the passage before the wind died down and waters rose again, blocking the way for pursuing Egyptian soldiers in their wheeled chariots. Some 3,500 years ago, the reef would have been closer to the water's surface so it would have been exposed for just the right amount of time. It would take the Jews four hours to cross the 7-kilometer reef that runs from one coast to another, and half an hour before the waters went back.  It has actually been proven possible, just as you say the Big Bang was (through a faulty experiment), except that irrefutable scientific evidence was found (UNLIKE the Miller-Urey Experiment). Chariot wheels at the bottom of the "Red Sea." 
"Also, whatever history the Bible does tell of, is severely limited. What of the historical events that happened before and after the writing and conscription of the Christian Holy Book?"
That is irrelevant. We are comparing scientific (most commonly known as the mainstream study) to historic artifact (the religious,Christian Bible) to see which is the "key," and if the words in Christianity's Book don't change like science does and they can agree with the facts seen observed in the world, why can't they both be equally important to a person's life (why can't they both be used as the "key")?
"What of other religions? What of Greek, Norse, Arab, Asian, Native American, South American, African, and many more, beliefs? There are thousands of religions in the history of the world, each with their different story to tell. Why is Christianity the "most right"?'
This is a good (and popular) question, and I have an answer other than "because it is the most populated religion." For one thing, there is mounds of evidence for it.  The world around us reveals that God DOES exist. There is historical evidence for Jesus Christ.  There is physical evidence that Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead.  All of these things about Jesus were prophetically foretold by God in the Bible with specificity: . There is proof Jesus Christ is doing miracles today.  But most importantly of all, out of all these evidences, Christianity is unique because of the salvation. Humans cannot be perfect and will always sin, that is the reality, so besides worshipping God we do not have any burden of earning our way to Heaven (to be with Jesus) because He has already paid our debt, and the funny thing is no other religion is like this!
"What of the genetic evidence?...If God was so powerful and mighty to create an entire Universe, why would there be genes? Are genes a way for God to show math for his ultimate design?"
Why wouldn't God give us genes?! It just goes to show how He created each and every one of us uniquely, and loves us each as exactly how He designed. 
"Why would God care about humans? If the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and humans emerged about three million years ago, why do you and other Christians seem to say that God cares so much about us? If the Universe was created to be prosperous for human life, why did it take so long for us to come to be?"
My opponent I assuming that all scientific facts in the whole world point to Evolution and OET (Old Earth Theory). This is not true in the slightest, as there is lots of evidence to back up YEC.  But if God created us specially a I believe He did, He wouldn't just forget about us and move onto his duties in Heaven I don't think...we are His prized possession and God cares for us, as we should for Him!
I hope these rebuttals answer your questions and fill in the holes of inquisitiveness. Thank you.
a theory that deduces a cataclysmic birth of the universe (big bang) from the observed expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation, abundance of the elements, and the laws of physics.
Also called big-bang model.
Compare steady state theory.
Based on the Random House Dictionary, " Random House, Inc. 2014.
Cite This Source | Link To big bang theory
Please review your understanding of the Big Bang Theory. It is not, as you say, thought of by most atheists to be a combustion of the universe. It is widely accepted by people with and without religion. The reason it doesn't make much logical sense to you can be traced to your poor understanding of the topic. With a better understanding of this, you will see how easily it is to disprove Young Earth Creationism, for we can trace back much farther than the time period proposed by it. I would also like to point out that the Miller-Urey experiment was to simulate the conditions thought to be present on Earth at an early time in order to test for the chemical origins of primitive life. Again, nothing to do with the Big Bang. It appears you mustn't know too much of the experiment either.
On the Big Bang:
It is also evident that you believe that because science changes over time it cannot be trusted. This is most certainly not the case. Science adapts as new discoveries are made, thus correcting any errors and paving the way to new knowledge. There is so much to discover, so many complex questions about the world around us. It cannot be expected for our understanding of these things to be perfect on the first try. Once we have a good understanding, however, science can be looked at like a river eroding away the banks and uncovering what lies beneath. Science manages to stay stable because of its evolving. Whereas the Bible refuses to change. When something is disproven the Bible falls apart because of its refusal to adapt. Hardly what can be considered "sturdy".
I would now like to point out that you did, in fact, mention quite a bit about fossils in the first round. That is nearly the entirety of your second paragraph. You stated that "Plenty of suitable sedimentary deposits (i.e. in which organisms could have been preserved as fossils) exist within the late Precambrian and Cambrian strata". First, this statement, in which you recognize the Precambrian and Cambrian periods, negates your later statement regarding Young Earth Creationism. Secondly, the presence of such sediment that could preserve organisms does not guarantee that said organisms will be preserved. Organic matter decays, and, as was said before, the unearthing and harsh conditions fossils are submitted to overtime can damage them greatly and even destroy them, especially over the length of time from the Precambrian to their discovery. Take, for example, the dinosaurs who ruled the Earth over two-hundred million years ago. There are fossils of these creatures, however not for every one that ever existed. Thus provides one explanation of the lack of fossils from that time. I would also like to question you on how we have these fossils, and sometimes full skeletons, of dinosaurs if your beliefs on Young Earth Creationism are true. To address your statement about the lack of fossils and lack of evolutionary change between then and now, I would like to inform you that there has been an extreme amount of evolutionary change between the Precambrian and Cambrian eras and the current Cenozoic era. I will provide some links for you to further your investigation on this topic below. Also, evolution is not a consistent occurrence throughout time. It can occur gradually or rapidly and, either way, occurs over long periods of time. There are also "missing links" that have been found over time, and studied to increase our understanding of evolution.
Precambrian and Cambrian life:
There is a previous inquiry of yours that I wish to venture further into. "...if the words in Christianity's Book don't change like science does and they can agree with the facts seen observed in the world, why can't they both be equally important to a person's life (why can't they both be the "key")?". I'd like to remind my opponent that the topic of this debate is "Science is the key/ Not Religion", and though saying both can coexist is a valid opposition, it is a bit late to change ones opinion. Continuing, I shall state my argument to this in the form of a story. You go to the refrigerator, wishing for one of the cookies you had just baked. But upon your arrival, to your dismay, they are gone. Your initial thought is that your brother took them (because he loves cookies). However as you turn away, you see a trail of chocolate leading to the dog, who also has the rest of the cookies. In this care the initial thought of the brother represents Christianity. And the adaptation of knowledge once you see the dog represents science. If you don't change your mind, though you have seen the dog eating the cookies, and confront your brother about it, he will deny he did it, thus "facts" observed do not agree. You had no evidence that your brother did it which is also a lack of observation. There is one question (who took the cookies) yet two ways to find the answer (going with your initial thought or adapting to the evidence). Likewise, science and religion cannot both be they key, just as two different keys cannot unlock one door. If you can find a way this situation can be solved by both methods, I invite you to share.
Here are my questions for you:
" What proven evidence can you provide for Young Earth Creationism?
" How can religion, an un-changing idea strive for survival in a world ever shifting toward science?
" Why would god create a life form that needs to destroy other life in order to survive?
" If human life started from Adam and Eve, why are there so many people who do not follow Christianity? Wouldn't oral tradition eliminate any skepticism?
" What are the "miracles" you stated that Jesus performs today and can they truly not be answered by science?
" Why would god arrange the fossil record to point to evolution?
" If everything was created according to Young Earth Creationism why can we see objects billions of light years away?
" If humans are so special why do we share DNA common with chimpanzees?
" Can you explain the process god used to create life (why specific proteins, why DNA, why genetic variation, number of chromosomes)?
" Name one triumph in any field that can be directly credited to creationism.
" How does creationism account for Cosmic Background Radiation?
And please try to improve your choice of links. All the ones that aren't bias fail to work.
To begin, if I said 'combustion of the universe' and not 'commencement/origin of the universe,' MY BAD. You say: "It is not, as you say, thought of by most atheists to be a combustion of the universe. It is widely accepted by people with and without religion." I know that the Big Bang is widely accepted by religious people too, I was just pointing out how 99% atheists believe in the Big Bang as what started the universe.
Secondly, you say my sources are too biased to be trusted. Sorry but I'm just trying to do my job, which is explain why religion is the key not science, and to do that you have to give websites that prove your point, especially if what's being said is true. How can a debater not ever be biased?
From your first website listed, it was about what the BBT is. Quote: "The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today."
One quick thing, is this REALLY the only alternative to Creationism which--by the way--has been around for a longer time than the BBT (atheistic way of putting the origin of life)...? Scientists who don't want to believe in a Creator have searched for ways the universe could've commenced, always trying to compete with the theory of God, and this is what we have now?!
"Because current instruments don't allow astronomers to peer back at the universe's birth, much of what we understand about the Big Bang Theory comes from mathematical theory and models."
...And it's a fact that Evolution AND the Big Bang model don't have any observable evidence, while religion such as Christianity, has mounds of it. I've actually sent letters to workers who teach evolution, at this state Science Museum, and I would ask for observable evidence. Response? "I can't tell you on a postcard." I got a website link which told me nothing. But I'm not the only one to say this, many people have done experiments. 
My opponent: "It is also evident that you believe that because science changes over time it cannot be trusted. This is most certainly not the case. Science adapts as new discoveries are made, thus correcting any errors and paving the way to new knowledge."
That sounds like an oxy moron (get it?). You're saying that science never changes but it corrects the errors science had earlier--this paves a way to new knowledge. So you admit, science does (and can and will) change.
"Science manages to stay stable because of its evolving. Whereas the Bible refuses to change." The world may be becoming something different. But the science, in this world, that correlates with the Bible which never changes, proves the Book's truth and it shows how science alone is unstable and faulty. Lots of scientific evidence for Christianity's holy book is out there, just seek and you will find.  It's actually very amazing how the Bible doesn't need to adapt; science adapts to it.
Yes I spent a lot of time talking about fossils. I enjoy laughing at evolutionism's faulty basis. Just kidding I don't do that, but my point in doing so was to prove evolutionism's faulty basis.
My opponent says that I stated something about Precambrian and Cambrian period and it disproved my YEC belief. Did you know that the Cambrian Explosion can disprove Evolution? It's quite interesting. 
The analogy-type, or dare I say 'parable' of a story my opponent showed that he thinks science and religion cannot work together at all, much less that religion is the "key" not science.
"You go to the refrigerator, wishing for one of the cookies you had just baked. But upon your arrival, to your dismay, they are gone. Your initial thought is that your brother took them (because he loves cookies). However as you turn away, you see a trail of chocolate leading to the dog, who also has the rest of the cookies. In this care the initial thought of the brother represents Christianity. And the adaptation of knowledge once you see the dog represents science."
Actually, the brother could also represent Evolution/science, because all atheists would agree: science is more logical and inviting than religion. The Bible, for example, has many evidences to hint it's truth, but it is not agreeable by most.
"If you don't change your mind, though you have seen the dog eating the cookies, and confront your brother about it, he will deny he did it, thus "facts" observed do not agree. You had no evidence that your brother did it which is also a lack of observation. There is one question (who took the cookies) yet two ways to find the answer (going with your initial thought or adapting to the evidence). Likewise, science and religion cannot both be they key, just as two different keys cannot unlock one door."
The key part is a bit misleading, and I had wanted to mention this during the whole debate but forgot.
key (noun or adjective)
1. a small piece of shaped metal with incisions cut to fit the wards of a particular lock, and that is inserted into a lock and turned to open or close it.
2. each of several buttons on a panel for operating a computer, typewriter, or telephone.
1. of paramount or crucial importance 
This is misleading because, the whole debate, you have been acting like 'key' meant the 'way.' But in response to your story, there IS an alternative method. That is the key to the kingdom. Matthew 16:19 says "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."  Since you have changed the meaning keys, I can twist it a bit too: the verse says that anybody, with or without science, can get to heaven (through salvation with Christ). Would you rather have the keys to earthly, temporary things such as science, or to the everlasting, hopeful things such as our Creator's home called Heaven? In fact, many times in the Bible it says that earthly things will lead you in the wrong direction. Temporary things like drugs, partying, money, power, and even knowledge in science, can be tempting and give you happiness at the time, but when thinking long-term you never get anywhere with those items.
This is why, not just religion, but a relationship with the Creator we talk about in Christianity, is so much more powerful and worth-while than science or any earthly object. The keys to life are not held in science. The keys to some knowledge are held in science, but not all. The keys to satisfaction are not held in science. Therefore science is not the key.
I will run out of characters if I answer all my opponent's questions, but bear with me as I give a quick overview and answers to his interview :) By the way, it's pretty obvious my opponent copy/pasted the questions from a certain website he did not provide a source for...
-Young Earth Creationism is not religion therefore is slightly irrelevant to this debate, but it is one example of why science and religion can work together.
-Tradition (Adam and Eve) has eliminated many forms of skepticism, but as we all know there is evidence that supports both creationism and evolution and many people have fallen into the trap/temptation of mainstream, and secular science. Creationism teaches both earthly and religion-related science, unlike secular scientists.
Evolution vs Creation is a completely different debate but I would've loved to answer those questions, maybe another time! Thank you truly for a intriguing debate though, and I'll pray for you and for the readers that you all would realize the significance in religion and a supernatural relationship.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 2 years 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: This was a tough decision because this was a confusing debate. I had to read it three times. I give Con conduct because Pro seemed to attack Con herself rather than address her arguments a lot of the time.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years 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:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided very good argument, evidence and supporting sources. Pro's knowledge of Evolution and Cosmology (Big Bang, which should be properly called Big Expansion) outshone Con's knowledge of these subjects. Rather than a debate, it appeared more as a science class with Pro teaching Con about Con's obvious misconceptions of Science.
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.