The Instigator
debatemaster247
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Bagelmaster10
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

creation or science

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Bagelmaster10
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 691 times Debate No: 67327
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

debatemaster247

Pro

Ok so my first argument is going to be on the beginning. So scientists say that the universe was formed by some chemicals that just happened to squish together and in under 10 seconds create things like the the sun, the gravitational pull, all of the solar systems, do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds. Now lets say that some how all that I have previously said is true, that all of those outrageous things have happed what created the chemicals?
Bagelmaster10

Con

The big bang theory is just a theory. Even then, you have it all wrong. The big bang theory does not imply that 'chemicals squished together' in under 10 seconds. The big bang is said to be an expansion caused by a singularity of some kind, causing the expansion of our universe. The formation of the planets and elements was an incredibly slow process, which you must understand- hydrogen and helium were said to be present at the time of the big bang. These elements formed stars, which formed elements over generations and generations and the explosions of these stars shed the elements all over the universe. Eventually, these elements created planets, some of which evolved life. We have solid evidence that all of this took place over billions and billions of years. There is science behind why the universe only started off with helium and hydrogen as well, which you can find here: http://scienceblogs.com...

https://www.google.com.au...

http://www.big-bang-theory.com...

Now, as for what created the singularity? I don't know. No scientist knows. However, the same argument can be said for Christians. Now that I've explained what created our universe, according to the large majority of scientists, please inform me: what created god? And don't say 'he was always there', because couldn't that be said for my side as well? You must provide proof also.
Debate Round No. 1
debatemaster247

Pro

first off look at the ocean every year the ocean gains about 500 to 750 pounds of salt a year, now thats not a lot but over the course of what you say it took evelution billions of years the ocean would be almost completely salt. And one more thing people are saying that I only belive that there was only god but god used sciece to create the world
Bagelmaster10

Con

I didn't say evolution took billions of years. I said that the universe took billions of years, INCLUDING evolution. Earth itself has only existed for 4.54 billion years out of the 13 billion that the universe has existed for, and life only about 3.8 billion years ago. Water formed on earth at about the same time.

Now, please cite your sources. Where did you get the information that the ocean gains 500-700 pounds of salt a year exactly? Because I did a quick search and I can't find anything on it.

If it is true, the ocean still wouldn't 'be completely made of salt'. That is ridiculous. Quite a bit of the salt in the ocean is probably removed from evaporation or spread out so much across the ocean that it wouldn't make a difference at all. There is as much as 321,003,271 cubic MILES of water in our oceans- to that amount, as well as with the amount of salt that is most likely removed from the ocean each year, it is doubtful that 500-700 pounds of salt would even make much of a difference.

Even though you claim that you believe a god used science to shape our world, that wouldn't account for all the biblical contradictions and evidence on this earth that disproves a god, but I'll argue that in the next round.

http://www.palomar.edu...
https://www.google.com.au...
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
debatemaster247

Pro

I think why people created the fictional reality of science but I leave you with this. I still stand strong in my faith and why are you so concerned about proving that there is not a god or is it somthing more, are you scared to except the fact there is a force that no one can stop, a force that controls our fate. And one more thing if the world was created by science, tell me this what happens to sombody when they die. And I know I keep saying "and one more thing" but I relized on a much deaper point. What created moral? and before you resort to the bill nye concept of group image think about this lets say you and me were the first viable humans, and you had a peace of food and I took it, there was no group image of right and wrong therefore neither of had any kind of feelings, so there could not possibly be a presence of science known as evelution, it had to be the work of a divine creator. And that is my final argument
Bagelmaster10

Con

I'm not concerned whether or not there is a god. You're the one who created this debate, and you have failed to argue effectively (or even attempt) to debunk ANY of my arguments. When somebody dies, its probably much like before when you were born- nothingness. Moral is a standard created by society and based on evolution partially as well. Hundreds of years ago, slaughtering people in public was 'moral', as was the genocide of several civilizations (i.e, the aztecs). Humans care about our friendship groups and family instinctively like any other animal. Moral doesn't need to be created by a greater figure. Humans 'took that first piece of food' because it is an evolutionary instinct to eat.

My opponent has failed to debunk any of my arguments, provide certifiable proof that a god exists and hasn't cited any of his sources. He hasn't researched any of his findings, ignored virtually every piece of evidence I've given him and seems to cling onto the belief that there must be a god behind all of this even when I have thoroughly debunked his claims. I must ask you pro, why you seem to cling so strongly to the belief that there must be a god and don't believe in science when science is all around you. Formulas, evolution, the universe- we have evidence behind a lot of it, and we're learning more and more every single day and finding new evidence as to why a god doesn't need to exist, to control our lives or create what we call our home. The bible was written by people who didn't know better then we do nowadays, and its time people opened their eyes and saw that.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by buddhistmama 2 years ago
buddhistmama
Saying science sounds ridiculous is hilarious to me, what about saying "a man no one has seen, heard or met created everything and anything" aka God.
Posted by Stefy 2 years ago
Stefy
What if you believe in evolution, big bang, ect. and your relgious?
Posted by lorless 2 years ago
lorless
"Now lets say that some how all that I have previously said is true, that all of those outrageous things have happed what created the chemicals?"

You've just destroyed your own argument for creationism. If your question is to ask where all those 'chemicals' (as you so elegantly put it) came from, then you must believe that everything must have a creator. So if you believe God created the universe, what created God?

Your understanding of the subject matter and related theories seems poor at best. Also you denounce these theories as "unproven", tell me, exactly when has God ever been proven?
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
BDPershing
another dimension Omeganova>Omega black hole> Big Bang in new dimension>matter collides forming the first elements>universe is born> galaxies form> solar systems form suns,planets,etc form>planets cool vapor water forms in atmosphere>first life> life evolves>becomes species>becomes humanoids> questions how they came into existence.
Posted by Philocat 2 years ago
Philocat
Creation and science aren't opposed. There is no reason why God could not have worked through science.
Posted by Hrvoje 2 years ago
Hrvoje
Creation is science...Of course, if you look at evidences, NOT AT hypothesis or "unproved theorys"
I believed in evolution for a "long time", but today it sounds like a myth for me, because it is not suported by evidences..
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." - Werner Heisenberg

So so true
Posted by Hrvoje 2 years ago
Hrvoje
Creation is science...Of course, if you look at evidences hypothesis or "unproved theorys"
I believed in evolution for a "long time", but today it sounds like a myth for me, because it is not suported by evidences..
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." - Werner Heisenberg

So so true
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by awr700 2 years ago
awr700
debatemaster247Bagelmaster10Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: It wasn't really even a debate, Con was the only one that had actual arguments.
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Cooldudebro
debatemaster247Bagelmaster10Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I was really looking forward to Pro actually taking this seriously. However, that was not the case. He went on rants and raves in his arguments and never provided any facts behind them. He is just a creationist raging.
Vote Placed by Elijahhill97 2 years ago
Elijahhill97
debatemaster247Bagelmaster10Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made many solid arguments that pro failed to counter or rebut. Pro was stuck on the idea of bringing con to a personal enlightenment more than the subject of the debate itself.
Vote Placed by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
debatemaster247Bagelmaster10Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, though given opportunities to rebut Con's points, fails to do so in each round. Con also receives points for sources and spelling and grammar, seeing as Pro failed to use sources and spelling was not up to par.