The Instigator
theta_pinch
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
msheahan99
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

There are no sound arguments for 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 3 votes the winner is...
msheahan99
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 706 times Debate No: 43180
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

theta_pinch

Pro

There are no sound arguments for creationism. Con has burden of proof.
msheahan99

Con

I accept your challenge and I hope for a good debate round.
Debate Round No. 1
theta_pinch

Pro

There are no sound arguments for creationism because the only arguments creationists can use are arguments based on empirical evidence; and none of those arguments are based on evidence that has not been discredited and if they aren't based on evidence that haven't been discredited; they rely on misinterpretations.
msheahan99

Con

"There are no sound arguments for creationism. Con has burden of proof." Based on the resolution presented by the pro side, the debate is over whether or not there are sound arguments for creationism. Since con has the burden of proof it is logical that if con can prove that there is at least 1 sound argument in favor of creationism then con should win this debate round. The argument is not over whether creationism happened, it is an argument over if there is a sound argument for it.

When you consider creationism consider a Rube Goldberg machine. In a Rube Goldberg machine a domino or a ball is pushed by the creator which creates a brilliant chain reaction which leads to the completion of a simple task such as filling a cup with water or knocking over a block of some kind. Creationism is much the same way, with the creator setting everything into motion with the big bang and then uses evolution to continue the task, all leading to the completed task of humanity. Many believe that creationism is in direct conflict with evolution, however they go hand in hand, the reason is that there is no explanation for what sparked the big bang, it can"t be explained in any scientific way and thus creationism is an explanation for it. Like a Rube Goldberg machine following the big bang the sun arrives in the Milky Way galaxy and thus the earth is as well. This sparks evolution and leads down to the creation of humanity. In all reality there is no explanation for something to spark the big bang, because something can never come out of nothing, and the big bang could not have existed without something to spark it and create it.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness." It is possible that when God said this he was sparking the big bang, when he says let there be light he sparks the big bang, and when he separates the light from the darkness the planets and stars are falling into there solar systems.

Although many would consider creationism as the belief that the universe was created in 7 days, the translation of day in the Hebrew language could mean 1) a period of light; 2) a period of 24 hours; 3) a general, vague time; 4) a point of time; 5) a year. In the story of creation it states that it was 7 days, which could mean a general, vague time. He also states in the bible: "5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night."" This shows that not every single day has to mean when the sun comes up and when the sun goes down, it simply has to mean darkness and light. This also supports evolution because it would take millions of years to complete evolution.

Throughout the story of how God created the universe it follows the pattern that had to be followed for evolution to take place. The first thing that happens is the water is separated from the sky, the atmosphere must be created before oxygen can safely exist on planet earth. It also states that plants came before animals, which coincides with evolution because the animal life forms would have to come before the more complicated forms of animals, it also coincides because the earth had to be filled with oxygen before the life forms could exist.

Now that I have presented my case I will take some time to address my opponents arguments. My opponent presented a case that states that "the only arguments creationists can use are arguments based on empirical evidence" however he has not presented any examples of any kind. Consider a debater opens a debate round by stating that he has a dog, and shows a picture of the dog. His opponent stands up and states that the evidence is not sound because the dog could belong to anyone and is not necessarily his dog. However if the opponent can not present any counter evidence proving that the dog does not belong to him then according to the laws of debate the argument is in favor of the first speaker. It is the same way with this debate round, my opponent has stated that the arguments for creationism are not sound, yet no counter evidence has been presented and thus until counter evidence is presented those arguments fall in favor of my side.

I have presented 3 separate arguments that support creationism, all are logical and coincide with science. Because the debate is whether there are logical arguments to creationism and not whether creationism actually happened I should win the round by default because I have presented sound and logical arguments in favor of creation. Through these arguments I stand beside my claim that creationism not only is possible but is a probable explanation for the beginning of the universe.
Debate Round No. 2
theta_pinch

Pro

I will now negate all of cons arguments in one sentence: what con is describing is not creationis.

This is the definition of creationism: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

What con is describing is an interpretation of the text. Creationism is literal; there is no interpretation.

All con has done is tear down a strawman.


msheahan99

Con

Creationism is the position that God created the universe. There are two views within creationism, the divide is based upon the time period that the earth was created. Young earth creationists believe that God created the universe, the earth, and living things on the earth and that the Old Testament literally describes six, 24 hour periods. Therefore, they maintain that the universe is, more or less, anywhere from 6,000 to 10,000 years old. They further maintain that speciation occurred during this time as a result of the extant genetic information and environmental pressures. Old earth creationists still maintain that the universe, the earth, and all living things were created by God, but that the Universe is very old, and not necessarily created in six 24 hour periods. Old earth creationist do believe in the 7 day representation in the bible, but as was stated in the 2nd round, the hebrew word for day could mean a general, vague time. Thus old earth creationism still coincides with the biblical explanation of creation, yet is open to interpretations of the bible.

Pro has limited his opinion of creationism to just one side, that of the new earth creationism. I presented my case in the 2nd round for old earth creationism, and thus pro's point is irrelevant. All of my arguments still stand and have been unchallenged and I should be awarded this debate round.

When Pro stated that my explanation is "an interpretation of the text" he accepted that the arguments I brought up in the 2nd round are indeed logical. In short he is stating that the arguments don't belong here, yet are indeed logical. I proved that they do belong in this debate round in my above point. He accepted that these arguments are logical by not responding to them.

Pro has not responded to any of the points that I brought up, and the mere fact that I brought up points proves the round should be awarded to me. Because none of pros responses has a leg to stand on I should win this round because the arguments that I presented are indeed logical. The resolution presents a universal negative, stating that there are no arguments in favor of creationism, however I have proved this wrong by presenting a number of logical arguments in favor of creationism. I have proved this resolution false, or in this case con, and thus I have won this round.
Debate Round No. 3
theta_pinch

Pro

Con has convinced me there are valid arguments in favor of old earth creationism; but NOT young earth creationism.
msheahan99

Con

I don't understand pro's point, the fact that something is old earth creationism doesn't change the fact that it is creationism. Pro hasn't proved that old earth creationism is not creationism, he has not even argued the point. Based on pro's statement that I have convinced him that there are valid arguments in favor of old earth creationism I have won the round. Pro never proved that old earth creationism is not creationism. As I stated in the 3rd round creationism is the position that God created the universe, and that there are two views within creationism, thus both old earth and new earth beliefs are in fact creationism. Pro accepted that my arguments where in fact valid, and I have proven that my arguments fell under the hood of creationism, thus by default I have won this debate round. I have proven that there are valid arguments in favor of creationism, and pro has accepted that they are valid. Thus I have proven the universal negative wrong, and I should be awarded this debate round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by kyudisease 3 years ago
kyudisease
How long are the rounds?
Posted by kyudisease 3 years ago
kyudisease
An excellent comment. I was considering taking this one... but as you implied, it is somewhat of a farce.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
You really ought to stipulate the burden of proof when you make yourself pro with the resolution being a universal negative. Universal negatives are notoriously difficult to prove, and with you being Pro and initiating the debate, the default burden of proof is on you. Your opponent only has to debunk your arguments. The way you've set up this debate, it's going to be almost impossible for you to win. I would suggest stipulating that your opponent has the burden of proof.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
theta_pinchmsheahan99Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro started out hostile and adversarial even before CON made any points. Also PRO concedes in round 4 Arguments - Con actually had well reasoned arguments
Vote Placed by Iamthejuan 3 years ago
Iamthejuan
theta_pinchmsheahan99Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to con because pro was dismissive in the second round, and his definition of creationism is false. Not to mention he concedes the debate. Con made better arguments as well.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
theta_pinchmsheahan99Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro cold concedes in round 4. Conduct also goes to Con, as Pro is incredibly dismissive and nonresponsive in round 3.