The Instigator
killshot
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Country-of-dummies
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Biblical Creationism is Unscientific and False

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 3 votes the winner is...
killshot
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 106,770 times Debate No: 120408
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (58)
Votes (3)

 

killshot

Pro

Biblical creationism is unscientific on many levels, But most importantly, It does not use the scientific method. It makes bold unfounded assertions about reality that we know to be untrue (age of the universe, Age of earth, Use of magic, Origins of biology, Etc). Creationism makes no testable or verifiable predictions, And it holds no weight against peer review. Not only is creationism false and ignorant, But it is not even categorically a hypothesis, As it has no grounding evidence from which it's based on.

From here, I'll leave the floor open to my opponent.
Country-of-dummies

Con

Okay, First of all, There is no proof that God is real, Let's just get that out there for everyone. OUT IN THE OPEN. However, There have been many things in the Bible that have been proven to be true. The Bible is a history book, That is just what it is. By saying that creation is a hoax, You are calling the oldest history book known to man a liar, Which puts you above the God that you do not believe exists. So, Basically, You are taking a lot of responsibility on yourself. What's more, Evolution is more un-provable than creation, Being that it was dreamed up by a man that apologized to society on his death-bed for bringing such lies into the world. What you cannot say, Is that creation is not possible, You would be stepping WAY into the realm of God on that one. I do not plan to win this debate, Just to put some thoughts out there for everyone to reflect on. If you want to make the statement that creationism is false, Provide some examples for all to see then let's debate.
Debate Round No. 1
killshot

Pro

I don't even know what to do with this. I wish someone more serious accepted the debate. You’re statements are entirely unfounded and absurdly wrong.

The Bible has some historical accounts, So what? Like Matt Dillahunty famously quotes "Just because NY is real, It doesn't prove Spiderman existed".

I'm not saying creationism is a hoax, I'm saying it's false. There is a difference.

Your assertion about Darwin on his deathbed confession is a long debunked Christian apologist lie. Not only is it untrue, It's dishonest and intellectually weak. Even if it were true, It would not render evolution false regardless. If something is true it will either stand or fall on its own. There are not authorities in science.

I can and will say creationism is not possible. It requires magic and magic isn't real. Prove me wrong.

You want examples for everyone to see, Sure:

1) God speaks things into existence
2) God creates light before stars
3) Talking snakes and curses
4) Genesis cannot get the timelines correct between 1 and 2
5) All life shares a common ancestor, There are no archetypes

I'll just stop here. Your turn.

Country-of-dummies

Con

Well Killshot, You wanted a debate, So, You are going to get one.
My question to you is, How can you make sense out of nothing? That is what evolution is, Making sense (something) our of nothing. At least, Creationism presents an "idea" that God created things. You can go back as far as you want with evolution, But what created the explosion? What created the compounds that caused the explosion? Then, What made up the substances that made the compounds that caused the explosion? (CIRCULAR REASONING) The most ignorant thing a human can do is engage in circular reasoning, Because there is no end, Hence the term circular reasoning. At least creation has a beginning, That God always was. Unlike evolution which can not explain the beginning, (that it was created to explain in the first place).
You want some examples? You got them.

According to the law of Conservation of mass, Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, Either mass, Energy, And matter must have either always existed or must have been put in place by a being.
Which one makes more sense
Creation:
1. In the beginning there was nothing.
2. Something cannot come out of nothing.

Evolution:
1. Every event must have a cause and the cause must be an event before it.
2. There must be a beginning, However, It is unknown.
=> The beginning has no cause for being present, Hence there was no beginning hence there is no world.

I am really wondering if you are searching for the truth, Or are just bored out of your mind? The science of today believes that not only can things 'come from nowhere' at the sub-atomic level but that it is happening all the time. However, I say, Show me the proof today that things come from nowhere, And I will change my mind as to the origin of mankind. Can YOU scientifically demonstrate something that came form nothing and prove it? Challenge. . .
Debate Round No. 2
killshot

Pro

The debate subject is on creationism being false, Not whether or not something can come from nothing or any of the other straw man arguments you shot at me. Please stick to the subject and quit misdirecting. I will not respond to your misdirects again, So please get back on subject.

1) Do you deny evolution entirely? If so, Why? Besides "blah blah blah rants and misdirects/subject changes". Give me actual scientific reasons, Please.

Evolution had no explosion. I have no idea what you're referring to. How did it start? I don't know, Possibly abiogenesis, Possibly something else. I don't know. Neither do you.

You said the most ignorant thing a human can do is engage in circular reasoning, Yet you answer a cosmic mystery with a bigger mystery. God did it! Who made God? It's circular by definition.

As for your 2nd law of thermodynamics argument: how do you know our universe didn't come from a multiverse? How do you know that it's not eternal? If God can be eternal, Why can't the universe?

You said everything must have a cause. How do you know? This is impossible to prove. I'm just warning you before you venture down that rabbit hole.

You asked for something that comes from nothing - how about a virtual particle? How about this debate? I'm working hard to produce something from nothing :)


Country-of-dummies

Con

Unfortunately, You started this debate, So unless you want to look like a fool, I would answer all the questions I ask, In detail. Frankly, I am not sure that you can, But, Just humor me. . .
I am talking about something that was created from completely nothing. Nothing man has ever created came from a new substance, They all came from substances that existed prior (try to prove that wrong, I dare you. ) So, This debate, The computer you are using to type it on, All came from materials that somehow "occurred" the way you put it. Actually, I am not getting off topic. I am establishing the fact that you are saying creation is not possible but you should also bring up the fact that since all other ideas that man has come up with regarding the origin of man are all unproven. NONE of this can be proven, But that does not mean we do not exist. The fallacy of your argument is that man is basically just a whim. My question to you is, You say that creation is not real, Well, Give me evidence to support that. Use the human body for instance, How did that come to pass if not for creation. You make the statement that creation does not exist, Then how did your body develop? I am providing examples of things that I would like to bring up that creationists hold very important. Tell me how human cells developed if not for creation? You can't. Instead, Do this simple math problem for me,

0+0=0

That is a simple math word problem that says nothing with nothing equals nothing. Therefore, To accept the theory of evolution, We would have to change our entire math curricula that we teach our children in school. We can't add anything we want to equal anything we want it to, Simple math does not work that way. You say that creation is not real, Yet I see that you were not ready to defend that statement and respond to my questions, That is why you say they are off topic.
However, If you want to prove your point you will have to answer my questions, Otherwise, Your initial statement goes without ammunition.
Debate Round No. 3
killshot

Pro

Biblical Creationism is Unscientific and False

Yes, I started this debate. Above is the title and subject of the debate. I wanted this to be an actual debate and a conversation, But it's clear that you're just an immature kid trolling subjects you don't understand. I'm not wasting any more time on you, Go back to high school.
Country-of-dummies

Con

No actually, I am very learned on this topic, That is why when I saw it, I chose it, But that does not make a difference when the person you are debating with is not prepared. I hate that, Because it could have been a better debate, However, Could have been's are illogical.
Debate Round No. 4
killshot

Pro

Well then you shouldn't have wasted 4 rounds talking about evolution and other topics. If you're so educated on the subject, You certainly didn't show it. Next time you accept a debate, Make sure you can debate the subject you accept.
Country-of-dummies

Con

Well, Next time you create an argument, Be prepared to defend it. You expected to get somebody dumb, Or someone who would just back down. I was not that person. Have a controversial topic and you will get debated on the entire topic, Not what you pick and choose. You did not expect someone to come out swinging, You expected a dumb, Non-put together, Sorry excuse for a debate. That is not what you got. This is not a chat cite, It is a debate cite. Want a friendly chat, Go to social media.
Debate Round No. 5
58 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Country-of-dummies 3 years ago
Country-of-dummies
o:o
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
Defensive much? Sounds like I struck a nerve
Posted by Country-of-dummies 3 years ago
Country-of-dummies
@killshit, Most people do not have to go to college to learn English. I knew how to communicate before I went to college. English is a kiddy class. Sad that middle school students are smarter than many adults. . . College basically teaches you nothing you don't already know. It is a piece of paper that lets you get a job easier than a guy that does not have that piece of paper. However, As a 4. 0 GPA student, I think I can speak from experience on knowledge about course content. IF YOU had been to college, You would know what I mean. . .
and Don't worry, I'm not just blowing in the wind, I've got the transcripts to prove my 4. 0 GPA. . .
and yes, It is an accredited college. . .
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
I was referring to English as a study - aka English 101, English 102, Etc. Apparently you've never been to a college.
Posted by Country-of-dummies 3 years ago
Country-of-dummies
Actually, Most people learn their first words (English) around 6 months old, So they don't even need to go to pre-K to learn English. You are a 3 month old, So that explains a lot. Sorry I over-elevated you. . .
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
Cause everyone learns English in pre-k. . Intelligent comeback, I'm just riddled with insult. . . Lol
Posted by Country-of-dummies 3 years ago
Country-of-dummies
@killshit I am not sure, But I think YOU need to go back to pre-k and learn english, Because no one but YOU says that I have bad grammar. . .
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@dumba$$ I gave you a direct example. I can't help it if you can't keep up
Posted by Country-of-dummies 3 years ago
Country-of-dummies
Avoiding another question. . . I am talking about GRAMMAR. Answer the question. HUMOR me. . .
want to retract your dumb butt statement about my grammar before you make a total fool of yourself?
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@omar No idea. . I doubt they are legit though. We don't have the user base on this site for that. Maybe just a bug?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
killshotCountry-of-dummiesTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con went off topic so Pro with giving a single argument would win. Turns out Pro gave more than that.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
killshotCountry-of-dummiesTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering a poor vote by Michael. Sources not explained.
Vote Placed by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
killshotCountry-of-dummiesTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro "Creationism makes no testable or verifiable predictions," 100% true. Continuing "And it holds no weight against peer review." 100% true also because if it passed, then creationism would be the ONLY teachable communication ideal everywhere as far as to how everything began. Con "There have been many things in the Bible that have been proven to be true." Con named nothing to support this claim. "What's more, Evolution is more un-provable than creation," 100% false and shows Con knows nothing of evolution.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.