The Instigator
Tatarize
Con (against)
Losing
41 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Pro (for)
Winning
57 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: 4/20/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,332 times Debate No: 3719
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (26)

 

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.
beem0r

Pro

Devil's advocate here, contending that there is evidence for creationism.

Look around you. Look outside your window. Look up at the stars tonight.
This world we live in is so beautiful. While this could be explained by other things, an intelligent designer is also a possible explanation.

Evidence:
http://www.askoxford.com...
information or signs indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Well, the belief that there is an intelligent creator is certainly valid. This beauty inherent in the universe is clearly a sign that would indicate a creator.

Also, let us consider the intense complexity of life. It's true that life as become more and more complex, but there is currently no rock solid explanation for how life came about. Abiogenesis, while there are some theories out there, is still a matter that, to my knowledge, is open to debate. Thus, the existence of life could indicate that there is an intelligent creator, who crafted the first steps of life.

Also, let's think of the big bang. What caused it? To say that something naturalistic was the cause of it simply begs the same question. What caused the cause of the big bang? Ad infinitum. However, there could be a first cause. But anything natural would require a cause. Therefore, the logical existence of this first cause is evidence of a supernatural creator.

I'll let my opponent respond now.
Debate Round No. 1
Tatarize

Con

An intelligent designer may be a possibility but what evidence is there for the proposition? The stars? Beauty in the world? Music? All of those are caused to happen by elves. I don't actually believe that but as, elves is an acceptable suggestion, we see those things cannot be evidence for an intelligent designer anymore than they are evidence of elves.

I know that intelligent design is simply lipstick on the pig of creationism, however you are to argue evidence latter specifically. Though the points are both equally baseless.

Beauty isn't inherent in the universe. Beauty is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder. We view things as beautiful. This would be acceptable evidence that we exist but no evidence at all that anything we behold is created in the sense we are arguing.

An argument from ignorance does not make for evidence of the proposition you must provide evidence in favor of. I'm more than happy to, for the sake of the debate, ignore the amazingly profound theories of evolution and the big bang. Let us declare ourselves completely ignorant origins! There is still NO EVIDENCE!

Beem0r, I respect you greatly and understand your argument is best won by pretending that you have a case and bamboozling people. So I'm going to point this out clearly for the readers. Do not be fooled. Evidence is evidence. The beauty of the stars is no more evidence that pretty girls built them than omnipotent deities. Litanies of things we do not know are not evidences for specific claims. Suggesting 'things are hard' or 'beyond your knowledge' or 'open to debate' is not evidence for a very specific claim that they were created by an omnipotent deity!

As arguments from ignorance are necessarily the mainstay of the pro argument, let me give you an parallel to keep in mind:

I see a light in the sky. It floats there for a moment, then streaks across the sky and is gone! I don't have one flipping clue what it could be. Is this evidence of extraterrestrial visitors from another planet spying on Earth, abducting people and performing odd experiments on them? -- No. It's evidence for a light in the sky! Keep this in mind. Evidence is evidence, and my opponent has none!
beem0r

Pro

For the elves to be responsible for the beauty in the world, music, the stars, etc, they would have to have created it. They would be intelligent being, and therefore, my opponent's hypothetical affirms creationism. Whatever being you claim responsible, you will be affirming creationism.

My opponent and I seem to have a disagreement on what evidence is.

As my opponent suggested, we will be taking ignorant stances, so please, disregard any scientific theories that explain the 'phenomena' we're talking about.

Evidence, as defined in the Oxford dictionary, simply needs to indicate that something is true.

Indicate:
http://www.askoxford.com...
be a sign or symptom of.

Therefore, something nearly needs to be a sign that would lead one to think that there was indeed an intelligent creator. Evidence does not need to be proof, and usually isn't. It simply needs to be a piece of information that is a sign of an intelligent designer.

My opponent once again confuses what we're trying to prove here. He says that perhaps pretty girls were the creators. However, this is still creationism. While creationism is often used to indicate a strict belief in some religious creation story, it is more broadly defined as the notion that what we see around us was created by an intelligence, not by natural processes.

Also, I hardly see how your parallel is valid here. When we see a light in the sky, we have more than just evidence that there is a light in the sky. We know something caused it. And something caused that. And something caused that. We know there must somewhere down the line be an ultimate cause we can draw it back to. However, everything natural requires a cause. Therefore, it must have been something supernatural, and since the only supernatural explanation we have is a god figure, it would seem to indicate the existence of one. Therefore, even my opponent's parallel is evidence that a 'god' (read: supernatural being) exists and it is the ultimate cause of the universe. Ergo, it created the universe.

I have provided evidence, therefore I have disproved my opponent's side of the resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
Tatarize

Con

The elves I proposed hypothetically didn't create the world, they simply made it beautiful, and are dumb as doornails. Attempting to make creationism the broadest brush you can is certainly a good idea as far as tactics go. Why you should even include the uncaused expansion of matterenergy and spacetime from a single point 14.73 billion years ago. Or any number of non-religious ideas. However, I simply put to the topic of debate the idea of creationism. God did it! -- Any stinking reason we should think so?

Not something which could make one think there is an intelligent creator, but reasonably believe there to be one.

You could argue that a cloud is a reason to believe in goblins, but that isn't evidence because it cannot reasonably allow one to draw a connection between the two. You are correct to offer that there need not be proof just a fragment of something that directly suggests that creationism is true.

All you're doing is trying to confuse things.

Please, just answer two questions: What is your evidence for creationism? Why does that evidence make reasonable people decide that God created life or the universe?
beem0r

Pro

I will accept my opponent's request and simply answer his two questions.

The evidence for creationism is simply everything around us.

As I did in the last round, I will explain how the existence of 'stuff' is evidence of a creator.

For anything that we can observe, there is always something that caused it to be how it is. That thing must also have a cause, and that cause must also have one. We can either conclude from this that there must be an infinite chain of causes, or that something was the ultimate 'first cause.'
It can also be said that the concept of an infinite chain of sequences is incomprehensible. Therefore, a reasonable person could easily accept that there must have been a first cause. However, it is true that all things natural, as far as we can tell, require a cause. Therefore, if there is a first cause, it must be a supernatural force.
Still with me? So far, we have a reasonable person with evidence that there is a supernatural force that created the universe.
It could stop there, but people are more curious than that. In an effort to explain just what this supernatural force is, people would look at what possible supernatural forces there are. The only supernatural force we have managed to come up with that would be capable of creation is a god. It could probably be said that anything supernatural with the ability to create something would have to be a god. In order to create such a seemingly complex system, one would think that this god would have to have some level of intelligence, especially by meager human standards.
Therefore, this reasonable person just now, using reason, came to the conclusion that there must be an intelligent creator. Therefore, evidence for creationism. I suppose, to use their own lingo, you could say that "the evidence for creationism is all of creation."

Thanks for the debate, I wonder how people will vote.
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
However, the existence of a supernatural being was not a premise in my argument. The only assumptions I made were those I just listed, no infinite regress and natural things need to be caused.

Therefore, the parallel you try to draw, while it may hold for the way most people attempt to provide 'evidence for creationism,' simply does not apply here.

My argument does not assume the existence of the supernatural, not until after I have shown through independent arguments that something supernatural must exist. (since there must be a first cause (no infinite regression of causes) and the natural is not a candidate to be this first cause (natural needs to be caused))

While either of my assumptions might be wrong, that does not stop the natural world from being evidence of creationism. Evidence does not have to be 100% conclusive proof, it just has to be an observation that reasonably leads to a conclusion.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
I'm not sure about the former, however the latter is simply false.

My point is that if you already assumed that there could be rain-causing elves then the rain would be evidence of that.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
However, unlike your elf scenario, I provided a logical line of reasoning that leads directly from "natural world exists" to "supernatural exists and created natural world."

It's not 100% proof, but it is evidence. I made no huge leaps of faith, as would be required for the elves. The only assumptions I started with were that infinite regresses are impossible and natural things require causes. I'd say even _most_ reasonable people would be willing to make these assumptions.

Most reasonable people would not be willing to make the assumptions required for elves to be the cause of rain, so it cannot be said that there is reasonable evidence for such a thing. And that's if you could manage to come up with a line of reasoning to show that in the first place.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Unevidence nonsense to prop up a line of complete BS. Other than pointing out that there's no there there to conclude that there is anything there. There's not much else to do, but using a made up notion to conclude a different and distinct made up notion is a crock and you know it.

Claiming that the natural world is made by the supernatural and thus the natural world is *evidence* of the supernatural is a bit like believing that elves cause it to rain. Every time it rains, you'll see evidence of elves.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
"The supernatural doesn't need to be created"

This is what I'm claiming. Your position requires that the NATURAL does not need to be created. It's true that SOMETHING definitely didn't need to be created. Since the supernatural, by definition, would not have to have the same restrictions that are on natural things, it is not baseless to say that the supernatural does not need to be created.

And what an odd criticism, from someone whose position necessitates that the natural does not need to be created.

"The supernatural exists"

This follows logically from above. Since things naturally need to be created, and something needs to have not been created, that thing must be something supernatural.

"The natural is created by the supernatural"

It's either that, or the natural doesn't need to be created. I'm not saying that I have conclusive proof that the natural needs to be created, which is the basis of my argument. I'm simply saying that observation would rationally lead one to the conclusion that natural things do need to be caused (and thus, created). Thus, because there is "evidence" in this sense (not as in conclusive, 100% percent proof), there is therefore evidence for creationism.

As long as natural things require causes, and there is not an infinite chain of causes (which is nonsensical), logic directly leads to there being something supernatural that caused the start of our universe's chain of causes.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
False lines and crap pulled out of one's nowhere doesn't make for a reasonable argument.

The supernatural doesn't need to be created.
The supernatural exists.
The natural is created by the supernatural.

These claims are completely baseless.

Further,

Things *DO* naturally happen without being caused (Quantum).

...

The debate's over, you don't need to keep spewing bs.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
A diety does not require to be created though, since it is supernatural and therefore does not need to obey natural laws (which it may even have created).

Therefore, it makes much more sense to say that a diety was the first cause than to say that something natural was the first cause, since the latter makes no sense, since natural things need to be caused. Things do not just naturally 'happen' without being caused.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
We don't know everything because we're just a remarkable species of ape. Nothing about the prospect of knowing everything makes one a deity. Nothing about a deity requires them to be uncreated (take the Greek gods for example).

Murdering people is wrong, regardless if they feel otherwise. As a friend once said, scratch a fundy lightly and you'll find a nilist.

We do things because doing nothing is a quick path to extinction. We have four fundamental motivations as far as nature goes, they are called the four f's of human motivation: Feeding, Fleeing, Fighting, and Reproduction.

>>Why would we need to help society along?

Society helps us. In a society I live longer, have more kids, and want for naught.

>>Are there such things as absolutes?

Absolutely not!

This all makes sense because atheists state the obvious, and conclude what everybody knows deep down (save the actual insane), there is no god or at the very least no reason to think there is. Sure, you could believe it and realize the reasons you believe are either so pathetic or unknown to you that you opt to say you do so on faith. In reality you have no reason to actually believe such a thing and everybody knows it.

As Sam Harris wrote in Letter To a Christian Nation, "Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious... [a]theism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
"How could the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution coincide."

They work perfectly together. In fact, they play off each other perfectly and I'd happily wax poetic on the number of ways to become less orderly vs the number of ways to become more orderly and note how the rare exception of the more orderly are preserved via natural selection but I'll just post the talkorigins link.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

In short, if you think they are an either or proposition you're completely ignorant of the science you claim to be addressing.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Shorack, You are absolutely correct on both your points the argument of first cause does jump to a conclusion that doesn't actually follow. Further, if there is no exception to the rule and thus we must assume a first cause, we are still bound by the lack of exceptions.

I however, completely disagree with the idea that time is a concept. Time is the speed at which matter interacts with each other and as such does exist in a very real sense. Spacetime can be pulled and dragged, sucked and slurped, measured and calculated.

Further, even if our minds are limited I am unaware of how we could be cognizant of a true limitation. We can see where we're bad but I don't see anyway of knowing we're completely unable. I'm sure we could spot mental handicaps but mental disabilities, I don't see how such a thing would be demonstrative.
26 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
Tatarizebeem0rTied
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 s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
Tatarizebeem0rTied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Tatarizebeem0rTied
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 Feklahr 8 years ago
Feklahr
Tatarizebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Tatarizebeem0rTied
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 TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Tatarizebeem0rTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
Tatarizebeem0rTied
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 The_Philosopher 8 years ago
The_Philosopher
Tatarizebeem0rTied
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 benjiswak 8 years ago
benjiswak
Tatarizebeem0rTied
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 Grandma 8 years ago
Grandma
Tatarizebeem0rTied
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