The Instigator
Polevaulter1
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Jackthemarine86
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The big bang theory is a more valid reasoning of how the universe was created than creationism

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 1 vote the winner is...
Polevaulter1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,548 times Debate No: 49526
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (1)

 

Polevaulter1

Pro

The Big Bang theory has more evidence than creationism due to the theory having more scientific evidence than creationism and therefore is more valid reasoning of how the earth was created.

1 round introduction, the rest is countering and finally concluding statement
Jackthemarine86

Con

I accept the debate. I propose that the Big Bang creation of the Universe could have been an act of God as the start of creation, and that science does not answer everything about creation; especially in the realm of the Creation of the Universe. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Polevaulter1

Pro

Okay so I will start of saying that the issue of the debate is NOT if god was involved in the big bang, it is the accepted big bang theory vs. the accepted creation story.

So I will start off by saying about the accepted Big Bang Theory and the proof for it:
The big bang theory was basically there is this small fog of ultra hot energy, then it basically burst into existence and has been expanding ever since. One piece of evidence is that the universe is still expanding today! Vesto Slipher was investigating the spiral nebulae. He found that these bodies were emitting light . Which we can track the emission of the light on the spectrum. He discovered that most of these bodies were moving away, hence in the red part of the spectrum. So he theorized that since the bodies are moving apart then if we rewind time we will end up with this big fog of energy that simply burst. There have been many other pieces of evidence to support the big bang, but I wont get into those at this point of the debate.

Now the creationists story:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning"the first day.
And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning"the second day.
And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning"the third day.
And God said, "Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights"the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning"the fourth day.
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning"the fifth day.
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground"everything that has the breath of life in it"I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning"the sixth day.

This is straight from the genesis itself.
Now if I may ask what evidence is there that there was god? None. Why does it only say the creation of the earth and not the complete universe? How did we come to this conclusion base on evidence? Because there is no evidence.

Now that we looked at each story I see a clear winner based on logic.
Now lets define logic and validity
These are strait from dictionary.com
Logic: the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
Validity: the state or quality of being valid.
Valid: sound; just; well-founded
So since the big bang theory is formed based on SOUND LOGIC, while the Genesis is just a book that explains how it was created with no proof (please correct me if I'm mistaken)
Therefore the big bang theory is more valid than creationism.
Jackthemarine86

Con

Before I start, I"d like to share a couple of quotes I find appropriate for this debate:
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." " Albert Einstein

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." "James Tour, Nano-scientist.

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society which honors the servant, but has forgotten the gift." "Albert Einstein

Let"s also recap your definitions of logic and validity:
Logic: the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
Validity: the state or quality of being valid.
Valid: sound; just; well-founded
Lastly, because you remove the premise of God being associated with the Big Bang, I think it"s fair to classify your Big Bang as being the Naturalist Big Bang Theory.

I think it"s important to note that we understand there was a Big Bang which started the creation of the universe. Whether it was random chance or the cause started by God is what is truly behind the debate, because you yourself asked the question:"Now if I may ask what evidence is there that there was god?"

Furthermore, Genesis deals more than with the creation of the world. You yourself posted a whole passage out of the book of Genesis, and it explicitly states that God created the stars and the moon (the lesser light). Somehow you managed to miss that and question: "Why does it only say the creation of the earth and not the complete universe?"

You should really cross-reference scripture, and you will find a host of other verses throughout the Bible which attribute the creation of the "Heavens" stars, and all things created to God.

Here are a few:

Psalm 147:4
He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name.

Isaiah 40:26- Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.

Isaiah 66:2- "Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?" declares the LORD. "These are the ones I look on with favor: those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word."

You mentioned attributes of the Naturalist Big Bang Theory, but describing attributes does not describe a purpose or function. For instance, you claim that it makes more sense logically, based off science, but nothing we have discovered about the Big Bang, other than it happened, affirms that it actually created the universe and all life as we know it.

Furthermore, it becomes even more ludicrous, as those who subscribe to the Naturalist Big Bang Theory essentially believe that the universe and all life in it was merely created from a process that derived from nothingness-that includes all time, matter, and space.

Think about that for a second. Now go back to your definition of Logic and Validity. Tell me, when have you ever witnessed in our world, much less the universe, something coming from absolutely nothing? Scientific investigation alone has shown that in order for something to exist it must come from something else.

We understand that science can answers a lot of questions, however, it has its limitations. For example, science can answer what something is made of and it"s characteristics " i.e., material and how it functions, but science fails in answering definitively why something works the way it does, and its ultimate purpose " the two categories which Theists attribute to a Creator.

However, we have the intelligence which tells us that science works. Atheists are the strongest proponents that science works. For them, it holds the answers to many mysteries which have been solved, and the answers for things we do not already know. But science alone is nothing. It is a tool in the hand of a practitioner " i.e., a person of intelligence. Therefore, we deem the scientific process as being intelligible and one that works. In order for there to be intelligence, there has to be life. In order for something to work, it has to be made or created first " i.e., a living, intelligent, creator. Hmmm. Sound familiar?

Yet the view you prescribe concerning the Naturalist Big Bang Theory is one of chaos and disorder randomly producing life and everything else in the universe. That theory alone also goes against what we witness in the Scientific study. Everything we see; from the genetic code, to the reproduction of life, to the changing of seasons, and even the rotation of the Earth around the Sun demonstrates an order. Chaos creates chaos " logically speaking. Disorder propagates disorder " logically speaking. As I mentioned before " the very fact we can perform science speaks to the contradiction of random chaos from a Naturalist Big Bang producing anything of order to create life.

Here are the statistical points supporting the idea of Creationism and God, rather than random chaotic chance produced by the Naturalist Big Bang Theory:

Though we perceive gravity to be a "strong" force (because we are close to a very massive body) it is actually incredibly weak in comparison with the electrostatic forces that control atomic structures and, for example, cause protons to repel each other. The factor is of order ~ 10-36. Let us suppose gravity was stronger by a factor of a million. On the small scale, that of atoms and molecules, there would be no difference, but it would be vastly easier to make a gravitationally bound object such as the Sun and planets but whose sizes would be about a billion times smaller. Any galaxies formed in the universe would be very small with tightly packed stars whose interactions would prevent the formation of stable planetary orbits. The tiny stars would burn up their fuel rapidly allowing no time for life to evolve even if there were suitable places for it to arise. Our intelligent life could not have arisen here on Earth if this ration had been even slightly smaller than its observed value. (Morison 2008:327)

Further examples of the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of physics can also be given, such as that of mass difference between the neutron and the proton. If, for example, the mass of the neutron were slightly increased by about one part in seven hundred, stable hydrogen burning stars would cease to exist. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 39 - 40, Collins, 2003.)

The cosmological constant was a term that Einstein included in his central equation of his theory of gravity " that is, general relativity -- which today is thought to correspond to the energy density of empty space. A positive cosmological constant acts as a sort of anti-gravity, a repulsive force causing space itself to expand. If the cosmological constant had a significant positive value, space would expand so rapidly that all matter would quickly disperse, and thus galaxies, stars, and even small aggregates of matter could never form. The conclusion is that it must fall exceedingly close to zero, relative to its natural range of values, for complex life to be possible in our universe.

More can be found in the following article:
8. "The Evidence of Fine-tuning,"

As I stated before, you mentioned how the Naturalist Big Bang worked in reference to how it came into existence, but that alone does not prove that the Naturalist Big Bang created the universe or life itself (which is the ultimate argument you"re making here).

I just demonstrated how the Naturalist Big Bang Theory is NOT Logically sound. It actually contradicts everything we see in nature and can actually study scientifically. I also eluded to why Creationism is actually the more logical argument based upon the balance of the universe. And I"m not the only one with that point of view:

The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers" the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." " Professor Stephen Hawking
Debate Round No. 2
Polevaulter1

Pro

I ask for people reading this to have an open mind instead of sticking by what you believe before this debate and voting that way not based of of what we bring up.

So I see many people argue that god COULD of created the big bang, but if we base everything off could we would get nowhere. The big bang theory is a THEORY, which really is put together pieces of evidence. Yes the big bang theory has a lot of flaws in it. But, we know so little of the universe since we have limitations. I only have to explain why the creation story is less valid than the big bang theory.

As my opponent brought up the big statistical ways that earth has so little of being created. He also says god must have made this possible. But, we are here on earth correct? Which means it was from by some act. Sure its very improbable that we are here, but how probable is this "divine creator?" I pointed out a piece of evidence is the red shift in the galaxies. Which is based off of logic and fact. While god creating the earth is merely a story with no proof god exists. The Greeks had stories about how the earth is ruled by MULTIPLE gods. But, I don't see how that's less valid than there only being one god. They both have no proof while the big bang theory ATTEMPTS to explain through scientific observation how we are here. True it has a lot of flaws in it. But, once we get different new pieces of evidence we will revise it. While creation just sticks to the same story. "go" with is "magical" powers some how created all of this through the words "Let there be...." How is this even possible. If I say Let there be bacon, bacon doesn't magically appear. The earth didn't start like that either. This proves how big bang theory has more logic than creation.

My opponent brings up these quotes:
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." " Albert Einstein
As you can see both of these are true as of right now. But being blind is worse than being "lame."

In conclusion religion is blind to not accept these facts about how the universe was created an thus not following the laws of logic.
Jackthemarine86

Con

"So I see many people argue that god COULD of created the big bang, but if we base everything off could we would get nowhere. The big bang theory is a THEORY, which really is put together pieces of evidence. Yes the big bang theory has a lot of flaws in it. But, we know so little of the universe since we have limitations. I only have to explain why the creation story is less valid than the big bang theory."

Rebuttal: BOTH are theories: The Naturalistic Big Bang, and Creationism. However, what you"re failing to recognize is the Naturalist Big Bang Theory does not explain anything about creation. The evidence we have for the Big Bang Theory is limited to the Big Bang itself, not its link to the creation of the universe or the world. However, even if there was a link to the actual creation of the world, it would be illogical based upon the premise that the Naturalist Big Bang Theory runs postulates that and orderly universe and world, to include life, came from disorder and chaos " something we have never witnessed in our observation of the known universe, or during the scientific method.

"As my opponent brought up the big statistical ways that earth has so little of being created. He also says god must have made this possible. But, we are here on earth correct? Which means it was from by some act. Sure its very improbable that we are here, but how probable is this "divine creator?" I pointed out a piece of evidence is the red shift in the galaxies. Which is based off of logic and fact. While god creating the earth is merely a story with no proof god exists. The Greeks had stories about how the earth is ruled by MULTIPLE gods. But, I don't see how that's less valid than there only being one god. They both have no proof while the big bang theory ATTEMPTS to explain through scientific observation how we are here. True it has a lot of flaws in it. But, once we get different new pieces of evidence we will revise it. While creation just sticks to the same story. "go" with is "magical" powers some how created all of this through the words "Let there be...." How is this even possible. If I say Let there be bacon, bacon doesn't magically appear. The earth didn't start like that either. This proves how big bang theory has more logic than creation."

Rebuttal: The piece of evidence, (the red shift in the galaxies) is not proof for creation. It"s proof that a Big Bang occurred, and that the known universe began at some point. However, as I said before, it does not prove that it was responsible for the creation of life. Furthermore, the hypothesis of the Naturalist Big Bang Theory dictates that the explosion occurred from nothingness " a ridiculous notion which does not require a scientific degree to realize the absurdity of it.

What"s even more fascinating is the change of mind amongst those who are Naturalists " Perhaps you do not realize this, but it wasn't too long ago that Naturalists believed the universe was always eternal. The proof of a beginning (i.e., a Big Bang), actually lends more credibility to a Creator and the Creationism Theory, than the previously conceived notion held by Naturalists. Once Naturalists were proven wrong (by Science), they quickly pushed the "Eternal Universe" Theory under the rug, and latched on to the Big Bang, twisting it to suit their theories about the beginning of the Universe without the existence of God.

As far as Creationism goes, Albert Einstein taught us that time is relative. With that being said, any question relating to time is already riddled with complexity in scientific terms, let alone philosophical terms. Yet Creationism teaches the world was created 7 days. Theoretical physicist Gerald Schroeder, a former professor at MIT, calculated the entire history of the universe relative to our present point in space-time and comes to the rather startling conclusion that one could compress 15 Billion years from the point of the Big Bang explosion into about the space of a present-day Earth week" holy crap " I"ll leave that to the reader to judge the theological implications of that proposition. " Gerald Schroeder, Genesis and the Big Bang, Bantam (1990), Chapter 2: " Stretching Time". (By the way " this is Science and Mathematics we"re talking about)

"My opponent brings up these quotes:
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." " Albert Einstein
As you can see both of these are true as of right now. But being blind is worse than being "lame."

In conclusion religion is blind to not accept these facts about how the universe was created an thus not following the laws of logic."

Rebuttal: I already explained how science is limited: What it can explain, and what it cannot. When it comes to creation, science can only explain materialism and functionality " not why something functions or its purpose. Here"s an analogy of how Naturalists explain creation with science in the absence of God:

Suppose two scientists are wandering in the desert and come across an unmanned Harrier fighter jet. Neither scientist has ever seen anything remotely like it before. No sooner than the scientists come upon the aircraft, it soars vertically off the ground. The aircraft begins to hover from side to side, forward and back, shooting out to the heavens with mind-boggling speed, then returning gently back to the Earth. The scientists are astonished at the feats of this incredible entity. After some deliberation, they develop the belief that the plane must have been designed by someon or something extremely intelligent, who must somehow be at work within the aircraft itself. They resolve that the aircraft was designed by someone intelligent, and they themselves were intelligent beings, therefore they should be able to study and understand it. So, being scientists, they proceed to examine the aircraft piece by piece.

Over years and years of study and research, they strip the aircraft to its barest bones; deducing the laws of jet propulsion, internal combustion, aerodynamics, and mechanics. They elicit the many composites and materials from which the aircraft is constructed. They strip apart the mind of the vehicle, and the interface between its many elaborate computers and mechanical parts, even discerning the complex digital language by which the mechanisms function. The more the scientists learn, the less mysterious the aircraft becomes, and the more they fill with intellectual pride.

Before long, they discover how the Harrier is able to take flight, and the loud roars are but the sounds of exploding jet fuel. They even conclude the aircraft was probably produced on an assembly line in the mindless process by "blind" machines. After years of scientific examination the scientists more or less figure out how the aircraft was made and how it works. The only mystery left they are with is how the Harrier is able to take flight entirely by itself. But since this is a mystery that can"t be explained by any scientific means they know of, they simply dismiss it as unimportant. A the end of the glorious journey, one scientist turns to the other and says, "I suppose it was never created by anyone at all."

One can see how ridiculous this proposition is " and just how wrong the scientists were. How does the unraveling of the aircraft"s mechanisms and composition take away from the existence of a creator? What if I told you that the creators (Sir Sydney Camm, Sir Stanley Hooker, and Ralph Hooper) were the ones operating the aircraft from their control room, thousands of miles away on the outskirts of the desert, and that the their hope was that someone would find their precious creation and fly it back to them? By the flawed logic of the scientists who deem themselves intellectually superior, they would never be able to deduce this scientifically. They have already accepted the idea proposition that the aircraft had no purpose for being there, and refuted the possibility it was even created by an Intelligent Being.

The subject of God and Creationism is an explanatory hypothesis, not a mythical conjuring truck devised for no apparent reason. Evidence for this is our ability to even perform science and our possession of intelligence. Go back to my previous argument in Round 2 in which I explained how an orderly universe leads to our ability to perform science. Creationists believe God formed an orderly universe "

Naturalists like Dawkins claim the following: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won"t find any rhymes or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." A universe devoid of design and pitiless indifference does not lend towards intelligence or the ability to practice science.

"I believe in Spinoza"s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in the God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." "Albert Einstein (Letter to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein, 1929.)

"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views." Albert Einstein (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000).
Debate Round No. 3
Polevaulter1

Pro

What my opponent said: BOTH are theories
What I say: I'm sorry but for something to be a theory, there must be evidence.

What my opponent said: Furthermore, the hypothesis of the Naturalist Big Bang Theory dictates that the explosion occurred from nothingness
What I say: 1. Its a theory not a hypothesis. 2. I see I need to explain more. There was never nothing, it was just a highly compact, that expanded, CREATING the universe in which elements started to form over BILLIONS an BILLIONS of years.

What my opponent said: Once Naturalists were proved wrong (by Science), they quickly pushed the "Eternal Universe" Theory under the rug, and latched on to the Big Bang, twisting it to suit their theories about the beginning of the Universe without the existence of God.
What I say: We don't really know if that was actually the beginning. It could have been some point in time where the universe was huge, but then became compact (just some speculation, maybe not true), but science in science if we do not know something, we will admit it, and then find away to figure it out instead of what creationists do trying to twist everything more to loosely fit into what they originally thought.

What my opponent said: As far as Creationism goes, Albert Einstein taught us that time is relative. With that being said, any question relating to time is already riddled with complexity in scientific terms, let alone philosophical terms. Yet Creationism teaches the world was created 7 days. Theoretical physicist Gerald Schroeder, a former professor at MIT, calculated the entire history of the universe relative to our present point in space-time and comes to the rather startling conclusion that one could compress 15 Billion years from the point of the Big Bang explosion into about the space of a present-day Earth week" holy crap " I"ll leave that to the reader to judge the theological implications of that proposition. " Gerald Schroeder, Genesis and the Big Bang, Bantam (1990), Chapter 2: " Stretching Time". (By the way " this is Science and Mathematics we"re talking about)
What I say: Yes I agree with you on time is complex. As the doctor has said "people say time is a straight progression of cause to effect; but from a non linear, non-subjective viewpoint, in fact its a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey whimmy stuff" which if you think about it that way is even more complex. You brought up that "the entire history of the universe relative to our present point in space-time and comes to the rather startling conclusion that one could compress 15 Billion years from the point of the Big Bang explosion into about the space of a present-day Earth week." I see one you believe in the big bang from that and two see that it is EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE ( I would say impossible but I never say impossible) for the whole universe to be created in an earth week. Which shows full force that you o not believe in your position.

And from your short story I see how you don't understand truly how science works. True scientists would not throw that piece of how it can take off on its own away, they would keep searching for more explanations.

And by the way i'm still waiting for true evidence of how god actually created the universe, which you have provided none for which means talking in terms of validity, The Big Bang theory is more valid than creationism.
Jackthemarine86

Con

1)
"What I say: 1. Its a theory not a hypothesis."
If you suppose by my story illustration I am inept in science, then I would suppose by the statement above, you are inept in English. In case you were not aware, the word "Theory" is synonymous with the word "hypothesis". However, since you had a problem with recognizing this, I will break down synonymous for you: It means "Same" or "Equivalent".
http://thesaurus.com...
http://thesaurus.com...

You"ll also note, that in the antonym (meaning opposite) section of "Theory" , it lists the word "Proof". What does this mean to us? Simply put, the Naturalist Big Bang Theory (which you recognize above as being theory) means it is absent of proof. This alone essentially defeats your entire claim that you have proof through Science the Naturalist Big Bang Theory is the more logical explanation for the creation of the universe. A theory is the lack of proof. The Theory of the Naturalist Big Bang is that it is the cause for the creation of the universe. However, as I mentioned twice already, the only evidence you have brought to the table is limited to the event itself " not the after effects of the event.

2)
My correlation between Creationism and the Big Bang does not conflict as you would like to believe. I believe there was a Big Bang, however, unlike the Naturalist interpretation of the Big Bang, as being and unguided, meaningless process which happened to produce life, I believe it was guided, (which is more reasonable based upon what we see in Science and Nature). Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." It goes into detail as far as the creation of the Earth is concerned, however, not the heavens (space). The only mention of bodies outside of the earth are the moon and the stars.
For more correlation, please refer to the following link:
http://www.reasons.org...

Other examples which contradict the notion of a mindless, meaningless, life by mere chance process include the following:
If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.

If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any starts had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed.

Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth. (The first words out of God"s mouth were, "Let there be light". Light is comprised of tremendous amounts of energy " and given the effects on the rest of the law of physics, possibly the "Big Bang" itself which started it all?)

If water vapor levels in the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runaway greenhouse effect would cause temperatures to rise too high for human life; if they were less, and insufficient greenhouse effect would make the earth too cold to support human life.

If Jupiter were not in its current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter"s gravitational fields acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike the earth.
If the thickness of the earth"s crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible.

If the rotation of the earth took longer than 24 hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.
The 23-degree axil tilt of the earth is just right. If the tilt were altered, slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth.

Need me to keep going?

You can rest on a Naturalist theory which says all of this happened by mere chance, but LOGICALLY speaking, it would appear more reasonable and valid that the universe and earth was DESIGNED, specifically with the intent to not only foster life, but maintain it as well. As a matter of fact, Astrophysicist Hugh Ross calculated the probability that all 122 constants found for our planet to exist for any other planet by chance, assuming there are 1022 planets in the universe " that being 1 with 22 zeros behind it, the answer is shocking: It would be one chance in 10138 " that"s one chance in one with 138 zeros after it!

Lastly, as I recall, the premise of the debate was to figure out what was more logical and valid as to the argument of the creation of the universe " the Naturalist Big Bang or Creationism. There was never a mandate concerning evidence on how either actually created the universe " just what seems more plausible. Ergo, I am not required to provide that, just as you are not required to provide evidence for exactly how the Naturalist Big Bang Theory actually created the universe. Be that aside, I have already established, based off the definition in the beginning of this response, that a Theory does not require evidence.

Keep in mind, you and I are actually working with the same evidence - I simply attribute the things I do not know, which science cannot explain, to a Creator. You don't like that theory, so you dismiss it, much like the scientists in the story I mentioned in my previous response. THAT was the point I was making with that story.

Logically speaking, if I attribute the Creation of the universe to one who is immaterial, space-less, time-less, and uncaused, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, it would appear that with the precise settings of the universe, and the laws governing it, they came about from Someone or Something intelligent, contrary to the notion that it all happened by chance, as the Naturalist Big Bang Theory prescribes " Science does not demonstrate the latter ideology, and what we perceive and observe in our world does not demonstrate this ideology.

Finally, I do run a spell-check before submitting my responses. However, this website translates my responses into some jacked-up format and replaces certain punctuation with double quotes.
Debate Round No. 4
Polevaulter1

Pro

1) There is a difference between hypothesis and theory. A theory is a put together set of proven hypothesis that through testing gives a logical conclusion on a topic. While a hypothesis is a suggested explanation of why it is before testing it or not testing it. For another explanation you can use this link: http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Getting of topic about sources now: the best websites are those of .org and .edu as very reliable sources. While those of .com are not always since ANYONE can own one of those an those websites usually do not care about the content as long as they get money for advertising. Just a little rant, now back to the debate at hand.

Which that source you have is also flawed since it really does not know what a theory is if it lists proof as an antonym since a theory is put together pieces of PROOF, observations, and facts.

2) 1. really nice source I love the .org
This website is just speculation about why it could of. But this debate clearly states validity. Which to bring up the definition of it, look in round 2 please. Which is sound. The big bang theory is based off evidence directly relating to it instead of the twisted way the creationist are using it. Which means since creation has so much speculation about it written a long time ago, I don't bring up the year since every website I have went to has given me n good answer. But, the point is its very old, which means it came out before the new evidence. The Big bang Theory was shaped fro evidence while creation is twisting the facts around to loosely fit creation. Which in terms of validity means the Big Bang Theory is more valid than creation.

You also bring about how it is so unlikely that we are here an life came about in such improbable terms. Which still doesn't prove there being a god. You could also use those facts to say multiple gods created life "because it is just so unlikely one could do this." I'm joking of course, but it proves how creation is less valid than the Big Bang Theory. Which is the purpose of this debate.

Bringing up your final point, you do need to bring up evidence since we are debating of validity also needs SOUND evidence (sound familiar??? Round 2) And I demise your theory because this "creator" has no proof. We cannot make it in a theory because it would make the theory less SOUND (see what I'm going for here (validity))

Finally we are not talking of just the sole creator, we are talking about the whole story. Which proves less valid than The Big Bang Theory.

Conclusion:
The Big Bang Theory was shaped around the evidence, while in creation, the evidence is twisted around to fit the story that came out before this proof. The purpose of this debate was to show which is more valid. While the evidence does point to the Big Bang Theory, it is more valid.

Side note: I ask that people vote on this debate through the issues we brought up through validity, not what you believe is true.

I thank my opponent and have enjoyed this debate.
Jackthemarine86

Con

"There is a difference between hypothesis and theory. A theory is a put together set of proven hypothesis that through testing gives a logical conclusion on a topic. While a hypothesis is a suggested explanation of why it is before testing it or not testing it. For another explanation you can use this link: http://evolution.berkeley.edu......

A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth."

Now let"s look at a dictionary version:

the"o"ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Noun, plural the"o"ries.
1.a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used asprinciples of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrastto well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms:idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3.Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from itspractice: music theory.
5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system ofrules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
http://dictionary.reference.com....

I"d like to propose we look at number 2 of the definition " Which also happens to mention the antonyms, "practice, VERIFICATION, CORROBORATION, and SUBSTANTIATION. I find it even more interesting that the synonym "hypothesis" is AGAIN listed. However, since you do not like .com websites, I"ll refer to Webster"s dictionary definition:

the"o"ry-noun \G2;thē-ə-rē, G2;thir-ē: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

In the first definition we see, "an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events". Notice! An idea used to explain facts or events.
This goes back to what I was saying about the evidence you claimed to be more reasonable, but in fact, only explains there was a Big Bang. There is NO evidence that the Big Bang created all life and the universe as we know it. Hence why it"s a THEORY or IDEA. One that is ridiculously based upon some explosion occurring ages past. HOWEVER, there is known source for the cause behind the Big Bang, and NO evidence which proves that this explosion of mindless, disorganized chaos actually established that which is orderly (refer to facts I listed in my last statement). To make such an absurd assumption is far less logical than the idea that God started the universe with a Big Bang and actually guided the processes which established all the laws, principles, and constants we currently see" ones operating with exquisite precision, inferring intelligence. Intelligence begets intelligence. Chaos begets chaos. I fail to understand why you cannot see the illogical fallacy Naturalists take concerning Creation when Science itself has demonstrated nothing BUT order in our universe " Order comes from Intelligence " Not mindlessness.

"Getting of topic about sources now: the best websites are those of .org and .edu as very reliable sources. While those of .com are not always since ANYONE can own one of those an those websites usually do not care about the content as long as they get money for advertising. Just a little rant, now back to the debate at hand.

Which that source you have is also flawed since it really does not know what a theory is if it lists proof as an antonym since a theory is put together pieces of PROOF, observations, and facts.

2) 1. really nice source I love the .org
This website is just speculation about why it could of. But this debate clearly states validity. Which to bring up the definition of it, look in round 2 please. Which is sound. The big bang theory is based off evidence directly relating to it instead of the twisted way the creationist are using it. Which means since creation has so much speculation about it written a long time ago, I don't bring up the year since every website I have went to has given me n good answer. But, the point is its very old, which means it came out before the new evidence. The Big bang Theory was shaped fro evidence while creation is twisting the facts around to loosely fit creation. Which in terms of validity means the Big Bang Theory is more valid than creation."

Allow me to quote you again:"Getting of topic about sources now: the best websites are those of .org and .edu as very reliable sources. While those of .com are not always since ANYONE can own one of those an those websites usually do not care about the content as long as they get money for advertising."

REEEEEEALLLLLY? Funny, as you turn right around and criticize a "reliable" (by your standard) source with a .org simply because you don"t like what it has to say. I guess you"re defeating your own argument here. Frankly, I take issue with your stance anyway. Wikipedia is a .org site. When registering for an account with Debate.org (Oh crap! Another .org site!), there is a video everyone is encouraged to watch. It actually talks about avoiding Wikipedia as a source for debates, due to lack of credibility.

Secondly, you hit the nail on the head with this: "The big bang theory is based off evidence directly relating to it instead of the twisted way the creationist are using it."

Absolutely correct on the first part " the evidence of the big bang is directly related to the event itself. Nothing more " not the creation of anything; just that it occurred, and the universe began to expand. The second part of your statement makes absolutely no sense. I believe in Creation and the Big Bang " But I already explained what I believe about the Big Bang. I acknowledge it happened. However, from a logical premise, based upon what science has revealed, it shows that the universe is orderly. Science demonstrates that order comes from intelligence. Intelligence comes from the mind. A mind is located in a living Thing. I happen to call this thing a person, or God.

What"s even more baffling about your statement concerning creationists twisting the Big Bang is the very fact that not all creationists believe in the Big Bang.

"You also bring about how it is so unlikely that we are here an life came about in such improbable terms. Which still doesn't prove there being a god. You could also use those facts to say multiple gods created life "because it is just so unlikely one could do this." I'm joking of course, but it proves how creation is less valid than the Big Bang Theory. Which is the purpose of this debate."

When we talk about the subject of the existence of God and multiple gods, that"s an entirely different debate. Sure, it"s linked, but it would take another whole segment to weed through it.

Needless to say, without the absolute proof in the existence of God, I am left with the same evidence you are. The difference between you and I, however, is that I attribute that which science cannot explain to an all-powerful, all knowing, time-less, space-less, eternal Creator. You, and your fellow naturalists are left with, "We don"t know." Or "We believe one day Science will tell us." Then, because you do not like God as an explanation, you throw every stone possible to destroy that theory, all while offering nothing of your own. The common excuse is "Well, saying "We don"t really know" is an honest answer, and it"s ok to say that." Yes, it is ok to say you don"t know. However, unless you can provide a more reasonable hypothesis (which Naturalists can"t), it is hypocritical to criticize a theory or hypothesis you don"t agree with. You can"t even do that in a debate! Naturalists, or atheists do not get to sit in the luxury of infinite possibilities at their finger-tips, all while requiring an explanation from Creationists and other religions regarding their beliefs. In order to refute a claim, you have to present a far better one. So far, it hasn"t happened.

As far as validity goes, I have explained whom I believe God to be. Whether He actually exists or is everything I believe Him to be is up for debate and personal belief. As I and others believe He is immaterial, He cannot be measured by a material (scientific) standard. However, I believe His attributes or finger-prints. AND if I am correct about His characteristics then evidence in the universe certainly lends credibility Him, hence validity.

I believe I have essentially made my case as best as possible, and have a more logical stance based upon what I and other Creationists believe concerning God"s characteristics and some of the evidence I have listed that exists in the universe. To reiterate any further would essentially equate to "beating a dead horse". Though I could expound with much more, I doubt many people will actually take the time to read through our entire debate. Most will do opposite of what my opponent desires " and vote based off personal preference. I thank my opponent for the debate. It was fun.
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Swampfox 2 years ago
Swampfox
St. Augustine stated that Genisis should NOT be interpretated literally, it is unreasonable to think that the universe was created in six earth days.
Posted by Swampfox 2 years ago
Swampfox
This debate is moot since according to the chruch fathers stated that the bible does NOT teach science (but it has science in it.) It does not teach how things came to be, but that God brought the universe. The only reason their is a debate is that some people take it upon themselves to interpretate scripture according to their belief.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
The Balance of the Universe is also a Fallacious notion, scientists have demonstrated that the variables in the Universe can change by up to 10% in most cases without changing the ability of the universe to support life. That concept of the universe being finely tuned is False and invented by nutjobs, not real scientists.

The universe could not have been meant for us if we only occupy less than 10E-4Trillion% of it. Even our planet was not meant for us since most of it is uninhabitable by us and Genesis states that all plants are for us to eat, yet a vast number of plants are extremely toxic to us. Actually all plants have toxins for their own protection, but we can tolerate many of them but not all.

That would be as stupid as creating New York just for the bacteria that inhabit a dust particle in the gutter on the corner of 11th and 12th avenues.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Thus he did not have a belief in any Deity and no belief or disbelief in a Deity is Atheism.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
A Quote from Albert Einstein: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. "

You could say that the Big Bang and all the forces emanating from it was Albert's God.

Though some researchers, believe he was a Deist, a God may have existed.
And other researchers believe he was Agnostic: God exists but is out of the reach of human knowledge thus not worth worshiping.
But, Albert Einstein as stated above, did not hold the Bible as being worthy of notice, so he certainly was never, ever a Christian.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
BTW: Albert Einstein, was an Atheist.
His God was not the religious clown, he meant it to mean the forces of the Universe.
He was a naturalist and the Natural laws of the universe were his God.

He did not prescribe to any Omniscient Imaginary Friends.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
There is nothing correct in the Bible, so it cannot be dictated from an all knowing entity.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Just read Genesis, we don't live on a Flat Earth with a Dome above it, where if the pillars supporting the Dome are shaken, stars fall off that dome (probably used corn paste ) and those stars fall to Earth.

That is how the Bible describes The Earth and it's Creation is out of logical sequence, like plants introduced before light, light and days are happening before the Sun is put inside the Dome, it is a wonder the dome doesn't melt.

The Biblical image of Earth is extremely Naive, from the minds of camel and goat herders, not from any messages by an omniscient being, otherwise they would at least get some of it right.
Posted by Jackthemarine86 2 years ago
Jackthemarine86
Really Sagey? What do you mean by that?
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
The god which created the universe would have to be a God not yet described by any known religions, because the God of Abraham in the Bible got the Creation story all mucked up and stupidly so.
So the Creator God could never be the one from the Bible.

That's a Fact!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Polevaulter1Jackthemarine86Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Not really much between them, all I could really judge them on is Con's misconception of the term theory in science but on both sides there was a lot of long winded irrelevant stuff to wade through. Eyes hurt!