CreateDebate


Debate Info

90
86
Science Religion
Debate Score:176
Arguments:154
Total Votes:203
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Science (65)
 
 Religion (77)

Debate Creator

Niamh2016(7) pic



Darwinism VS Creationism

I am arguing that Darwins theory of evolution - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism - out rules the Christian theory of creationism - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism I think Charles Darwin's view on creationism has many more facts and eveidence than the Catholic Churches theory of creationism. 

Science

Side Score: 90
VS.

Religion

Side Score: 86
4 points

creationism is religion trying to justify its self because it has nothing to back up such a massive claim, at least Darwin has attempted to make sense of the world before us and currently with us, we a products of evolution, history has show where we have come from to where we are now, humans have evolved more than any other species and science has been the foundation of that progression, religion has been oppressor!

Side: Science
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
3 points

https://youtu.be/owDOD7WZvEw

Many atheistic/evolutionary scientists become creationists based on the scientific evidence

Side: Religion
1 point

Then it should be simple for you to explain the Cambrian explosion and tell us where the billions of intermediaries are in the fossil record that it would take to get from simple to human.

Side: Religion
Daegonius(329) Disputed
1 point

It should be simple for you to explain how God automatically achieved infinite wisdom and power at the beginning of time out of literally no where. If it's hard for you to believe that human life could evolve from simpler life forms it should be incredulously hard for you to believe that the most complex possible life form that could possibly exist could just spawn out of nothing. What sounds more likely to you? Infinite complexity and the highest level of consciousness spawning out of the ether? Or a gradual process leading to higher complexity? If God doesn't need a creator than neither do we, God is much more complex than a human, if you believe something that advanced can just materialize out of nothing then why not something more basic? You know what, I think I just discovered the ultimate hypothesis, the "Extremely complex shit popping out of nothing" hypothesis.

Side: Science
3 points

Darwinism has tons of theoretical evidence that keeps growing year after year. Creationism has a book with no discernable author, no scientific facts that can be authenticated (other than the few actual historical, archeological "happenings" that have been dug up), and NO proof of an entity causing them. I'm willing to change my mind if and when some proof is found. Let's see.... it's been over twenty centuries .... nothing but "quotes" from the "book".

Side: Science
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

theoretical evidence is not real evidence, it's make believe....................

Side: Religion
Darkyear(345) Disputed
1 point

Evidence for God, souls, afterlife, Angels and Demons, etc. isn't even close to being theoretical.

Side: Science
1 point

Sure there is. Look at any demonstration or speech by James Gates, or any speech about the double slit experiment.

Side: Religion
1 point

Darwinism has tons of theoretical evidence that keeps growing year after year. Creationism has a book with no discernable author, no scientific facts that can be authenticated (other than the few actual historical, archeological "happenings" that have been dug up), and NO proof of an entity causing them. I'm willing to change my mind if and when some proof is found. Let's see.... it's been over twenty centuries .... nothing but "quotes" from the "book".

Side: Science
dadman(1703) Disputed
1 point

............................. I'm willing to change my mind if blah blah ...... pfft !!

Side: Religion
Cartman(18192) Disputed
4 points

Translation: "I am a backward ignorant moron, and I love being that way"

Side: Science
AlofRI(3294) Clarified
1 point

Fine. I evolved, you didn't.

As far as "pfft" is concerned ...the mind is like a TV set, when it goes blank it's a good idea to turn off the sound.

Side: Science
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point
Supporting Evidence: KAPOWWWWW (youtu.be)
Side: Religion
1 point

https://youtu.be/owDOD7WZvEw

Corrected link, many atheistic scientists after being honest about the evidence become Creationists, and then find the Biblical world and life view is the only system of belief which explains reality and they become born again Bible believers....the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but fools despise knowledge and instruction.

Side: Science
1 point

https://youtu.be/owDOD7WZvEw

Many atheistic scientists turn to creationism based on the evidence, and then become Christians.

Side: Science
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

There are far more Christians who study science who become atheists.

Side: Religion
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
2 points

They were never Christians to start with. We went through this with Super boy. Jesus said "many will come to me and say Lord, Lord......" and Jesus will say to them "I never knew you, depart from me ye workers of iniquity into everlasting fire." A person who becomes a child of God through faith in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ who is the propitiation for the sins of all who believe on Him cannot stop being a child of God any more than you can stop being a child of your parents.

Poople who say they were Christians and then became atheist had some kind of head knowledge about Biblical people, terms, and teachings, but they were religious and may have been in one of many religions which are not what is Christian in the Bible, including Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, or UNIITY CHURCH like the demon driven guy who claims to be a Christian.......a head knowledge but not a heart experience from God which cannot be undone.

People who say they were Christians and then became atheists are people who were never saved and something happened so they became bitter toward God and put up a wall in their mind to try to close Him out.

Side: Science
1 point

That's because they've been indoctrinated by militant Atheism which tells us what is "science" based on a political and dogmatic worldview. It hides the Cambrian Explosion and lack of the billions of intermediaries it would take to get from molecule to human in the fossil record by sweeping it under the rug and telling you that you are an idiot if you disagree or point out the faults in their logic. David Berlinski was an Atheist moleclular biologist who began pointing out its flaws and was pushed out the door and silenced. That's very telling. The new Atheist movement is led by people not much different than the priests of old who imprisoned anyone that said the Earth revolved around the sun.

Side: Science
1 point

Is it impossible to believe your God which made everything also made the process we observe and call evolution? Heck, if it weren't for Genesis, the old Jewish tribal story of origins, then we wouldn't necessarily need this fight over mutual exclusivity.

Side: Science
0 points

Is it impossible to believe you do not have the right to exist outside of Hell as a sinner?

Side: Science
Grenache(6053) Disputed
2 points

What is impossible is that your narrowed view of Christianity is the correct one. And your version is allllll about hell.

Side: Religion

Since I have evolved from that pink, corpulent, slobbering mass of flesh I came into the world as into the magnificent creature I am today, I say evolution rocks, man!

Side: Science
1 point

Creationism doesn't have support from many feilds of science because creationisms claims are often not falsifiable, that is creationism methods fail to meet the standards of science. Creationism has not only failed to be accepted as science from the fields of science creationism claims have got it wrong; biology, geology, astronomy and archaeology but also repeatedly found to not be a science in the eyes of the court of law.

Creationism hasn't presented any theory in the scientific sense because creationism is a psuedoscience.

Side: Science
dadman(1703) Disputed
1 point

your post above ....... are the letters / spaces and punctuation - are they of A or B

A = random / mindless / no structured sequence (just where they happened to land)

B = design / code / information / intent / writer-reader / speaker-listener / agenda driven / intelligence

Side: Religion
J-Roc77(70) Disputed
1 point

Lets say its B, then what you say there is a god?

First issue I have with this is pretty much the same as everyone else finds with this but you have yet to acknowledge, "people can write and send ideas therefore there is a god" isn't a valid line of reasoning because it is jumping to a conclusion. This is one reason people keep telling you your question is "stupid" or meaningless.

The second issue I have with this has also been brought up by other debaters and that is the incredibly innaccurate portrayl of evolution you try to force. Making someone choose between two bad representations isn't a strong stance for you.

Your question isn't scientific at all even though you keep claiming it is. Well then test it, or how about show us what it tests. Instead of addressing these faults in your "argument" you just keep spouting the same flawed question.

Your strawman constructions are doing a disservice to you becuase you are not really finding flaws in the theory of evolution, but you are constructinng an alternate theory to find faults in.

You do this by learning/presenting things that explain evolution through religious sources viewpoint of what evolution is rather than what the science actually claims from the respective fields of science that support the theory of evolution; biology, astronomy, geology and archaeology. If I want to learn about Christianity do I go to Muslims or Doctors or maybe I should goto the source? So why would I go to Christian sources if I want to learn about evolution.

It would make sense that a broad base of experts with diverse backgrounds forming a concensus about the evidence are vastly more credible and impartial than a group whose vested interest in the field go against such a broad base of knowledge. To think otherwise would be to envoke a global conspiracy theory that that spans hundreds of years and crosses all the mentioned scientific doctrines in an unthinkable alliance just to take down the christian churches creation story.

Thats tin foil hat stuff.

Try finding something in this source that you find a flaw in and explain it could you? This is a scholarly source using peer reviewed knowledge, it is the true idea you are trying to misrepresent. Attacking anything less than this only proves that your argument is attacking a weaker stance that does not represent sciences claims.

Side: Science
1 point

Darwinism is more disputed than before, despite what scientists want you to believe, evidence is actually piling against Darwinism. Now I chose science since science should always be accepted over religion, however I am against Darwinism since it has failed to explain life. I choose science but not Darwinism or Creationism. Your choice, Science(search for truth), Darwinism(Naturalism), or Creationism(Religion).

Side: Science
1 point

Given the obnoxiously false dichotomy presented ("Science vs Religion"), I'll present my argument on the side that more literally follows my argument, rather than what the OP had in mind.

Now, to begin with, Creationism doesn't necessarily equate to religion, and Darwinian Evolution most certainly doesn't equate to science.

In the case of the former, the term "Creationist" quite literally only refers to believing in a "first cause", I.E. the guided Creation of the Universe. While this first cause can and is rightfully called "God", it doesn't necessitate a religion.

In the case of the latter, Darwinian Evolution is a scientific hypothesis which has received a disturbingly unskeptical acceptance from the scientific community and which has become the backbone of what I call the religion of Atheism (the belief, as many claim, that God does not exist), a most unscientific, faith-based entity.

In short, not a great start.

Anyway, in continuation, I will be arguing that Creationism is the more plausible explanation for our existence; I will accomplish this in two ways: first, by providing a formal logical proof for the existence of God, and second, by pointing out the flaws inherent in Darwinian Evolution.

First argument: proof of God:

(note: this proof, being rather lengthy, has been more or less copy/pasted from another debate.)

Before I can argue in favor of Creationism, the belief in God or gods, I must first define a couple terms, specifically for purposes of my arguments:

1. "God": "The omnipotent, intelligent, supernatural creator of the universe"

2. "Universe": "The entirety of physical existence"

Further, for purposes of this specific argument, I must clarify several terms, as their meaning is not known by many:

1. The First Law of Thermodynamics: This physical law states that "energy can be neither created nor destroyed". This also applies to matter, as the two are interchangeable, as proven by Einstein's famous equation (E = MC^2),

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics: This physical law states, in essence, that the entropy of an isolated system can only increase. For the purposes of this argument, I'll only point out that, A. a consequence of this law is that the temperature of all matter in the Universe is slowly reaching equilibrium (at which point, all thermal reactions will cease, as they require temperature difference to achieve), and B. that all thermodynamic reactions (any reactions involving the exchange of heat) increase entropy (the aforementioned equilibrium).

With that out of the way, I can begin:

First, I will prove that the Universe was created by something:

The Universe has always existed, or it began at some point. That statement, by its structure ("P v ~P" in symbolic form), is true. Further, if one half of it can be proven to have definite truth value (true or false), the other must have an opposite truth value.

A consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, to reiterate, is that the temperature of all matter in the Universe is slowly reaching equilibrium. If the Universe has existed forever, then it follows that all matter in the Universe would be of equal temperature (due to having an infinite amount of time to reach said temperature), therefore life would be impossible. This is obviously not the case, therefore I can confidently say that the Universe has not existed forever, therefore the Universe had a definite beginning.

Since the Universe began, it follows that something created it, due to both "cause and effect" and its inherent complexity (more on that later). For the sake of simplicity, I'll refer to this "something" as a force.

Second, I will prove that God created the Universe:

Keeping the above information in mind (particularly the First Law of Thermodynamics), I will form a formal logical syllogism, first in propositional form, then in plain English:

Propositional:

All Universe-creating forces are physical law-violators,

No physical forces are physical law-violators,

Therefore no Universe-creating forces are physical forces.

Plain English:

The "force" that created the Universe performed actions that conflict with the laws of physics (matter and energy were created with the Universe, violating the First Law of Thermodynamics), and no physical forces are capable of conflicting with the laws of physics (physical forces must follow physical laws), therefore the "force" that created the Universe is non-physical, or supernatural.

This syllogism is valid due to its structure (All U is V, no P is V, therefore no U is P), and, as previously demonstrated, has true premises, therefore the syllogism is sound and the conclusion (that a supernatural "force" created the Universe) is true.

But that, in of itself, doesn't prove much. It fulfills one of the criteria for "God" (supernatural), but that's it. So let's do a bit of extrapolation:

The remaining criteria for this "force" to be "God" are are that it must be both omnipotent and intelligent. The former can be easily proven, as the "force" created quite literally all of our existence, the latter being indicated by the complexity and deliberate orderliness present within the Universe (the regularity of the physical laws, actual celestial bodies, etc.).

In conclusion, I have proven the existence of God using proven physical principles (the first two Laws of Thermodynamics) and formal logic.

Second argument: Inherent flaws in Darwinian Evolution:

1. Irreducibly Complex Structures:

An "irreducibly complex system" is defined as "a system in which all components are essential for the system's basic function". This term applies to a great many organic structures, most notably the human eye. These structures, given the essential nature of each component, could not have been formed through gradual alteration; any organism attempting to do so would need to develop countless, individually meaningless structures in order to form such a complex organ, a complete absurdity according to Darwinian Evolution.

2. Information:

Information is not itself physical (not based on the composition of the structure it's coded in or on), and is the key to all life. No physical laws are capable of creating it, however, nor any unguided processes in existence. It follows, therefore, that random, unguided processes cannot have formed life, as information is a prerequisite to it.

3. Natural Selection:

Natural selection is the well-documented process of species adapting to their circumstances via increasing in characteristics favorable to their environment. This is not, however, evidence of Darwinian Evolution (quite the contrary, in fact), as it is wholly incapable of actually altering a species; it only increases the abundance of already-present traits in a species. In other words, it's a conservative, rather than creative, process.

4. "Vestigial" Organs:

A significant number of creatures possess what are often referred to as "vestigial" organs; Darwinists often cite these as evidence of Darwinian Evolution. This is not the case, as these organs often serve an essential function to the creature in question, thus being designed, rather than "leftover". Even if, however, these organs served no function, they would still fail to serve as evidence of Darwinian Evolution; if these organs had "devolved", they would be a sign of organic conservatism, rather than creativity.

There are more arguments in this regard, but I think I've gone on long enough.

If anyone would like to refute my points, a couple suggestions:

1. My proof of God's existence is formal; in essence, the only way to disprove it is to deny one or more premise or deny the validity of the structure of my arguments. Dismissing it as a "theory" or denying it with no basis is both fallacious and demonstrative of your lack of knowledge of both debate and logic.

2. Namecalling, strawman arguments ("You believe in fairy tales"), and ad hominem attacks are demonstrative of your lack of interest in civil, rational discussion, and will not be dignified with a response.

Side: Science
2 points

Both.

Side: Religion

Exactly as I believe!

Both.

It's called Theistic Evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Side: Religion
AveSatanas(4443) Disputed
1 point

There's absolutely no evidence for that though. You've corrupted the religion and the science by trying to merge them. You can't accept theistic evolution and maintain consistency in the bible.

Side: Science
1 point

It's a fine thought but Darwinism is a lie. It defies the Cambrian explosion, the fossil record, and the finding of blood vessels in so called "Dinosaur bones".

Side: Science
1 point

your post above ....... are the letters / spaces and punctuation - are they of A or B

A = random / mindless / no structured sequence (just where they happened to land) ... or

B = design / code / information / intent / writer-reader / speaker-listener / agenda driven / intelligence

Side: Religion
3 points

Evolution is from simple to complex

Creation is from complex to simple and never mind where complex came from.

See also - the evolution of information:

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/14/2794.full

Side: Science
1 point

Evolution doesn't know how it got from nothing to the simple, nor does it provide us the billions of intermediaries in the fossil record that it would take to go from simple to human. And let's just ignore the Cambrian Explosion and call intellectual theists who dare question bad science "idiots" in order to shut them up.

Side: Religion
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

How did everything for B get there? You haven't answered anything. You think that something more complicated than the universe exists to create the the universe because you think something as complicated as the universe can't exist on it's own.

Side: Science
1 point

It causes an infinite regress of causality to use your argument. Atheism cannot satisfy the paradox with a natural answer. The only possible answer to satisfy the paradox is a supernatural answer from beyond our reality.

Side: Religion
1 point

Is a rainbow A or B?

Side: Science
Niamh2016(7) Disputed
0 points

My views above are my completely truthful opinion, which I am passionate about and will stick by.

Side: Science
dadman(1703) Clarified
0 points

....................................................... just answer the question

Side: Science
dadman(1703) Clarified
0 points

............................................................................................... double post deleted

Side: Science
dadman(1703) Clarified
0 points

................................................................................................ triple post deleted

Side: Science
minimurph83(194) Disputed
0 points

I see you still lacking the ability to debate? why don't you answer the question! your responses are childish and show a lack of knowledge and intelligence, resorting to this behavior because you have no where to turn to for substance.

Side: Science
dadman(1703) Disputed
2 points

lol ............................. oh I know the (simple) answer ....... let's watch you answer the A or B question

Side: Religion

Its more accurate to call it Evolution than just Darwinism since science has added a lot more evidence of Evolution since Darwin's time. Science now has evidence that Darwin did not have, such as DNA. And also thousands more transitional fossils that show step by step the process by which we came to be. They have fossils showing every step, from microbes, to aquatic creatures, to amphibians...mammals, primates, and then the homo species. There were almost 30 different sub-species of the hominids that we are, and which culminated in homo sapien. Beginning with homo erectus, which was about a million years ago.

Darwin didn't really even touch on this stuff, his work was mainly involved with evolutionary changes within certain species. Like the finches he saw on his trip aboard the Beagle around the Galapagos Islands back in the 1830s.

So...the evidence is all but irrefutable. Evolution stands alone among scientists as the best by far explanation of how we got here today. It is so packed with evidence that has never been challenged by ANY other science that the Theory of Evolution is close to becoming the LAW of Evolution.

So...as a Christian, I believe in Evolution. But I differ from materialist Evolutionists who claim it happened by random genetic mutations, which were then adapted by the species, if the mutation proved advantageous for living and dominating the competition in their specific environments.

I believe the God drove the Evolutionary Process. This theory is called Theistic Evolution. And it shows that science and religion are NOT always at odds, but can co-exist and even compliment each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Side: Religion

They don't want you to know that they have found creatures that they claim are "hundreds of millions of years old" trapped in amber that look just like they do today, like ants, wasps, and spiders. Nothing about the subject is ever consistent and each thing contradicts the last claim.

Side: Religion

David Berlinski explains the problems that Darwinian Theory has.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ElA0--JNg&t;=84s

Side: Religion

1)Darwinism can't be demonstrated in a lab or even on a computer simulation.

2)The fossil record doesn't give the intermediaries to support it.

3)The Cambrian Explosion defies Darwinism.

4)Darwinism doesn't meet even the bare minimum of the Scientific Method. Observable, testable, etc.

5)Scientists are finding blood vessels in these "finds" which proves either they aren't the creatures paleantologists claim, or they aren't old.

So it's a cult taken on faith in a group who is politically compromised. Resist the new Darwinist religious elites and think for yourselves based on the actual evidence.

Side: Religion
-2 points
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Funny stories those evolutionists come up with, good points about the giraffes and big cats. Remember, bees and plants also evolved just in time to be there for each other when they needed each other, and who knows how they got along before then but you don't need to know as long as you believe in evolution......

it's not even a theory, it's a hypothesis which God-haters are so desperate to believe that every time they find a bone, it's declared a new missing link, then after they have a million bones the hypothesis is declared proved and then they call it a theory when it cannot possible rise beyond a hypothesis because it cannot be seen happening, it has to be believed. It's goofy, and a more and more scientists are realizing they were duped into believing it.

Side: Science
minimurph83(194) Disputed
1 point

Its funny how we keep finding evidence of life way before we were around, yet we cant find anything that your religion claim? we find dinosaur bones that are millions of years old, but where are the bones of Jesus?? the ark? Adam and Eve? the forbidden tree?

and as for mother nature every animal and insect has adapted to its environment, it has EVOLED through out the generations to become more efficient to survive, just like us Humans have EVOLED to become so advanced and intelligent accept for a few humans like you?

Side: Religion
1 point

As I promised to do last night when the spirit was upon me, I will now continue to destroy any post of your I find that has lies in it. As I did last night with the NIV thing.

Evolution IS a theory. Which means a collection of facts. As it says here.

Again! I win.

You lose!

Next?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution asfactandtheory

Side: Religion