The Instigator
Jtp23
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jerry947
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

creationism is best for the science classrooms

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 898 times Debate No: 85424
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (0)

 

Jtp23

Con

Science classrooms are reserved for science, not fables. The scientific method has show. Its effectiveness time and time again. In the case of the theory of evolution it is no more a "theory" than there is a theory of gravity.

In the case of creationism, the only thing I see it being effective at is giving a nice (depending on your definition of nice) story to those who find comfort in the delusion of a belief in God. Adam & Eve, the snake, Noah and his arc, etc. are all not real.

I've read the bible and I'm versed in the workings of evolution. I am looking forward to a fun healthy debate and hopefully we can land on an island of logical agreement.
Jerry947

Pro

I will first make my argument for why creationism should be taught in classrooms and then I will refute my opponents arguments.

a. Creationism does a better job explaining how the universe came into existence. Evolutionists say that the universe came into existence by chance. But according to Roger Penrose of Oxford University, he has calculated that the odds of that low-entropy state's (state in which the universe began) existing by chance alone is on the order of one chance out of 10^10(123). That number is inconceivable. The odds are so against a life permitting universe that it is like a criminal (representing the universe) is about to be executed by a firing squad (representing odds against life permitting universe) and then the members of the firing squad all miss. People claim that it happened by chance. Creationists say that it is ludicrous to think it happened by chance. Why? Because something feels rigged. It is completely logical to believe that there is an intelligent designer especially since everything is so complex. On the other hand, it is crazy to call all of this simple chance. So creationism by far does a better job explaining why there is a universe.

b. Creationism fits the evidence just as well as evolution does (if not better). The evidence for evolution is the nested hierarchical tree in the fossils. But this can easily give evidence for a common designer. The "clear, organized arrangement of living things into groups and sub-groups is evidence for intentional forethought. For instance, man-made vehicles are obviously intelligently designed, and yet we can organize them into a clear tree structure, with groups inside groups. For instance, we have the main groups: airplanes, buses, trains, ships, and automobiles. Inside of automobiles we have cars, trucks, minivans, SUVs, jeeps, etc" (http://www.christcreated.com......). Evolutionists are always bringing up the fact the chimpanzees and humans share common DNA and then make the assumption that they have a common ancestor. But it is also obvious that this could also mean that they were both created by the same designer.

c. Creationism teaches people that we have a purpose in life. Without a creator, there is no purpose in life. There would be no point to cure or help people since it wouldn't achieve anything. All people would just die and we would be no better than the animals. So I think it is better for people to be taught that they do have an actual purpose instead of what evolution teaches us.

Therefore Creationism is best for science classrooms.

Rebuttals:

"In the case of the theory of evolution it is no more a "theory" than there is a theory of gravity."

First I would ask my opponent to define what he means by evolution. If he is referring to the fact that we have descendants that lived earlier than us...this is okay. But if my opponent is saying that we all share a common ancestor, or that humans were once something other than humans...that is something that is not a fact unless proven otherwise.

"In the case of creationism, the only thing I see it being effective at is giving a nice (depending on your definition of nice) story to those who find comfort in the delusion of a belief in God. Adam & Eve, the snake, Noah and his arc, etc. are all not real."

It should be noted that my opponent has just stated in a subtle way that God does not exist. I now ask him to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God is a delusion since this is something he claimed in this debate. As for Adam and Eve, I would like my opponent to prove or give evidence that Adam and Eve did not exist. I do not like unsupported claims.

This is going to be an enjoyable debate. I now await for my opponent's reply.
Debate Round No. 1
Jtp23

Con

As my favorite atheist liked to do, I will address your points in reverse order.

You stated that since creationism teaches people to have a purpose in God that it is better than evolution when it comes to morals. If I am wrong in my interpretation of your third point please correct me.

As someone who was never taught creationism, I learned it myself later in life, you saying that without a creator there is no purpose in life quite frankly offends me because I am atheist and have no shortage of purpose. Many others as well as myself revel in the glory that is the cosmos. Space and time at a scale that large give me a poetic feel every time I think about it. All be it a personal purpose but attempting to understand everything about the cosmos is purpose enough for me. Not to mention all the friends and loved ones that give me purpose. So I believe your purpose is what you make it, not God.

In your second point you illustrated how evidence for evolution not only is also evidence for creation, but is also possibly better suited supporting creationism because of your intelligent design argument.

Creationism stems from the bibles account on the natural world in Genesis. So if creationism is based on the bible then that would lead to me wondering how well the bible did with predictions of how the natural world worked. After reading the bible, listening to atheists analyze the bible, apologists analyze the bible, I've read an annotated dake bible and I still can't agree with anyone that says that the bibles account of nature is correct. Adam and Eve probably didn't exist, Moses probably didn't, and Noah probably didn't. The only reason I say 'probably' is because it isn't a good idea to act certain of anything. But I am as certain as I possibly can be. (99% sure) | For all these reasons I just stated I don't buy that creationism fits with any evidence (fossils, uranium dating of earth, DNA) in favor of evolution.

In your first point you bring up the 'fine tuning' argument.

The universe is getting bigger. Even bigger than it is now, which is quite large. There could be 1,000,000,000 twin earths out there somewhere but are so far apart that there would be a very hard time for any of them to communicate to each other, so there could be life else where which I believe doesn't help your argument. I'll argue it's likely there is life just by the fact that the same elements that are the most abundant in our body are the same elements that are most abundant in the universe. (Regular matter only of course)

But that's all just speculation.

If the total energy content of the universe was 0, which is allowed by the laws of physics, the universe would be a more life permissive universe than it is now. If you don't believe me then look of professor Lawrence krauss talking about it. So that shows that even if our universe is fine tuned, it doesn't make your argument any more true. Same goes with the morality question.

As for your rebutle to my opening statement.

I realize you may believed I made an attempt to disprove the existence of God outright. It is impossible. The same way you won't be able to disprove Unicorns to me. So still you have made no ground.
Jerry947

Pro

"You stated that since creationism teaches people to have a purpose in God that it is better than evolution when it comes to morals. If I am wrong in my interpretation of your third point please correct me."

That is not quite what I am saying. I am saying that creationism is the only thing that can give people meaning in life. I wasn't specifically talking about morality but it is true that we wouldn't have any reason to help keep a person alive. People would all end up dead and since that would be the only "purpose" in life, there would be no reason to prolong the inevitable. For instance, it would do any good to keep someone alive since they would die anyway.

"As someone who was never taught creationism, I learned it myself later in life, you saying that without a creator there is no purpose in life quite frankly offends me because I am atheist and have no shortage of purpose."

No reason to get offended. Without a creator, my life would also be meaningless and we would both be in the same boat.

"Space and time at a scale that large give me a poetic feel every time I think about it."

That is a neat thought but the beauty of something does not give your life any significance.

"All be it a personal purpose but attempting to understand everything about the cosmos is purpose enough for me."

Trying to understand something does not give your life significance. It might be something you do but it wouldn't give your life an ultimate purpose since you would end up dead anyway. If humans are only meant to die, it would not matter that we ever existed at all. You may find the cosmos interesting (as you should), but what is the ultimate significance of this? It doesn't give anyone meaning...it makes no difference whether you search the cosmos or not since we would all end up dead.

"After reading the bible, listening to atheists analyze the bible, apologists analyze the bible, I've read an annotated dake bible and I still can't agree with anyone that says that the bibles account of nature is correct.

You are going to have to be more specific. I don't know what you mean by the "account of nature." Are you referring to God's miracles? Because in that case it would merely be God working with the creation he created. He did create the laws of nature after all.

"Adam and Eve probably didn't exist, Moses probably didn't, and Noah probably didn't. The only reason I say 'probably' is because it isn't a good idea to act certain of anything. But I am as certain as I possibly can be. (99% sure)"

Well now you are contradicting something you said earlier. You said and I quote "Adam & Eve, the snake, Noah and his arc, etc. are all not real." You claiming that with certainty. But I guess you change your mind now that you can't provide evidence for their nonexistence. I on the other hand could give you evidence that they did exist. Therefore it is more plausible to believe that they did exist.

"For all these reasons I just stated I don't buy that creationism fits with any evidence (fossils, uranium dating of earth, DNA) in favor of evolution."

I understand this...but are you going to explain why you believe that creationism doesn't fit with any evidence the fossils present? I spend a paragraph explaining why creationism could easily be another explanation for the evidence. Why do you just assert your belief as truth when you haven't even refuted a single point I made on this point in the argument? The reasons you gave did not address the evidence of the fossils at all. You merely said some random and vague thing about nature and then stated (without support) that Adam and Eve plus etc... didn't exist. Can you please try and address why you feel that the evidence of the fossils doesn't support a common designer?

"There could be 1,000,000,000 twin earths out there somewhere but are so far apart that there would be a very hard time for any of them to communicate to each other, so there could be life else where which I believe doesn't help your argument."

No actually, I don't remember hearing about any evidence that suggested that this is a possibility. My argument has nothing to do with made up claims. The possibility of our universe existing is basically zero. But somehow our universe still exists now and it feels like life has been rigged in our favor.

"But that's all just speculation."

The odds of our universe existing is not mere speculation. Making up claims about the possibility of twin earths is speculation.

"If the total energy content of the universe was 0, which is allowed by the laws of physics, the universe would be a more life permissive universe than it is now."

Yes...but that is all based on an assumption that the total energy content of the universe was zero. And it is also based on the assumption that the universe is eternal. William lane Craig states that "this attempt to draw metaphysical implications from the zero net energy hypothesis is a bad joke. It"s like saying that if your debts and your assets exactly cancel each other out, so that your net worth is zero, then there is no cause of your current financial condition." So therefore the assumption about the universes' energy being zero is ridiculous.

"I realize you may believed I made an attempt to disprove the existence of God outright. It is impossible."

You said that belief in God is a delusion which means that God does not exist. But I am glad to see that you have retracted your bold claims about the existence of Adam, Eve, God, and etc...

"The same way you won't be able to disprove Unicorns to me. So still you have made no ground."

I have made plenty of ground. But as for the unicorns...are you referring to rhinos that are sometimes called unicorns or are you speaking of the flying ones invented by the Greeks? It really isn't hard to disprove the existence of flying unicorns beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thanks again for an interesting round. I will await for your response.
Debate Round No. 2
Jtp23

Con

Religion does not have a monopoly on the 'what gives people purpose or why they have purpose' department. Just because it is some what logical to think that since we were born, there has been a purpose for us being born, doesn't mean that's how it really is. You say that without creationism there can be no meaning in life. Since all humans eventually will die then that is their only purpose. Why is that the case? How can you support this? We each give our own life because since I can prove my own existence, it makes logical sense that I am the one who gives it purpose. Wether it is through other people or a passion, how can you possibly say those things to give my own life significance?

What "plausible" evidence did you give that they exist? I must of missed it.

Now I find it comical that you dismiss possible life on other planets as "made up claims". How is a belief that there is life elsewhere in the universe any more made up than the claim that God exists? How has the universe been rigged to our favor if,according to you, all life is trapped in a single, small planet while there is a vast universe out there?

You point out when I make claims of certainty about the existence of Adam, Eve, Noah, God, etc. and how I then must prove to you there existence for making those claims, even though you make this claims in the first place without out way to prove their existence in the first place. Beliefs given without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But still I tried giving you evidence but it was pointless because you didn't change your belief and you didn't give, to me, a plausible reason to have that belief.
Jerry947

Pro

I must say that I was a tad disappointed with that response. But nevertheless let us get into the issues...

"You say that without creationism there can be no meaning in life. Since all humans eventually will die then that is their only purpose. Why is that the case? How can you support this?."

It really isn't that hard of a claim to prove. Atheists and theists both agree with that claim. William Lane Craig said that "If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies, then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life? Does it really matter whether he ever existed at all? His life may be important relative to certain other events, but what is the ultimate significance of any of those events? If all the events are meaningless, then what can be the ultimate meaning of influencing any of them? Ultimately it makes no difference" (https://www.google.com...).

Even if the universe had never existed...what difference would it make since it is just going to go through a heat death? Nothing has any significance without a God.

"We each give our own life because since I can prove my own existence, it makes logical sense that I am the one who gives it purpose."

Atheist John Paul Sartre said that any person who believed that they could give themselves meaning believed in a noble lie. Nietzsche also called atheists out on trying to deceive themselves into thinking they had meaning. I don't see why you think you can give your life significance. No matter what you go through in life, you are going to end up dead (according to your worldview) and nothing will change that. No matter how you help people, no matter what "good" you do...it is all meaningless since everything ends up dead. Everything literally comes to nothing according to your worldview.

"What 'plausible' evidence did you give that they exist? I must of missed it."

Are you referring to Adam and Eve? Because I never made any claims about their existence but you did. Therefore you are the one who has to provide evidence supporting your claim. But since you don't seem to be able to do this..I will go ahead and support the claim that Adam and Eve existed (even though I never brought this issue up). The Bible is my evidence for their existence. And since you have no evidence that they didn't exist and I have evidence that they did exist...it seems it is more plausible to believe in their existence. If you want to discuss the reliability of the Bible I am happy to do so.

"But still I tried giving you evidence but it was pointless because you didn't change your belief and you didn't give, to me, a plausible reason to have that belief."

You didn't give me any reason to disbelieve in the existence of Adam and Eve. And you certainly did not give any evidence against their existence. All you did was say that they didn't exist and then you retracted that claim and said you were 99% sure they didn't exist for some random reason. And then you mentioned something about people not being able to disprove the existence of unicorns (speak for yourself in the future).

"How is a belief that there is life elsewhere in the universe any more made up than the claim that God exists?"

It is different because there is actual evidence for the existence of God. You have nothing to support that theory while there are cosmological, teleological, ontological, truth, moral, mathematical, and etc...arguments for God. And again, Creationism gives the best explanation for the existence of the universe.

"How has the universe been rigged to our favor if,according to you, all life is trapped in a single, small planet while there is a vast universe out there?"

I have explained why life feels rigged in our favor. See my argument in round one for more details. The point is that Creationism gives the best explanation for why the Universe/life exists. Therefore it should be taught in classrooms.

The reason I am disappointing with your response is because you haven't properly addressed my points about Creationism fitting the evidence just as well as evolution does and you haven't properly addressed my points on Creationism giving the best explanation for life. You sort of addressed my point on the supposed meaning in life but hopefully by the time you read this you might understand that life is meaningless without God. I of course love to talk about the Bible but I would also like to focus on the topic of this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
Jtp23

Con

your bible made the claims first, not I, so it is you who actually has the burden of proof. A holy book is not evidence of the existence of such characters anymore than Harry Potter is evidence that wizards exist.

Since unicorns and life elsewhere in the universe isn't hard to disprove I would like to see you do it.

We must have a different definition of meaning. I don't believe in an ultimate meaning at all, there is no reason I should. I merely accept that when I die then I will most likely not exist. Can't be sure though, who knows, maybe I'll become one with the force and become a Jedi. You can't prove that I won't.

I have made all the points to refute your argument and frankly I believe you have helped my case with you reasoning.

Now it's up to the voters.

I thank you for the entertaining debate, it was a blast.
Jerry947

Pro

"Your bible made the claims first, not I, so it is you who actually has the burden of proof."

Nice cop out. The Bible does say that they exist and until you give a reason (other than your assumption that the Bible is false) to mistrust what the Bible says, you have no reason to say that they didn't exist.

"A holy book is not evidence of the existence of such characters anymore than Harry Potter is evidence that wizards exist."

Wrong. Harry Potter is clearly fictional. The author even said he was an imaginary character (http://www.hypable.com...). The Bible on the other hand was written by the people of the time period, includes actual historical events (http://www.christiananswers.net...), is supported by archaeology(https://carm.org...), and people in the Bible have been confirmed to have existed (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...). And until you can give an actual reason for why you discredit the Bible, my point still stands.

"Since unicorns and life elsewhere in the universe isn't hard to disprove I would like to see you do it."

I never said that I could disprove life existing elsewhere. All I said was that since there isn't any evidence supporting the theory, there is no real reason to believe that there is other life out there. As for the flying unicorns, they were used in fairy tales told by the people of the past. They were works of fiction like Harry Potter. That said, there were people that called rhinos unicorns. Anyway, the point is that since that they were used in works of fiction (the flying ones), it is completely reasonable to say that they do not exist. Therefore I have disproved their existence beyond a reasonable doubt.

"We must have a different definition of meaning."

I use the one that the dictionary uses. Meaning is the "end, purpose, or significance of something" (http://dictionary.reference.com...).

"I don't believe in an ultimate meaning at all, there is no reason I should. I merely accept that when I die then I will most likely not exist."

This goes against everything you have said in the debate so far. The very first thing you said to my claim about life being meaningless without God was this: "you saying that without a creator there is no purpose in life quite frankly offends me because I am atheist and have no shortage of purpose." But I am glad to see that you have changed your mind.

"Can't be sure though, who knows, maybe I'll become one with the force and become a Jedi. You can't prove that I won't."

Sure I can. You have to be a Jedi before you can become one with the force. Good luck trying to get Jedi powers my friend...

"I have made all the points to refute your argument and frankly I believe you have helped my case with you reasoning."

No...you have only retracted claims you have made and have not properly responded to any of my arguments.

For example:

You claimed that your life had a purpose...this round you now deny you have a purpose.

You claimed that Adam and Eve did not exist...following rounds you said you would never say anything didn't exist for sure.

You also made claims without supporting them.

For example:

You claimed that the belief in God is a delusion. Never once supported this.

You claimed that the Bible's account of nature (whatever this means...you never explained) was incorrect. Never supported this.

You claimed that there could be 1,000,000,000 twin earths out there. Never supported this.

I could go on and on...

But the biggest problem was that you never properly addressed my arguments. I first argued that Creationism gave the best explanation for the universe/life due to the odds of a life permitting universe. And you responded by saying that the numbers in my arguments may have been rigged. After I showed you why that was unlikely you dropped the argument and said that Lawrence Krauss has an explanation for why there is a life permitting universe. I then showed you why his argument was ridiculous and you officially said nothing else about the issue.

Then we get to my second argument above the evidence for evolution. It could also be used to support Creationism! But my opponent never said anything about this argument. He just asserted that "I don't buy that creationism fits with any evidence (fossils, uranium dating of earth, DNA) in favor of evolution." But he never justified that statement.

Lastly we get to my third argument about life being meaningless without God. He denied this until the very last round.

So therefore I have showed that creationism should be taught in classrooms because it does a better job explaining how the universe/life came into existence, it fits the evidence just as well as evolution does (if not better), and because it teaches people that we have a purpose in life.

I thank my opponent for a debate. That said, it was really disappointing to see that my argument was pretty much ignored.
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
I guess you did not read the debate. Evidence was supplied so I do not know why you would say that I did not supply any evidence
Posted by FlammableX 1 year ago
FlammableX
What research is needed on something without evidence? Your arguments do not have one shred of evidence, and you expect me to do research on it?
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
Those are the exact comments that bother me. You obviously haven't done any research on the subject.
Posted by FlammableX 1 year ago
FlammableX
"Research on creationism"? What is that supposed to mean? The word "research" cannot go with Creationism, simply because Creationism is not complex at all. It is merely is a simple explanation for why everything is as it is - a pernicious distraction from scientific evidence showing otherwise.
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
I hear that all of the time from people and I always end up finding out that they haven't done any research on creationism. You not responding to the argument seems to indicate that you have not done the research ethier.
Posted by FlammableX 1 year ago
FlammableX
Your argument is just non sequitur. This isn't a "hyopthetical if's off" - it's based on evidence. Evolution has thousands of pieces of evidence, creationism has none.
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
Yes I did. See point B of my opening argument.
Posted by FlammableX 1 year ago
FlammableX
Jerry, you didn't show why it could be shown as evidence for a designer.
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
Thanks for clarifying.
Posted by Jtp23 1 year ago
Jtp23
Jerry, if you are still confused as to which unicorns I am referring to, I am referring to the mythical creature that looks like a horse but has a horn.
No votes have been placed for this debate.