The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
DeltaMed910
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Christian God Created Life On Earth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 696 times Debate No: 79619
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

MagicAintReal

Con

If you can't accept, respond in comments
*You are Pro*
*I am Con*

Resolution
The Christian God Created Life On Earth

Pro
Has the burden of proof and 4 sets of 10,000 (40,000 total) characters to demonstrate that the christian god created life on earth and refute Con.

Con
Has only 3 sets of 10,000 (30,000 total) characters to refute Pro.

*NO ACCEPTANCE ROUND...in fact there are no rounds, so use your characters as you wish to meet your burden of proof.

*Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument.

*Definitions can be changed however, in the comments section, before the debate, as long as both Pro and Con agree.


Definitions (from Google definitions)

christian - of the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

created - brought something into existence

life - the condition that distinguishes animals, bacteria, and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

earth - the planet on which we live; the world.

May the better argument win!
DeltaMed910

Pro

Note 1: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE READ MY ARGUMENTS, ALTHOUGH YOU (THE AUDIENCE), LIKE MOST LOGICAL PEOPLE, MAY HAVE A STANCE ON THIS ALREADY. I KNOW I'M TAKING THE UNCONVENTIONAL STANCE, BUT I WILL BE ARGUING THIS OUTSIDE THE BOX. VOTE FOR THE BETTER ARGUMENTS, NOT YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS. THAT IS THE DUTY OF THE VOTERS.

Note 2: THIS IS NOT A DEBATE IF ADAM WAS CREATED FIRST AND EVE WAS CREATED FROM HIS RIB. THIS IS, HOWEVER, A DEBATE SIMPLY ABOUT THE PRINCIPLE THAT GOD CREATED US, NOT THE METHOD IN WHICH HE ACCOMPLISHED THIS TASK.

Before I start, let me make something clear. The creation of Earth by God has nothing to do with the Bible. The Bible is a series of accounts of disciples of the Lord and should NOT be used as solid evidence. I have three arguments to bring to the table today:

1. What Created Us? (Don't worry, I'm not going to piss off Darwin)
It is in the nature of humans to question. We have questioned why some animals have four limbs, others eight. We have questioned how we can defy gravity. Hell, we've gone to space! But everything must have a beginning, a source it came from. My country was founded by a group of posh British quabblers that got themselves sober enough to win a war and draft some declarations. My ancestors' country was founded through 45 years of bloodshed and rebellion against the Japanese that were occupying and oppressing them. Likewise, there must be a creator, a precedent, something before us. It is foolish to think that there is no overhanging power that created us. Why not God? You might ask, even if we give Christian God the benefit of the doubt, how does this prove he created life?

2. Arugment of Causal Continuation; Freudian "Cause-and-effect" Theory
If we push a boulder down a hill and we manage to kill someone below, we can get charged with murder. Likewise we can say God pushed the metaphorical boulder that rolled down the hill in a "big bang" and the passage of the boulder down the hill is similar to the creation of universes and in the end, the creation of life itself. This series of causual events can lead and trace back to God.

3. Existence of God and Causal Link to Our Creation
We can assume mathematically, God is a 4th dimensional creature. Therefore, we perceive him as omnipotent and almighty. The reason for this is in the excerpt below.

I derive from the world renown physicst Michio Kaku:

Source: http://mkaku.org...

"To understand some of the mind-bending features of higher dimensions, imagine a two-dimensional world, called Flat land (after Edwin A. Abbott’s celebrated novel) that resembles a world existing on a flat table-top. If one of the Flatlanders becomes lost, we can quickly scan all of Flatland, peering directly inside houses, buildings, and even concealed places. If one of the Flatlanders becomes sick, we can reach directly into their insides and per form surgery, without ever cutting their skin. If one of the Flatlanders is incarcerated in jail (which is a circle enclosing the Flatlander) we can simply peel the person off from Flatland into the third dimension and place the Flatlander back somewhere else. If we become more ambitious and stick our fingers and arms through Flatland, the Flatlanders would only see circles of flesh that hover around them, constantly changing shape and merging into other circles. And lastly, if we fling a Flatlander into our three dimensional world, the Flatlander can only see two dimensional cross sections of our world, i.e. a phantasmagoria of circles, squares, etc. which constantly change shape and merge (see fig. 1 and 2). Now imagine that we are “three dimensional Flatlanders” being visited by a higher dimensional being. If we became lost, a higher dimensional being could scan our entire universe all at once, peering directly into the most tightly sealed hiding places. If we became sick, a higher dimensional being could reach into our insides and perform surgery without ever cutting our skin. If we were in a maximum-security, escape-proof jail, a higher dimensional being could simply “yank” us into a higher dimension and redeposit us back somewhere else. If higher dimensional beings stick their “fingers” into our universe, they would appear to us to be blobs of flesh which float above us and constantly merge and split apart. And lastly, if we are flung into hyperspace, we would see a collection of spheres, blobs, and polyhedra which suddenly appear, constantly change shape and color, and then mysteriously disappear. Higher dimensional people, therefore, would have powers similar to God: they could walk through walls, disappear and reappear at will, reach into the strongest steel vaults, and see through buildings."

Just like how we, thrid dimensional creatures, can create Flatlanders, why can't God create us, albeit through a more complicated way?

Thank you for understanding my position. I realize this is not the contemporary view on God, and I am glad I brought this new concept to the table. I have fulfilled my portion of the Atlas-like burden. Now I would like to challenge the CON to answer this:

How else was life created?
Don't give me a half-formed answer of "oh evolution". Evolution happened after life was created. Scientists claim life was founded through a series of amino acids coming together in a premeival "soup", but we haven't been able to create life despite replicating all the necessary conditions to the letter. Surely we are Flatlanders living in God's world.

I look forward to my opponent's arguments and rebuttals.
Audemus jura nostra defendere :)
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks Pro for taking this "unconventional" stance.

Well, to start off...I reject the claim that the christian god in particular created life on earth.

Let's refute.

Pro says:
"THIS IS...A DEBATE SIMPLY ABOUT THE PRINCIPLE THAT GOD CREATED US"

My response:
Nope.
This is a debate simply about the claim that god created life on earth. Humans are only one classification of life, so Pro only has to demonstrate god-->life not god-->humans.

Pro adds:
"THIS...DEBATE...[is] NOT [about] THE METHOD IN WHICH [god] ACCOMPLISHED [creating life]."

My response:
Well, if Pro doesn't supply a mechanistic explanation of HOW god accomplished creating life, then how does Pro know that god created life? Without knowledge of the mechanism behind life creation, one cannot deduce an agent of the mechanism.

Pro continues:
"The creation of Earth by God has nothing to do with the Bible."

My response:
The creation of earth by god has nothing to do with this debate. The resolution presupposes that earth already exists before life, so its creation, unless directly part of god's mechanism for life's creation, is irrelevant.

Pro posits:
"What Created Us?...Why not god?"

My response:
Again, it's not just about us...we're talking about the origins of life not the origins of humans.
Since Pro has the burden of proof, the question should NOT be "Why not god?"
The burden rests on the question "Why god?"
Either Pro explains why/how god is the answer to the origins of earthly life or he doesn't.

Pro expands his burden:
"God pushed the metaphorical boulder that rolled down the hill in a "big bang" and the passage of the boulder down the hill is similar to the creation of universes and in the end, the creation of life itself. This series of causual events can lead and trace back to God."

My response:
I understand that a boulder rolling down a hill is being used as metaphor to represent a cause and effect chain from the beginning of the universe to the origins of life, so given this metaphor...
How did god push this boulder?
Did god create the boulder that he pushed?
If so, how?
Did god create the path of the boulder too?
If so, how?
What about the end of the rolling boulder's path demonstrates the christian god's creation of life on earth?

Maybe instead of a metaphorical explanation, Pro could provide a mechanistic explanation of HOW the christian god is directly responsible for the creation of life on earth.

Pro cites Michio Kaku:
"Higher dimensional people, therefore, would have powers similar to God: they could walk through walls, disappear and reappear at will, reach into the strongest steel vaults, and see through buildings."

My response:
I cite Michio Kaku, "we stress that there is at present no experimental evidence for higher dimensions."
http://mkaku.org...

Ok, well until you can give us some experimental evidence, I really have no reason to accept higher dimensions and neither should any critical thinking individual.

If correct, all the Kaku quote would indicate is that there are higher dimensional people who would be similar to god...doesn't sound like the monotheistic christian god to me.

Then Pro posits:
"Just like how we, thrid dimensional creatures, can create Flatlanders, why can't God create us, albeit through a more complicated way?"

My response:
The question should be "What is the complicated way through which god created life?"
Pro needs to mechanistically explain this for Pro's burden to be met.

Also, the resolution is pretty specific that the god is the christian god, and that life is the life that we know of on earth, and sadly Pro has not mentioned anything from Christianity's god nor anything about life. Look at Pro's first set of 10,000 characters...no Christianity or life mentioned.

Pro mentioned some string theory/multi dimensional first causer (boulder roller), and mentioned the earth's creation and the creation of "us"...that's it.

Then Pro challenges me:
"How else was life created?"

My response:
How else?
Pro hasn't provided any explanation of the origins of life so there is no else to provide.
Pro, come on...How did the Christian god create life on earth?
The last time I checked, Christianity has nothing to do with multiple dimensions.

But, the "challenge" given to me by pro will not go unacknowledged...check the tattoo avatar.

Pro mentioned "Scientists claim life was founded through a series of amino acids coming together..."
Pro is referring to abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is a fact.
Abiogenesis is the fact that life can come from inorganic compounds.

In chemistry, a compound is organic if it is covalently bonded to carbon.
If the compound is not covalently bonded to carbon it is inorganic.
So the distinction between inorganic and organic in chemistry can be very small if you're dealing with carbon compounds.

The Miller Urey and replicated experiments showed that with naturally occurring atmospheric gases, inorganic compounds, like those of earlier earth, can become organic compounds.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So let's see how extreme inorganic-->organic is.
Here's an inorganic carbon compound, cyanate
H N C O
Here's an organic compound, an amino acid/building block of life, Glycine
C 2 H 5 N O 2

Are 2 more carbon atoms, 5 more hydrogen atoms, and 1 more oxygen atom that extreme of a change?
Does Glycine seem to have anything in it that couldn't be found in earth's earlier atmosphere?

Ok well then the idea of inorganic-->organic shouldn't seem that radical.

A claim from people who have not looked at the replicated studies of the Miller Urey is that too much oxygen, which would be present in earth's atmosphere, ruins the results of inorganic-->organic.

This is true, but any lowering at all of the oxygen from the typical atmosphere allows for the inorganic-->organic switch proven in the experiments. These oxygen fluctuations are demonstrable.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org...

Once we have amino acids, many opponents to the theory say, well amino acids are just lifeless organic matter...how do you get to replication genetically?
Ready?
Amino acids react with each other, and if a chain of amino acids, polypeptides, fold onto themselves, they become biologically active.
To quote the NIH:
"The sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active."
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

Once we have biologically active proteins, we are talking about basic genetics.
RNA - a messenger carrying instructions from DNA for controlling the synthesis of proteins.

Abiogenesis proves that life can come from non-life with the pressures and atmosphere of an earlier earth, and this negates a need for any god-like creator.

To conclude:
1. Pro has not provided a mechanistic explanation of how the christian god in particular created life on earth, and instead Pro has referenced string theory/multiple dimensions and a boulder metaphor for god's involvement in the creation of the universe and us, not life in general...just humans.

2. Pro cited a legit physicist with an illegitimate idea that is blatantly discounted in the very source Pro provided...check the source yourself...it's mentioned in the first paragraph. Multiple dimensions is not an accepted scientific theory in cosmology/physics at this point, and Kaku is honest enough to admit it.

3. God has tried to shift the burden of proof on to me by saying things like "Why not god?" and "How else was life created?" This shows Pro's misunderstanding of their burden of proof.

4. Abiogenesis is a fact. Life can come from non-life, and the peer reviewed journals seem to indicate that an earlier earth's atmosphere allows for such.

So, I reject the claim that the christian god created life on earth.
DeltaMed910

Pro

Very nice rebuttal. Although, however, even if the burden of proof in this debate is on the PRO, I still think the CON should at least have some sort of a constructive case.

To argue CON's point, I'll start with the bare minimum and build up from there.

god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being

created - brought something into existence

I think these are the two most important definitions to keep in mind during this debate.

Point/Rebuttal 1:
So, we know that Genesis was never intended to be a detailed scientific handbook, describing how God created the universe. It imparts a theological, not a scientific, message. The prevalent theory of cosmic origins prior to the Big Bang theory was the “Steady State,” which argued that the universe has always existed, without a beginning that necessitated a cause. However, if the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent – separate and apart from the effect – that caused it. It adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused – or created – by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.

Atheist-turned-agnostic astronomer Fred Hoyle, who coined the term “Big Bang", famously stated, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics."

As Hoyle saw it, the Big Bang was not a chaotic explosion, but rather a very highly ordered event – one that could not have occurred by random chance. We also need to remember that God reveals himself both through scripture and creation. The challenge is in seeing how they fit together. A better understanding of each can inform our understanding of the other. It’s not just about cracking open the Bible and reading whatever we find there from a 21st-century American perspective. We have to study the context, the culture, the genre, the authorship and the original audience to understand the intent. We know that Genesis was never intended to be a detailed scientific handbook, describing how God created the universe. It imparts a theological, not a scientific, message. Imagine how confusing messages about gravity waves and dark matter might be to ancient Hebrew readers.

That sounds a lot like Genesis 1:1 to me: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.”

Point 2:

As my opponent so famously stated, "...we stress that there is at present no experimental evidence for higher dimensions...".

The funny thing is, my opponent didn't bother to paste the entire section; was he too tired to drag the cursor to the end? Anyways, here it is:

"Do higher dimensions exist? Are there unseen worlds just beyond our reach, beyond the normal laws of physics? Although higher dimensions have historically been the exclusive realm of charlatans, mystics, and science fiction writers, many serious theoretical physicists now believe that higher dimensions not only exist, but may also explain some of the deepest secrets of nature. Although we stress that there is at present no experimental evidence for higher dimensions, in principle they may solve the ultimate problem in physics: the final unification of all physical knowledge at the fundamental level."

This ties back to the reason why I stated "this debate is about the principle that God created life". Sure, the bible says God created humans, but we need to look at it from an ancient context-- they thought animals and humans were two different things! I presented a principle (multi-dimensions) that shows a mechanism (ie. Flatlander "theory"), which satisfies my opponent's thirst for knowledge and proof.

Point 3:

My original point about the Miller-Urey experiments (that produced amino acids using electricty) was that yes, amino acids were produced, but what then? We can't bond those acids to carbon, instead, we need proteins. Proteins from an organism. Who provided the first protein?

In conclusion:

The CON is very good at making factual statements and twisting it so that I seem to disagree with it. This is a childish way of debating (even more childish for starting a debate biased towards their side) and the CON should rebut to whole arguments instead of warping and distorting it. For example:

"[PRO argument about the lack of ability to replicate abiogenesis, thus showing there must be a key intervener]

The PRO is referring to abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is a fact...Life can come from non-life, and the peer reviewed journals seem to indicate that an earlier earth's atmosphere allows for such. [so therefore God didn't create us]"


In fact, I totally agree with that statement. My question was: if it happened in early Earth, why is it that the most we can make from scratch is a couple amino acids? We know how abiogenesis happened, why can't we replicate it? I mean, do you see us creating new life? No. Answer the question!

It is the duty of the voters to see through this hodgepodge of wishy-washy sidestepping and vote for the better arguments. The CON uses cherry-picked biased evidence and quotes to prove their point. The PRO has gone through each point and covered, strengthened, and added to it from start to finish.

Thank you, and may the better debater win.

Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks Pro.

Nothing says life on earth like string theory and Fred Hoyle.

Well, I'm going to have to discount string theory/multiple dimensions in order to refute that the Christian god created life on earth.

I'm also going to have to discount Fred Hoyle's issues with the big bang in order to refute that the Christian god created life on earth.

But first, something relevant.

About this debate's resolution containing the words "god" and "created,"
Pro says:
"I think these are the two most important definitions to keep in mind during this debate."

My response:
Yeah Pro.
Only focus on god, and not the particular christian god, so that your burden isn't as difficult and isn't fully met...honest and strategic!

I realize that the Jewish god is the same as the Christian god, so Pro only needs to demonstrate that the old testament god created life, but it's funny that Jesus Christ hasn't been mentioned yet, right? The resolution speaks of the Christian god...oh well.

So, then Pro points out:
"So, we know that Genesis was never intended to be a detailed scientific handbook, describing how god created the universe."

My response:
Oh, ok so we agree that we shouldn't use an unscientific "handbook" (Genesis) to prove facts about detailed scientific concepts like the origin of the universe. Cool.

About the universe's origins Pro then says:
"That sounds a lot like Genesis 1:1 to me: 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth'."

My response:
Oh. Never mind...
Pro, why should we consider the bible, the book of Christianity, to be authoritative or accurate on matters of life's origin?

On to string theory...

I quoted Kaku saying that the idea of higher dimensions has no experimental evidence; he's an honest scientist.

Pro's response via a Kaku quote:
"many serious physicists now believe that higher dimensions...exist...[and] also explain some of the deepest secrets of nature."

My response:
This is surely an argument from authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Simply because they are serious experts doesn't mean that their claims are true.
To say that higher dimensions is true simply because it's a belief held by serious physicists is an argument from authority...so arriving at the higher dimension conclusion from a logical fallacy is invalid; the reasoning is based only on the idea that some serious physicists believe it to be so. This is fallacious.

We need to look at the claims themselves.

You know what makes a claim true?
When the claim is demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions within the content of the demonstration and subsequent replications.

Demonstrate, replicate, predict.
This happens or doesn't happen irrespective of who believes it.
Without experimental evidence, experienced physicists with a shared particular belief is not a demonstration of their claims. With no demonstration, there is no replication or accurate predictions made about higher dimensions.

The way I've explained it to students, yeah I'm a lame high school teacher, is that they shouldn't just listen to the meteorologists; the students should check the Doppler radar themselves.

Doppler radar would be the evidence needed to prove a claim of meteorology...like the claim that rain is imminent could be verified by seeing the proper cloud formation on the Doppler radar.

String theory has nothing to show on the radar if you get my analogy.
With experimental evidence for higher dimensions, we could "check the radar ourselves."

In science when we have no experimental evidence, we accept the null hypothesis.
String Theory's hypothesis is that there are higher dimensions because they solve the spatial problem for the vibrating strings which are part of the theory...great, where's the evidence?
Oh there isn't any? Ok well then we reject the hypothesis and accept the null.

The burden of proof for the higher dimension hypothesis has not been met, so we accept the null hypothesis, which rejects the hypothesis.

I am reasonable in rejecting the higher dimension beliefs of serious physicists even if the beliefs would seem to solve a conundrum within their theory, because no higher dimensions have been demonstrated.

Pro also mentions:
"I presented a principle (multi-dimensions) that shows a mechanism (ie. Flatlander "theory"), which satisfies my opponent's thirst for knowledge and proof."

My response:
So I'll explain the mechanism of scissors.
Two metal blades with plastic handles jointed at a swivel fulcrum are set up so that when you squeeze the handles, the sharp edges meet each other and cross very closely, shredding fibers that come between the sharp edges.

Could Pro elaborate with a mechanistic explanation of HOW higher dimensional beings managed to create life by going through dimensions as "blobs of flesh which float above us and constantly merge and split apart?"

Then if Pro wishes to get to it, could pro show how this mechanism is also used by the christian god in particular?

So life...

Life is metabolism and auto self replication...that's it. If there is a cell that can metabolize energy and auto (without a host cell) self replicate, it is alive; a living cell.

With that in mind, let's look at Pro's claims.

About abiogenesis experiments, Pro demands:
"[Y]es, amino acids were produced, but what then?"

My response:
So, these amino acid chains fold onto each other and create biologically active material. These are referred to as foldable proteins. They, without intervention, produce genetic material used for replication.

Pro asserts erroneously:
"We can't bond those acids to carbon, instead, we need proteins. Who provided the first protein?"

My response:
I understand that not everyone has a chemistry background...
So amino acids are organic compounds, which means that they already ARE, covalently, bonded to carbon. Also proteins are chains of amino acids.

So the deep structure of Pro's erroneous assertion would look like:

We can't bind carbon to those amino acids that already contain bounded carbon, instead, we need amino acids (proteins).
Who provided the first amino acids?

Well, it's not a who, but what provided the first amino acids?
Inorganic compounds from earlier earth. This is a fact of abiogenesis.

So Pro continues:
"If [abiogenesis] happened in early Earth, why is it that the most we can make from scratch is a couple amino acids?"

My response:
Well 23 amino acids to be exact. I'll be honest and mention that we've narrowed the list down to about 10 of the most likely culprits of abiogenesis, but saying we've yielded "just a couple" is incorrect.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Pro then asks:
"Do you see us creating new life?"

My response:
Yes.
Life is metabolizing energy, and auto self replicating.

Amino acids can metabolize glucose into pyruvate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Folded amino acids create biologically active structures...RNA
"One of the RNA molecules become autocatalytic by engaging in template directed self-replication from activated monomers."
To translate, the RNA produced from folded amino acid chains can itself replicate the RNA. Self replication.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So from amino acids we get metabolism and replication. There's life for ya.

Also, I noticed that Pro claimed that I'm cherry picking evidence.
Well, I only reference peer reviewed, highly credible, scientific experiments from the NCBI which is part of the National Library of Medicine, which is also a part of the National Institute of Health.

These, unlike higher dimensions, have experimental evidence, which I invite all readers to learn about by accessing my citations.

If I'm cherry picking, it's from an extremely relevant, credible, accurate, peer reviewed cherry tree. Either way, one can verify if my evidence is valid or not.

Fred Hoyle doesn't believe in the big bang.

So here ya go Fred Hoyle, though I know he's dead:
Below is evidence of the big bang.
http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov...

And here is the current model:

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov...;
DeltaMed910

Pro

It's interesting how a high school sophomore can write better organized arguments and rebuttals than a high school teacher. That should say something about our education system...

And my opponent tried to (unsuccessfully) overturn quantum string theory, which has been supported by people with a bit more physics background than him. This is ridiculous. A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL A SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT CAN ACHIEVE. IT IS SUPPORTED BY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE AND IS DEMONSTRATED, REPLICATED, AND IS USED TO PREDICT FUTURE OBSERVATIONS.


Anyways, back to the debate.

Abiogenesis:
Thank you for your very kind words regarding my chemistry background-- I admit it is what an average Chemistry student knows. However, I still know what an average Chemistry student knows. And it's that the Miller-Urey Experiments (that "proved" abiogenesis) was actually inconclusive.

The researchers used an oxygen-free environment mainly because the earth’s putative primitive atmosphere was then ‘widely believed not to have contained in its early stage significant amounts of oxygen’. They believed this because ‘laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution, as accounted for by present models, would be inibited by oxygen’. Here is one of many examples of where their a priori belief in the ‘fact’ of chemical evolution is used as ‘proof’ of one of the premises, an anoxic atmosphere. Of course, estimates of the level of O2 in the earth’s early atmosphere rely heavily on speculation. The fact is, ‘We still don’t know how an oxygen-rich atmosphere arose.

It was believed that the results were significant because some of the organic compounds produced were the building blocks of much more complex life units called proteins—the basic structure of all life. We now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. Without all 20 amino acids as a set, most known protein types cannot be produced, and this critical step in abiogenesis could never have occurred.

According to many researchers today, an even more serious problem is the fact that the atmosphere of the early earth was very different from what Miller assumed. ‘Research has since drawn Miller’s hypothetical atmosphere into question, causing many scientists to doubt the relevance of his findings. The problem was stated as follows:

‘… the accepted picture of the earth’s early atmosphere has changed: It was probably O2-rich with some nitrogen, a less reactive mixture than Miller’s....’

An average Chemistry student can tell you that much.

1A Rebuttal (use of "god" and "created" in definition)
Keep in mind that I am using YOUR definitions. No reason to complain.

1B Rebuttal (Genesis & and universe's origins)
I said Genesis was not a scientific handbook, but it was a series of observations from an ancient point of view.

A kid saying "Woah, flying black triangle in the sky!" is not a scientific handbook, but it is an observation I can use to deduce that that the black triangle in the sky is a B2 Spirit bomber.

2A Rebuttal: (String theory)
My point is, how do these physicists come up with and stick to these theories? Because SCIENTIFIC THEORIES provide SUFFICIENT DATA to convince serious physicists.

2B Rebuttal: (claim; demonstrate, replicate, predict)
I have a two word answer for this: black holes
We have a somewhat skewed and shaky data about the existence of black holes, but most of the scientific community is putting their money on it because some "serious physicsts" claim that they exist. This is the truth of our civilization today, and that's how all scientific theories start, which connect to my next sub-rebuttal--

2C Rebuttal: (string theory)
You tried to overthrow a scientific theory? Nice try, but don't bite off more than what you can chew.

String Theory is a widely acclaimed scientific theory that has been DEMONSTRATED, REPLICATED, AND USED IN PREDICTIONS (as per YOUR DEFINITIONS of a "proper" claim). A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Are you just going against all of your definitions? Backwards Day is next week.

Thank you, and may the better argument win!


Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Con

It's interesting how a high school sophomore can plagiarize in a time when it's so easy to get caught plagiarizing.
Just one Google search and...

Pro's entire rebuttal to abiogenesis was copied and pasted from creation.com:
http://creation.com...
(go to the Oxygen: enemy of chemical evolution)

Plagiarism is fun isn't it?
Especially when what you've plagiarized is from creation.com

I invite anyone to check out the source that Pro copied VERBATIM.
Regardless, the claims are flawed...shocker.

I already addressed the "too much oxygen" problem for the Miller-Urey experiments.
Studies showed that any reduction of oxygen from a normally oxygenated atmosphere, a reduced atmosphere as it's referred to, resulted in substantial amino acid production.

Perhaps what might be better though, is that we now have a more accurate representation of the atmosphere of earlier earth, and it suggests a neutral atmosphere of mostly Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide.

According to a replicated Miller-Urey experiment from the NCBI,
"We show here that contrary to previous reports, significant amounts of amino acids are produced from neutral gas mixtures...the yield of amino acids is greatly increased."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So the oxygenated atmosphere was inhibited by other elements, and therefore is not a problem for inorganic-->organic to occur.

Pro, through Creation.com's argument, also mentions:
"Without all 20 amino acids as a set, most known protein types cannot be produced"

My response:
Proteins are made of polypeptides.
If you have a polypeptide, amino acids joined together, it could consist of two or three amino acids simply bonding and repeating.
You don't need 20 different amino acids; you need 20 amino acid residues, which can repeat.
We could have a protein that has 20 amino acid residues of just Proline, Lysine, and Phenylalanine.
I admit that you normally see more amino acid differentiation in proteins, but polypeptides can be repeating amino acid residues.

The amino acids produced in the Miller-Urey type of experiments create proteins. It's a fact.

Abiogenesis explains how life likely originated on earth given the inorganic compounds, pressures, and atmosphere likely of an earlier earth which are conducive to prebiotic protein synthesis from inorganic matter.

Organic compounds can come from inorganic compounds; metabolism and replication can follow from this.

This all indicates that there is no need to infer that the Christian god in particular created life on earth; abiogenesis has experimental evidence.
This evidence has been demonstrated (experiments yielding amino acids).
These demonstrations have been replicated (NCBI's more recent replications of the results).
Accurate predictions about amino acid yield have been made given the understood nature of the demonstrated and replicated experiments.

On to particulars...

Pro whines:
"And my opponent tried to (unsuccessfully) overturn quantum string theory, which has been supported by people with a bit more physics background than him. This is ridiculous."

My response:
So Pro really doesn't understand what an argument from authority fallacy is.
https://www.google.com...

I don't care if Albert Einstein rises from the dead and says that string theory's higher dimensions hypothesis is a fact.
Without experimental evidence, scientists' support of a hypothesis is not a demonstration of the hypothesis.

Appealing to "people with a bit more physics background than [me]" is an argument from authority, because it infers the truth of the claim based on who the people are (authority), not what the evidence indicates.

Yes, Michio Kaku knows more physics and related math than I probably can ever grasp or apply, but without experimental evidence, his beliefs are simply conjecture with a possible solution to a mathematical conundrum of string theory.
I agree that the ideas of string theory are fascinating and mathematically beautiful, but this does not indicate any truth of the claims, even if string theory is labeled a scientific theory.

When a peer reviewed, credible, replicable experiment yields evidence for higher dimensions, I will be on board 100%.
Until that time, higher dimensions must remain unfounded despite the support of authorities on the matter.

So Pro then attempts "rebuttals"
Pro defends his lack of focus on the "Christian" portion of Pro's burden:
"Keep in mind that I am using YOUR definitions."

My response:
Pro is using "god and "created"...Pro is purposefully ignoring the definition of "christian" in the resolution.

Pro then appeals to a child noticing a military plane. Though emotion-inducing, it is irrelevant. Genesis, is not an observation, it's a declaration from the bible's god of how everything was created.

An observation would be if humans wrote the bible, and observed creation, not if god wrote the bible and explained creation.
If Pro wishes to admit that Genesis is an observational account, then Pro admits his god did not write the bible, and therefore is not the christian god.

Pro mentions scientific theories:
"SCIENTIFIC THEORIES provide SUFFICIENT DATA to convince serious physicists."

My response:
The theories do not provide data.
Experiments provide data.
Theories are crafted around data gathered from experiments.
The strength of the theory rests on the strength of the data gathered from experiments.
Though scientists may align with a particular theory, the theory itself does not convince physicists.
Instead, experimental evidence strengthens or weakens a particular theory irrespective of who supports the theory.

Higher dimensions, which are a necessity for string theory, have not been demonstrated experimentally.
Their mathematical implications are simply intriguing for physicists.

Pro goes on to black holes:
"We have a somewhat skewed and shaky data about the existence of black holes, but most of the scientific community is putting their money on it because some "serious physicsts" claim that they exist."

My response:
Check out my victorious debate on black holes, where I reference all of our accumulated knowledge on black holes that definitively demonstrate their existence.
http://www.debate.org...
Also, check out NASA. Just google NASA black holes, and they have videos, images, and explanations of everything black hole related.

Conclusion:

1. Pro has not demonstrated or mentioned the Christian god creating life on earth, and instead has input some deistic, higher dimensional god in the place of an unfounded hypothesis in a scientific theory that is on life support because it lacks experimental evidence.
No mechanistic explanation of how the higher dimensional god created life leaves me reasonable in rejecting such a claim.

2. Abiogenesis is a fact, and Pro's contentions with prebiotic synthsis of proteins have been thoroughly addressed.
Abiogenesis negates the need for a god creating life on earth.

3. Pro plagiarized their 3rd set of 10,000 characters (3rd round), and the site from which they plagiarized, creation.com, is not credible on matters of biology, scientific knowledge, or the origins of life on earth. Their contentions with abiogenesis have also been addressed.

4. Pro claims that their argument is "better" organized than mine, and that this is interesting given that Pro is a student and I am a teacher...
When you're an important boss, you never need to tell people that you're an important boss, because everyone already knows it.
When you are winning in a competition, you don't need to tell people that you're winning, because your success is obvious.

So, when someone usually says something to the effect of "I'm clearly better than my opponent" it's usually an indication of insecurity, much like how a man with tiny genitalia would compensate by buying an expensive sports car.
If I can show people that my car is better than most, then maybe people will think my tiny genitalia is better too.

Insecurity is ugly and obvious.

Also, the christian god did not create life on earth.
DeltaMed910

Pro

I admit it. I was pressed for time, and yeah I did it. I also know how to fool Turnitin (lol the turnitin bot can't "read" Quizlet).
As Voltaire said, "if you want to learn your place, learn who you can't publically criticize".

Let's keep this short:
The elephant in the room.
Abiogenesis.

My opponent and I proved two conflicting sources regarding abiogenesis.
It is up to the voters to decide which is more trustworthy; either the site that proved it, or the site that overturned it.

One will prove we came from the luck of the draw, the other will prove we were created by an intelligent designer (much like making a computer chip-- how likely is it that they are made from the Amazon? And compare making carbon arrangements to making proteins).

One will deny, and one will show there was a mastermind behind the Big Bang.

Moving on:
Proof of Theories.

Black holes must not exist;
A scientific theory is one that provides indisputable proof and an explanation for an observation.
Black holes are not yet indisputably proven-- even its founder, Stephen Hawking, is coming up with arguments to prove that they are false.

http://www.universetoday.com...
http://phys.org...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
(happy?)

Thus, my opponent's definition of what qualifies as an accepted theory is faulty.

I thank my opponent for this challenge. This has been an interesting one for me, since I've never had to go so strongly against my beliefs for a debate before. It was also a wild field trip of cherry picking evidence (yes I'll admit to it too).

This debate reminded me of Murhpy's Laws-- anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
Just note, I'm a deist; it sorta rubbed in during the debate. I never understood Christians.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Thanks for the vote Balacafa.
Posted by DeltaMed910 1 year ago
DeltaMed910
Haha, I know. Also, my chemistry isn't that bad. I know that the Miller-Urey experiments did pave the way for proving abiogenesis. Seriously, I'm not that stupid.

It's pretty hard trying to support creationism if your childhood was Bill Nye.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
For readers, Stephen Hawking is not the "founder" of black holes.

Black holes were first theorized in Einsteins theory of relativity. Also, if you watch the stars at the center of our galaxy, there is some massively gravitational, light-less force manipulating large stars' orbits.

Stars collapse to form black holes, which has been observed recently.

I'm talking about black holes in the comments section, because they have NOTHING to do with this debate, and errors about black holes should not go uncorrected. Go to NASA and see what they say about black holes.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Please argue the resolution...
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
I'm def not pissed, and I gathered from your multiple dimensions argument that you're not a christian.

The god in this debate is the Christian god. I gave the definition of the adjective "christian" and this adjective is modifying "god" in the resolution. I also gave a definition of god. How much clearer could I be?

If you don't think the word "christian" modifies the noun "god" in this resolution, then you can take an English class to clarify your misunderstandings of parts of speech.

Furthermore, if i made such a "cheap debate" then....DON'T ACCEPT THE DEBATE.

Nothing is more childish than accepting to be involved in something, under no force, and then complaining about it when you're involved in it...that's childish.
Posted by DeltaMed910 1 year ago
DeltaMed910
hey yo i'm just using your definition of God. You should've defined it better. It's your fault-- in fact, you're shifting even more of YOUR problems onto me. Also, don't get all pissed off at me, I personally don't think god created earth. I'M ONLY DEBATING THIS CUZ I'M NOT A CHEAP DEBATER THAT ONLY DEBATES THE SIDES FAVORABLE TO THEM.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
It's fine to see that debate, but please no more chewbacca defenses.
Posted by Mike_10-4 1 year ago
Mike_10-4
@DeltaMed910

I like your reference to the phrase "OUTSIDE THE BOX." See my debate with our friend Con (MagicAinReal): http://www.debate.org...

I hope Con will take my advice by morally embracing a constructive exchange of ideas to help close the gap between those of faith and the faithless.

I see in this debate he is focused on "Christians," perhaps, his next debate would be on Muslims.
Posted by Evolutions_Devil 1 year ago
Evolutions_Devil
This looks great, good job for your standings too Delta!
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
Interesting.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
MagicAintRealDeltaMed910Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The plagiarism alone is reason enough to vote Con, since it dominates a whole round. That's not to mention that Pro also failed to meet his BoP, which was to show that the CHRISTIAN god created life on Earth. That requires proof that a) that god exists, and b) that that god created life on Earth. On both fronts, Con's analysis is better, showcasing a higher likelihood that abiogenesis occurred. I never get any real support for the existence of the Christian god, just a deity of some sort, and not that much on that end, either. That leaves me option but to vote Con. I'm also giving him conduct for the plagiarizing.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
MagicAintRealDeltaMed910Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized a whole round of arguments. I view this as: a) a lack of conduct b) Poor debating skills Therefore arguments and conduct goes to con.