The Instigator
cheyennebodie
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ozzyhead
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

origin of life. Atheist vs. creationist.atheism has no clue how it came about.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Ozzyhead
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 705 times Debate No: 61727
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

cheyennebodie

Pro

I have not heard even one " theory " of how life began by atheism.They do not have a clue. And evolutionists won't go near this question. Although I have no doubt that secretly they are pulling their collective hairs out to prove there is not a creator.
Ozzyhead

Con

An atheist only needs to meet one condition and that's not believing in a god or deity. They can still believe in a creator. If you want to debate that creationism is the only plausible explanation for life then please say so at the start of your next round. We can use the last round for rebuttals and final thoughts
Debate Round No. 1
cheyennebodie

Pro

So, lets hear of your " theory " how life began.And proclaim your creator, and how or what he used to create life. You say you can believe in a creator, but you do not believe in creationism. Is that what you are saying?Kind of a confusing thought.

I take the biblical stand on creation. God is a spirit being. That does not mean he really is not there. But it means he really is.Spirit beings are more solid than we are.Just operating on a higher ( super ) plane than we operate on. And God is also a faith being. The spirit of faith, I have believed , therefore I speak.That is how God creates. By speaking and bringing the picture of those words into physical manifestation.In geneses. God spoke and things and animals were created.Even man. " And God said, let us make man in our image, he has dominion over all living things on the earth.Be fruitful and multiply.When he said these things is when he had created man. He had already formed his body with the dust of the ground. But it did not have life in it.Until he said those things. Those words breathed life into that dead body and man became a speaking spirit, the Hebrew says.

I say the God of the bible is the one that originated life. Tell us how your creator did it. Please we are waiting to hear this.And this is the only explanation there is that man is the only living creature that can choose and speak words.
Ozzyhead

Con

The origin of life came from a process called abiogenesis. Nonliving becoming living. The way we figured that out is that a scientist made a very natural setting and did nothing else, and eventually, something that not a living being became one. You can repeat this process yourself if you have the patience. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)
It's not likely to happen, for the conditions have to be right, but all it takes is one time, as DNA and fossil records determine that all living beings have a common ancestor. No, humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, but us and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. And there are transitional fossil records.
That is the best explanation of where life came from given to us by science. Evolution (change over time) has been proven to occur. We humans are taller now than we were thousands of years ago. We CHANGED over TIME. By the way, your definition of a theory is actually a hypothesis. A theory is what explains a fact. Like the theory of gravity is "Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other. Gravity gives weight to physical objects and causes them to fall toward the ground when dropped." (http://en.wikipedia.org...). (Wikipedia is actually more reliable than it was in the past, as just about every other statement needs a source... and a cross examined that statement).
But let's say this isn't how life came about. Let's say that abiogenesis and evolution, proven facts, were not the explanation of life on earth. Holy texts are not any better explanations. The bible is making the claim, it is not the evidence for a claim. The bible is an unreliable source as it's a biased source towards the Christian community, one of hundreds of thousands of religious explanations. Compared to other religious explanations, the Christian explanation is just as foolish. Also, if the science was not true, you cannot make up an answer and claim it's true just because.
Debate Round No. 2
cheyennebodie

Pro

And I suppose you and all of the other wizards of smart are working night and day to prove your theory.You say you know all the conditions it would take to bring forth life. Then why not just do it. Lets put this debate to rest once and for all.

You and those like you are the only ones that can solve this debate. We cannot. Creation has already taken place.God is not creating any more life. He created the first life and put the law of geneses into motion, Everything will reproduce after its own kind.He is not going to create just to prove he can. He is not like that. He is comfortable whether you believe him or not. In fact, even if he did create something, you still would not believe . He said that the carnal mind is at enmity with the knowledge of God, it cannot understand God nor ever shall be able.He called you carnally minded because you refuse to believe anything except what you see and feel. Carnal means meat. Carnivourous is a meat eater.So, when God calls you carnally- minded, he is calling you a meathead.
Ozzyhead

Con

I am not a scientist, so it is not my responsibility to produce life using abiogenesis as a form of arguments. I do not know the right conditions, as I only found out that there are right conditions. The fact that God created first has not been proven. You must show proof for your claim. Tangible evidence in some way. If you can't, than I have no reason to accept your claim.
I would like the voters to notice how my opponent used the last round to attack me. I am not a wizard. I do this bizarre thing called research. And once again, a THEORY is based off of fact! The definition of a theory is the explanation of a fact. I strongly believe that my opponent did not read my whole argument.
I don't care what God says, just like you don't care what Buddha says. I don't think your or any god exists. I don't refuse to believe them. I just have not seen the evidence to support the claim of one. When I see evidence, I will be happy to say so.
And also I'd like to point out that I am not attached to these scientific theories the way you are attached to your god. If someone can show I don't have enough evidence to support my claim, guess what? I am going to stop believing it, and that has happened to me before. It doesn't make me stupid. The wise person admits when they are wrong. The dumb one convinces themselves that something is true and another thing is not truth even in the face of the contrary. I easily met my burden of proof, even though I did not really have one. I gave a better explanation than my opponent. Am I right? The evidence says so. If my opponent brought evidence to this debate, instead of name calling like "meathead" and "wizard" and used sources that were proven to be reliable, which the bible is proven to be unreliable, than I would have had no problem conceding this debate. Next time, please bring evidence, leave the name calling, and be more professional. And make the character limit higher. But I am sure you didn't on purpose knowing I'd dance all over you
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Neoman 2 years ago
Neoman
@pro so you think you have a clue because it was written in some book 1000s of years ago? I dont think that so called holy book is legit. I think it was written by some people who liked getting high at that time. Feel free to proove me wrong.
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Ozzyhead
I don't have faith in anything. Those people have brought concrete evidence to the table. But let's say they didn't. That does not mean you can make up an answer and have it be true. You need the supporting evidence to back it up
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
respectfully and accurately said Garsot
Posted by MykSkodar 2 years ago
MykSkodar
Yep. What Garsot said.
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
Dude I have come to the conclusion in earlier discussions that cheyennebodie is not a reasonable person willing to look at the logical side of things and is therefore unfit to debate. It would be like the cliche saying of beating one's head against the well, except the wall would be a lot more giving. Emotion and personal belief holds more truth than evidence and observations with this person, it seems. So it really is just a waste of time.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Pro. You say I have no evidence.And yet it is very unlikely that life just popped up with no intelligence behind it.And you say that you have no faith in God, but all your faith is in people that cannot produce any concrete evidence for anything about the origin of life. And I did give evidence for a creator, you were just too spiritually dense to see. That was not a slap at you, just an observation.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Giving a different answer then you want to hear does not make a person clueless. The right answer is abiogenesis. Any intellectually honest person will admit that he does not know how the universe came to exist. Scientists, of course, readily admit there ignorance on this point. Religious believers do not. Wish full thinking will not make something true, and the great thing about science is its true whether you believe in it or not. Scientist don't pretend to know things they don't know, the religious do this often and call it faith. If one had sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a particular claim, then one wouldn"t believe the claim on the basis of faith. "Faith" is the word one uses when one does not have enough evidence to justify holding a belief, but when one just goes ahead and believes anyway. Have a nice day
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
Biology pretty much gives a more than plausible theory on the origin of life. Atoms come together to form complex molecules that form the substances for elements which come together to form matter. It is literally that simple. The origin of life is not really that big of a mystery. The real mystery seems to be how the universe began and where those initial atoms come from. Which strange things appear to happen on the quantum level so its really hard to say without sufficient technology or knowledge.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Ozzyhead is nowhere to be found. Nor any of the other evolutionist backers that are so fervent in their beliefs. Why is that?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
cheyennebodieOzzyheadTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro committed the worst logical fallacy in existence. He shifted the burden of proof onto con. This is incorrect. The burden on proof is on the party that makes the positive claim (as far as I know, claiming you do not believe in something is a negative claim...) Pro did not accept con's arguments and proclaimed: 'We don't know all the answers, therefore god'
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
cheyennebodieOzzyheadTied
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 Checkmark1 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 tried insults in parts of his arguments, which is very bad conduct. Pro also used more fallacies than I care to count, and had no real arguments. Con is the only person to use sources.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
cheyennebodieOzzyheadTied
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: This debate went nowhere. Was Pro merely asking for some "clue how it came about"? If so, Con would win--he gave a possible explanation for things that was without a deity. But, really, I'm not clear what Pro was asking to debate--was he really just trying to debate creationism but taking an aggressive rhetorical tack? Neither side really pinned it down, so I'm nulling this vote.