The Instigator
killshot
Pro (for)
The Contender
Dhhteach4319
Con (against)

It's Irrational to Believe Evolution and Creationism Simultaneously

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Dhhteach4319 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 971 times Debate No: 120925
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (71)
Votes (0)

 

killshot

Pro

I will be arguing that it is irrational for a person to believe both evolution and Creationism simultaneously.

I will be using the common definition of irrational: not logical or reasonable.

1) Creationism is based around God manufacturing Adam and Eve from raw materials using magic.
2) Evolution clearly demonstrates we evolved from ancestral species and there were never only two humans.
3) One cannot believe both 1 and 2 simultaneously and be considered rational; they are conflicting views.



Round 1) Acceptance/Opening arguments
Round 2) Rebuttals
Round 3) Rebuttals/Conclusions
Dhhteach4319

Con

I believe it is possible to believe in both. Here is my argument:

Creationism does not always have to be related with the Christianity's perspective of something created something and ta da, We are here with no change. Just perfect (I. E. , God manufactored Adam and Even to reproduce humans). Creationism can also mean that perhaps aliens put us here, Perhaps our cells orginate from asteroids that crashed Earth long ago, Etc.

By that logic, Something "create" life here. And life existed on Earth. Evolution also said we all have a common ancestor so it is safe to say, That common ancestor, In a sense, Can be "god" because it is the original. Now "creationism" is a starting point for us. Evolution is something that changes life over long period of time. For example, Based on the environmemt, Such as brown bears, When living in a cold, Snowy environment, Over time by reproducing, Eventually a mutation happened that change the skin or fur color to white, Thus creating polar bear.

To recap: you can believe both simultaneously because creationism= a start, Evolution = the result of what was created being changed over a long period of time.
Debate Round No. 1
killshot

Pro

Aliens putting us here is Panspermia.

Just because the word Creationism has "create" in it, It does not mean you can entirely change it's underlying definition to any create story you want.

Creationism is directly tied to Christian theology and my proposition was clearly articulated. Go read Genesis and come back with an actual rebuttal.

Back to you.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
71 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
impossible? Then its possible that evolution's standards are wrong. We are flawed beings after all! Whos to say that things weren't made in thousands of years instead of billions?
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@PointProven - The Bible clearly states God created ALL life in 7 days. This is impossible by evolutionary standards where things developed chronologically over billions of years. Therefore, That argument fails.
Posted by PointProven 3 years ago
PointProven
they aren't necessarily conflicting beliefs, Seeing as one could just say "god created and guided evolution"
Posted by PointProven 3 years ago
PointProven
its irrational to believe in creationism, Therefore believing in both evolution and creationism simultaneously is also irrational.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@athias - I've already cited where you made the claims, Go back and reread our conversation. It started right after you first started commenting and I called you out on orthogenesis. You know exactly what you said, Don't play games with me. I know for a fact you're an intelligent person, So I know you understand perfectly well what I am referring to. Anyone reading these comments will easily understand as well. You backed yourself into a corner and you're too proud to admit defeat so your only remaining tactic is deflection and dodging. Whether you verbally conceded or not, The conceding is obvious enough to the reader, And I have nothing further to prove here. If you had a point to make, You'd have made it; instead you refuse to answer the question and continue to play word games. If you want to debate the subject formally, I told you I would. I assume you do not since you cannot even debate it informally - but the offer is there nonetheless.

PS - once again - yes I am aware of what orthogenesis is, But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with it being PART of evolution. I am aware of abiogensis, Creationism, Quantum entanglement, Artificial intelligence and many other things, Too; none of them are relevant to evolution. When I said I was aware of it, It's only because I have argued against it before and I was aware of the argument - that's it. It is not a component of mainstream evolution. Period.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@killshot: So does this mean that you couldn't cite my exact words? (And now you're just appealing to motive. ) Discontinue if you so please. But I've conceded nothing. You've done nothing but straw man arguments, Inferred non sequiturs, And deny your burden of proof. (Once again, Regardless of an argument's being positive or negative, The affirmation must be substantiated. ) You argued that evolution has no goal; you've provided no substance to this. You argued that consensus informs the veracity of your statement; this is textbook consensus fallacy. You state that you're aware of orthogenesis, Yet insist that it's not a part of Evolution (you would then later revise this to state that it isn't part of the "consensus" despite no mention on my part of consensus. ) When I stated to you that I had no intention of either arguing semantics, Or subjecting the discussion to arguments from consensus, You continued to argue semantics, And subject the discussion to arguments from consensus. So who's the one being disingenuous in their "tactics"?

I'm finished with this as well. I'm not interesting in feelings and impressions. I'm interested in only arguments. When you can formulate one and adequately inform it, I'll resume participation in this discussion. Until then, Good luck in your future debates.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@athias - I'm not wasting my time any further on this. It's clear in your actions and tactics that you know you're wrong and you're conceding, Even if you refuse to admit it directly. You entered my debate's comments and attacked my position. My position was clearly articulated and it was obvious what I was referring to. You then tried to ninja in orthogenesis to derail my debate into your own word salad where you could then argue your point on a different version of evolution - one where your argument works. I saw it and called you out. Since then you have done nothing but squirm and refuse to provide any evidence to support your position, Despite me asking several times for you to do so. You continually deflect back to me, Trying to escape the spotlight and keep me in a defending position. These disingenuous tactics might work on other people, But I've seen how you operate and it's not working on me. YOU made the claim, YOU need to support it.

It's clear that you are conceding that orthogenesis is not part of mainstream evolutionary theory, Because it's obviously not and you're wrong. I'm tired of going back and forth wasting time while you dodge and continue to refuse to provide evidence to support your claim.

If you disagree and you wish to move this into a formal debate, I'm happy to do so. That being said, I'll be watching for word play and disingenuous tactics.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
"When you said you took a staple concept in evolution, You were referring to orthogenesis. This is what I called you out on originally, And it's what all of this is centered around. You provided me a link to evolution, And I said I cannot find orthogenesis on that page anywhere, Etc etc. Context matters. "

This is disingenuous. You asked for a "working definition" of Evolution. When I told you that any would suffice, You insisted that one be provided. When I provided one, You asked "Can you provide a definition using orthogenesis? " After that, I told you that I suspected you of instigating a debate over semantics, And I had no intention in taking part. Context matters; semantics in this case, Does not.

"I'll make this very very simple.

"There is a scientific model for evolution. "

Not just one. And where in my arguments did I restrict the description of "Evolution" to just scientific models? Cite my exact words.

"It's the only consensus supported evolutionary model in science. "

This means nothing more than stating that there's a consensus.

"I am not using it to prove evolution is true, Or the components of evolution are true. "

it's not that you're "not using it to prove"; you can't.

" I am saying that model does not contain orthogenesis. You are saying it not only does"

Cite my exact statement when I made description of a model you referenced? You're strawmanning arguments.

"Does the standard evolutionary model contain orthogenesis or not? Yes or no. "

Non sequitur. You have now shifted this argument to one where it's a referendum on an argument following consensus. As I told you, I refuse to subject this discussion to arguments from consensus, Which you veil with a reference to a "standard model. " You have neither informed this consensus, Nor have explained its significance in the description of Evolution.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@killshot: "I'm not revising anything, "

As I've told you, I don't buy it. Revise whatever you want.

"If orthogenesis is not part of evolution, Then the statement "Orthogenesis AND natural selection is not evolution"

Yes, The abstract inductive logic of the statement would be true. But you were not arguing inductively; You declared that orthogenesis isn't apart of evolution. That's factually incorrect.

"There is only one mainstream evolutionary model that is supported by the scientific consensus. "

You have not informed this at all. You speak to consensus as if it grants validity to your statements. The only thing your citing consensus informs is consensus. Where in my statements did I ever mention consensus? Cite to me my exact statements.

"If you don't know what it is, You probably shouldn't be debating it. "

Consensus informs nothing other than consensus.

"That would work in a debate where we were actually debating what evolution is and how it works. "

No, That is not a restriction of the consensus fallacy. The consensus fallacy is informed when one attempts to qualify the veracity of an argument using consensus for information. So when you state this, "The scientific consensus agrees with me that evolution has no goal" you are committing a consensus fallacy to the very letter. Now, If you're stating that this agreement just exists, Then it contributes absolutely nothing more than its mere statement. What significance would it then bear in the description of Evolution?

"This debate however, Is whether my version of evolution contains orthogenesis and goals;"

You don't have a "version" of Evolution. We are not arguing your interpretation. Cite to me my exact words where I argued that "your version" of Evolution contained orthogenesis and goals.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@athias -

You said "And your standard scientific consensus supported model is informed thus far only by a consensus fallacy. "

I'll make this very very simple.

There is a scientific model for evolution. It's the only consensus supported evolutionary model in science. I am not using it to prove evolution is true, Or the components of evolution are true. I am saying that model does not contain orthogenesis. You are saying it not only does, But its a staple concept of it. Please support that or concede. It's really that simple.

Does the standard evolutionary model contain orthogenesis or not? Yes or no.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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