Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Creation vs Evolution

Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

Or use the KCA to prove creationism.
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:39:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

No it is not. And the origin of the universe is impertinent to evolution. You can test evolution, so it is scientific. You cannot test creationism, so it is not scientific. Thus not supported by modern science.

Or use the KCA to prove creationism.

You mean the kids choice awards?
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:45:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:39:25 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

No it is not. And the origin of the universe is impertinent to evolution. You can test evolution, so it is scientific. You cannot test creationism, so it is not scientific. Thus not supported by modern science.

Creationism is the scientific theory that stuff was created by God. I showed premises for that through the simulated universe Hypothesis.

If other people's are running a simulated universe than it's more likely than not we've been created by an intelligent creator.

I've laid out some premises to show why this may be a simulated universe and was thus created. It's unlikely that our creators would run the simulation from the dinosaur ages. They'd like start the ancestor simulation sometime after humans started doing interesting things, that way they could have a more accurate record of their own history.

Or use the KCA to prove creationism.

You mean the kids choice awards?

Kalam cosmological argument.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:46:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Though all the evidence for evolution should still exist, so as to make us think we're living in the real universe.
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:01:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:45:34 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:39:25 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

No it is not. And the origin of the universe is impertinent to evolution. You can test evolution, so it is scientific. You cannot test creationism, so it is not scientific. Thus not supported by modern science.

Creationism is the scientific theory that stuff was created by God. I showed premises for that through the simulated universe Hypothesis.

Sorry, Simulated=false, and we also cannot test wether the universe is simulated. If the universe is simulated, then the creator god can also be simulated.

I've laid out some premises to show why this may be a simulated universe and was thus created. It's unlikely that our creators would run the simulation from the dinosaur ages. They'd like start the ancestor simulation sometime after humans started doing interesting things, that way they could have a more accurate record of their own history.

That is a post-hoc argument. Also, the existence of a god is not testable.

Or use the KCA to prove creationism.

You mean the kids choice awards?

Kalam cosmological argument.

Don't know what that is.
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:05:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:01:27 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:45:34 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:39:25 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

No it is not. And the origin of the universe is impertinent to evolution. You can test evolution, so it is scientific. You cannot test creationism, so it is not scientific. Thus not supported by modern science.

Creationism is the scientific theory that stuff was created by God. I showed premises for that through the simulated universe Hypothesis.

Sorry, Simulated=false, and we also cannot test wether the universe is simulated. If the universe is simulated, then the creator god can also be simulated.
I've laid out some premises to show why this may be a simulated universe and was thus created. It's unlikely that our creators would run the simulation from the dinosaur ages. They'd like start the ancestor simulation sometime after humans started doing interesting things, that way they could have a more accurate record of their own history.

That is a post-hoc argument. Also, the existence of a god is not testable.

Or use the KCA to prove creationism.

You mean the kids choice awards?

Kalam cosmological argument.

Don't know what that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:11:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:05:00 AM, RevNge wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:01:27 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:45:34 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:39:25 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

No it is not. And the origin of the universe is impertinent to evolution. You can test evolution, so it is scientific. You cannot test creationism, so it is not scientific. Thus not supported by modern science.

Creationism is the scientific theory that stuff was created by God. I showed premises for that through the simulated universe Hypothesis.

Sorry, Simulated=false, and we also cannot test wether the universe is simulated. If the universe is simulated, then the creator god can also be simulated.
I've laid out some premises to show why this may be a simulated universe and was thus created. It's unlikely that our creators would run the simulation from the dinosaur ages. They'd like start the ancestor simulation sometime after humans started doing interesting things, that way they could have a more accurate record of their own history.

That is a post-hoc argument. Also, the existence of a god is not testable.

Or use the KCA to prove creationism.

You mean the kids choice awards?

Kalam cosmological argument.

Don't know what that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause


P2) The universe began to exist

C1) Therefore God exists

P3) If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

C2) An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

P3 states that an uncaused creator exists, where as P1 states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. So, if that's the case, what caused your god?
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 9:06:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:39:25 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

No it is not. And the origin of the universe is impertinent to evolution. You can test evolution, so it is scientific.

You can? You can test evolution? I don't think so. To test gravity, you drop something. To test evolution.... evolve something. That hasn't been done, obviously. No one has ever observed nor reproduced the evolution of anything.

You cannot test creationism, so it is not scientific.

Subtle point here: Granted, you cannot reproduce the creation of life, so it's not a scientific theory, but that does not make it 'unscientific', any more than psychology is unscientific. "the right tool for the right job" as my shop teacher taught me.

Thus not supported by modern science.

Science doesn't 'support' anything, so what you really mean is 'the modern self-appointed science community'. Which is quite different from science itself.
This space for rent.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 9:19:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:39:25 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:

Or use the KCA to prove creationism.

You mean the kids choice awards?

No, silly, he's referring to the Koala Care Act of 1996.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 10:55:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

Or use the KCA to prove creationism.

KCA doesn't prove creationism - or at least it doesn't prove YEC which is probably what the OP is talking about or it wouldn't make sense to contrast creationism and evolution.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:20:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 9:06:20 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:39:25 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

No it is not. And the origin of the universe is impertinent to evolution. You can test evolution, so it is scientific.

You can? You can test evolution? I don't think so. To test gravity, you drop something. To test evolution.... evolve something. That hasn't been done, obviously. No one has ever observed nor reproduced the evolution of anything.

You cannot test creationism, so it is not scientific.

Subtle point here: Granted, you cannot reproduce the creation of life, so it's not a scientific theory, but that does not make it 'unscientific', any more than psychology is unscientific. "the right tool for the right job" as my shop teacher taught me.

Thus not supported by modern science.

Science doesn't 'support' anything, so what you really mean is 'the modern self-appointed science community'. Which is quite different from science itself.

Actually we have observed evolution. We have examples such as the peppered moths: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria: http://www.tufts.edu...
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:30:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 9:06:20 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:39:25 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

No it is not. And the origin of the universe is impertinent to evolution. You can test evolution, so it is scientific.

You can? You can test evolution? I don't think so. To test gravity, you drop something. To test evolution.... evolve something. That hasn't been done, obviously. No one has ever observed nor reproduced the evolution of anything.

Yes it has. Like the silver fox experiment. It worked.

You cannot test creationism, so it is not scientific.

Subtle point here: Granted, you cannot reproduce the creation of life, so it's not a scientific theory, but that does not make it 'unscientific', any more than psychology is unscientific. "the right tool for the right job" as my shop teacher taught me.

I dont get it.

Thus not supported by modern science.

Science doesn't 'support' anything, so what you really mean is 'the modern self-appointed science community'. Which is quite different from science itself.

Support =/= accept as %100 proven.
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:30:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 9:19:55 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:39:25 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:

Or use the KCA to prove creationism.

You mean the kids choice awards?

No, silly, he's referring to the Koala Care Act of 1996.

Lol
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:43:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 10:55:23 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

Or use the KCA to prove creationism.

KCA doesn't prove creationism - or at least it doesn't prove YEC which is probably what the OP is talking about or it wouldn't make sense to contrast creationism and evolution.

Why do people always assume YEC when the topic of creationism comes up?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:44:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 10:55:23 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

Or use the KCA to prove creationism.

KCA doesn't prove creationism - or at least it doesn't prove YEC which is probably what the OP is talking about or it wouldn't make sense to contrast creationism and evolution.

I guess you're correct. The contrasting of evolution and creation is probably a hint about YEC.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:47:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:01:27 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:45:34 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:39:25 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

No it is not. And the origin of the universe is impertinent to evolution. You can test evolution, so it is scientific. You cannot test creationism, so it is not scientific. Thus not supported by modern science.

Creationism is the scientific theory that stuff was created by God. I showed premises for that through the simulated universe Hypothesis.

Sorry, Simulated=false, and we also cannot test wether the universe is simulated. If the universe is simulated, then the creator god can also be simulated.

Simulated doesn't mean false And the creator could be a computer nerd it doesn't change the fact we have a creator. The creator being simulated wouldn't change that either.


I've laid out some premises to show why this may be a simulated universe and was thus created. It's unlikely that our creators would run the simulation from the dinosaur ages. They'd like start the ancestor simulation sometime after humans started doing interesting things, that way they could have a more accurate record of their own history.

That is a post-hoc argument. Also, the existence of a god is not testable.

Simulated universe can be tested.


Or use the KCA to prove creationism.

You mean the kids choice awards?

Kalam cosmological argument.

Don't know what that is.

Cool
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:50:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 11:47:24 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:01:27 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:45:34 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:39:25 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

No it is not. And the origin of the universe is impertinent to evolution. You can test evolution, so it is scientific. You cannot test creationism, so it is not scientific. Thus not supported by modern science.

Creationism is the scientific theory that stuff was created by God. I showed premises for that through the simulated universe Hypothesis.

Sorry, Simulated=false, and we also cannot test wether the universe is simulated. If the universe is simulated, then the creator god can also be simulated.

Simulated doesn't mean false And the creator could be a computer nerd it doesn't change the fact we have a creator. The creator being simulated wouldn't change that either.

It doesn't mean the CPU nerd is a god. So that is completely irrelevant to the definition of "creationism."


I've laid out some premises to show why this may be a simulated universe and was thus created. It's unlikely that our creators would run the simulation from the dinosaur ages. They'd like start the ancestor simulation sometime after humans started doing interesting things, that way they could have a more accurate record of their own history.

That is a post-hoc argument. Also, the existence of a god is not testable.

Simulated universe can be tested.

How?



Or use the KCA to prove creationism.

You mean the kids choice awards?

Kalam cosmological argument.

Don't know what that is.

Cool

Now I do. RevNge provided me a link to its Wikipedia article.
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:08:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 11:43:20 AM, Wylted wrote:

Why do people always assume YEC when the topic of creationism comes up?

It's the only thing worth arguing. If you're going to just say "God created the universe at the Big Bang" then what's the difference between a Christian and an atheist? All the two have to argue about is what happened before there was any hope of ever knowing what happened. The Christian simply personifies the phenomenon while the atheist takes a less poetic approach. With YEC, however, there's something there to actually disagree about.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:09:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 11:50:02 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:47:24 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:01:27 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:45:34 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:39:25 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

No it is not. And the origin of the universe is impertinent to evolution. You can test evolution, so it is scientific. You cannot test creationism, so it is not scientific. Thus not supported by modern science.

Creationism is the scientific theory that stuff was created by God. I showed premises for that through the simulated universe Hypothesis.

Sorry, Simulated=false, and we also cannot test wether the universe is simulated. If the universe is simulated, then the creator god can also be simulated.

Simulated doesn't mean false And the creator could be a computer nerd it doesn't change the fact we have a creator. The creator being simulated wouldn't change that either.

It doesn't mean the CPU nerd is a god. So that is completely irrelevant to the definition of "creationism."

Creationism doesn't imply a God. It implys creation. It could be an alien species and it would still apply.



I've laid out some premises to show why this may be a simulated universe and was thus created. It's unlikely that our creators would run the simulation from the dinosaur ages. They'd like start the ancestor simulation sometime after humans started doing interesting things, that way they could have a more accurate record of their own history.

That is a post-hoc argument. Also, the existence of a god is not testable.

Simulated universe can be tested.

How?

Bot enough time to go into. It would be like me asking you how evolution can be tested. It can be tested but it's a pain in the asss to explain



Or use the KCA to prove creationism.

You mean the kids choice awards?

Kalam cosmological argument.

Don't know what that is.

Cool

Now I do. RevNge provided me a link to its Wikipedia article.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:12:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:08:00 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:43:20 AM, Wylted wrote:

Why do people always assume YEC when the topic of creationism comes up?

It's the only thing worth arguing. If you're going to just say "God created the universe at the Big Bang"

Hold on there buddy. Why does it have to be a God?

then what's the difference between a Christian and an atheist? All the two have to argue about is what happened before there was any hope of ever knowing what happened.

I'm mostly referring to the simulated Earth hypothesis, premises have been provided and include holographic universe theory, matter acts differently when being observed, and DNA resembling computer code.

The Christian simply personifies the phenomenon while the atheist takes a less poetic approach. With YEC, however, there's something there to actually disagree about.
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:12:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:09:11 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:50:02 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:47:24 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:01:27 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:45:34 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:39:25 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

No it is not. And the origin of the universe is impertinent to evolution. You can test evolution, so it is scientific. You cannot test creationism, so it is not scientific. Thus not supported by modern science.

Creationism is the scientific theory that stuff was created by God. I showed premises for that through the simulated universe Hypothesis.

Sorry, Simulated=false, and we also cannot test wether the universe is simulated. If the universe is simulated, then the creator god can also be simulated.

Simulated doesn't mean false And the creator could be a computer nerd it doesn't change the fact we have a creator. The creator being simulated wouldn't change that either.

It doesn't mean the CPU nerd is a god. So that is completely irrelevant to the definition of "creationism."

Creationism doesn't imply a God. It implys creation. It could be an alien species and it would still apply.

Creationism - a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)




I've laid out some premises to show why this may be a simulated universe and was thus created. It's unlikely that our creators would run the simulation from the dinosaur ages. They'd like start the ancestor simulation sometime after humans started doing interesting things, that way they could have a more accurate record of their own history.

That is a post-hoc argument. Also, the existence of a god is not testable.

Simulated universe can be tested.

How?

Bot enough time to go into. It would be like me asking you how evolution can be tested. It can be tested but it's a pain in the asss to explain

Until given a valid explantion of how, I will not consider the idea.



Or use the KCA to prove creationism.

You mean the kids choice awards?

Kalam cosmological argument.

Don't know what that is.

Cool

Now I do. RevNge provided me a link to its Wikipedia article.
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:17:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:12:27 PM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:09:11 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:50:02 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:47:24 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:01:27 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:45:34 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:39:25 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

No it is not. And the origin of the universe is impertinent to evolution. You can test evolution, so it is scientific. You cannot test creationism, so it is not scientific. Thus not supported by modern science.

Creationism is the scientific theory that stuff was created by God. I showed premises for that through the simulated universe Hypothesis.

Sorry, Simulated=false, and we also cannot test wether the universe is simulated. If the universe is simulated, then the creator god can also be simulated.

Simulated doesn't mean false And the creator could be a computer nerd it doesn't change the fact we have a creator. The creator being simulated wouldn't change that either.

It doesn't mean the CPU nerd is a god. So that is completely irrelevant to the definition of "creationism."

Creationism doesn't imply a God. It implys creation. It could be an alien species and it would still apply.

Creationism - a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)




I've laid out some premises to show why this may be a simulated universe and was thus created. It's unlikely that our creators would run the simulation from the dinosaur ages. They'd like start the ancestor simulation sometime after humans started doing interesting things, that way they could have a more accurate record of their own history.

That is a post-hoc argument. Also, the existence of a god is not testable.

Simulated universe can be tested.

How?

Bot enough time to go into. It would be like me asking you how evolution can be tested. It can be tested but it's a pain in the asss to explain

Until given a valid explantion of how, I will not consider the idea.

It gets quite sophisticated, you can read up on Nick Bostroms arguments on it which get quite philosophical but there are scientific premises as well, which include holographic universe theory, matter acting differently under observation and DNA looking like a computer code



Or use the KCA to prove creationism.

You mean the kids choice awards?

Kalam cosmological argument.

Don't know what that is.

Cool

Now I do. RevNge provided me a link to its Wikipedia article.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:52:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:12:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:08:00 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:43:20 AM, Wylted wrote:

Why do people always assume YEC when the topic of creationism comes up?

It's the only thing worth arguing. If you're going to just say "God created the universe at the Big Bang"

Hold on there buddy. Why does it have to be a God?

If it's not God or a god, then please explain to me the alternatives, and be sure to include an explanation of why it's not a petty semantic argument that is wasting my time.

then what's the difference between a Christian and an atheist? All the two have to argue about is what happened before there was any hope of ever knowing what happened.

I'm mostly referring to the simulated Earth hypothesis, premises have been provided and include holographic universe theory,

You don't need a premise of holography to show the universe is not really here. If you examine a rock, it seems solid. If you look at it under a microscope, it is somewhat hollow, made up of strands of minerals and such. If you examine the minerals, they are hollow but made up of atoms. If you examine atoms, they are hollow but made up of quarks. Quarks are not matter at all, but just some abstract value in a wave equation or vibrating pieces of string which are not solid in any meaningful sense. In effect, there is no "matter," just an illusion of things having substance. Furthermore, light seems to indicate it doesn't actually exist either. If you look at a distant quasar, the light hitting your eye supposedly traveled billions of light years. But from light's point of view, it traveled 0 distance, and the instant it was created was the same instance it hit your eye. There is no space, no time, no matter, our consciousness simply creates imaginary pockets of space-time to exist in. For every 186,000 meters it creates, it also creates one second. That is where the light-cone gains relevance.

matter acts differently when being observed,

That is technically correct I suppose, but I dislike the way you are interpreting the phenomenon, and I think you are making it fit your paradigm as opposed to looking at it objectively. When one studies quantum entanglement, Schrodinger's Cat, the Two-Slit experiment, etc. one realizes that matter does not have an intrinsic well-defined existence. It only exists as quantum fluctuations until we force it to commit to one state or another by observing it. The fact that it doesn't exist doesn't suggest that God (or whatever your idea of who it is) is manipulating us, it simply means that our consciousness is the primary reality while the universe is secondary. The standard perspective is that the universe is primary while consciousness somehow arises from it, presumably from the process of life. But what more people are starting to realize now, and what people in ancient times already knew through the process of meditation, is that the universe is a product of consciousness. While you and I have been aided by modern physics in our understanding of this, thinkers like Kant, Descartes, and the guy in my sig (from the 12th Century) already knew it without such help.

and DNA resembling computer code.

Again, you're putting the cart before the horse here. DNA doesn't resemble computer code, computer code resembles DNA. Be careful not to make pieces fit within your theory with too much effort ;)
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 1:32:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 11:43:20 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:55:23 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

Or use the KCA to prove creationism.

KCA doesn't prove creationism - or at least it doesn't prove YEC which is probably what the OP is talking about or it wouldn't make sense to contrast creationism and evolution.

Why do people always assume YEC when the topic of creationism comes up?

Straw men are much easier to do battle with. I know, there are real YEC'ers here, but I guarantee that very few people understand how they synthesize the data. It's easier to just pretend they are ignorant people living in denial.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 1:39:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:09:11 PM, Wylted wrote:
...

Bot enough time to go into. It would be like me asking you how evolution can be tested. It can be tested but it's a pain in the asss to explain

It can't be tested. It's a fundamentally flawed concept that couldn't possibly work, so I know you're bluffing.

Look, if the mechanisms proposed by Darwin worked as he proposed, they would be demonstrable. We've been to the moon and back and put hundreds of millions of transistors on a slab of sand, so the excuses have long since run out of gas. It can't be demonstrated because it's nonsense.
This space for rent.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 3:58:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Science doesn't 'support' anything, so what you really mean is 'the modern self-appointed science community'. Which is quite different from science itself.

Yep, we 'self-appoint' ourselves by earning PhDs and proving ourselves to be effective researchers in our fields with significant contributions towards advancing that field, thus earning our place among the scientists of that field who have gone through that process before us and already established themselves.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 4:00:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

A secular or religious school?
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 4:13:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 9:06:20 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:39:25 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:22:13 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

Creationism is supported by modern science. Discuss how we live in a simulated universe using holographic universe theory, the fact that matter works differently when observed and that DNA looks like computer programming.

No it is not. And the origin of the universe is impertinent to evolution. You can test evolution, so it is scientific.

You can? You can test evolution? I don't think so. To test gravity, you drop something. To test evolution.... evolve something. That hasn't been done, obviously. No one has ever observed nor reproduced the evolution of anything.

You cannot test creationism, so it is not scientific.

Subtle point here: Granted, you cannot reproduce the creation of life, so it's not a scientific theory, but that does not make it 'unscientific', any more than psychology is unscientific. "the right tool for the right job" as my shop teacher taught me.

Thus not supported by modern science.

Science doesn't 'support' anything, so what you really mean is 'the modern self-appointed science community'. Which is quite different from science itself.

Evolution and The Theory of Evolution are two different things.

Evolution is simply speciation over time. This is what you would call Microevolution. Now for macro evolution comes the theory of evolution. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. Like ALL scientific theories, we have facts that lead us to such that is reasonable. Allow me to point out other scientific theories that are still scientific theories by label.

Theory of Relativity: http://m.livescience.com...

Germ Theory: The germ theory of disease states that some diseases are caused by microorganisms. These small organisms, too small to see without magnification, invade humans, animals, and other living hosts. Their growth and reproduction within their hosts can cause a disease.

Though we don't have 100% answers, based on observations, we can make some good educated answers.

Theory of Evolution is based on speciation, natural selection and adaption. These things for me, a layman, are the signs of evolution. Now apply them to a thought experiment of 4.5 billion years. If you ask for evidence such as "I want to see a physical transition from dog to cat." Then I say this.

Show me how you go from Point A to Point B which takes 160 miles. It takes one step to get there. You don't just take one step and expect to have reached 20 miles, let alone one mile. Time is what it takes.

So evolution is science by its requirements from the scientific community.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 6:41:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:20:04 AM, debater12332 wrote:
I would like to see good points from both side.
I'm writing up a report on this subject for school.

For creationism:
-The Bible says is true so... Duh!
-The DNA is information and let's pretend only intelligent beings can produce information
-A lot of people think creationism is true, so it must be true.... Somehow
-Evolution is false (because it's "just a theory") therefore creationism is true.
-Abiogenesis can't be tested atm, so evolution is false (yeah yeah, I know, but just pretend it works that way), so creationsim is true.
-God exist, therefore creationism is true.
-Radiometric dating is bulls*it despite Envisage propaganda, therefore rocks and fossils can not be dated, therefore the Earth is young, therefore evolution is false so creationism is true.

Just say so if you need more. There's mountains of evidence that support creationism!