The Instigator
tyson
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Silentsvc
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Science vs. God/Religion

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 2 votes the winner is...
Silentsvc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,535 times Debate No: 41536
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

tyson

Pro

I want to get straight into the debate. In this debate, I'm for Science. I ask the contender to not call me an atheist, for I believe in God as much as the next guy.

The first round: Evolution vs. Creationism.

I believe that Evolution is the more plausible outcome for humanity. The similarities between humans and primates are too great. Primates are also one of the most smartest mammals on the planet. If you look at a chart on evolution, it is undeniable. Therefore, Evolution is more likely than Creationism.
Silentsvc

Con

Thank you for the opportunity to debate evolution v creationism with you. I will answer your statements in the following responses:

"The similarities between humans and primates are too great."
No one can logically argue that some primates have striking resemblances to us as humans. However I would argue that observation alone is not good science and saying that because something looks right doesn't mean it is.

"Primates are also one of the most smartest mammals on the planet."
This is also a true statement however it really isn't evidence for evolution or for that matter creationism on its own. This is another observation that on its own doesn't produce good science

"If you look at a chart on evolution, it is undeniable."
This is presuming the chart in question is completely accurate, I would ask that you present this chart so that we may debate it because as we may see, some charts have in fact falsely represented an evolutionary process. (1. Haekel's Embryo's)

I think regardless of position anyone involved in either Science, Theology or both could not accept this argument for Evolution over Creationism.

I believe in God in the Christian sense and I do believe in the infallibility of the Bible. However I do not believe in a literal translation of the Bible in its entirety. I am what is called a "Day-Age" Theorist.
"Day-Age Creationism, a type of Old Earth Creationism, is an effort to reconcile the literal Genesis account of Creation with modern scientific theories on the age of the Universe, the Earth, life, and humans. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather are much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years). The Genesis account is then interpreted as an account of the process of cosmic evolution, providing a broad base on which any number of theories and interpretations are built."(2)

Where you see evolution as more likely than Creation I see micro-evolution as a part of creationism.
The real argument when dealing with evolution vs creationism really boils down to one thing. Did a God exist before the beginning and start the process or did the process start on its own.

Thank you for your time, I yield the floor

1.) Science 5 September 1997:
Vol. 277 no. 5331 p. 1435
DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5331.1435a
2.) http://christianity.wikia.com...
Debate Round No. 1
tyson

Pro

tyson forfeited this round.
Silentsvc

Con

Since my colleuge forfitied the previous round I would like to take the oppurtunity to further my points.

I believe that the entire concept of science being in opposition to God or religion is false. It is a concept perpetrated by both sides to destroy the other. Science is a necessary part of education for believers, and whether evelotion can be proven or not really has no bearing on this particular topic. At its zenith both parties have to answer the Genesis 1:1 question. Before we can move on to the facts of evolution we must answer this question: "In the beginning God created the haeavens and the earth." Whether we evolved or not is irrelevant to the argument unitl we can answer this this question. The best way to answer this question in my opinion is through science. Although science cannot prove definitively that God exists, it can be used to look for the markers of divine influence on the cosmos.

I will give scripture and scientific evidence to this point:

Pslams 19:1-4
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.

My exposition of this verse states that science actually declares the existance of God. Day after day, science pours out speech declaring that there is a creator.

I present the following article as scientific evidence
I will conceede that there are deeper arguments to be had over the claims of the article but this is an excellent primer for future discussion in this debate:

"While Intelligent Design skeptics may claim there is no evidence of God, the actual scientific evidence for God's existence is overwhelming, scientifically answering the question, "does God exist?".
In science there is a Law of Physics called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Within it is a Conservation of Energy Law that states, as a key principle that all energy in a closed system must be conserved. Okay, fancy language, but what does that mean? It means that while energy can convert into matter (physical “stuff”), and matter into energy, however much total “stuff” there is (matter and energy), there can never be an increase in that total amount or a decrease in that total amount. So however much total “stuff” there is in the universe, (matter and energy combined), there can never have been more and never have been less. All it can do is convert to different forms, like matter to energy or energy to matter, but the total amount of all of it has to remain the same.

The “closed system” is a scientific term that refers to a system or an “area” that has no outside influence, like the universe. Now, as believers we know, of course, that God does influence the universe, so many believers would consider the universe an “open system”, (one that does get outside influence), but for the atheist who says there is no God, the universe is all there is, so from their perspective and for the sake of conventional science, the universe would get no outside influence and would therefore be considered a “closed system”.

Back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If it states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science if, in fact, there is no God. Therefore, science itself says there must be a God.

Plain and simple, matter/energy can not come into existence. It is scientifically impossible, yet here we see everything around us, so how can that be? There are really only 3 possibilities. Option A: Everything came into existence by itself anyway, without the help of God, (even though science has proven that impossible). Option B: Everything in the universe has always existed for all of eternity, (which, by the way is also scientifically impossible as explained due to something called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), or Option C: There must be a God, a Being greater than science, who created the Laws of science and has the ability to disobey them. Not only is a belief in God the only logical conclusion to draw, it's the only one scientifically possible because remember, if there is no God, the first two options are scientifically impossible according to the actual Laws of Physics.

Believe it or not, a 5 year old child could be an atheistic scientist's worst nightmare by merely asking him “where did everything come from if God didn't make it?” What that child is actually asking in scientific terms is “how do we have a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics by the creation of energy and matter in the closed system of the universe if there is no Creator capable of doing that?”

Many times people who do not believe there is evidence of God have claimed that a faith in God is only a matter of faith and that it can not be proven scientifically. They say "does God exist ?....if so, prove it to me". When confronted with this, we must fully understand what it means to “prove” something. The fact is that none of us were there when the universe came into being, so technically, none of us can “prove” what happened. We can't “prove” God did it and the atheists can't “prove” everything came into being on it's own, so what we have to do is examine the evidence based on science to determine the most plausible explanation. For example, if I see a beautiful sand castle on the beach with intricate design, but no one there along with it, I can not “prove” someone made it, just as someone else can not “prove” the sand castle made itself from the wind, waves and sand randomly interacting with one another, so we have to determine what logic and reason tell us is the most plausible explanation, based on scientific evidence and examination. You can get over an hour of scientific, mathemetical and logical evidence for God in the This is just one simple example of scientific evidence for God's existence out of many that can help you defend the faith with evidence of God based on science and logic, not just faith."


My major point is that science and faith do not have to be in such direct opposition, we have much common ground.

I again yield the floor to my respected opponent.

1.)http://www.toptenproofs.com...
Debate Round No. 2
tyson

Pro

tyson forfeited this round.
Silentsvc

Con

this was a sad forfeit. I would have loved to continue this discussion
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I totally disagree with you on this account Silentsvc: "Rationality focuses on goals and appropriate action for those goals with evidence given. It is likely we will never agree on the evidence for God or science, so we must look solely at rationality. rationality is based on the goals of the person and their appropriateness to a given situation. If a person is religious, then it is rational to believe in God"

That's the old school use for Rationality, or personal rationality.
Most modern uses of the term, especially among skeptics like myself, refers to Global or Open, Critical Rationality, in which a person should compare their rationality to that which is considered Real.
In that case a religious person would not be considered Rational, since their God is not globally considered as a Rational concept.
Those designing the RQ testing criteria have made similar comments to myself.
They consider all superstitions as mindware contamination and will thus test for superstitious beliefs to lower their RQ level.

Superstitious beliefs are not just Religious beliefs, it includes, Urban Myths, unproven practices like doing something just because dad, mom or an uncle did it, without considering such aspects as workplace safety and practicality/efficiency.
RQ testing is supposedly being designed to give reductions for blindly accepting any of those.

So, when I loosely use the term Rationality as in RQ testing, I'm referring to Open Minded, Critical Rationality. Not personal, self rationality.
Personal, self Rationality, may be entirely Irrational.
Posted by Silentsvc 3 years ago
Silentsvc
@sagey

I would argue that the comments you have made on the rational quotient are completely false. While I agree with your comments on the use of IQ and RQ in the economic arena, I would argue that your application of rationality to both science and religion are flawed.

" RQ is now the real test for intelligence and RQ can be improved through education, whereas IQ is genetic."

According to Daniel Kahman, the 2002 Nobel prize winner for his work on rationality stated that "To be rational means to adopt appropriate goals, take the appropriate action given one"s goals and beliefs, and hold beliefs that are commensurate with available evidence."

Rationality focuses on goals and appropriate action for those goals with evidence given. It is likely we will never agree on the evidence for God or science, so we must look solely at rationality. rationality is based on the goals of the person and their appropriateness to a given situation. If a person is religious, then it is rational to believe in God. Therefore your statement of the religious being irrational is completely false given your own logic. Also there is no solid evidence in the community that IQ is solely genetic.
"The development of a fetus has been shown to correlate to intelligence also. While this can be argued to be biology, in fact, it is environment. Conditions in which the fetus develops, such as drug use or poor nutrition by the mother can be shown to have a direct effect on intelligence. For example, intellectual impairment is much more frequent in the infants whose birth weight is less than 2,000 grams (Caputo & Mandell, 1970). Environmental differences in how children are raised also play a significant role on intelligence. Socio-economic status (SES) has been shown to play an important part of development. One study indicated that children from a home with a low SES, upon being transferred to a home with high SES, improved their test scores as much as 16 points (Wahlsten, 1995)
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
There is not much here on the evident evolution that really is separating us from the apes, since our genetics are 95% ape. So we are at 95% ape, yes we are still Apes, we haven't changed to another Kind (creationist lingo).
Cultural evolution is changing our brain structure and cultural works thousands of times faster than biological evolution which takes millions of years to produce any noticeable changes large mammal form or phenotype. Where cultural evolution can change the brain structure in a thousand years or less.
Humans are gradually evolving a more rational brain, or higher Rational Quotient (RQ), industry will lead the way as they are now starting to test prospective employees and recruits for their RQ and no longer will consider IQ as a measure of intelligence. RQ is now the real test for intelligence and RQ can be improved through education, whereas IQ is genetic.
The other end of the cultural spectrum is also influencing the increasing rationality of the human race and that is the media, which now denigrates Irrationality, whether it be from politicians, religious leaders, and public figures. People are having to become more rational to avoid being shunned and denigrated in public.
Political parties are now having to choose more rational politicians to avoid being attacked by the media for silly comments made by Irrational Politicians, i.e. Sarah Palin, George Bush, etc....
Possibly, soon, political parties may start RQ testing their candidates and dismiss or not support those that fail.
Rational, high RQ people have been proven to make less mistakes in the workforce, cause less workplace accidents, make less stupid comments and produce better (more sound/rational) policies.
Beneficiaries of this would be, Better environmental management, better policy formulation, improved national decisions, smarter people in general.
The only loser would be Religion, because religion requires low RQ (Irrationality) to maintain belief!
Posted by tyson 3 years ago
tyson
@philochristos lol
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
"I ask the contender to not call me an atheist, for I believe in God as much as the next guy."

Well, I'm not sure whether the next guy believes in God or not. :-)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by The_Tom 3 years ago
The_Tom
tysonSilentsvcTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: No argument for pro means no vote. Forced forfeit.
Vote Placed by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
tysonSilentsvcTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.