CreateDebate


Debate Info

19
13
This column has no purpose Bet you can't refute....
Debate Score:32
Arguments:27
Total Votes:32
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 This column has no purpose (15)
 
 Bet you can't refute.... (12)

Debate Creator

anachronist(889) pic



I bet I can refute any scientific claim made by a creationist.

I have a high school education in the sciences, which is more often than not all it takes to tackle creationist claims. Come on, lets have a go.

This column has no purpose

Side Score: 19
VS.

Bet you can't refute....

Side Score: 13
1 point

I would have to agree with that.

Side: This column has no purpose
1 point

There is no point to this. Everything can be refuted; however, that does not make it false. Some will refute the history of the Holocaust - and I might say with considerable evidence against such - but does that make it any less true?

Side: This column has no purpose
anachronist(889) Disputed
1 point

Creationists are basically holocaust deniers. In fact, there are more historians that deny the holocaust than scientists who deny evolution. Although that makes no difference as to the truth of either position, what it does show us is that there is more evidence the holocaust was a hoax than there is for creationism.

Side: Bet you can't refute....
1 point

Well look at that, you found a purpose for the no purpose column. :D

Side: This column has no purpose
2 points

This site has about 4-5 creationists and several more atheists, it would be impossible for us all to supply evidence evrytime an athiest gets cocky and tries to take on a whole religion by a medium which very few use.

There's several debates already on this topic, go find one of them.

Side: Bet you can't refute....
anachronist(889) Disputed
2 points

Hey, I said I bet I can, not I definitely can. Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive you know. And hey, so what, this is my debate.

Side: This column has no purpose
Axmeister(4322) Disputed
1 point

It is your debate, just don't expect people to do anything you want.

Side: Bet you can't refute....
1 point

Intelligent Design. I am an Atheist, I just wanted to see what you say.

Side: Bet you can't refute....
anachronist(889) Disputed
1 point

You haven't given me a claim to refute, that was my intention with this debate.

Side: This column has no purpose
1 point

I don't support creationism, as I am an atheist, but I'll see what I can do.

The Big Bang was a rapid expansion in a extremly hot and dense state. There are theories on what exactly caused the the Big Bang, but none have an adequate amount of scientific evidence to support them, thus it is logical reasonable to assume God was the cause of the Big Bang, and, in turn, the universe.

Side: Bet you can't refute....
anachronist(889) Disputed
1 point

There is no evidence the big bang was necessarily the start of the universe, and that a singularity cannot exist outside of time, since inside the singularity everything we know about time falls to pieces.

And if the big bang was the start point of the universe, it was the beginning of space. Space and time are two sides of the same coin, so the big bang would have been the beginning of time also. This would mean that, before the big bang, there was no such thing as time. Cause and effect requires that time exists, as it necessitates one moment moving to the next. In this way, without time, a cause for the big bang is not necessary.

Side: This column has no purpose
Cynical(1948) Disputed
1 point

There is no evidence the big bang was necessarily the start of the universe

Yes, but the Big Bang theory is generally the most accepted theory to the cause of the universe.

And if the big bang was the start point of the universe, it was the beginning of space. Space and time are two sides of the same coin, so the big bang would have been the beginning of time also. This would mean that, before the big bang, there was no such thing as time. Cause and effect requires that time exists, as it necessitates one moment moving to the next. In this way, without time, a cause for the big bang is not necessary.

God is supposedly outside both time and space (and if not, God experiences a much different perception of those dimensions than we humans do), and as such, assuming God was the origin of the Big Bang, had the ability to "create" time with the Big Bang.

Side: Bet you can't refute....
zico20(345) Disputed
1 point

Flawed reasoning. A cause for the big bang is necessary according to science. The big bang had matter in it; therefore, a cause is required. All matter has to have a cause.; otherwise it has existed for eternity; which goes against the laws of thermodynamics.

Side: Bet you can't refute....

That life had an origin .

Side: Bet you can't refute....
anachronist(889) Disputed
1 point

Yes, life had an origin. That is abiogenesis, not evolution. Even granting that the origin of life counts as part of the creationist beliefs about evolution, so what? You haven't presented me with an argument for anything.

Side: This column has no purpose
ChuckHades(3197) Disputed
1 point

I wasn't making an argument. The title of this debate is "I bet I can refute any scientific claim made by a creationist.".

I made a scientific claim, and I, for the sake of debate, am a creationist. You didn't specify that the claim had to be creationist dogma.

I made my claim. You gonna refute it?

Side: Bet you can't refute....
zico20(345) Disputed
1 point

Scientists have NEVER produced a living cell from nothing. NO evidence exists that life can originate from non-living matter. Only conclusion is that God started life on Earth!

Side: Bet you can't refute....