The Bible is the most reliable resource we have to explain our origin.
I accept this debate and will be attempting to prove the Big Bang theory correct.
purpleduck forfeited this round.
I apologize for forfeiting the previous round, I ran out of time before I could finish writing my arguments. I also did not realize that this debate was extremely short, but oh well.
In all of my opponent’s arguments, he/makes no attempt to either prove his own point or to disprove my side. He mentions something about evidence against evolution and the Big Bang, but never actually provides said evidence. His argument is essentially: “God is so awesome that atheists cannot begin to comprehend Him, therefore everything remotely scientific must be wrong.” This really isn’t a very sound argument, concrete or circumstantial evidence is imperative in order to disprove, at the very least, evolution and/or the Big Bang, both of which have a lot of evidence going for them, which I will talk about later.
My opponent also fails to prove his own point, saying:
“The Bible has also very clearly explained the origin of life. It said that God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. My only job as a Christian is to believe that. “
What this essentially means is that my opponent, and really Christians in general, are to blindly believe whatever the Bible says, which is, quite frankly, a very dangerous and very stupid idea, even outside of the religious context. Moreover, blind faith has no place in science; everything in science is falsifiable. If someone were to prove atomic theory completely and utterly wrong, it would be forgotten about within a year. The same applies to evolution, the same applies to the Big Bang.
Instead of defending his own points, he instead attacks the opposing side to prove his own point, a God of the Gaps line of argumentation. For those of you who don’t know what this is, God of the Gaps is essentially: “I don’t know, so God must have done it. Oh, and specifically, MY God.” Disproving evolution will not automatically make Creationism true, Creationism must make it’s own case if it wishes to be acknowledged as a sound, scientific concept.
Evolution is one of the most well substantiated scientific theories in existence; more than atomic theory, more than gravity, more than relativity. It is observable on a smaller scale in micro organisms such and bacteria, virus, and even cancer cells and insects such as mosquitoes and moths. To fully understand evolution, one must understand the concept of natural selection, or survival of the fittest. Say, for example, 8 humans were forced into a bio dome where the climate temperature is extremely high. Now lets say there is a guy named Adam who has the ability to store moisture inside his body and delay dehydration and a girl named Eve who has more efficient sweat glands to help cool the body while staying relatively hydrated. One day, there is a massive temperature spike and everybody except Adam and Eve get heat stroke and die. Adam and Eve breed and have children that have both the ability to store moisture inside their body and more efficient sweat glands. Now if more people were to be forced into the bio dome, Adam and Eve’s offspring would then be able to breed with the newcomers and pass down more and more traits that allow the offspring to adapt better and better to their hot environment. This concept is why we need new flu vaccines every year, why weed killers need to be made more and more potent, and why pesticide needs to be made more and more poisonous. Animals will adapt, and animals will change little by little, and given 100 million years, these small changes pile up and become big changes. Thus is evolution.
A relatively long time ago, a scientist looked up into the night sky and saw that some stars had a reddish tint to them. Over time, this scientist and his other scientist buddies realized that this was the result of the Doppler Effect, as red is low frequency light, thus proving that the stars are moving away from us, and that the universe is expanding. There are multiple explanations for this expansion, the most popular one being the Big Bang. The Big Bang states that in the beginning, there was a very dense ball of matter, which eventually exploded (or rather, imploded) and released space, time, and matter, creating the universe in one big bang. And when an explosion occurs in a vacuum, the particles are thrown away from the center and move indefinitely, which is what is going on with the universe. As the universe expanded, density and thus pressure decreased, and the universe cooled, allowing matter to form bonds and create stuff like stars and planets. There are actually a lot of alternate and valid explanations to this expansion such as the Big Bounce, which illustrates a universe that infinitely expands, stops, shrinks, and then begins again. However, the Big Bang does have a lot going for it, and a lot of it is very complicated and difficult to understand (even for me), so I will leave just the basic foundation for this scientific theory.
The Bible, on the other hand, is not really a reliable source for anything, much less the origin of the universe. For example, Leviticus 11:6 implies that rabbits have cloven feet and chew cud, both of which are blatantly untrue. Revelation 8:10 implies that stars are small enough to fall into rivers. In Genesis, it is implied that reflection is possible without light, as God was reflected upon the waters before he said “Let there be light”. Genesis also implies that the Earth was created before the Sun and that light was created before there was a light source (stars), both of which have also been proven to be false. If the Bible can’t even get the anatomy and diet of a rabbit correct, why would anyone expect it to get the origin of the universe and man right?
The Bible is a distinctly unreliable source for the origin of the universe, as it is already very untrustworthy in many, many areas and has no scientific backing for its claims. Science, while it cannot explain everything, explains our origin through heavy amounts of both concrete and circumstantial evidence as shown above, and is, more importantly, falsifiable, which cannot be said for religion as a whole. As such, science can constantly update and correct itself to be more and more accurate and relevant, and as such is far more trustworthy than a dusty old book containing some very outdated and outright incorrect scientific “facts’.
|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||6|