The Instigator
michaelkeim
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
LLAMA
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The universe was Created by God and not by evolution.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,499 times Debate No: 12433
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

michaelkeim

Pro

I believe that No matter what way you look at how the earth was created you will find you have to have faith in something, and by using the most logical observations will find the most practical and explainable way the earth became is by the Bibical creation by God in 7 days. I am looking for someone who believes the earth became though evolution and does not believe in God to try to convince me that the 7 day creation is not possible. Any one who is up to the challenge I will be more than happy to debate.
LLAMA

Con

As my opponent used the first round to define their position, I will do the same, as to prevent any arguing over semantics. To begin with, neither side of this debate can be proven 100%. There is not hard evidence that will prove either side so my aim is not to prove anything. Instead, I will be able to show that a Creation theory universe is extremely improbable and that the Evolution theory is much more practical, logical and probable. I personally believe that the Creation theory is completely absurd and Evolution is actually scientific and logical. I am anxious to see Pro's case next round and their argument!
Debate Round No. 1
michaelkeim

Pro

Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

Past and Present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren't there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine'. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That's why the argument often turns into something like:

‘Can't you see what I'm talking about?'

‘No, I can't. Don't you see how wrong you are?'

‘No, I'm not wrong. It's obvious that I'm right.'

‘No, it's not obvious.' And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It's not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one's presuppositions.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts' for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.'

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher's basic assumptions. Then it wasn't the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn't accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.

So please keep an open mind about the matter (as will I) and think and make your own interpretation on the facts and don't take other peoples interpretations as fact.

Debate Terms
If my opponent agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as you might insist, then we have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:

1.‘Facts' are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts'; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians' presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions—see Naturalism, logic and reality.

Practical Application
When someone tells me they want ‘proof' or ‘evidence', not the Bible, my response is as follows:

‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I'm going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.'

One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.

‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.'

Naturalism, logic and reality
Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

1.A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don't believe in God.' I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don't know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don't know if you're making correct statements or even whether you're asking me the right questions.'
The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?' He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations—such ‘reasoning' destroys the very basis for reason.

2.On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I'm an atheist. Because I don't believe in God, I don't believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can't even be sure of reality.' I responded, ‘Then how do you know you're really here making this statement?' ‘Good point,' he replied. ‘What point?' I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.' I stated, ‘Maybe it won't be there.' ‘Good point,' the man said. ‘What point?' I replied.
This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?
LLAMA

Con

First off, I'd like it if my opponent didn't copy directly from Ken Ham's website. I'd like my audience to read the article themselves from the website to see if there's any difference at all. [1] An opponent who didn't plagiarize would be ideal in a debate but obviously my opponent has chosen to ignore society's standard that one should not copy another's work and post it as your own, especially without sourcing. I truly do find it amusing when PRO becomes so lazy in his copying and pasting that he fails to cut out the section that refers to himself as a TEACHER!

"As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the 'facts' for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, "Well sir, you need to try again.'"

I truly do not believe that a 24 year old from Florida would hold a position even remotely similar to the 59 year old Australian creationist. I am just pointing this out to show the readers of this debate that Pro was so incredibly lazy and lacked all resourcefulness that he resorted to plagiarizing in an attempt to win.

So, due to the plagiarizing committed here, Pro's argument is completely void, yet I shall address it anyway.

"Christian time-machine"
As my opponent states that only Christians have a way of seeing what happened in the past, scientist themselves actually have one too. It's called carbon dating and is currently our most accurate way of determining the age of a substance. More accurate than any book that went through years of manipulation and translation that further diminished it's meaning and ruined it's overall credibility. Which is why using the Bible as a source yields quite a flimsy argument and if one is lacking faith in fairy tales, then the argument means nothing to them.

"As a teacher..."
I am truly glad that my opponent provided a story of a difficulty Ken Ham faced while teaching creationism but as he provided none of the evidence that would convince myself or the audience of this debate that he is correct, I see no value in this or any of the sections of his debate I did not address.

"Debate Terms"
I find this section ridiculous as the debate terms should have been defined in the opening round. Additionally, Pro failed to remove the linking that was in the original website.... Pro may use as many Biblical quotes as he pleases, yet that does not mean they will give any weight to his side of the debate.

"We arrived by random processes"
My opponent argues that the origin of life was an extremely improbable and random even. He is correct in the first point, but in the second he is not. I shall address "improbability" later in the debate. The origin of life however, was not simply a random event. To begin, a planet that is capable of sustaining life must first be orbiting a star in what is known as a Goldilocks zone. The heat being let off of that star must heat the planet to a temperature that is not too hot, nor too cold. The planet must also hold a handful of other characteristics in order to sustain life and satisfy the Anthropic Principle.[2] Life arose on these planets because they fit the characteristics of a planet that would sustain life, and it was not random.

"Without God there is no truth"
This is quite an absurd statement and it actually managed to provide me with a great deal of amusement. The only image that comes to my mind is a crowd of people who degrade themselves into anarchistic animals over the fact that there is no God, which religion itself has actually managed to do through terrorism, hatred of minorities, the Holocaust, the Crusades, 9/11, etc. This is merely blasphemy that Ken Ham spewed onto his website that Pro here managed to copy and paste in addition to his "argument".

1.
As Pro really did not post much of an argument, making no statement as to how the earth was created, we can predict that he will give something along the lines of the creation story and will tell us that God created it. At this point in the debate I will only provide one point to counter his potential argument. Creationists generally agree that everything on the earth is good at what it does. An eye is good for seeing, a lung is good for breathing and our jaws are good for biting. How could any of this have been created by random chance? Well the fact is that every living thing evolved to be the way that it is through natural selection, but creationists will conclude that to be so perfect at just living, some infinitely intelligent designer had to have created them that way. My opponent is a Christian so I shall continue with the Christian God as my example. The Christian God is all knowing, all powerful and is capable of things that defy natural laws and all logic. "He" also communicates constantly with all of the beings on earth and intercepts everyone's thoughts and sees all of their actions while receiving millions of prayers and sending signals to them at the same time. If this "God" is to be anything at all, he just can not be simple, let alone probable. Additionally, if we apply the same creationist logic to their creator, who or what must have created God? And then what about the creator of God? The creator of the creator of God? What we create with that logic is a never ending paradox of infeasible super-computers that are able to create these massively powerful beings that manage to exist with the capabilities stronger than any tangible technology that any group of people could ever dream of! And creationists feel this is an adequate solution! Well I do not think anything is answered when you respond to it with an infinite amount of additional questions. Let alone a sky-fairy. The origin of the universe and it's life is improbable enough. Why do we attribute it to something even more improbable? It simply does not work.

2. Now I will describe the scientific theory to the origin of the universe and life.
There several theories on the origin of the universe, but the one that has the most supporting evidence is the Big Bang Theory. Scientists estimate that the universe began itself around 15 billion years ago with this big bang. This "Big Bang" was a huge explosion that started the expansion of the universe.[3] At this point all of the matter and energy in our universe was contained at one point and highly compacted. Galaxies also appear to be moving away from us which has been deemed the Hubble Law.[4] This shows that our universe is one that expands infinitely after the big bang itself terminated. It also shows that the universe itself was once compacted.[4] Additionally, if the universe was once very hot as the Big Bang suggest, we should be able to find a remnant of the heat. Well, scientists found a a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is the remnant that they were looking for.[4] Lastly, the abundance of light elements such as Hydrogen and Helium also supports the Big Bang theory.[4] From that point on, life originated on Earth due to it's position in the Goldilocks zone. Organic molecules were produced from the inorganic material from energy sources like lightning or the sun.[5] The molecules then reacted chemically with others and formed nucleic acids. Next, genetic codes arose in the primitive living aggregates. They were pre-cellular at this point but soon evolved to be cellular and then progressed on to become life as we know it.[5]

I await my opponent's response for next round anxiously! Hopefully it will be his own, and not Ken Ham's.

1. http://www.answersingenesis.org...
2. http://www.wisegeek.com...
3. http://www.umich.edu...
4. http://www.big-bang-theory.com...
5. http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de...
Debate Round No. 2
michaelkeim

Pro

michaelkeim forfeited this round.
LLAMA

Con

Extend my arguments this round since Pro has failed to counter any of them.
Debate Round No. 3
michaelkeim

Pro

michaelkeim forfeited this round.
LLAMA

Con

Pro forfeited again, so continue to extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
michaelkeim

Pro

michaelkeim forfeited this round.
LLAMA

Con

Pro forfeited for the last time. I do wish that this debate had more to it rather than just a copied argument. There's plenty more on Ken Ham's website anyway. Regardless, I hope everyone votes.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
Posted by belle 6 days ago
belle
this whole debate is o.O

looking forward to learning how the universe came to be through evolution... :D

-That
Posted by LLAMA 6 years ago
LLAMA
@hanass
That's exactly what I asked Pro to tell us in my argument.
Posted by hanass 6 years ago
hanass
This has been debated countless times here. Placing God at the origin of the Universe leads to more questions than answers. Take Voltaire's watchmaker example creationists like to use so much. A watchmaker can't make a watch that he doesn't know of. If God really created the Universe, then that raises a much bigger question: how did God get the knowledge to do so? And even if you figure out where He got that knowledge, how did the thing/person who gave the knowledge to God get the knwoledge himself? We're just going in cicrlces here.
Posted by hanass 6 years ago
hanass
BUSTEDlol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
In response to Puck:

WOW. No kidding. I don't see why Con should bother responding to the debate if Pro just plagiarized someone else's (crappy) argument. Instant lose for Pro.
Posted by LLAMA 6 years ago
LLAMA
I do apologize, I meant to say that I would oppose his argument in a way that is scientific. I'm also addressing evolution of life, and the changing of the universe but the beginning of the universe obviously cannot be credited to evolution. :P

@Puck
I saw that as soon as I read his argument because I've read that article before since one of my friends told me to look over the site and "learn the truth". lol xP
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
Most of the people that believe this junk have been home schooled and deprived of an actual education in science. It's really quite sad.
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
It would be nice. :P
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
@Puck

Were you expecting something different? These people have no arguments.
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
Copy paste fail. Seriously.

http://www.answersingenesis.org...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
michaelkeimLLAMATied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Sniperjake1994 6 years ago
Sniperjake1994
michaelkeimLLAMATied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by cjl 6 years ago
cjl
michaelkeimLLAMATied
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:04