The Instigator
Commondebator
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Sphynx111222
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

There is more evidence towards scientific theories (Evolution, big bang, etc...) than creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Commondebator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 626 times Debate No: 65688
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Commondebator

Pro

First round is not acceptance.

Any intention to insult another person's belief is automatic conduct for his/her opponent.
Sphynx111222

Con

NO THERE ISNT!!!! creationism is true!!!!!sciencetists say so!
Debate Round No. 1
Commondebator

Pro

I. Evidences towards the big bang
  1. Accelerating expansion of the universe

The accelerating universe points out evidence towards a huge possibility of a singularity for the creation

of the universe. The evidences for the accelerating expansion include the red shift, and isotropic distribution of the objects in space. We can detect the expansion through redshift bytheir electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space. (1)


2. Cosmic microwave background radiation

In 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson serendipitously discovered the cosmic background radiation, an an omnidirectional signal in the microwave band. the radiation was found to be consistent with an almost perfect black body spectrum in all directions.This discovery showed radiations that were isotopic and further supported the big bang theory. (2)

3. Other evidences supporting the big bang include abundance of primordial elements, galactic evolution and distribution, and Primordial gas clouds. (2)


II. Evidences towards evolution

1. Ancient organism remains

Darwin found the bones of an extinct giant sloth, Megatherium. He realized that animals can become extinct and that life is not unchanging, and Darwin also saw many similarities between extinct and living animals. This provided evidence that the giant sloth, Megatherium was an ancestor of the tree sloth. This showed that the sloth evolved. (3)

2. Similarities among living organisms.

Many organisms share a similar body structure such as Horses', donkeys', and zebras'. This provide evidence that they shares a common ancestor until they branched off. This also includes for apes and humans, also showing similar DNA structure. (4)

3. Similarities among embryos

Fish embryos and human embryos both have gill slits. In fish they develop into gills, but in humans they disappear before birth. This shows that the animals are similar and that they develop similarly, implying that they are related, and they have common ancestors and that they started out the same, gradually evolving different traits. (5)


I will perform rebuttals to my opponent’s argument in the following round and ignore his acceptance, Hopefully, my opponent did not intend his argument to be similar of his acceptance, and will take this debate more seriously. Also, I will also include the acceptance of the two theories that I have mentioned among scientists.

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org...

  3. http://necsi.edu...

  4. http://necsi.edu...

  5. http://necsi.edu...



Sphynx111222

Con

Sphynx111222 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Sphynx111222

Con

Sphynx111222 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Sphynx111222

Con

Sphynx111222 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by AtheistPerson 2 years ago
AtheistPerson
Take a look at the megatherium bone structure, a bear's bone structure, and a sloth's bone structure. Honestly, the megatherium seems to be a bear, not a sloth.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
The greatest mystery of religion is, and has always been, "who created God ?". Christians claim that such a question "begs the question", so to speak, because it assumes that God has a cause. This point is well taken. However, there is a specific fact about God which does require a cause : God"s intentionalities.
Now, there are a couple of things we have to establish about intentionality. The first is that intentionality is a necessary prerequisite of action. In fact, Christians claim that God acts by pure intentionality.
The second is that intentionality arises from internal or exterior stimuli. We act either because an exterior entity " such as a threat " prompts us to act, or because we have internal needs, emotions or other motivation of this sort. A being floating around in space, with no stimuli and no need of any sort, would have no motivation to act.
Given these facts, where does God"s intentionality for Creation comes from ? Obviously, God at that point cannot have any exterior stimuli, since there is nothing outside of him. He also cannot have any internal stimuli, since he is an infinite being : an infinite being by definition can have no limits such as needs, emotions, or any other such motivation. Finally, God could not have created his own intentionality, simply because such creation would itself require intentionality.
The only possible conclusion left is that God"s intentionalities came from a transcendent creator. We can formulate the argument as such :
1.God is defined as Creator. (premise)
2.God is defined as an infinite being. (premise)
3.God had intentionality at the act of Creation. (from 1)
4.Before the act of Creation, God had no external stimuli. (by definition)
5.Before the act of Creation, God had no internal stimuli. (from 2)
6.The source of God"s intentionality for Creation must come from a creator transcendent to God. (from 3, 4 and 5)
1.There is a First Intention-Giver. (from 6)
Posted by jmanuola 2 years ago
jmanuola
All your examples prove is that there is an earlier causality than what we have previously known. ID scientists, first off, never argue as to the nature or characteristics of a Designer or Creator of the universe. Any argument against some form of nature or character of a Designer must first acquiesce that there IS a Designer. So I won't argue about the character or nature of a Designer, but only that there is one.

At best, an opponent to the Design theory can argue that there might be a more fundamental cause to what we know. For example, stipulating that the universe began with a "big bang", it is human nature to ask the question, "what caused that bang?" So we pursue trying to discover the next most basic cause. For non-Design theories to ever be correct there must, by the very nature of their argument, always be a perpetual earlier cause.

So the essence of this entire debate comes down to one issue that can be approached from two angles.

Angle One - Is there more evidence for the theory that there is no possible first cause to the universe or is there more evidence for the theory that there is a first cause?

Angle Two - Angle One leads to another angle to approach this. Design theorists often posit that where there is design there is always a designer and there is clear and irrefutable evidence of design and order throughout the universe (and they provide examples of design). Most anti-design advocates have little trouble with the first part of that posit...where there is design there is a designer. As for the second part, Darwin himself dealt with this by simply arguing that what appears to be design in the universe is merely an illusion of design. That it is not really design. And so, again the same question from Angle One is posed from a different perspective....is there really design in the universe or is it just an illusion?
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
con
You will never see science use religion to prove its point. Why is that?
The great thing about science is it's true whether you believe it or not.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by AtheistPerson 2 years ago
AtheistPerson
CommondebatorSphynx111222Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Bruh...
Vote Placed by carriead20 2 years ago
carriead20
CommondebatorSphynx111222Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture and more sources and better grammar to pro.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
CommondebatorSphynx111222Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture + more sources + better grammar
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
CommondebatorSphynx111222Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff