The Instigator
jrardin12
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
32doni32nido32
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Uniformity of Nature proves Biblical Creation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
32doni32nido32
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,303 times Debate No: 117722
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

jrardin12

Pro

Some evolutionists have
argued that science isn"t possible without evolution. They teach that
science and technology actually require the principles of molecules-toman
evolution in order to work. They claim that those who hold to a
biblical creation worldview are in danger of not being able to understand
science!
Ironically, Evolution is actually contrary to the principles of science. That is, If evolution were true, The concept of science would not make sense. Science actually requires
a biblical creation framework in order to be possible. Therefore, Evolution
turns out to be more of an "anti-science" than a science.
In order to do science we take for granted that the universe is understandable
that it can be quantified in a way the mind can comprehend.
We assume that the universe is logical and orderly and that it
obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even
though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are
quite diverse, There is nonetheless an underlying uniformity.
Because there is such regularity in the universe, There are many instances where
scientists are able to make successful predictions about the future. For
example, Astronomers can successfully compute the positions of the
planets, Moons, And asteroids far into the future. Without uniformity
in nature, Such predictions would be impossible, And science could not
exist. The problem for evolutionism is that such regularity only makes
sense in a biblical creation worldview.
The biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe
because God made all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3) and has imposed
order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all
things by His power (Heb. 1:3), The creationist expects that the universe
would function in a logical, Orderly, Law-like fashion. Furthermore,
God is consistent (1 Sam. 15:29; Num. 23:19) and omnipresent
(Psalm 139:7"8). Thus, The creationist expects that all regions of the
universe will obey the same laws, Even in regions where the physical
conditions are quite different. The entire field of astronomy depends
upon this important biblical principle.
Moreover, God is beyond time (2 Pet. 3:8) and has chosen to uphold
the universe in a consistent fashion throughout time for our benefit. So
even though conditions in the past may be quite different than those
in the present and future, The way God upholds the universe (what
we would call the "laws of nature") will not arbitrarily change. God
has told us that there are certain things we can count on to be true in
the future " the seasons, The diurnal cycle, And so on (Gen. 8:22; Jer.
33:20"21). Therefore, Under a given set of conditions, The consistent
Christian has the right to expect a given outcome because he or she
relies upon the Lord to uphold the universe in a consistent way.
These Christian principles are absolutely essential to science. When
we perform a controlled experiment using the same preset starting conditions,
we expect to get the same result every time. The "future reflects
the past" in this sense. Scientists are able to make predictions only because
there is uniformity as a result of God"s sovereign and consistent power.
Scientific experimentation would be pointless without uniformity; we
The future resembles the past because God upholds the future as He has
upheld the past (the laws of nature are constant). Since none of us have
experienced the future, The only way we could know that the future is like the
past is by revelation from God. Everyone relies on this vital principle.
would get a different result every time we performed an identical experiment,
destroying the very possibility of scientific knowledge.
Since science requires the biblical principle of uniformity (as well as a
number of other biblical creation principles), It may seem rather amazing
that one could be a scientist and also be an evolutionist. And yet there are
scientists who profess to believe in evolution. How is this possible?
The answer is that evolutionists are able to do science only because
they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity,
while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles
are derived. Such inconsistency is common in secular thinking; secular
scientists claim that the universe is not designed, But they do science as
if the universe is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way. Evolutionists
can do science only if they rely on biblical creation assumptions
(such as uniformity) that are contrary to their professed belief in
evolution.
32doni32nido32

Con

Hello!
Before I get started, I have a request that would make it easier for me to read. Do you think you could separate ideas by hitting the "enter" button twice?

Like this.

It helps me tremendously so that I can break down each section and fully try to comprehend what you're saying.

So, Here's the main problem in your argument:
Outer space doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution.
Evolution is a long process over the course of billions of years where certain genes are passed down through generations. This is the grossly simplified version, But this should be enough to prove why outer space doesn't have anything to do with this.

Alright, With that out of the way, I'll address the rest.

Though in the Bible it says God made everything with intention and with a plan, That doesn't necessarily disprove any scientific theory that applies to outer space (perhaps the Big Bang? I don't know what any outer space "atheistic" theory would be).
Keep in mind that using Bible verses to further prove the Bible when people don't believe in such a thing are useless. They don't believe what it says, So there's next to no reason to put so many in the argument unless it's requested. Maybe a few here and there, But not as many as you did.

But you never disprove anything that some scientific theory has presented. You say how the organization of the universe lines up with God and his plan, But you never go on proving that science is wrong. You mentioned God's "consistent power", Though there's no way of proving this was God's doing. Scientific and mathematical principles apply to predict what may or may not happen, But that doesn't mean "therefore God". There's simply no way of proving that the uniformity is God's doing.

I'm more of a neutral person myself, Though I am Christian. I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here, But in this case, It is necessary as it doesn't seem that you've proved anything wrong using Bible verses. You've simply said how the Bible verses can be seen through what we know today, But that doesn't mean that it proves the existence of God.
Debate Round No. 1
jrardin12

Pro

The consistent Christian can use past experience as a guide for what is likely to happen in the future, Because God has promised us that (in certain ways) the future will reflect the past (Gen. 8:22). But how can those who reject Genesis explain why there should be uniformity of nature? How would an evolutionist respond if asked, "Why will the future reflect the past? "

One of the most common responses is: "Well, It always has. So I expect it always will. " But this is circular reasoning. I"ll grant that in the past there has been uniformity. But how do I know that in the future there will be uniformity, Unless I already assumed that the future reflects the past (i. E. , Uniformity)? Whenever we use past experience as a basis for what is likely to happen in the future, We are assuming uniformity. So when an evolutionist says that he believes there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, He"s trying to justify uniformity by simply assuming uniformity " a vicious circular argument.

An evolutionist might argue that the nature of matter is such that it behaves in a regular fashion; in other words, Uniformity is just a property of the universe. This answer fails for several reasons. First, It doesn"t really answer the question. Perhaps uniformity is one aspect of the universe, But the question is why? What would be the basis for such
a property in an evolutionary worldview? Second, We might ask how an evolutionist could possibly know that uniformity is a property of the universe. At best, He can only say that the universe " in the past "seems to have had some uniformity. But how do we know that will continue into the future unless we already knew about uniformity some other way? Many things in this universe change; how do we know that the laws of nature will not?

Some evolutionists might try a more pragmatic response: "Well, I can"t really explain why. But uniformity seems to work, So we use it. " This answer also fails for two reasons. First, We can only argue that uniformity seems to have worked in the past; there"s no guarantee it will continue to work in the future unless we already have a reason to assume uniformity (which only the Christian does). Yet evolutionists do assume that uniformity will be true in the future. They couldn"t even
get out of bed without making this assumption.

Second, Anyone using this answer has admitted that uniformity is without justification in the evolutionary worldview " which is exactly the point. No one is denying that there is uniformity in nature; the point is that only a biblical creation worldview can make sense of it. Evolutionists can only do science if they are inconsistent " that is, If they assume biblical creationist concepts while denying biblical creation.
32doni32nido32

Con

Thank you for the separation of paragraphs! It helps very much. :)

The thing you seem to be going for is that scientists/evolutionists don't know for a fact that uniformity will continue. But, The common response is quite accurate. Given that nothing has drastically changed, We have no reason to think it will. Though God seems to have confirmed this based on your interpretation, There's nothing that has happened to think that uniformity will turn into pandemonium.
Though evolutionist scientists don't know that it won't change for a fact, Because nothing to prove that we should think otherwise has happened, They continue to assume that. It's all based on assumption and prediction rather than confirmation.

I am not experienced enough to know why uniformity is an aspect of the universe. Though I research outer space quite frequently, I've never taken any courses to tell me why this is so. I'm pretty certain there's an answer to that question, But I do not have one.
Even if there is no answer, That's why research is being done. To answer questions like those. Keep in mind that Christians do not have the answer to every single question on their religion either.

But also, What if the laws of nature do change? What would the verse mean to you then?

Basically, Yes, Scientists assume that uniformity will continue and currently do not have a reason to think otherwise.
Debate Round No. 2
jrardin12

Pro

You are welcome anything to make it easier.

I am saying that in the uniformity of nature that we see in the universe can only take place in a biblical worldview. The evolutionists have to use this biblical perspective to interpret science. Many of them believe it will continue such as gravity, Thermodynamics and basically all the laws of nature will continue.

The answer is that God made these laws and he holds it up in place.

A Christian with knowledge of the Bible can answer every scientific question in the Bible.

If the laws of nature changed it would be because God caused them to change.
32doni32nido32

Con

Okay, I better understand where you're coming from now.

Scientists don't use a Biblical perspective, Though; they use a scientific perspective (hence the name of their profession). They assume that uniformity will continue not because the Bible said so, But because as far as we know it hasn't changed in nature. They don't rely on the Bible to tell them this though. Instead, They use past and present data to determine the present and future possibilities.

Now, According to the Bible, Yes, Uniformity is because of God, Just as everything else that has been created by him. But the static nature in which science possesses is observable even from a non-Biblical standpoint. People don't need the Bible in order to comprehend the processes of nature and (most) possibilities of the future. Though the Bible helps with this, Not all people believe in God (as we both know). We see it as God "holding up these laws" but atheists see it as observable science that has remained constant and has no known reason for suddenly changing. Just keep in mind, I'm not disagreeing that this happens because of God, I'm simply stating that it doesn't prove the existence of God.

Now, I'm a Christian with knowledge of the Bible, But I can't answer EVERY scientific question that is in the book. I don't know anyone who can. Sure, We can answer many, But not every single one. And even if we could, The Bible isn't a science book; it's religious text written from words God (either literally or figuratively) spoke.

I don't disagree with your last sentence, Though it can't be proven that God caused these to change based on evidence. For some people, The Bible isn't evidence enough. And it's not like they think this for no reason; there's plenty of factors that go into the result of their lack of belief.
I share the same belief as you yet I make fun of generalized Christian idiosyncracies. Some are known to take it to such an extreme it becomes comedy for even the firmest of believers. It's almost as if they rely on insanity in order to keep their faith stable. Quite ironic, Isn't it?
Debate Round No. 3
jrardin12

Pro

However, They use the uniformity of nature created by God, Thus they use biblical principles for their science. So now we get to the part where we show them they use Biblical Creation whether they like it or not.

But how can those who reject Genesis explain why there should be uniformity of nature? How would an evolutionist respond if asked, "Why will the future re@258;ect the past? "

One of the most common responses is: "Well, It always has. So I expect it always will. " But this is circular reasoning. I"ll grant that in the past there has been uniformity. But how do I know that in the future there will be uniformity, Unless I already assumed that the future re@258;ects the past (i. E. , Uniformity)? Whenever we use past experience as a basis for what is likely to happen in the future, We are assuming uniformity. So when an evolutionist says that he believes there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, He"s trying to justify uniformity by simply assuming uniformity " a vicious circular argument.

An evolutionist might argue that the nature of matter is such that it behaves in a regular fashion; in other words, Uniformity is just a property of the universe. This answer fails for several reasons. First, It doesn"t really answer the question. Perhaps uniformity is one aspect of the universe, But the question is why? What would be the basis for such a property in an evolutionary worldview? Second, We might ask how an evolutionist could possibly know that uniformity is a property of the universe. At best, He can only say that the universe " in the past " seems to have had some uniformity. But how do we know that will continue into the future unless we already knew about uniformity some other way? Many things in this universe change; how do we know that the laws of nature will not?

Some evolutionists might try a more pragmatic response: "Well, I can"t really explain why. But uniformity seems to work, So we use it. " This answer also fails for two reasons. First, We can only argue that uniformity seems to have worked in the past; there"s no guarantee it will continue to work in the future unless we already have a reason to assume uniformity (which only the Christian does). Yet evolutionists do assume that uniformity will be true in the future. They couldn"t even get out of bed without making this assumption. Second, Anyone using this answer has admitted that uniformity is without justi@257;cation in the evolutionary worldview " which is exactly the point. No one is denying that there is uniformity in nature; the point is that only a biblical creation worldview can make sense of it. Evolutionists can only do science if they are inconsistent " that is, If they assume biblical creationist concepts while denying biblical creation.
32doni32nido32

Con

I read those paragraphs before already. . . Uggggh.

Yes, We are assuming uniformity, But we're not "justifying" it. Though it is a circular argument, There's no known reason for uniformity to change. If it does, What do we do then? The Bible doesn't mention what to do, Does it (this is a genuine question)?

You know that thing scientists do when they want to figure out something? Yeah, It's called research. They are researching why and if uniformity is an aspect of the universe.
Again, We DON'T know if it's going to change or not. Got that part? Good. But let's say the laws of nature DO change at some point. What do we do then? Well, We don't know how it would change so why plan for something we don't know anything about? Instead, We should spend our time researching things based on our assumption of nothing changing. You said it yourself: some scientists believe that uniformity will continue due to the fact that we haven't recorded any type of change.

Yes, The universe may change, But we don't know how. So, If it did, We don't know what to do about it because we don't know how the laws of nature will change.

This is very important to answer your question: There is no reason to assume change. Whether it be God or not, There's nothing that shows us the laws of nature itself will change.

Uniformity of nature does not PROVE biblical creation. Nothing so far can prove God's existence.
How about this question: let's say the Big Bang actually happened; what reason do we have to believe that the laws of nature would change. Or just pretend that the Bible verse wasn't there (this is, Of course, Hypothetical). Why should it change?
Debate Round No. 4
jrardin12

Pro

The consistent Christian can use past experience as a guide for what is likely to happen in the future, Because God has promised us that (in certain ways) the future will reflect the past (Gen. 8:22).

The evolutionist cannot. He based his belief in uniformity of nature on Biblical Creation.
32doni32nido32

Con

The consistent scientist can use research as a guide for what is likely to happen in the future, Because science shows us that (in certain ways) the future will reflect the past.

Do I need to go over this again? Sheesh.
Okay, We believe in the Bible so that's why we think uniformity is God's doing.
Evolutionist scientists don't see it like that; they see that the laws of nature are the way they are because of the Big Bang and they have no reason to change after so many years of static results.

CHRISTIANS believe that evolutionists base their research (not belief) of nature on Biblical Creation. But they don't see it that way; they're atheists and don't believe in God. The last sentence doesn't prove any existence for God and simply just states what we generally believe.

According to the Bible, God created uniformity and promises to not change it. It hasn't changed. But that doesn't prove that it was God's doing. There's no reason for it to change, So why would it?

You cannot prove the existence of God.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
Nothing like touring on a bicycle. The climb up from the Dead Sea to Jerusalem - wow climbed 1600 feet. On the way up, The tour occurred in July, Saw an Arab pulled on the side of the road, His car had over heated. I gave him 4 of my 6 bottles of water and finished the climb in just over an hour and a half.

It was just before Shabbot, So a got a room and rested till yom reshon/sunday and returned back to k'ibbutz Gan Shmuel about 18 km from Caesarea.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
Did a tour by myself a few years after i came to Israel. Traveled down to Eilat from Caesarea. The entire tour took 4 days. Just outside of Eilat, While traveling through the Judean dessert, I encountered a full grown leopard.

That cat, Clearly enlightened, Spoke and told me that he had just had a sumptuous meal. But if i waited around for a day or two we could have a most pleasant conversation over dinner.
Posted by 32doni32nido32 3 years ago
32doni32nido32
@felixmendelssohn

You had a very good point that you made during the vote.
I kind of regret taking on this debate now because you could've done so much better than I did. XD
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
@jrardin12
we evolved to assume uniformity after a number of repetitions. Why? Imagine you see a tiger after having escaped it 3 times in the past. Would you assume the trueness of the pattern that its going to eat you? Or are you going to say "it might not attack me this time"? You see, We cannot prove uniformity of nature, We assume it for survival reason.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Yep.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
An Xtian with knowledge? I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap out a smarter comeback than what you just said.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
"The answer is that God made these laws and he holds it up in place.

A Christian with knowledge of the Bible can answer every scientific question in the Bible.

If the laws of nature changed it would be because God caused them to change. "

The answer is that invisible purple elephants made these laws and they hold it up in place.

A person with knowledge of the invisible purple elephants can answer every scientific question.

If the laws of nature changed it would be because invisible purple elephants caused them to change.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
Uniformity of Nature? Bunk on the 1st clause of the debate. The 2nd clause of this debate stands upon the premise that the Gods and nature are one. Ewwwwwwwwwwww.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
jrardin1232doni32nido32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering the horrible vote from Felix.
Vote Placed by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
jrardin1232doni32nido32Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con "I don't know what any outer space "atheistic" theory would be). That's because one does not exist and Pro did not prove it. Pro "You say how the organization of the universe lines up with God and his plan (Con does not know what god's plan is) But you never go on proving that science is wrong." True. Pro "Because God has promised us GE 8:22 "As long as the earth remains, there will be planting and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night." Pro doesn't get than man is not mentioned in that verse. Pro like ALL christians interpret on their own with no consensus. Pro also doesn't understand that science and evolution does not have the answers to everything so the answer when something is not known is "I don't know". To the christian such as with Pro if there is not an answer, his answer is "Therefore god" which screams in Pros entire debate. Yet Pro cannot even prove his god exists.
Vote Placed by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
jrardin1232doni32nido32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: there are other religious texts that arguably set forth the principle of uniformity of nature. just because christianity happens to mention it, doesnt mean the concept is unique to christianity. you say atheists cannot prove god's existence. but did you prove the gods of other religions to be false before committing yourself to christianity?

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