The Instigator
BertrandsTeapot
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Percivil
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Creationism is simply wrong

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 2 votes the winner is...
BertrandsTeapot
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 754 times Debate No: 115734
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

BertrandsTeapot

Pro

Looking forward to a great debate!
Percivil

Con

All the best to my opponent
Debate Round No. 1
BertrandsTeapot

Pro

The doctrine of Creationism, specifically that espoused by Catholics, has no basis in reality and cannot in any way be construed as accurately depicting the history of the world/universe.

I will define Creationism as follows: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.


    1. Unreliable Source: The only way that Creationism can be true in the face of such overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary would be if an even more accurate, respected source of truth exists. For most Creationists, this is the bible. Among the litany of problems here, let's focus on some reasons why we should approach any story in the Bible as being actual fact, based primarily on its many, many contradictions:
      1. The Order of Creation: In the first chapter of Genesis, animals are created before humans (1:20-24, 1:26-27), but in the second chapter, man is created before the animals (2:7, 2:19)
      2. Divorce: In Matthew, Jesus opposes divorce for any reason “except on the ground of unchastity” 5:32. However, in Mark (10:11) and Luke (16:18), Jesus opposes all divorce.
      3. The Last Supper: Passover meal? In Mark 14, Jesus eats a Passover meal with his disciples. In John 19:31, it is clear that Jesus is said to have been crucified and killed on the day of the preparation for the Passover meal, the day before the Passover meal. Thus, the final gathering of Jesus with the disciples as John tells it could not have been a Passover meal.
      4. Many Languages, or One? In chapter 10 of Genesis, we get a long account of the many peoples and many languages that descend from Noah and of the many lands that they occupied (10:5, 20, 31-32). However, after this, we are told in the set up for the Tower of Babel story that whole land had only one language and that they all managed to settle on only one plain (11:1).
      5. Not Isaiah:Mark 1:2-3 refers to a text “As it is written in the prophet Isaiah.” However, that text never appears in Isaiah, but is rather a combination of texts from Exodus 23:20 and Malachi 3:1. This problem was recognized by early biblical scribes and so we have later versions of the text that read, “As it is written in the prophets.”
      6. The Temple Confrontation: Mark 11:15-19 tells of Jesus “cleansing” the Temple at the very end of his ministry, during his final visit to Jerusalem. John 2:13-22 also tells of the Temple cleansing, but he places the event at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus, three years before his final visit to Jerusalem
      7. Today in Paradise: As just noted, in Luke, Jesus tells a thief being crucified with him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (23:43). But Jesus cannot be in Paradise on that day if he does not rise from the dead until the third day (Luke 24:7).
      8. Tearing of the Temple Curtain: In both Mark (15:38) and Matthew (27:51) the temple curtain is torn in two after Jesus breaths his last breath; that is, after he dies. However, in Luke (23:45) the temple curtain is torn before Jesus declares, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.”
      9. Abiathar vs. Ahimelech: In Mark 2:26 Jesus refers to the time when David entered the Temple to eat the Bread of the Presence when Abiathar was high priest. However, in I Samuel 21:1-6 we read that it was Ahimelech, Abiathar’s father, who was the high priest.
      10. The Sea of Judea? In John 5:1, Jesus is in Jerusalem healing, which he does for the entire chapter. John 6:1 begins with, “After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee.” But the Sea of Galilee is more than 60 miles to the north, and Jesus had not already been on one side of it so that he could then be said to go to the other side.
      11. There are many, many, many more such examples that I am happy to provide Con if needed
    2. Bad Science: Despite the work of Henry Morris and others to develop so-called “creation science,” these efforts to create a scientific foundation for creationism have been a dismal failure. For example, no model has ever been created to explain successfully either where enough water for a global flood came from or where it went after the flood. Additionally, not even one essay in creation science has been accepted in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Instead, creationists produce journals where they talk to each other. Finally, creationists are again, and again, and again, wrong on the facts when they try to refute evolution. This would be very tiresome if it were not for the fact that affirming false facts can always sound impressive to people who do not realize that what is being affirmed is false. Mark Isaak’s book The Counter-Creationism Handbook makes very clear just how often creationists make claims that depend on false claims. Needless to say, such a practice is a clear sign that one is defending a very weak position.
    3. Different Orders of Creation: In the first chapter of Genesis, animals are clearly created before humans. In the second chapter, Adam is created before the animals. Thus, it is impossible to affirm the literal orders of creation in both chapters. (Also cited in 1.1)
    4. Where is the Garden? Have you ever wondered what happened to the Garden of Eden? The Bible gives a rather clear indication of where it was located, so it should, in theory, be rather easy to find. Given that God took pains to place cherubim and a flaming sword at the entrance of the Garden of Eden in order to keep humans out, it seems that just getting rid of the garden was not an option. So where is the garden today?
    5. Comprehensive Understanding vs. Theory: Creationists can often be heard saying that evolution is “just a theory.” In doing so, they imply that that evolution is on the same level as the various forms of every day speculation that we imply when we say that an idea we have is “just a theory.” That is, creationists turn the technical term “theory” as it is used in science to mean a comprehensive understanding of some large field of research into its idiomatic every day use. However, the two uses of the term theory are just not even close. When we say something is just a theory, we mean to imply the exact opposite of what is the case for evolution; we mean to imply that we are guessing about something without enough evidence to turn our theory into a confident conclusion. Evolution, on the other hand, has countless pieces of evidence to back it up, and countless scientists demonstrating its truth every day. Given the conflation of these two uses of theory, evolutionists might even think about dropping the term altogether and replacing it with the “worldview” of evolution, or just refer to evolution, with no qualifier at all.


Now, let's look at some very specific examples of scientists having proven various aspects of Creation theory. Arguing whether Evolution is the specific antidote to Creationism can be saved for another debate.

    1. Age of the Earth/Universe:
      1. "The Earth solidified 4.54 billion years ago, plus or minus 1%. That’s a fact, and if your belief is not aligned to this fact, then you are what we call “wrong.” - C. Stuart Hardwick
        1. "The Earth formed a persistent solid surface 4.54 billion years ago."
        2. "Life appeared no less than 3.8 billion years ago."
        3. "A billion years later, cyanobacteria started producing oxygen as a waste product, and this started precipitating iron dissolved in the oceans into the deposits we now quarry for ore."
        4. "The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion (10E9) years" - Planck Collaboration
        5. "The Lambda-CDM concordance model describes the evolution of the universe from a very uniform, hot, dense primordial state to its present state over a span of about 13.8 billion years" - European Space Agency
    2. Arguments from Ignorance
      1. Eugenie C. Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance. In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view.
      2. God of the Gaps
        1. Intelligent design has also been characterized as a God-of-the-gaps argument, which has the following form:
          1. There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
          2. The gap is filled with acts of God (or intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or intelligent designer).
          3. A God-of-the-gaps argument is the theological version of an argument from ignorance. A key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions.
    3. Academia
      1. "To any mainstream biologist, creationism sounds ludicrous and scientists have repeatedly fought attempts to introduce the teaching of creationism generally, and intelligent design particularly, into school curricula." - Theodosius Dobzhansky


Next, we can discuss more of the ludicrous Creationist claims regarding fossils, irreducibility, and more!


Percivil

Con

Question:If Creationism is wrong,why has there been no confirmed way on how the eatth was created?

Argument: The video says it all:https://youtu.be...

So another question:Is it plausible to say that the pieces of the puzzle just solved itself if you throw it as shown in the video?

Rebuttals:
"In the first chapter of Genesis, animals are created before humans (1:20-24, 1:26-27), but in the second chapter, man is created before the animals (2:7, 2:19)"Have you ever watched a movie with friends, and then after, when you asked those who watched to recount the story, everyone gives a different perspective? Some may have seen things which others didn't even notice. Different parts of the movie may have impacted some people so much, that they recall it in detail, but some may not even remember that part. However, everyone should be able to agree on the core message of the story. This is the same with the gospel accounts. Different people may have remembered things in a different order but the message is still the same:man and animals were created.

"So where is the garden today?"https://answersingenesis.org...

"The Earth solidified 4.54 billion years ago, plus or minus 1%. That"s a fact, and if your belief is not aligned to this fact, then you are what we call "wrong." What if the fact was wrong?
Debate Round No. 2
BertrandsTeapot

Pro

Con asks, "if Creationism is wrong, why has there been no confirmed way on how the earth was created?" There most definitely has - it"s called the Big Bang and it"s accepted as scientific fact.

You ask me to watch a video - I am absolutely in support of people on Debate.org doing research and reading one another"s sources on points of contention. However, I do not think it"s fair to have the bulk of your first argument require me to watch a 28+ minute video that you did not even create. Surely, if you are confident in your beliefs, you will have some thoughts of your own or be able to condense the video.

Now on to your rebuttals:

You answer my Genesis argument by saying that often when multiple people watch the same movie they recall it differently. I could not agree more. However, I"m puzzled as to why you would raise this point. Your admission of this undermines the very certainty with which you avow Creationism because it proves, at your own admission, that we should not take the Bible to be absolutely correct since it"s contents are so subject to interpretation.

You ask me, "what if the fact was wrong?" Well, by definition a fact can not be wrong because it it has been scientifically and logically proven to be correct. If you wish to challenge it using opposing scientific fact, I would love to hear the argument. Of course, the Bible cannot be used here because a) it is not scientifically verified and b) the invocation of the Bible as truth would essentially presuppose the veracity of your entire Creationism argument.
Percivil

Con

Argument:
Assuming we agree big bang was true and that created earth like my opponent who believes it did,have you ever wondered before this theory was even formed,the book of genesis has a link to the big bang theory? Let me go through it step by step:

4.6 billion years ago was the formation of planet earth. We all know now at that time there was air and stuff like that which comes naturally. What surprises me is this: 4.6 billion years ago the sun was invented as well. How is this linked? "Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4"And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5"God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."

4.28 BYA water started condensing into liquid form.
"And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. 8 God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights"the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night"and the stars.

17 God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day."

3.9 BYA:birth of organic life. "And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky." 21"So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 22"God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23"And there was evening and there was morning,the fifth day."

45MYA: modern mammals appeared. I"m sure everyone can agree with me us humans are modern mammals right? "Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth,and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."

Rebuttals:
"You answer my Genesis argument by saying that often when multiple people watch the same movie they recall it differently. I could not agree more. However, I"m puzzled as to why you would raise this point. Your admission of this undermines the very certainty with which you avow Creationism because it proves, at your own admission, that we should not take the Bible to be absolutely correct since it"s contents are so subject to interpretation." No no no no no. My point is whatever was made first be it animals or man or whatever,the key message is that those things were eventually made.

Rebuttal on wrong fact:
Have you ever wondered how present day we can still dig up dinosaur bones? The dinosaurs were supposedly extinct 66 million years ago. Present day we are still digging up dinosaur bones(or at least used to years ago). According to science,once a living organism dies, the process of decomposition starts immediately the second it dies. An average human when buried without a coffin 6 feet underground, it takes 8-12 years for the skeleton to decompose. Although yes dinosaurs have a different genetic code which may affect the rate of decomposition, is it plausible to say that after supposedly 66 MILLION years the skeletal system of dinosaurs are still in tact?
Debate Round No. 3
BertrandsTeapot

Pro

I am fairly confused by a great deal of this argument. Nearly all of it is composed of quotes from the very scripture that I am saying is inaccurate. It is not reasonably possible to refute the claim of "Creationism is wrong" by saying "Here is what Creationism says." That would be like me saying, "To Kill a Mockingbird does not contain any allegories for perceiving higher dimensions." and you then copying and pasting the text of that work into the debate.

One of the most obvious and egregious errors in your thought process centers around the fact that, on the one hand the Creationism states the universe was built just a few thousand years ago and that Creation took 6 days. On the other hand, you clearly seem to admit that the universe and earth are billions of years old and that each aspect of Creationism took place over a time period far longer than 6 days.

But, let's go step-by-step:

"Have you ever wondered before this theory was even formed, the book of genesis has a link to the big bang theory?"

I don't think this sentence makes sense in English. You will have to clear that one up for me.

"We all know now at that time there was air and stuff like that which comes naturally."

What is "stuff like that?" Regardless, I agree that air "comes naturally." That is the whole point. It didn't come from God, it came naturally and organically.

"What surprises me is this: 4.6 billion years ago the sun was invented as well. How is this linked?"

I think every physicist who has ever lived would take issue with the declaration that the sun was "invented". Furthermore, why does it surprise you that the sun was formed within the same 10 million-year stretch as the earth? The Earth was quite literally formed from the sun...by accretion from the solar nebula, to be more precise (BBC, Nice model, Swedenborg, Kant, Laplace, etc.). Even if you choose not to believe the well-established fact that the Earth was formed from the sun, surely it makes sense that two bodies located so incredibly close together on the scale of the universe would have come into existence near the same time.

You then go on to just list quotes from scripture for a purpose I don't think I understand.

"4.28 BYA water started condensing into liquid form."

This is false. Water formed on earth 4.6 billion years ago (National Geographic, Science Advances). Again, you go on to list quotes from scripture that I don't see the application of without sound arguments or context.

In summary, I have shown the following:
  1. Almost the entirety of your current argument isn't an argument at all. Rather, it's a listing of quotes from scripture that in no way are connected to any of you arguments aside from simply stating how many years ago an event occurred and then pasting a relevant passage from the Bible that speaks to a somewhat, vaguely-similar event
  2. You tried to pose a question about a link between the book of Genesis and the Big Bang Theory that was not remotely intelligible, and as such could not be responded to
  3. You purport to be a believer in Creationism but then go on to provide a timeline of the history of the Earth that directly and explicitly contradicts the Creationist timeline
  4. You demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of physics and astronomy in questioning how it is that the Sun and Earth were formed around the same time (when in fact the Earth has been unquestionably proven to have formed
Thanks!
Percivil

Con

My point on my previous argument was:If creatinoism is wrong,why is it that the events of big bang and how the earth was created according to the bible are so similar and in order? This shows that science may have very well confirmed how the earth was created and also shows god was a key point in creation. After all, as shown in the first video I showed,the pieces of the puzzle couldnt just solve itself like that.

"I don't think this sentence makes sense in English. You will have to clear that one up for me." The order of events that happened during big bang matches the events of creation in the bible.

"What is "stuff like that?" Regardless, I agree that air "comes naturally." That is the whole point. It didn't come from God, it came naturally and organically." Air came first when earth was created which you agreed on. You say it didnt come from god. It"s like saying the table you have did not need a carpenter so with some random magic it just appeared like that? Strange because everything I see nowadays needs a creator. Science does not deny the existence of god which then means creatinoism isnt wrong. https://www.focusonthefamily.com... Science just prooved right in your face creatinoism isnt wrong.

But something is ironic though. Its called the big bang THEORY. Theory:a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. So the big bang theory was the only idea that most scientists agreed was the way on how the earth was created. But its only an idea isnt it? Its just a theory or hypothesis as another word. Where is the evidence? Only a model? No evidence on the planet itself? So unless there is a confirmed way with evidence big bang or some other way to show the creation of the earth,Im sure creatinoism isnt wrong. This is an article from an athetist who wrote 4 pieces of evidence that god created the universe:https://www.google.com.sg...

"Furthermore, why does it surprise you that the sun was formed within the same 10 million-year stretch as the earth? The Earth was quite literally formed from the sun" "Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4"And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5"God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." Aside from air,light and darkness was the first thing that came upon the earth. The light came from the sun. You agreed that the earth formed from the sun. This just prooves that both creatinoism is correct unless science is wrong of course.

P.S: if we do have a debate again,try not to use huge words. Simple words would do because Im only 13,thanks
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
this is what i hate about YEC and OEC

YEC say the universe is only 6000 years old and evolution is a sham even though all evidence points away from this disproven hypothesis.

OEC claim the bible fits in the old universe model, but this doesn't fit into what we have discovered to be true about earths history, i personally have a family member who thinks the human species is over 300 million years old, this is blatantly false.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
Your linking events that seem to correspond to the bible, but this doesn't work

Birds and so forth didn't exist 3.8 billion years ago
the earth did not form before the sun
Homo sapiens are NOT 45 million years old

your taking parts of the bible and trying to paste them onto your own timeline which doesn't work or make sense.
Posted by IHaveAPhD 3 years ago
IHaveAPhD
I feel as though I should include some addendum. Because it's impossible to prove or disprove objectively, this question is philosophical rather than scientific. It describes the nature of the universe, yes, but the scientific method breaks down if no data can be collected. All the data we have points to, no, creationism was not the origin of the universe in that there's no reason to assume if you can't see out your window that there's someone on the other side unless they speak. Justification for creationism has not spoken in this way. Only philosophical razors can be used to argue its invalidity because there's no objective data to suggest either way its accuracy. Alder said it best with his philosophical razor, dubbed "Newton's Flaming Laser Sword", which implies that if it can't be scientifically proven either way it's not worthy of debate at all.
Posted by IHaveAPhD 3 years ago
IHaveAPhD
The question, unfortunately, is flawed in that it gives the edge to the Con party. Objectively disproving creationism will not happen here, and that's what must be done for the Pro party to actually succeed. A less biased question might have been "Is Creationism a viable possibility for the origin of the universe", as that is subjective and would be a real tug-o-war. As it is, completely disproving creationism is impossible with our current technology, all we know is that there is no evidence of it.
Posted by Percivil 3 years ago
Percivil
Oh and regarding the fact which I didnt counteract something,need I remind you when I mentioned about the age of the earth by using dinosaur remains as an example,pro didnt counteract that so why am I singled out? Because Im catholic?
Posted by Percivil 3 years ago
Percivil
Backwardseden:just asking:
How is the existence of god related to the topic? The existence of god and whether creationism is wrong are two different topic. Did you just vote because you were bias? Because you said and I quote when this debate started,"Yea! Somebody knows what they are talking about!" which then shows that you will vote for pro no matter what. I may be wrong but Im just asking how another debate topic is related to this because if I proove the existence of god I would be out of point. So:
1)How is another debate topic related to this?
2)Did you just vote for pro to show athetist love?
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
This should be interesting o3o
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Yea! Somebody knows what they are talking about!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RMTheSupreme 3 years ago
RMTheSupreme
BertrandsTeapotPercivilTied
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 never explains why Creationism is wrong only why it has room for doubt. This is the fundamental reason Con won this debate. Con explains how the big bang can be the means of creationism amongst other things (excluding disorganised evolution) and since Pro doesn't directly prove evolution and tries to shift BoP entirely onto Con, Pro loses.
Vote Placed by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
BertrandsTeapotPercivilTied
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: Before Con can prove creationism, he must prove that his god exists in which no one has ever been able to do. Con relied heavily on the bible in which his god would never use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible. There's copies upon copies and translations upon translations and dead languages upon dead languages with a 0% chance on being able to trace anything back to the original. And there's no original in the first place! So nobody in interpreting correctly. All his god has to do is simply talk to us to clear up the confusion. Pro provided accurate contradictions from the hypocritical contradictory bible in which Con did not counter wisely "Have you ever watched a movie with friends..." is a bad way to milk a cow from a nonsensical brainless way. Pro has won this debate as there's no proof for creationism. It is contradictory even in Con's bible as Pro has proved.

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