CreateDebate


Debate Info

222
240
Yes. No.
Debate Score:462
Arguments:457
Total Votes:481
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. (205)
 
 No. (225)

Debate Creator

Stravick(32) pic



Is this universe created by solely natural processes?

There are very well thought out, well substantiated, explanations how our universe came into existence. How the Big Bang might have occurred, how evolution works, how this all came to be and it all makes sense and is backed by tonnes of evidence. And then there are people that wave their hands and say 'God did it'. What do you think?

Yes.

Side Score: 222
VS.

No.

Side Score: 240
3 points

Certainly, science can explain almost everything in our world and even make logical educated guesses on the things it can't. There are detailed scientific reports that explain everything from the Big Bang to how evolution created us.

Side: Yes.
NowASaint(1278) Clarified
1 point

Belief in the "Big Band" is not science. There is no need in any field of science to believe in the Big Bang. Believing in the Big Bang and all of the "science" used to support the hypothesis is a waste of time. Teaching the Big Bang is a waste of money.

Not only that, it's silly. The leading Big Pang proponents make the craziest statements like "everything came from nothing" and expect you to believe it. It is not possible for something to come from nothing. Nothing is nothing and can never be anything other than nothing.

What you refer to as "detailed scientific reports" are always full of conjecture and speculation and presumptuous declarations of "proof". The pushers of that stuff are only trying to justify their sins and they feel better if they can convince others to do the same thing.

Side: Yes.
0 points

Certainly, science can explain almost everything in our world

Oh? They can't even explain gravity, quantum entanglement, super symmetry, or the double slit experiment...

Side: No.
wisdumb(77) Clarified
2 points

Science is the only reason you have any clue about gravity, super symmetry, or the double slit experiment. You wouldn't be uttering those words without science.

Side: Yes.
Stravick(32) Disputed
1 point

But you wouldn't know about those things were it not for science discovering them and in some cases just thinking the concept into existence.

Side: Yes.
0 points

Nevertheless, we don't need science to prove Jesus was correct.

https://www.facebook.com/The-Beast-is-Strong-in-This-One-273041423117102/

If you want the solely "science answer" to how we know atheism is false, go look up James Gates...

Side: No.
Stravick(32) Disputed
2 points

Actually, you do need science to prove Jesus was correct. That is how logic and reason tends to work. For one, we know Jesus wouldn't look like his common depiction in the church, and two we don't even know if he was a real person. The only, and I repeat, the only documentation for Jesus is the Bible itself, and the books on Jesus were written by a man who had never even met him.

And if you want to know why James Gates finds a 'code' in nature, it's called Natural Selection. Animals with better traits tend to survive more than those with lesser traits. Thus creating a trend of common traits among all living things based on what helps them survive.

Side: Yes.
wisdumb(77) Disputed
1 point

First of all, the bible is not a credible source for fact. So a site with a bunch of bible quotes does your claim no justice.

Second, James Gates is dope as hell. All he says is that he finds something resembling a code embedded into nature, and religious people want to make the jump that their god wrote the code. Mind you that this code says nothing about the nature of the designer or even if there is one. This proves nothing about atheism. In fact, the reference James Gates uses is "The Matrix".

Side: Yes.
NowASaint(1278) Clarified
0 points

detailed scientific reports.........hahahahah......they are detailed statements of belief, when you read those reports they clearly are stating their beliefs saying things like "this could have caused that". If what they say could have happened and did happen, why can't they make it happen and show us instead of doing nothing but telling us what they believe happened? They can't make it happen because it did not happen, life did not emerge from non-living things.

Public schools and television sure did a good job of mass brainwashing the public so they are numb to the evils of their leaders.

Side: Yes.
2 points

Riddle me this: Why did God give us an appendix? Or wisdom teeth? Or a tiny little tail bone? (Some people even grow a tail)

Side: Yes.
1 point

If we are the highest evolved species ever in the Earthly history of Darwinism, why did said Darwinism naturally select those exact traits as "the best selection"?

Side: No.
wisdumb(77) Disputed
1 point

Have you ever heard of vestigial forms? These are the leftover parts in a species that were useful to its ancestors, but no longer serve a purpose. For instance, wisdom teeth made more sense when our jaws were larger and we lost more teeth by natural causes. Now that our jaws are smaller and we have less risk of losing teeth, wisdom teeth are still left over. There are many examples in the animal kingdom. There is no explanation for this without evolution.

Also, there is no such thing as a "best selection" necessarily. Its just whatever helps the species survive and multiply more. For example, let's say there is a fish with a colorful tail. The more colorful and bright the tail is, the more attractive it is to a potential mate. Lets say a large group of fish get separated. Half of the group swims north, another swims south. The group in the north are in a more hostile environment with predators while the southern group have few to worry about. The ones in the north with the slightly less colorful tails are able to hide from predators. These ones get eaten less frequently. The ones in the south with slightly more colorful tails have better chances at getting mates. Over thousands of generations, the ones in the north adapt to their environment and become darker in order to stay hidden from predators while the southern ones become brighter and more colorful. These eventually branch and become 2 separate species of fish.

So you can see, nature didn't necessarily think one was better than the other. It is just based on the circumstances and the environment of the animal. There is no "best selection". There are just many branches to a tree. Every species alive today is technically the "best selection".

Side: Yes.
2 points

Riddle me this: Why did God give men nipples? And how come we can grow breasts?

Side: Yes.
0 points

1)Because you'd look strange without them. Why do humans design things to look a certain way?

2)Humans can grow breasts to feed babies milk. It's for survival and health of the baby. The grocery store didn't exist long ago...

Side: No.
wisdumb(77) Disputed
1 point

I would accept the second part to your answer. Except if you take it a little further, you realize everything we have biologically is really about survival (or reproduction).

But because we would "look strange" is not satisfactory. There are many things that we have that do make us look strange anyway. You can't argue that god designed humans to look a certain way because of aesthetics when most of our other body parts don't follow the same logic.

Side: Yes.
2 points

Riddle me this: How did kangaroos get all the way to Australia? Why arent there any bones or fossils showing how they migrated there?

Side: Yes.
0 points

Getting fossilized takes a rare and improbable event to even happen. Ask Richard Dawkins. (Grin)

I have a question. Why do chicken bones and dog bones decompose in no time but pre historic bones do not...

Side: No.
wisdumb(77) Disputed
1 point

The first part of your answer actually answers the second part. Fossils are rare occurrences. The perfect conditions have to be present. If it wasn't, then we would find fossils laying around all the time.

Side: Yes.
Atrag(5184) Disputed
1 point

Negligentt SmellyBelly: even if it was very rare, the fact that 100% of the Kangeroo fossils (and many other unique animals) are ONLY found in Australia shows that they are very unlikely to have existed outside Australia.

Side: Yes.

Not by "natural" processes, but I believe in the big bang theory, simply because we have deduced it out of all the observations we have made..

Side: Yes.
1 point

People arguing for an intelligent designer, I have questions for you.

Riddle me this: Why did God make the place where we swallow the same place we need to breathe air? People choke to death all the time because of this poor design.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Saying "it's a poor design", then saying we were the creature that evolved to the highest level in the survival of the fittest model is a contradiction of terms.

Side: No.
wisdumb(77) Disputed
1 point

I think if there was a designer, that is definitely a terrible design. I also don't believe we are the pinnacle of evolution. We may be at the top of the food chain, but we are a self important species. By no means are we a chosen creation above all others.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Riddle me this: How come when we look at the DNA of every animal, it makes a giant tree? Almost like we are one giant family?

Side: Yes.
1 point

Because we are one giant family.

Side: No.
wisdumb(77) Disputed
3 points

I agree. That's evolution my friend. One giant family. We are all related with small changes in genetics over time.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Riddle me this: If we didn't have the bible, how do we know Adam and Eve existed? (Bonus points if you explain the belly buttons)

Side: Yes.
1 point

A first male and a first female must be true per deductive logic.

Side: No.
wisdumb(77) Disputed
1 point

False. There is no reason to believe this MUST be true. There are many possibilities for how life could have started.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Riddle me this: Why are there hermaphodites? (People born with both genetalia) Are they allowed to have sex?

Side: Yes.
1 point

You know scientifically why. They can do sexually whatever they can do. Eunichs are mentioned in the Bible.

You'll have to look up what Jesus said about people born with these issues. I'll give you an example as a hint. He was asked why a man was born blind. He responded, but you'll have to put in a little effort of your own to get the response. This stuff isn't free ya know. You are welcome to send me donations if you'd like.

Side: No.
wisdumb(77) Disputed
1 point

Lmao nice try. There is no way I am giving you money to explain what Jesus thought of hermaphodites based on what a fictional book says. But if you send me a donation, Ill let you know what the Lorax thought about trees.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Riddle me this: What came first? The chicken or the egg?

Side: Yes.
1 point

All of the data that makes a chicken a chicken and an egg an egg came first.

Side: No.
wisdumb(77) Disputed
1 point

Which manifested first? .

Side: Yes.
1 point

Riddle me this: Whats up with disease? Why did God design something that could kill off whole regions? And why did he allow us to make medicine to fix it?

Side: Yes.
0 points

1)To prove that mortal man will still find ways to maintain arrogance even though they are really weak and have no real control. They will still lust for wealth, power, and influence despite an environment that obviously will end in their demise.

2)Medicine? To prove some men are not those things. They look to heal and help others.

The variables that an omniscient being would be looking at to develope a true "why" are incalculable to a non-omniscient mind.

Side: No.
wisdumb(77) Disputed
1 point

Why does God need to prove that at all? What kind of God kills off little kids and innocents to prove a point? Either God is a disgusting, demented person, or there is no God and bacteria are fighting for their place in this world just like we are.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Riddle me this: Why did God put a spot for pleasure in the male anus? (Its called the P spot)

Side: Yes.
1 point

Why did Darwinism put it there? Did the male experiencing pleasure help survival or make the man more apt to breed? Perhaps.

Side: No.
wisdumb(77) Disputed
1 point

Evolution doesn't care about morals and doesn't have any ethical code to follow. But a God would. So why would he do that?

Side: Yes.
1 point

Riddle me this: When does a baby get a soul? Does a sperm have a soul? How come animals don't have one? How do we know we have one but they don't?

Side: Yes.
1 point

The baby had a soul before it was ever manifested here or "born".

When sperm meets the egg there is a flash of light. Maybe it does.

Maybe animals do have a soul.

Side: No.
wisdumb(77) Disputed
1 point

So not only do we have life after death, but life before? Extraordinary claim.

If animals have souls, that opens up a whole new line of questions. Do animals have sin? Is killing an animal against the commandments? What if an animal kills another animal? I would probably stay away from that concept if I was religious because that is a pandora's box.

Also I didn't know about the flash of light during conception. That is pretty fascinating.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Riddle me this: What is up with all the dog breeds? Why does God allow us to breed species together? Is this wrong? Are we playing God?

Side: Yes.
1 point

Variation within kinds. Think of an avatar. There are thousand ofeyes, legs, arms, ears, etc that you can use. Your avatar has almost zero chance of looking like my avatar, yet you cannot give your avatar any characteristics that aren't available in the program.

If paleantologists found my skull, Mini Me's skull, and Andre the Giant's skull, they'd say we were different species. They'd also be wrong.

Side: No.
wisdumb(77) Disputed
1 point

Paleontologists would not say you are different species based on size alone. There is an in depth study of fossil structure in order to identify the species. If they find bone, they can look at the genetic material. If all they have is the form, they can create a mold or replica and study all of its small characteristics. They don't just eyeball it and say what they think it is.

Also, humans are the ones that mix the breeds, not God. We have created our own breeds that never existed prior. And there is pretty much a 100% chance that the child will look like its parents. There isn't a random selection process like in the sims. You literally get your parent's genes. And there can be new characteristics that weren't found before. It's called mutation.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Riddle me this: What is up with DID (multiple personalities)? Do these people have multiple souls? Do they go to heaven? When their other personality hurts someone, does it count as a sin?

Side: Yes.
1 point

1)Prove they aren't faking for attention. Notice, peope with terets (spelling?) scream out curse words yet never scream out abstract words like "cake". They might even do it because they think the meds are fun or have the desire to be coddled in a mental health facility. Sometimes convicts commit a crime on purpose to go back to jail and be fed and sheltered.

2)Demon possession? Parasite aliens are very possible. If I showed you one, you'd accept it as true. If I showed you evidence of one, the same. "Visitors" that don't take physical form could be parasites.

3)If it's even real, perhaps each personality is accountable only for itself.

It's virtaully impossible to prove someone does or doesn't have a mental disorder. Brain damage is another debate.

Side: No.
wisdumb(77) Disputed
1 point

So your argument is basically that they might be faking? But you would accept demonic possession as true? Really? I would say flip the script buddy. Prove that demonic parasites or possessors exist by any evidence whatsoever.

DID is definitely accepted as a psychological disorder by specialists and experts in the field. There is no discrepancy on this. It is NOT impossible to show someone has a mental disorder. That one is obvious and I won't go through the trouble proving it because I think you are in the minority on that one. There are ways to tell if someone is faking a disorder. There are also commonalities between patients. The disorder can even be overcome.

And if it is real, which it is, then what about souls? If they each have souls, what happens when they disappear?

Side: Yes.

How the Big Bang might have occurred

So it's okay to have blind faith. Just not in....

God.

Side: No.
Stravick(32) Disputed
2 points

Blind faith is belief without evidence. Faith is belief with little evidence. Accepting the Big Bang theory is coming to the logical conclusion of the most likely way the universe began based on all the evidence.

Side: Yes.
1 point

So there was a burst of light, expansion, Earth, plants, water creatures, land creatures, and finally humans. Ancient Jews must be tremendous guessers...

Side: No.
NowASaint(1278) Clarified
1 point

Believing in what you think is the most likely way is blind faith. Claiming to have evidence for your belief when it is still only what you think is "the most likely way" is blind faith. People only cling to that kind of belief because they know God ruling over them means they are in trouble and they hope to be exonerated in death and get out of trouble by dying.

Side: Yes.
NowASaint(1278) Clarified
1 point

I have faith that when I am done typing these words and I hit "enter", they will be posted....and further faith that you will read them. I believe you are not burning in Hell and are still here able to read these words. I do not have evidence of that belief being correct until I see that you are actually here and able to read, but even then my faith is limited so I cannot know for sure that you did not wake up in Hell after you posted evidence of being here and able to read after I posted these words.

You put your faith in evolution, and you hope in death to be exonerated and exempt from accountability for how you spent your time. You have no evidence that you get out of accountability for your time, yet you believe you get out in death. That is as blind as faith can be.

Accepting the big bang theory is dumb. The scientific method shows the "theory" is nothing but a hypothesis preferred according to the faith of people who think they can get away without God. Evolution and the big bang are nothing but religious hypothesis which do not belong in science. Religious people just can't resist inserting their religion of naturalism into science, ascribing supernatural power to non-living things believing that non-living things cause life to emerge. It's a useless waste of time belief system.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Have to say I completely agree with this. I also don't believe god did much of anything

Side: No.
Atrag(5184) Disputed
1 point

Negligentt SmellyBella: how many times do people have to say it to you: it is not a religion! If someone came up with a better theory than the big bang theory then I'd gladly change my viewpoint - as would most atheists. It isnt that important.

Side: Yes.
1 point

First and foremost, "natural" (or physical) processes are fundamentally incapable of creating the Universe. Why? Because natural processes follow the laws of physics (specifically the first law of Thermodynamics), which prohibit the creation or destruction of energy (and, as proven by Einstein's famous equation, "E = MC^2", matter), an inherent prerequisite to the Universe's creation.

As for Darwinian Evolution, I'm forced to disagree: not only is there no evidence to substantiate Abiogenesis (in fact, experiments attempting to credit it, such as the Miller experiment, failed to do so, thus having the opposite effect), but that mutations are capable of accumulating indefinitely has no basis whatsoever, in either observation or experimentation.

Side: No.
Stravick(32) Disputed
1 point

First and foremost, E=MC^2 states a relationship between matter and energy and does not state in any way that matter can neither be created nor destroy. Secondly, it is the first law of Thermodynamics that makes it all possible. Energy can not be created, by anyone or anything including God. Which simply means everything has always existed, there was no beginning. Things simply were.

Lastly, there is very clear evidence for abiogenesis. Tests done show that in a climate of prelife earth all it would take is a proper electrical discharge (lightning or thunder) to cause simple amino acids necessary for the most basic of life to occur. From there the incredibly simple life forms would grown and evolve.

Side: Yes.
2 points

Lastly, there is very clear evidence for abiogenesis. Tests done show that in a climate of prelife earth all it would take is a proper electrical discharge (lightning or thunder) to cause simple amino acids necessary for the most basic of life to occur. From there the incredibly simple life forms would grown and evolve.

There's a reason we cite our claims. Blind theoretical assertions make you no different than the god botherers that you oppose. Faith isn't a good atheist argument.

-FACT! Pre Earth was struck by lightning, which manifested life by mere magic, and then Darwinian evolution just took over! Believe me. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...

Side: No.
Grugore(194) Disputed
2 points

Who says God couldn't create energy? What an ignoramus. God existed before all things. All things were created by Him and For Him.

Side: No.
LichPotato(362) Disputed
1 point

"First and foremost, E=MC^2 states a relationship between matter and energy and does not state in any way that matter can neither be created nor destroy."

I was simply pointing out that, as shown by that equation, matter and energy are interchangeable in regards to the first law of Thermodynamics.

"Secondly, it is the first law of Thermodynamics that makes it all possible."

I explicitly stated as much.

"Energy can not be created, by anyone or anything including God."

God, by definition (specifically possessing the quality of "supernaturality", or non-physicality), is not bound by the laws of physics, including Thermodynamics.

"Which simply means everything has always existed, there was no beginning. Things simply were."

Impossible. Due to the second law of Thermodynamics (if you're not familiar with its implications, just Google "heat death of the Universe"), the Universe cannot have simply always existed. Entropy can only ever increase (and does), and, as the Universe definitionally possesses a finite amount of energy (and thus capacity for entropy), therefore, after some finite period of time, the Universe will be saturated with entropy. As this has not yet occurred (life does indeed exist), it follows that the Universe has existed for a finite period of time.

"Tests done show that in a climate of prelife earth all it would take is a proper electrical discharge (lightning or thunder) to cause simple amino acids necessary for the most basic of life to occur."

The simple acids you're referring to may be (incomplete) components of organisms, but tossing a few planks into your backyard and building a shed are two entirely different things. In other words, life is inherently much more than the sum of its parts, therefore a simple mixture of its components (assuming you even have all of them; no experiment, even under ideal Darwinian conditions, has been able to produce all necessary amino acids to create life) is not equivalent to it.

"From there the incredibly simple life forms would grown and evolve."

To reiterate, there's no evidence that mutations are capable of accumulating indefinitely.

Side: No.
1 point

Thermodynamics that makes it all possible. Energy can not be created, by anyone or anything including God

What? LMAO

Side: No.
1 point

Which simply means everything has always existed, there was no beginning. Things simply were

So in infinite space and time, Darwinism would have manifested the highest possible being which would be immortal, omniscient, and omnipotent... As a matter of fact, it would have manifested every single thing that is possible. Getting around God is tough sledding either way you slice it.

Side: No.

If evolution is true, Science is proving every day how impossible it is for Earth to be the only planet with intelligent life on it.

They are discovering many millions of solar systems that are billions of years older than our own, and never one sign of life from any of them.

Can you imagine no evolution occurring on billions of planets that are billions of years advanced to our own.... WITH NO INTELLIGENT LIFE SENDING RADIO WAVES THROUGH OUR GALAXIES?

Science is disproving their own evolutionary theories as they keep discovering how large our universe is.

Side: No.