There is evidence for Creation
Debate Rounds (4)
Con will try to prove that creation has no evidence backing it up.
Con will not use the first round for arguments. It will only be used for acceptance and questions.
This is the Biblical story of creation, taken from the King James version. I state that this is how creation started and that every part of it should be taken literally. Now I will provide evidence to back it up.
The first piece of evidence I will bring up is the termite. According to evolution, the termite lived during the Cretaceous period, around 66 million years ago. And according to the National History Museum, they evolved from cockroaches. But this creates quite a problem. Termites are attracted to wood, bark or other materials that contain cellulose. But they are totally unable to digest cellulose without the help of an organism called a protozoa. The protozoan change the cellulose so that the termite is able to digest it. But what happened when the termite evolved and got a craving for cellulose. It would have no way of digesting it. And after millions and billions of years (which is the time scientists say for something to evolve), when the protozoan would finally have evolved, all the termites that eat cellulose would have died out. This means that the termite is unable to have the cellulose craving without the presence protozoan. Otherwise they would all die out.
But in the Biblical perspective, the termite came after the fall. It was part of the curse that was put on man kind. Yet it was actually somewhat of a blessing. Termites take care of the dead and rotting wood that lies around. This clears the land and helps get rid of unwanted material. But thy could still survive since when they were created they had the protozoan in them.
Which came first the Bee or the flower. A bee's natural diet consists mostly of nectar and pollen. This goes for all bees including the carpenter bee. Bees are totally unable to live without flowers. A flower needs bees since bees collect pollen from them and spread them to other flowers. A flower cannot survive without bees. But if evolution is true then which really did evolve first, the bee or the flower. If the bee evolved first then they would die out for lack of nectar and pollen. The absence of flowers would kill the newly evolved bee. If flowers evolved first then they would die out to. There would be no bee to spread the pollen from one flower to another. This leaves a problem for evolutionists, but for a creationist it all makes sense. Flowers were created on day 3. Bees were created on day 6. A flower would have no need to be pollinated until after the fall. The flower and the bee were created very near each other, so that is how they were able to live. A flower is definitely able to live without a bee for a few days, compared to the millions of years it would take for it to evolve.
If creation isn't true then where do we get our morals from. Evolution teaches about Natural Selection. Natural selection says that the stronger take over the weaker. And the weaker will later die out. But this means that it doesn't matter what you do. Just so that it advances you closer to the top.. This also means that if someone is standing in your way, it is okay to kill them or use another way to get them out of your path. This thinking is what led Hitler to do what he did. He believed in evolution and decided that the old, the sick, and the handicapped were the weaker type. And so he tried to further evolution by exterminating them. Evolution has no morals to it, while the Bible does. It is Christians who are able to turn a group of cannibals into civilized people. An example is Nate Saint, who was trying to reach out to the Aucas. Although he and his friends were killed, Christians were able to go on his shoulders and civilize these cannibals Even though many others had tried before and had failed. Christianity is what gives us morals, if it isn't true then anybody can do what is right in their own eyes.
And for my final piece of evidence, it is soft tissue found in the bone of a dinosaur Mary Schweitzer, a palaeontologist, made a shocking discovery when looking at a piece of dinosaur bone through a microscope. She found soft tissue inside the dinosaur bone! Scientists say that dinosaurs first lived during the Triassic period around 231.4 million years ago. Then most of them went extinct around the Cretaceous period, around 66 million years ago. But according to today's scientists, under the best of circumstances, soft tissue is supposed to decay within 1 million years. How is soft tissue able to last 230 million more years than it was supposed to. This is impossible according to evolution, but according to creation dinosaurs didn't die out a long time ago. They died out sometime after the flood, which was around 4,360 years ago. If scientists are accurate that it takes at the maximum 1 million years for all soft tissue to decay, then nearly 4, 360 years are nothing compared to the 1 million. The soft tissue would have no problem surviving that long.
Evolution has many mistakes, and scientists are always having to reinvent it. To recreate how evolution happened. But the Biblical story of creation, hasn't changed since. I have brought up 4 out of several pieces of evidence, that back up creation. Evolution takes more faith to believe than creation does. And doesn't logically make sense. I hope that you will look at these pieces of evidence without a biased attitude, and you might believe them.
I will be splitting this round into 2 parts. In one part I will be refuting Pro's evidence, in the other I will be arguing that god cannot have created the universe.
I will now be addressing the evidence that Pro presented for creation.
ONE: The termite
Pro argues that the termite could not have evolved because of its dependency on a species of protazoa.
Now, there are three things I will address about this argument:
1) I could conceed it and it still would not be evidence of creation. ~A=/=B
2) There are many examples of species simultaneously evolving to help each other out, this would be no different.
3) The evolution of the termite is already understood in biology.
Cryptocercus is a type of roach that eats wood. It is thought that termites either evolved from Cryptocercus, or have a common ancestor with them. The roaches get the protazoa through a transfer from the hind gut (rectum). The roaches could even transfer the protazoa with a species of termite called Zootermopsis.
"Even more primitive termites may have fed on a range of things they could digest themselves, Poinar said, but eventually they acquired protozoa that dramatically increased their ability to digest cellulose, and through evolutionary processes they came to depend on it."
"Somewhere on the evolutionary scale the termites began producing a liquid that contained protozoa that they would excrete. The termite offspring in turn consume the feces and thereby gain the protozoa in their digestive systems. It took time for all of this to get worked out, the study indicated. The successful establishment of protozoa in the termites required them to withstand the chemical and physical conditions inside the alimentary tract, use the gut contents as a food source, cause no damage to the host and be carried through successive stages and generations. But by the different species each specializing at what they do best – the termite eats, the protozoa digests – the two groups have both had extraordinary evolutionary success.".
So, in conclusion, this point would not prove creationism if it was true, and the evolution of the termite is understood.
TWO: Bee and Flower
As stated in the previous point, coevolution is a thing. It also would not prove creationism if this point was correct.
As well as that, current studies suggest that the bee lived BEFROE the flower, and that the bee did not originally need the flower to live.
Here, Pro assumes that there exists an objective morality. When we look at claims of "right" and "wrong", they are different between different people.
FOUR: Soft Tissue
The tissue was not soft when found, it was rehydrated. It is also unknown if the tissue that was rehydrated was the original tissue or not. The age of fossils is also not dependent on preservasion of the fossil, as preservation is dependent on other factors. The age of a fossil is found based off the rock it was found in. Last, DNA has never been recovered from dinosaur fossils, but DNA has been recovered from fossils that have been dated between 10,000 and 300,000 years old.
Can God have created the universe?
P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) GOd did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).
Defense of Premise 1:
I am sure that this does not need much for explanation. If God created the universe, the logically god is the cause and the universe is the effect.
Defense of Premise 2:
The principals of causality require for there to be a movement of time. A before the effect, an after the cause, etc. This requires tensed facts.
This point is seemingly agreed upon by all time theorists, even William Lane Craig.
Defense of Premise 3:
To defend premise 3 I will be proposing that the most probable theory of time is the B-Theory of Time.
Effects like relativity and time dialation support the B-Theory of Time while refuting the A-Theory of Time (the A-Theory of Time is the theory of time that allows tensed facts to exist).
Further support for this premise comes from recent experiments in quantum mechanics. Under the B-Theory of Time, the progression of time is an illusion, and time does not really pass. If one were to have "god view", a view of the universe from outside of it, the universe would appear static.
A recent study has shown that the progress of time is an illusion caused from quantum entanglement, and that if you did have "god view" that the universe would actually appear static.
So, we can conclude that it is not logically possible for god to have created the universe, and therefore anything that appears like it is evidence for god creating the universe cannot logically be real evidence for creation, but misinterpreted evidence.
"Even more primitive termites may have fed on a range of things they could digest themselves, Poinar said, but eventually they acquired protozoa that dramatically increased their ability to digest cellulose, and through evolutionary processes they came to depend on it." This statement is contrary to natural selection and evolution. Evolution teaches that we are becoming better and better. That we came from scum to man. That we are always progressing and getting better. But if an animal (or bug) becomes dependent on something else for survival, isn't that a step backward? Why would something totally capable of taking care of themselves become dependent on another. This is against natural selection and evolution. According to natural selection these type of termites should have died out, because they are weaker than the other termites that were able to take care of themselves. But since they didn't then that means this never happened. Creation is the only logical way that termites would even be alive. And them getting there by supernatural means doesn't mean that it is impossible. The definition of supernatural is "something that is above or beyond natural." This includes evolution. If we don't see animals evolving, or explosions creating order, or even explosions coming from nothing today then that is supernatural. You can't dismiss this evidence for creation just because it is supernatural. If you did this you would have to dismiss evolution since it also is supernatural. But, I am not here to prove evolution is wrong, just that there is evidence for creation.
2 Bees and flowers
"As well as that, current studies suggest that the bee lived BEFROE the flower, and that the bee did not originally need the flower to live" Same here as with the termite. If bees really did evolve and where getting better, then why did they become dependent on the flower. This is, yet again, a contradiction. The bees should have also died out according to natural selection just like the termites should have. This proves that this evidence supports creation, and not evolution.
"Here, Pro assumes that there exists an objective morality. When we look at claims of "right" and "wrong", they are different between different people." Everybody thinks what they are doing is right. If we follow what we think is right then there would be no need for laws. Nobody would follow them. Nobody does something that is wrong and say to themselves, " You know, I shouldn't be doing this." Or when they are confronted while doing wrong, they don't hang their head in shame and say "you're right, I'll try to do better next time." You do what you do because it is right in your own mind. Even the Bible states this, Proverbs 21:2 "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." How can you discern right from wrong, when the person deciding that is you. The Bible however teaches exactly what is right and what is wrong. That is why we have these laws in our country. Our founding Fathers knew of our sinful nature, and that what we do we think is right. So they founded this country off of the Bible, the ultimate authority.
4. Soft tissue
I will divide this into 2 parts. In defense of the fossil and rock dating.
"The tissue was not soft when found, it was rehydrated. It is also unknown if the tissue that was rehydrated was the original tissue or not." Here con states a contradiction. First they state that the original tissue was rehydrated. But then they said that the tissue that was rehydrated, might not be the soft tissue that was found. This discredits con's argument and makes it still plausible that the tissue that was found was found soft. But besides this, if scientists weren't really worried about soft tissue being found in a dinosaur bone, then why did they fire someone for finding soft tissue. If the tissue wasn't an issue then this person would still have their job. And finally, what does DNA have anything to do with soft tissue being found in bones. Here con strayed of topic.
Ah, so now we get into dating methods. In the Ken Ham, Bill Nye debate Ken Ham brought up something very startling. He brought up that there was a piece of wood encased in a basalt. When it was sent to a lab to find the date of it, the wood was found to be 45 thousand years old and the basalt it was encased in was 45 million years old. How could these dates be so far apart. How can we trust a system that makes such great mistakes. This is the system that scientists use to find the age of the earth. But besides this the dating method has other flaws. Scientists say that they can't learn the date of a rock if it is earlier than 2 million years old. How can we know that this method is reliable, if we can't even test it for the age of rocks we obviously know the age of. If it is reliable then we should be able to test it by things that are recently made, like the dried lava from Mount St. Helens. We can't rely on the accuracy of these methods. There is no way we can prove that they actually work. We can't rely on these methods to find the age of fossils, or how old the earth is. The only other method we have is History. And evolutions history all depends on the rock dating systems.
For con's arguments, I got a little confused, so please clarify in the chat if I got anything wrong.
1. There must be a cause
I think that con got this completely right. If the universe was created then there must be a purpose. The purpose of that is to give glory to God. That is the reason we were created. So we could give glory to the Creator. Not to do that would be rebellious. That may seem harsh but let me clarify this with an illustration. Let's say that God is a potter and you are clay. When the potter says to you that you will be a jar, you say to Him "No, I want to be a bowl. The clay is rebelling against the person who created it. That is what we do when we sin. When we sin we don't give any glory to God. We are being selfish and are fulfilling our sinful desire. We are disobeying His wishes, yet He is merciful to us and let's us go by for the moment. But one day He will punish those that disobey, just like a potter will get fed up with rebellious clay. His patience will run out. Although we do sin, this isn't what we were created for. We weren"t created so we could sin. We were created to give God glory and not to say He doesn't exist. This is our purpose in life. And when you die, then how much money you had, how famous you were, how many good things you did in life are not even going to matter. The only thing that will matter is where you will spend eternity. That is what matters in the end.
Now I don't really understand the arguments after premise 1. If you would clarify them that would be very helpful.
In conclusion then it all depends on how you look at a piece of evidences I may look at a piece of evidence and see that it supports creation. But another might look at the same evidence and see that it supports evolution. It's all in the way that you look at it. I have now listed only five pieces of evidence but there much evidence for it if you only look for it. I hope that you will not dismiss my evidence, but will think about it, and really study if they are true. Also that you will really thoroughly study both creation and evolution and decide which is truly right.
"This statement is contrary to natural selection and evolution. Evolution teaches that we are becoming better and better."
That is not what natural selection states, natural selection states that those best suited to their environments will survive and pass on their genes while thos less suited will die out.
The relationship between the termite and protazoa is beneficial to them both. This means that their relationship made the termite more suited for survival and also made the protazoa more suited for survival. This is evolution.
" If we don't see animals evolving, or explosions creating order, or even explosions coming from nothing today then that is supernatural. You can't dismiss this evidence for creation just because it is supernatural. If you did this you would have to dismiss evolution since it also is supernatural."
There is nothing supernatural about evolution or the Big Bang. You also strawmanned the big bang theory.
Evolution through natural selection is a natural process. We have not directly observed it over the 3.6 billion years it has been happening to life on our planet, but we have observed it within our lives:
Silver fox experiment
Bacteris evolving to resist anti-bacterial injections
And much more.
Bees and flower
"Same here as with the termite. If bees really did evolve and where getting better, then why did they become dependent on the flower."
Again, that is not what evolution by natural selesction states. Bees would be able to get their food more easily from flowers, and flowers would be able to pollinate more easily with bees. This is beneficial to both. Over time, bees would evolve to be able better suited to the flower (their food source), and might become dependent on it. As long as it is beneficial for survival, the bee will survive and evolve.
You so far have shown a misunderstanding of how natural selection works.
A natural process of empathy or psychological influence of what is "good" and "bad" does not make morality objective. Everyone has their own views of what is right and wrong. When living in a society, those individual views can stack up and become the majority in the society (societal morality, which I will call ethics from now on).
When living in a society where the ethics is "killing is wrong" then it can have psychological impacts on your own views of killing. This does not, however, influece whether morals actually exist or not.
" Our founding Fathers knew of our sinful nature, and that what we do we think is right. So they founded this country off of the Bible, the ultimate authority"
Both irrelevant and false. The contitution was founded on secular ideals, not religious ones.
"Here con states a contradiction. First they state that the original tissue was rehydrated. But then they said that the tissue that was rehydrated, might not be the soft tissue that was found"
This is not what was stated at all. What was stated was that the tissue that was found was rehydrated, not originally found soft, and that it is unknown if that tissue is the original tissue of the dinosaur of the fossil they were looking at.
"But besides this, if scientists weren't really worried about soft tissue being found in a dinosaur bone, then why did they fire someone for finding soft tissue."
First, you do not have a source. Second, if it is the story I am thinking about, the person was fired for not doing his job. He talked about the tissue, which was okay, but was also saying, to a class of students, that it was evidence that dinosaurs lived with people. THis goes against the ciriculum he had and was fired for doing his job improperly. It is like a janitor who one day decides not to clean the bathrooms, he will be at risk of getting fired.
"And finally, what does DNA have anything to do with soft tissue being found in bones. "
It is important because it shows that dinosaurs lived long enough ago where we cannot get samples of their DNA, unlike with people.
"He brought up that there was a piece of wood encased in a basalt. When it was sent to a lab to find the date of it, the wood was found to be 45 thousand years old and the basalt it was encased in was 45 million years old."
I have never seen a source for this argument. Without more details, it is stupid to try and address this argument. I would like to see a source, not the video of Ken Ham, about this 45 thousand year old wood in 45 million year old rock.
"Scientists say that they can't learn the date of a rock if it is earlier than 2 million years old."
This is completely dependant on the elements within the rock beign observed. There are many types of radiometric dating, all of which appear to work with the geological column.
Can God have created the universe?
I never said that the universe has a purpose, I do not know where you got that from. The entire rest of your stuff in this point is built off this misconception of "purpose".
P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
This means that god is the CAUSE of the universe, cause and effect. If there is a creator, then there is a cause and effect.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
Causality requires for the flow of time to be real, that there is a true before and a true after (tensed facts). If there is no true before or after, if there is no real flow of time, then causality cannot occur.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
There is no true before or true after, the flow of time is not real but illusionary. This is supported by the 3 scientific pieces of evidence I gave (relativity, delay wait, time emergence) to support the B-Theory of Time (which is a tenseless theory of time). This allows for the illusion of time flowing within the universe as well as the illusion of causality within the universe, but they are not true things.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
This follows directly from P2 and P3. There are no real tensed fact, therefore causality is impossible.
C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).
This follows from P1 and C1. If the universe cannot have a cause, and saying that god created the universe implies that the universe has a cause, then the logical conclusion is that the claim that god created the universe is false.
There is no evidence for creationism and creationism (by claiming that god created the universe) is logically impossible.
That is not what natural selection states, natural selection states that those best suited to their environments will survive and pass on their genes while those less suited will die out
I did not make a contradiction. I first stated why it was a contradiction to evolution, then I explained why it was a contradiction to natural selection.
The relationship between the termite and protozoa is beneficial to them both. This means that their relationship made the termite more suited for survival and also made the protozoa more suited for survival. This would only be true if the termite was already trying to digest cellulose There would be no need at all for the termite to have protozoa. The protozoa would not be a benefit to them if there was nothing for it to digest. This is still a contradiction to natural selection. If the termites were not able to get protozoa then they would die out since they are dependent on them. But the ones who aren't dependent would live.
There is nothing supernatural about evolution or the Big Bang. Supernatural, from dictionary.com "of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." When was the last time that you saw an animal evolve. When was the last time you saw an explosion created life. These things are supernatural. What do you consider about evolution that is not supernatural.
Bacteria evolving to resist anti-bacterial injections.If you knew about this you would know that this is called adaptation. Evolution is things evolving from one species to another. Adaptation is one species changing a feature so they can become better adapted to their climate. This is not an example of evolution.
Bees and flowers
Same thing here. The flowers would not be beneficial to the bees if they already ate something else. And also they would become dependent on the flower which would make it weaker than other bees. If the flowers were wiped out then these bees that were dependent on them would all die out, while the ones who didn't become dependent would live. This is yet again a contradiction to natural selection.
Everyone has their own views of what is right and wrong. When living in a society, those individual views can stack up and become the majority in the society. This statement actually is saying that the twin towers and other terrorist attacks are right. Muslims get their laws from their Qur"an which clearly states to kill all infidels (non-Muslims). According to your definition of morals, the Muslims do right, when they attack others since they are following their own set of right and wrong. But then why do we get with them since they are just following their laws. The only reason we get mad at them is because there are morals. The Bible is what tells us right from wrong. If it didn't then each separate group should be judged by their own set of laws.
Both irrelevant and false. The constitution was founded on secular ideals, not religious ones. What are the public schools actually teaching about our history. What are thy leaving out that Americans don't even know about their own country. The founding fathers clearly believed in a God and founded this country off of the Bible. And if you have ever read the Declaration of independence then you would know that the second paragraph starts off by saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." And in our pledge of allegiance (apparently not according to Obama) we state "One nation, under God". Even Benjamin Franklin, who was not a Christian, still believed in God. Here are some quotes from him. "If it had not been for justice of our cause, and the consequent interposition of Providence, in which we had faith, we must have been ruined. If I had ever before been an atheist, I should now have been convinced of the being and government of a Deity!" "The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, it is probable that an empire can rise without His aid!" Our founding fathers believed in Creation, that God created the world. Despite our knowledge of science, we still are nothing compared to them. They were way smarter then we will ever be. If these men believed in creation and saw evidence of it, why doesn't anyone see it today.
Your source for the soft tissue being rehydrated is evolutionary. It isn't a trusted site. You don't have enough evidence to say it was actually rehydrated.
First, you do not have a source. So now you are not even looking at the sources I give. The second one I gave was the source for my argument Also about the person who was fired after finding soft tissue, he was fired after teaching some students about the horn. But he couldn't have gone against the curriculum he was teaching since he had recently found the fossil. He was fired within 2 weeks of finding the soft tissue, and he wanted to show his students that there actually is soft tissue. And he was then fired for his beliefs, even though he was told that they would be respected.
Still this is more evidence for the earth being created. More soft tissue is being found, that should never be able to live as long as scientist say. The only way it could be soft is if it died more recently than scientists claim.
Early man, according to evolution, was unintelligent and had very primitive tools. If this was true then obviously we would expect to find these tools that they acquired as they progressed. But that is not what we find. We do not find these tools that Neanderthals used. This is quite confusing, for they should be more numerous than dinosaur fossils, since they would not have to last as long. But what we find is the opposite. We find things that we cannot do today. An example is stone henge. How were people who were very unintelligent be able to erect giant stones the way they did without the help of machines. This just doesn't fit with how early people were dumb and they got smarter until they got to us. Another is the pyramids. How were the Egyptians able to erect these giant monuments. Even today we can't make one like theirs. Still another is the Nazca lines. These are trenches that were carved in the dirt and on the ground they look like little trenches that have no meaning. But from the air, they make a huge picture. This could only be accomplished accurately by the air, as there was no other way to actually see what they were drawing. Not only that but an artifact made of gold that resemble an airplane has been found. This artifact do not resemble any animal or insect. It seems to be a model that was created around 1000 years ago. If ancient man really was unintelligent then how would they be able to make a model off of something that we created nearly a century ago. Ancient man could not have been unintelligent, since they can do things we can't even do today. But this makes perfect sense with creation. When God created Adam he was perfect. He was all knowledgeable The further along man got the more knowledge he lost. Which explains why they might have been able to fly before we could. They were smarter then we were, and we lost that knowledge.
I am still confused about con's points, but I will try my best to refute them.
Unless by a cause for the earth being created you mean a reason why the earth was created, I don't understand you first argument. If this is what you meant then my argument about a purpose fits into there.
What do you mean that there is no time. How can time not exist. The definition of time is "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole." If time doesn't exist then the earth isn't old at all. The earth then has no age. If there is no time then why do we sleep, have clocks and grow food during certain parts of the year. Don't you realize your contradicting yourself. First you say the earth has been around for 3.5 billion years. Then you say that time doesn't really exist, there was no past. This argument makes absolutely no sense. Since this argument is mostly the base for your other arguments then the others aren't logical.
A great book to find more things that ancient man did is The Puzzle of Ancient Man.
"This would only be true if the termite was already trying to digest cellulose There would be no need at all for the termite to have protozoa. The protozoa would not be a benefit to them if there was nothing for it to digest."
A is eating cellulose, but is not very effective at it.
B can help it digest cellulose, and would benefit from a host a host, but does not need one.
If A keeps eating cellulose, it would be beneficial for it to become the host of B.
A can now eat cellulose, and B can live in a host.
A no longer needs to ability to digest cellulose by itself, so over time it loses that ability.
B no longer needs the ability to live independently, so over time it loses that ability.
Both A and B benefited from the mutations for their environment.
This does not violate natural selection.
Replace A with termite and B with protazoa.
Again, even if I conceded this point, it would do nothing to affirm your position.
"When was the last time that you saw an animal evolve. When was the last time you saw an explosion created life."
Both have been explained by natural law. Also, the silver fox experiment is a great example of evolution. As well as that, life came from abiogenesis, not the big bang.
"Bacteria evolving to resist anti-bacterial injections.If you knew about this you would know that this is called adaptation."
Bees and Flowers
"The flowers would not be beneficial to the bees if they already ate something else."
ANOTHER thought experiment.
Creature eats A.
B appears in the environment that Creature lives.
Creature can eat B.
Eating B is easier and less dangerous than eating A.
Creature starts to eat B.
Creature evolves over time to eat from B easier and to get more out of it.
Since Creature no longer eats A, it starts to lose the ability to eat A.
Over time, Creature can no longer eat A but can eat B more efficiently.
Replace Creature with bees over time.
Replace A with whatever food source they used to have.
Replace B with flowers.
Again, this does not violate natural selection.
"And also they would become dependent on the flower which would make it weaker than other bees."
Again, no it would not. They would be able to survive more easily, despite the dependence, and therefore would be more suited to their environment. You keep strawmanning evolution.
"This statement actually is saying that the twin towers and other terrorist attacks are right."
Strawman. I said people have their own views of rights and wrongs. I am also saying that there is no such thing as a real "right" or a real "wrong".
You also have not provided any evidence for an objective morality.
"What are the public schools actually teaching about our history. What are thy leaving out that Americans don't even know about their own country. The founding fathers clearly believed in a God and founded this country off of the Bible."
1) Yes, the vast vast majority of the founding fathers believed in a god. That is completely irrelevant to the founding of this country being biblically based or secularly based.
2) No, this country was not founded on the Bible. You have provided no evidence for that claim.
"And if you have ever read the Declaration of independence then you would know that the second paragraph starts off by saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.""
1) Irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence was not a document to decide how our country should be, it was a declaration to Britain that we were going to become an independent nation.
2) The statement you wrote is also refering to an European philosopher's (John Locke) philosophy, one who was popular. This was most likely included to insult the British government by saying they do not give these rights.
"And in our pledge of allegiance (apparently not according to Obama) we state "One nation, under God"."
So what? This was not included in our pledge until the last century. It was added later in response to the Red Scare because people were afraid of Communism. Since the Soviets were officially atheistic, the United States, despite the constitution, added religious parts to our government.
"Our founding fathers believed in Creation, that God created the world"
Appeal to authority. Also, irrelevant. Of course they believed in creation, it was the only idea at the time of how life got there. Evolution was not yet discovered. Darwin, who discovered evolution, wasn't born until 1809.
"They were way smarter then we will ever be."
"If these men believed in creation and saw evidence of it, why doesn't anyone see it today"
Appeal to authority.
"Your source for the soft tissue being rehydrated is evolutionary. It isn't a trusted site."
1) Genetic fallacy.
2) You have used creationist websites, should I just say crap about your sources?
3) Talkorigins, unlike creationist websites, has actual scientists that help write it. It is reliable.
4) Any source that teaches about science in a broad sense or bilogy can be considered "evolutionary" as evolution is the only valid scientific theory at this time, and so that is what is taught.
"So now you are not even looking at the sources I give."
First, you should make it clearer which source is for which argument.
Second, your source talks about what the person getting fired said, not what evidence points to.
"He was fired within 2 weeks of finding the soft tissue, and he wanted to show his students that there actually is soft tissue."
Considering how scientists have no problem with there being rehydratable soft tissue on dinosaurs (since it has already been explained how that can happen), this is obviously not why he was fired.
"More soft tissue is being found, that should never be able to live as long as scientist say. The only way it could be soft is if it died more recently than scientists claim"
Again, rehydratable soft tissue is no problem for million year old fossils.
"Early man, according to evolution, was unintelligent and had very primitive tools. If this was true then obviously we would expect to find these tools that they acquired as they progressed. But that is not what we find."
"We find things that we cannot do today. An example is stone henge. How were people who were very unintelligent be able to erect giant stones the way they did without the help of machines."
They had simple machines (like when the pyramids were built). Also, this is not "early man" you are talking about now, you are now at early civilizations.
Oh, and we know how they built stonehenge.
"Another is the pyramids. How were the Egyptians able to erect these giant monuments. Even today we can't make one like theirs."
Simple machines, we know how they did it.
Same as above.
"Not only that but an artifact made of gold that resemble an airplane has been found"
Argument Against a Creator God
Do you know what cause and effect is?
"How can time not exist"
The progression of time is illusionary. The past, present, and future all exist equally.
"The definition of time is"
Irrelevant to the point of philosophical discoveries about time.
"If time doesn't exist then the earth isn't old at all. The earth then has no age. If there is no time then why do we sleep, have clocks and grow food during certain parts of the year. Don't you realize your contradicting yourself."
Because there is the illusion of the progression of time. I also am not contradicting myself.
"First you say the earth has been around for 3.5 billion years. Then you say that time doesn't really exist, there was no past."
Strawman. I never said that there was no past. The past, present, and futre are all equally real. The progression from one to the other is an illusion.
Also, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. And if we move beyond 4.5 billion years in the earlier than direction of time we would not see the earth. Illusion of time progression=/=no time.
"Since this argument is mostly the base for your other arguments then the others aren't logical."
This one is completely irrelevant. Even if I were to drop this point, which I won't, the others still stand.
Pro has not refuted my argument against the ability for there to be a creator god. He made claims that were not backed up. He strawmanned a lot of what was said, and used other fallacies. Vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Con successfully defeated all of Pro's points, leaving the resolution unsupported. In fact, Pro failed to provide any support for the resolution, mistaking attacks on evolution for evidence of creation.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.