The Instigator
Xxzefd
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
creationtruth
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

The Creator of the Universe

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
creationtruth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 991 times Debate No: 66211
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Xxzefd

Con

I want you to make a choice to debate me. Consider me your intellectual adversary. Why do you choose to believe that "God" is the Creator of the Universe when you or other creationists have no evidence to back up your beliefs. Why do you choose to believe that "God" created the entire human race and the Universe without evidence to back up your claims? Many people of various religious faiths even irreligionists who also "Have the faith" choose to believe differently when they are just lacking evidence to back up their beliefs also. It's because of people like this that there are so many skeptics and atheists because they have never been given evidence for "God" being the Creator of the Universe only false testimony instead of irrefutable proof. Why do people like you choose to rely on a position of ignorance rather then a position of evidence?
creationtruth

Pro

Hello, I gladly accept your debate challenge, although I'm not quite sure what you are arguing for. I'll assume for now that you are arguing against the existence of actual scientific evidence of a Creator God.

You present many questions which seem to leave me with only one response: I believe because I choose to believe. Your questions are poorly stated. Your last question is especially full of assumptions about what I have to say. How can you make a statement about my position when I have yet to state it? Incredulous!

Let's keep this simple, I propose that my acceptance of the biblical model of creation is supported by "irrefutable proof." I will use one line of evidence: the information content of every living creature's genomes.

My argument: If it can be shown that genes contain true coded information which can only have been created by an intelligent mind, then the biblical model would be vindicated and any naturalistic model would be refuted.

I will defend and expand on my argument in the next round. Good luck.

Oh and keep in mind my entire argument when responding. For example, don't just rebut the idea that there is information in genes; remember that I said "information which can only have been created by an intelligent mind." I am making the claim so the burden of proof shall be on me.
Debate Round No. 1
Xxzefd

Con

First off the biblical model for creation is wrong due to lack of scientific evidence. The Holy Bible was a tool made and is used by those in power for the sole purpose of keeping the flock of human sheep in control. The Holy Bible is not a valuable source of scientific information but rather is filled with misinformation. The Holy Bible is not the word of any divine figure but a book that is a tool being used by those in power to systematically deceive the human sheep so they never come to the knowledge of the truth. The truth can only be obtained by investigative practices and scientific research not by faith alone. We along with every animal on this planet are the result of evolution. We are not the result of the "God of the Bible". That is creationism which is a belief system that is not backed by the National Academy of Scientists. If creationists are correct then why do most of our human scientists identify themselves as atheists?
creationtruth

Pro

creationtruth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Xxzefd

Con

Based on the evidence gathered by our top scientists the biblical model for creation cannot be proven. As further evidence proves they've never seen the Creator of the Universe whom some religious followers/leaders claim was responsible for the creation of the entire human race and all other animals on earth. If creationists are correct then how come none of them are top scientists? It's because science is all about knowledge of the knowable like the laws of physics for instance or the laws of thermodynamics. It's about evolution which explains how all life such as plants and animals and humans physically came to be and how we advanced throughout the ages. It's also about reason because you can never have "the faith" doing work which is all about learning about things then giving it a scientific explanation for it after enough investigatives practices and scientific research. The great scientist never submits to the irrationality of blind faith. The great scientist will only have faith in a system they know will work thats why they don't bother with anything outside the Universe.
creationtruth

Pro

Sorry for the forfeiture; I was really busy and got caught up and forgot to respond on time. I will gladly take a knock for conduct from any prospective voter. With that said, I will begin by defending my case and then move on to answering as many of your questions and statements as space and time permit.


Evidence for a Creator God

The living cell demonstrates a system of communication, particularly between DNA and proteins. DNA codes for proteins which go on to form every part of a creature, including the very DNA from which it was coded. DNA is a macro-molecule in the shape of a double-helix with a sugar-phosphate backbone.

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.


DNA bases pair up with each other, A with T and C with G, to form units called base pairs. Each base is also attached to a sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule. Together, a base, sugar, and phosphate are called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are arranged in two long strands that form a spiral called a double helix. The structure of the double helix is somewhat like a ladder, with the base pairs forming the ladder’s rungs and the sugar and phosphate molecules forming the vertical sidepieces of the ladder.
DNA is a double helix formed by base pairs attached to a sugar-phosphate backbone.


An important property of DNA is that it can replicate, or make copies of itself. Each strand of DNA in the double helix can serve as a pattern for duplicating the sequence of bases. This is critical when cells divide because each new cell needs to have an exact copy of the DNA present in the old cell (http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...).

DNA serves as the blueprint for every creature's phenotype. Since DNA is a language system in which communication occurs between a sender and receiver, it can rightfully be said to contain true information.

To fully characterise the concept of information, five aspects must be considered—statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Information is represented (that is, formulated, transmitted, stored) as a language. From a stipulated alphabet, the individual symbols are assembled into words (code). From these words (each word having been assigned a meaning), sentences are formed according to the firmly defined rules of grammar (syntax). These sentences are the bearers of semantic information. Furthermore, the action intended/carried out (pragmatics) and the desired/achieved goal (apobetics) belong of necessity to the concept of information. All our observations confirm that each of the five levels is always pertinent for the sender as well as the receiver (http://creation.com...).

https://www.youtube.com...

Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it, therefore the information seen in living cells testifies to having been originally created by an intelligent Creator.

My Response to Your Statements

You said, "First off the biblical model for creation is wrong due to lack of scientific evidence." This is a unsupported and false claim. I am presenting a particularly powerful line of evidence right now. You should more properly say that there is no scientific evidence which you are aware of.

Your claims about the Bible are unsupported and entirely fallacious. The Bible was made by those in power? Fisherman, shepherds, and tent makers really sound like "those in power."

You say, "The truth can only be obtained by investigative practices and scientific research not by faith alone." Can you prove that statement to me using the scientific method? Of course investigation is necessary, but this includes praying to the Creator to seek whether He and His word be true.

You say, "We along with every animal on this planet are the result of evolution. We are not the result of the "God of the Bible". That is creationism which is a belief system that is not backed by the National Academy of Scientists." Yet another unsupported claim. If you would like to debate evolution in particular I would be glad to have another debate, but since I stated the resolution, we should stay on topic. So now all truth claims must be backed by the National Academy of Scientists? That is an arbitrary definition of truth.

You say, "If creationists are correct then why do most of our human scientists identify themselves as atheists?" I doubt this is the case, but if it be, then the answer is simple, most of them have chosen to reject the evidence of a Creator in favor of the story of abiogenesis and evolution which has poor evidence. They do not want to accept that one day they will answer up to Christ at the judgment seat and give account of their life and will have to answer up for their sins. That is why.

You say, "Based on the evidence gathered by our top scientists the biblical model for creation cannot be proven." Support? All observable data is compatible with the biblical model, and indeed supports the biblical model. The only disagreement is between naturalistic models and the biblical model, but these are based on faulty interpretations of the data based on assumptions about the past, not the data itself.

You say, "As further evidence proves they've never seen the Creator of the Universe. . ." So now all truth claims are proven by sight? Can you prove that to me scientifically? Of course not, it is a biased and arbitrary definition of truth.

You say, "If creationists are correct then how come none of them are top scientists." Well that would depend on your definition of "top scientists." Some top scientists in my view who accept the biblical account of creation include Dr. John Sanford, a world renowned geneticist who developed the biolistic gene gun which enables food production to keep up with rising demand, Dr. Matti Leisola, a world renowned biochemist who has contributed greatly to our understanding of enzymes, Dr. Raymond Damadian, a world renowned medical technician and inventor of the magnetic resonance imaging scanner or MRI, and Dr. Benjamin Carson, a world renowned pediatric neurosurgeon, well known for his daring and successful operations which include separating crainially conjoined twins, an operation that most neurosurgeons would not even dare to attempt, just to name a few

You say science is, ". . .about evolution. . ." That, again, is a biased and arbitrary definition, in this case, of science. How can science be about evolution when we have yet to observe the introduction of anything new, genetically speaking, via Neo-Darwinian methods?

You say, "It's also about reason because you can never have 'the faith'. . ." I agree that science involves reason and using out God-given cognitive capacity for logic and rationality, but to say science never involves "faith" is very naive. Especially when dealing with an historical science such as Earth history, scientists must always rely on axiomatic conditions or events which allow for their model to work or maintain consistency with the observed universe.

You say, "The great scientist never submits to the irrationality of blind faith." Who ever said blind faith was something to be desired or accepted? God never asks us to put faith in Him or His word based on entirely unknown factors. God says to consider His creation which testifies of His existence and His power, and more importantly, to consider His sacrifice for our sins which have separated us from Him. Notice the language of scripture, "Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things" (2 Timothy 2:4). "Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else" (Deuteronomy 4:39). ". . .stand still, and consider the wondrous works of God" (Job 37:14). ". . .consider, and understand together, that the hand of the Lord hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it" (Isaiah 41:20). ". . .that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20). "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool" (Isaiah 1:18). God desires for us to consider the evidence of Him in His creation and to logically reason within our hearts the salvation which He has provided through the death of Himself upon the cross for our sins.

You say, "The great scientist will only have faith in a system they know will work thats why they don't bother with anything outside the Universe." No scientist would claim that evolution or any historical science for that matter is a system which "they know will work" as it involves axioms and past events which are not repeatable, nor testable and especially not observable. By "outside the universe" I assume you mean anything unknown? How about dark matter and dark energy which is said to make up most of the universe and which are necessary constructs for the L-CDM model (big bang) to even be considered feasible? Or how about the construct of the fourth dimension known as hyperspace which is also necessary for the L-CDM model to work? It is neither testable nor demonstrable. Any scientist who accepts the "big bang" scenario must put faith into the existence of such model-dependent constructs. Your arbitrary definitions of science, truth and "the great scientist" are biased, entirely philosophical, and unsupported by the scientific method itself.

Debate Round No. 3
Xxzefd

Con

How dare you insult me and the intellectual community with your Christian terrorism tactics. The DNA model is in no way scientific evidence proving that the Creator of the Universe is real. Your sources are insufficient so stop twisting the scientific truths. I do believe that most scientists identify as atheists because they are being honest not only with themselves but with those around them. But even if they were mesotheists like me why then would a god who created the Universe take their along with my ultimate rejection of him and what he trully represents so goddamn personal? I'll tell you why because he is a sociopath hellbent on Spiritual Enslavement and being a "psychic vampire". If the Holy Bible is his word then he is a evil Trickster because it is filled with many contradictions. And as a Christian back in the day I was always "deep down" disgusted and a "unwilling servant" when it came to the Judeo/Christian God Jehovah. If this god is real he is anarchic. Jehovah has not me not ever! He bullies his angels and the humans/others that are enslaved to him and stuck in his "paradise Heaven". And he envies individuals like me for he is a jealous god. He is full of hate and sin and has an unholy side to him. There is no holy trinity it is false and dead and evil and suppressor of progress in this world. Jehovah is a insane.
creationtruth

Pro

Clearly my opponent does not wish to debate the issue at hand. Rather it seems they have decided to use this "debate" as a platform to blaspheme God and ridicule creationism. My opponents whole argument against my case for DNA as evidence for God was, "The DNA model is in no way scientific evidence proving that the Creator of the Universe is real." My opponent chooses to make unsupported claims without even explaining why I am wrong.

My opponent's misotheism is easily refuted as it is illogical and self refuting. Misotheists basically say there is no God because He does not meet their twisted ideals of a god, yet in the same breathe they are conceding to His existence as they detail their dislike of Him. If I rejected evolution merely because I did not like it or because it did not agree with my worldview, that would be foolish and dishonest of me. But to reject God for the same reasons despite the evidence of Him is even worse as the repercussions are infinitely worse.

You ask why God would take it so personally when a person rejects Him. The answer is that He loves us. He created us and in that sense is our Father. He is the source of all life, so to reject God is to reject life. He is a holy and just God and must punish sin. But He is also merciful and has provided a way for every person to be with Him in heaven upon trusting in Jesus for salvation. He takes it personally because He does not want any to perish; He desires all men to come unto the knowledge of the truth and be saved.
Debate Round No. 4
Xxzefd

Con

Did you know that I'm a skeptic because I know that all religious books are man-made nonsense used by "people in power" used to systematically control the "human sheep". That's how the "people in power" have been able to make all the religions ESPECIALLY reward/punishment one's for the sole purpose of systematically deceiving and lying to them their entire lives to ensure the complete control of their lives using "customized mind control techniques" effectively breaking them down into "fearful slaves" in order to create "obediant workers" for the "people in power". Everything that my scientists put out to me has been backed by scientific evidence. They never lie when it comes to people's lives on the line as they know it's their duty to free the minds of people like me because they know we have the ability to face the truth. My friend I have a good reason that I'm a misotheist but I really don't want to upset you all over again because I have provided enough evidence for the case against the Creator of the Universe. The intellectual community is not the people preaching scare tactics, propaganda and lies over the pulpit out in the real or virtual world it's the religious community as a whole. For further information my friend go to www.dailysquib.co.uk/sci_tech/3102-scientists-prove-that-all-religious-books-man-made-nonsense.html
creationtruth

Pro

Since my opponent does not wish to debate the issue at hand, I will simply answer his claims in this last round.

You say, "Did you know that I'm a skeptic because I know that all religious books are man-made nonsense used by "people in power" used to systematically control the "human sheep". That's how the "people in power" have been able to make all the religions ESPECIALLY reward/punishment one's for the sole purpose of systematically deceiving and lying to them their entire lives to ensure the complete control of their lives using "customized mind control techniques" effectively breaking them down into "fearful slaves" in order to create "obedient workers" for the "people in power." This entire rant is unsupported and totally off topic. I would gladly address your claims directly had you attempted to at least provide evidence. In case you were unaware, the "people in power" have always been against God and His word. So your claims do not reflect reality. Also including all religious books is ridiculous as they differ drastically from one another. How can they be created by these "people in power" if they are against each other?

You say, "Everything that my scientists put out to me has been backed by scientific evidence." You did not include any of this so called evidence, and regardless, you cannot support your position of empiricism using the scientific method itself. It is an entirely philosophical bias, and in your case, because you have hatred towards God.

You say, "They never lie when it comes to people's lives on the line as they know it's their duty to free the minds of people like me because they know we have the ability to face the truth." Such confidence in your fellow man! "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Colossians 2:8). May I ask what you are being freed to? The truth? That you evolved from dead chemicals and that you shall return to dead chemicals? That life has no meaning other than that which you arbitrarily see in it? That any such arbitrary meaning given by a series of chemical reactions are ultimately futile in the face of the reality that your consciousness shall cease upon your last breathe? This is not the truth, these are lies of men. The reality is that you are an eternal soul created by God, made in His image, and one day you shall face Him at the judgment seat and give an account of your life. Those who have not the blood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ, in their place shall pay for their sins with their soul. This is not "terrorism" for the sake of scaring you into faith, this is reality, and my attempt to warn you just as a caring person would warn someone if they were headed off of a cliff.

You say, "My friend I have a good reason that I'm a misotheist but I really don't want to upset you all over again because I have provided enough evidence for the case against the Creator of the Universe." What evidence have your provided? I saw none. You did not even argue against my claims about your self-refuting misotheist position. The only thing upsetting about this debate, apart from the fact that there was none, is your choice to rebel against your God and your Creator, for He loves you so much!

You say, "The intellectual community is not the people preaching scare tactics, propaganda and lies over the pulpit out in the real or virtual world it's the religious community as a whole." Wow, you began with an unsupported claim with your first sentence of round 1 and you ended with and unsupported claim, if you disregard your last recommendation. If my claims about DNA were "propaganda," then why did you not address it and refute it with science?

I would be glad to debate you on any topic brought up he, but it seems for now you did not wish to really have a debate. Hopefully I was able to answer some of your questions and show you that indeed the faith of a believer in Christ is not blind.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 14:1).

"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?" (Psalm 2:2).

". . .he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death" (Proverbs 8:36)

"As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ezekiel 33:11).

". . .God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4).

"Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us" (1 John 3:16).

God love you! Seek Him in humility and repentance for the salvation of your soul, before it is too late!

I shall pray for you, goodbye. :)
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Xxzefd 2 years ago
Xxzefd
Did you know that you and many people have been systematically deceived and lied to your entire lives to ensure your protection from the Truth? My input is that you are enslaved to an extraterrestrial ruler named Jehovah who is a bully. Don't believe me watch Ancient Alien series on the History Channel. This is why I believe that this valuable scientific evidence furthermore justifies my valid position as being against the Creator of the Universe and why I am righteous in my logical reasonable stance as a Misotheist. The Creator of the Universe and the angels are nothing but mere extraterrestrial beings. So why waste your time supporting Jehovah and his kingdom when nothing is eternal (last forever) when change is inevitable?
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
creationtruth
You provided fallacies and conjecture. Truth lies with God and His word alone (John 17:17).
Posted by Xxzefd 2 years ago
Xxzefd
Haha I provided the truth and was made out to be a liar? Why when I told the Truth?!
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Tip for CT, address your opponent impersonally ("He, they, Con") rather than personally.
Posted by Xxzefd 2 years ago
Xxzefd
Go to http://www.dailysquib.co.uk...
for Mr.Creationtruth
Posted by Xxzefd 2 years ago
Xxzefd
Here is evidence supporting my case against the Creator of the Universe which also justifies my official position as a skeptic and mesotheist. The website is www.evilbible.com it shows the various contradictions in the Holy Bible which is the reason I believe I that I "stand in the truth".
Posted by LeastCommonDenominator 2 years ago
LeastCommonDenominator
xxzedf... this isn't terrorism, and you misquote the bible when you say that, "And he envies individuals like me for he is a jealous god." He is a jealous God for he wants you, not that he envies you. In your last argument you provide no evidence yet you provide false assumptions. So please, provide evidence that God "bullies" or "is full of hate and sin."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
XxzefdcreationtruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: FF By Pro balanced by Con's consistently poor conduct throughout the debate. DNA argument dropped by Con, and no substantive negating case given by Con, thus clear win for Pro.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
XxzefdcreationtruthTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited a round, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Pro. Pro presented a case built upon the premise that the information seen in dna code must have originated from an intelligent source. It's a pretty big leap as no evidence was given that the cause of such information was necessarily the Christian God, but Con never rebutted it, thus it stands. Con failed to rebut alot of arguments and counter-arguments raised by Pro. Due to Pro having several arguments which remained standing by the end of the debate, Pro wins arguments. Con needed to attack his DNA argument, as well as rebut every additional point raised by Pro. I would highly suggest he do so the next time he debates someone. Sources - Pro. Pro utilized a .gov and youtube video to further affirm his position. Con utilized an article which was nothing more than the abstract of a study which isn't even published yet.