The Instigator
Tatarize
Con (against)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
1337Penguinking
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points

There is evidence 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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 4/19/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,583 times Debate No: 3710
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (17)

 

Tatarize

Con

I contend that there is no evidence for creationism. The idea that the world was created by some deity or intelligent designer has no solid evidence as support. There's no good reason to believe this is the case.
1337Penguinking

Pro

First i would like to say hello to my worthy opponent and secondly to say I'm only debating this for the sake of debate.

alright, third, firstly of all i would like to submit a few definitions.

Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Evidence : something that furnishes proof

God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. (all from same place)

i have two arguments, first being the third piece of the cell theory that all cells come from other cells. Scientifically this is true, thus where did the first cells come from? only a omnipotent being could violate and make exception to a scientific law.

Secondly, that matter cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged. with the same origin argument matter cannot come from nothing, even with the big bang theory, what created the spark of energy, the only way to explain is an omnipotent source.
Debate Round No. 1
Tatarize

Con

There is no such thing as "cell theory". There is no scientific understanding that cells can only come from other cells. There are cells and most come from other cells. There's a good scientific understanding of how cells initially form.

What you offer, however, is an argument from ignorance. It does not make for evidence. "Cells form this way, I don't know how else they could form... so God did it." -- That is not evidence. One could conclude fairies did it just as aptly; it is for this reason that arguments from ignorance are fallacies and sound reasoning.

Further, your claims of "exceptions to scientific law" is a complete farce. The ideas of scientific laws is a mistake. Some things just don't happen and thus we attribute the idea that they well never happen or they only happen some specific way and we say that's the way they happen. It isn't that the 'law of gravity' is an unimpeachable requirement or legal construct, rather matter is attracted to matter and we know of no exceptions.

So your first argument suffers from three overpowering objections: there is no cell theory, the argument is an argument from ignorance, and you are equivocating the idea of scientific laws.

Your second argument is also flawed. First it is generally accepted that matter cannot be created or destroyed. However, matter and energy are interchangeable and spacetime is net negative as far as energy goes. It is entirely possible that the big bang happened without violating this principle as the universe would simply be a "rearranged" bit of net zero energy. 0 != 1... however 0 = 1 - 1. If the universe is net zero that doesn't exclude the possibility that the universe formed, while negating the need for this "spark of energy".

This argument is also an argument from ignorance. "I don't know how this works, so God did it." You cannot conclude that your suggestion is the "only way" for this to occur.

Beyond being unable to reach your conclusion due to the logical flaws involved the conclusion need not require omnipotence, perhaps a mildly powerful being did such a thing.

Finally we are lacking a vital step in your argument, the need for the universe to have been formed. If, rather than resolve ourselves to unwarranted conclusions, we conclude that the universe never began than everything we have today is everything we've ever had or well ever have (in fact for the first argument you could also conclude eternal cells propagating from the infinite past). The scientific evidence is against this proposition, but one must clearly conclude that this conclusion is a more logical conclusion than yours.

If matter can never be created or destroyed then all the matter and energy in the universe must be eternal. If you disagree with this statement then you have added another problem to your claims. Your argument suffers from infinite regress. If, as you say, God did it for a first mover. What did God? If the universe must have started by some logic then we must conclude that God started from a yet superior means. Any exception for God could similarly apply to the universe and negate the initial argument.

Finally, allow me to add a more primary objection to your arguments... they are arguments! I asked for evidence. If I asked for a reason to believe the sun rose last Tuesday it would be one thing to argue about inertia and scientific theories about the rotation of the planet, it is quite another to actually show that the sun did rise on Tuesday via evidence. I say there is no evidence for creationism, and though if you had a flawless argument for the proposition I would be inclined to believe it, I cannot properly equate an argument with evidence.

You have failed to offer a mildly cogent argument in favor of creationism. Further, arguments for creationism are not evidence in a very real sense. I can offer you a very detailed and impressive argument that by the sheer vastness of space there should be planets with life on them... however that isn't evidence in the least.
1337Penguinking

Pro

First of all, what do you mean there is no cell Theory?! The cell theory is one of the most basic concepts in biology. how can you claim to know of all of these complicated space time notions and not know cell theory
look it up in fact i did that for you
http://fig.cox.miami.edu...
http://www.infoplease.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org... http://staff.tuhsd.k12.az.us...

next of all i would like to know where spacetime is net-negative came from, the expanding state of the universe would show that the energy you claim is disappearing is on the edge of forever. if you want to say that the energy explosion into matter still could happen see my good friend Newton's first law.

and these arguments do in fact give evidence. Evidence is something that furnishes proof. With no evidence what so ever any thing could have happened but with even these two facts we can see that the possibilities are limited to two possibilities. one god and two faeries. when you have eliminated the impossible what is left must be truth, and to deny the validity of scientific laws is pointless all that eventually leaves us with is believing in nothing, sure we could assume there is something superior to god and so on forever but that's a different debate.

The evidence is here weather or not i can convince you is not part of my job.
Debate Round No. 2
Tatarize

Con

Cell theory isn't really a theory anymore than there is a theory that humans exist. It might have once been an impressive thing, but our understanding of cells and how they work are such that nobody learns cell theory... rather they are taught about cells.

It isn't that spacetime is exactly net-negative but the universe has a lot of net-negative energies and net-positive energies and seems to sum to about zero.

http://www.astrosociety.org...

Further, even if this weren't the case, the fact that it's a possible case is enough to show your argument fails. Your argument is based on the concept that it could *only* be God. Beyond failing as an argument from ignorance, there's a pretty good explanation.

Again, your "evidence" wasn't evidence but two really bad arguments from ignorance. Even if nobody knew anything about cosmology, that would be no reason to conclude a god did it. I can't stress this point enough... you haven't offered a lick of evidence for creationism. You need positive evidence in SUPPORT of the claim. Further, if there were evidence it should be trivially offered. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no evidence.

"Energy explosion into matter still could happen", "Newton's first law"... I hate to point this out because it has no bearing on the argument (nothing you've said has any bearing whatsoever on the argument save some evidence which is yet unoffered (two flawed arguments are not evidence)): inertia has nothing to do with "energy explosion into matter" it has to do with tossing an object and watching as it keeps flying the direction you threw it. Your understanding of physics is horrifically inadequate, further deficits in how you express those inadequacies makes for a difficult argument to follow.

One could be compelled by a reasonable argument. A flawed horrifically bad argument does not offer evidence. These are two ways to approach the same end point of a reasonable belief; I require the latter. I am not arguing that something specifically happened or that the Big Bang is true and creationism is false. I am arguing against one specific premise: There is evidence for creationism. As I can't prove the negative the burden is on you to trivially provide some evidence.

With no evidence you fail your argument. Suggesting that it's either God or fairies... and fairies don't exist therefore it's God... is amusing to no end. That's the oddest false dichotomy I've seen in a while, but it still isn't evidence for creationism.

You don't have to convince me of anything at all. You have to provide a tiny shred of evidence. Thus far, you've failed. Try again. You have two more posts in which to provide something suggestion the truth of creationism.
1337Penguinking

Pro

First of all you comparing cell theory to a theory about humans existing is ridiculous for the sole reason that they are both absolutely true, and how you can degrade the cell theory like you have. read the next words closely CELL THEORY IS ONE OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS IN BIOLOGY, UNDERSTANDING CELLS AND LIFE IS EXPLAINED THROUGH CELL THEORY. all you have done to discredit the cell theory evidence is say one you don't like it and its ignorant (which i will get to later) 4.5 billion years ago the earth was a giant molten rock where there was NO LIFE again NO LIFE. you cannot argue or discredit cell theory it is scientific FACT. i don't need to side with any particular religion here but somewhere between 4.5 billion years ago and now cells appeared. It is now your turn to show some proof of how cells popped out of no where, if you can't that alone means victory for me. since you have failed to give any definitions we will assume mine are correct, proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact. something that leaves only one option COMPELS ACCEPTANCE and thus is proof and thus is evidence.

(by the way the fairies thing was your idea read your second post second paragraph second line your right it is very funny the first time i read it i laughed because it was so ludicrous)

Secondly the explosion into matter argument. First off read the article before you start claiming this and that. this article actual strengthens the conservation of mass argument. yes matter and anti-matter cancel each other out, but WHY. Remember the Newton's first law, first your understanding of it is remedial at best. let me attempt to clarify inertia for you, though it can be applied to a ball being thrown it also states that you need a push for anything to happen and here is another place where you need to give proof tell me how particles can poof in and out of existence with no push or pull either way. and lastly on your whole net zero argument read the very very last paragraph "If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct"

here is a little explanation on the levels of scientific laws and such,
on the highest level there are laws, law are utterly indisputable no questions asked
next are theories (i.e. cell theory) these are tested over and over and over if something is a theory it scientifically proves everything it says for the most part if something hasn't become law yet that means there is like on thing in it that either hasn't or cant be proven entirely.
next are hypothesises which are basically pretty good ideas which have some good stuff going for them a few tests but that's about it.
now your net zero is by its own text is a "admittedly speculative" speculative is theoretical rather than demonstrable your net zero admits that it is speculative and not only that but a hypothesis as well. so its basically null.

(just something in the middle here its funny how my arguments are always ignorant when you either misconceive your own evidence or don't understand mine)

once again you seem to think that evidence is only something that you consider truth and again you have not given a definition i have if you wanted to say evidence was something other than what i had set out at the very beginning you should have.

There it is, you now must either disprove the certain, attempt to argue my arguments on a credible level, or keep complaining that my arguments are ignorant, uninformed, and keep calling them flawed to your own unstated terms and of course keep on attacking me personally, say my understanding of concepts, that you seem to not be able to connect to anything else, are inadequate. Name calling doesn't make your side look any better, it doesn't give anything to your integrity and it surly will not impress anyone judging this match.

Check and mate.
Debate Round No. 3
Tatarize

Con

They are perfectly parallel. "Cell theory" is far less precise than actual information about cells. The rule of "cell theory" you're citing is wrong as we can clearly see the progression of cells and still have no reason to conclude that cells need to form via magic and a God is the only thing able to magically make cells. Cells actually are the fundamental unit of Earth-based life and most do come from other cells. But, to assemble that like it's a mathematical requirement of existence is simply silly.

I'm not saying it's false, I'm saying it's trivial. We can just look at the damn cells. Nothing requires a creator or even suggest one. It's a claim that we can't do X because I don't know how X is done. I'm sorry but that's not acceptable.

* There does not appear to have been any life 4.5 billion years ago. I am disagreeing with the overly naive and overly simplistic presentation and the making of false statements which you take as logical absolutes.

* Cells probably didn't come on the scene for a few billion years.

* It isn't my turn to show any proof whatsoever that cells popped out of no where. It is your job to show evidence that cells popped out of a creator God. I am not arguing for evolution, or creationism, the big bang or quantum mechanics. I am arguing that there is no evidence for creationism. Thus far, bad arguments from bad assumptions (which already assumed the conclusion, you are demanding an exception to a statement which arbitrarily says there are no exceptions).

* I have no objection to the colloquial definitions used. What should compel an acceptance of creationism? The idea that there is only one option, or that creationism is an option, are still wrong. You are creating a false dichotomy. Clearly this science stuff is wrong and therefore creationism is right. I'm sorry, no. Even if there is only one theory to describe a particular phenomenon that does not suggest that that theory is correct. For example, we don't know why particles and antiparticles rip apart for brief periods of time and have begun to assume it's causeless. However, I'm saying that it's done by fairies. Should we accept my theory? It's the only one there! No, no we shouldn't. We need evidence that this is the case, just as we need evidence that God did it is a reasonable conclusion. Suggesting that it stands alone or that it is the only conclusion you'll accept doesn't make it true. It still lives or dies by the evidence... and there's no evidence!

* You should laugh at the fairies statement, it is ludicrous! It's exactly what you're asking me to accept but rather than claim fairies, you're claiming gods!

Matter and anti-matter cancel each other out because they are opposite forces, pretty much they are the same quarks spinning in the other direction. They cancel each other out because they are equal and opposite... they only exist because they haven't canceled each other out. They are actually getting something and anti-something from nothing.

I fully understand Newton's laws. Inertia is downright trivial. Objection in motion stay in motion. Objections not in motion stay not in motion. When a particle splits out of nothingness it isn't inertia (first law) but equal and opposite (second law) they fling out in opposite direction of opposite particles. In all, they cancel out to a net zero change (thusly fitting with both Newton's Second and the Conservation of Matter).

* Just the speculation of the hypothesis shows that God-did-it isn't an isolated prospect. You can't just jump to the conclusion. You need to provide evidence. As evidence is the entire point of this debate you still lose. You haven't provided a lick of evidence.

* Actually net-zero is the way cosmology seems to be trending. It's admittedly speculative because some of the values aren't known to a good enough degree to conclude that it's accurate. But, to impeach the idea for being speculative in order to conclude God is the utmost of silliness.

------------------------------------

You seem remarkably odd trying to shift away from the question at hand. It doesn't matter what evidence there is for evolution or for many of the major ideas of cosmology. Rather what matters is is there any reason to conclude that creationism is the correct answer? You argue that it's the only answer and thus must be accepted, but that's a clear logical fallacy. You argue that other theories are wrong, but that's not the case and a moot point anyhow. -- What evidence is there for creationism?

You've offered poor critiques of other theories and bad arguments and logical fallacies. The entire point to this debate is to ask one question, is there any evidence for creationism? -- So far we've drawn a rather stark answer: No.
1337Penguinking

Pro

For my closing argument i would just like to say the following
throughout this debate i have given logical steps leading up to the conclution that creationism is true that makes it evidence. Through and through the debate my opponent however has produced nothing but a long list of complaints while everything i say is either ignored, patheticly repelled in a manner not unlike attempting to block a cannon ball useing styraphome, or grossly misinterpreted. My opponent will simiply not accept what i say for its value. I have attmpted to debate this topic while all i have recived in return are "no its not"s, "nuh-uhhh"s and insults. this is more similar to a quarrel with a small school child than a debate. The cell theory is real, and true cells come from other cells this is undisputable, and all my opponent has said in return is that its untrue and not real scince, judges everything i have shown has been backed by scince and logic. Nothing on my opponents side of the cell theory argument can even be concidered a rebuttal. cells come from other cells, 4.5 billion years ago there were no cells, to day we are made of cells somewhere inbetween cells came into view thats my argument. To refute that my opponent would have to prove there would be a way for scintific fact to be violated short of divine intervention. Both sides have a burden of proof my opponent has given no proof in this argument and only a single peice in the creation of the universe argument which it admits itself is unlikly and unreliable. Conservvation of mass is real it is not phisialy possible to get something from nothing even matter and antimatter the universe is not a math question when matter and antimatter colide they explode and release energy, thus to go back into existance you would need.... ENERGY and lots of it plus that energy would have needed to be focused on creating matter and antimatter. since you cant get something out of nothing guess what you need some sort of god to do it. THere WE GO YOU LOSE this is the last argument and you have done nothing but whine about how my arguments have ground your insesant rablings into the dust.

(As an aside, you don't know, or apparently understand Newton's Laws. An equal and opposite reaction is actually the third Law, not as you state the second Law.)

even try to bring to the table a deffinition battle which my opponent has refused to take part in.

Judges as my final statement i would like to say forget what you belive and read this debate and tell us who acctualy won i have given you arguments and evidence that has been refuted with basicly nill, nothing not a real shread of backfire, my opponent will only belive he/she has lost if i can convice him/her personaly, that i dont care about. I have given evidence he has not, i give you conclutions he has not i have given you a debate he has not, i have won this debate he has not.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by firemonkey6775 8 years ago
firemonkey6775
hey tatarize hope you been doing good i would take this but hate to bore you
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Tatarize1337PenguinkingTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
Tatarize1337PenguinkingTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Tatarize1337PenguinkingTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Paradox 8 years ago
Paradox
Tatarize1337PenguinkingTied
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 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
Tatarize1337PenguinkingTied
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 
Vote Placed by fitzt21 8 years ago
fitzt21
Tatarize1337PenguinkingTied
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 
Vote Placed by kykrebs 8 years ago
kykrebs
Tatarize1337PenguinkingTied
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 
Vote Placed by 1337Penguinking 8 years ago
1337Penguinking
Tatarize1337PenguinkingTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by livi 8 years ago
livi
Tatarize1337PenguinkingTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Gespenst 8 years ago
Gespenst
Tatarize1337PenguinkingTied
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:03