CreateDebate


Debate Info

37
78
creationism BBT/E
Debate Score:115
Arguments:73
Total Votes:123
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 creationism (30)
 
 BBT/E (43)

Debate Creator

zombieman(35) pic



Creationism VS Big bang theory/evolution

What do you think holds the most logic, the big bang and evolution, or creationism.?
I mean, some of you may even go for both, because both are possible.

creationism

Side Score: 37
VS.

BBT/E

Side Score: 78
2 points

How many times have we had this debate? Too many times?.........

Side: creationism
1 point

I want answers to some questions please. Why has evolution elevated human intelligence so high that we can send satallites and pathfinders to Mars but yet other species aren't even smart enough to make fire yet? What i don't want to hear from anyone is the typical 'Oh it takes 37 billion years' reply. During the industrial revolution your precious evolution allowed moths to change color because the soot on the trees were not allowing them to camouflage themselves from preditors, so their wings turned black. Darwin's finches evolved very quickly also to deal with the surface of the ground. So why is the evolution of intelligence so one sided? Humans are responsible for the extinction of many species but yet evolution refuses to upgrade the intelligence of other life forms to protect themselves from our wrath. Why so one sided? Does intelligence not evolve for anyone but humans? Coming from your own mouths we were all dumb apes years ago, what is evolution waiting for, why can't I play chess with a horse yet? We're tearing down the Amazon yet evolution hasn't equiped those species with the intelligence to fight back. Why?

Side: creationism
2 points

Why has evolution elevated human intelligence so high that we can send satallites and pathfinders to Mars but yet other species aren't even smart enough to make fire yet?

Because evolution doesn't necessarily select for intelligence, it selects for survivability. Trees don't need intelligence to survive. Most predators require some intelligence, but being stronger and faster is a better use of energy. Who do you think would survive better, a smart tiger or a strong fast one? Different animals have different ways of surviving, and ours happened to be intelligence, so that's what evolved.

You also have to realize that, although we are smarter than every other animal, we aren't that much smarter. I know you may think this is ridiculous, but hear me out. Do humans innately know how to build satellites and send them to space? Of course not. We have to be taught. The farther you go back in human history the less obvious our differences from other animals are. In reality we are only smart enough to be able to learn from others and occasionally come up with some original ideas ourselves. Luckily this worked out so that after thousands of years our knowledge eventually built up to the point where we can send things to space, and come up with explanations of how we came about.

During the industrial revolution your precious evolution allowed moths to change color because the soot on the trees were not allowing them to camouflage themselves from preditors, so their wings turned black. Darwin's finches evolved very quickly also to deal with the surface of the ground. So why is the evolution of intelligence so one sided?

Because the brain is really complicated. Evolving new colors is not a difficult thing to do, and we see it in many species over relatively short periods of time (depending on the time between generations). Evolving a completely different structure to the brain takes millions of years, not a couple decades. We've been on this earth for 4 billion years, and that's how long it took us to get a brain this complex.

Humans are responsible for the extinction of many species but yet evolution refuses to upgrade the intelligence of other life forms to protect themselves from our wrath. Why so one sided?

Humans were also able to wipe out populations of indigenous humans, even though the intelligence was equal. This argument is fallacious.

In addition, evolution doesn't work overnight. And the destruction that humans have caused has only been within the last thousand years...not nearly enough time for a species to evolve a completely reorganized brain.

Does intelligence not evolve for anyone but humans?

No. There are plenty of other smart animals: the octopus, the [crow] (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows.html), the dolphin and numerous other animals. Are any of them as smart as humans? Probably not, but humans are lucky because we not only have intelligence, but we also have language and tool making hands. This means that we can build things, and pass on knowledge to the next generation. Like I said before, this knowledge builds upon itself, until eventually we get to where we are today. This process of course took hundreds of thousands of years, so its not surprising that its taking other animals so long to "fight back".

Also, the reason you can't play chess with a horse yet is because intelligence isn't a factor that is being selected for in horses. When farmers breed horses, do you think they are looking for the smartest ones? No. They are looking for the strongest, fastest, best behaved ones to breed.

Side: BBT/E
Euroscope1(90) Disputed
1 point

You say that evolution has no need to upgrade intelligence, that it is unnecessary for the other species. Well does that include the ape? As far as i know the ape is still alive and well. If we came from apes then obviously evolution had no need to add intelligence to them (us according to you) because they were doing fine surviving and they still are. And my major point was that we humans are destroying other species and the only way they could 'evolve' to compete with us so that we don't kill them off would be intelligence. How else could an animal that's nearly extinct because of humans protect themselves against us? Being faster & stronger won't do the trick. They need evolution to advance their intelligence before we destroy them, but evolution ain't doing that for them.

But the intelligence is only one example of how humans are in a class completely by themselves (not in a good way either) as far as evolving goes. If we came from apes why on Earth would we evolve into a species of suicide, alcholism, drug abuse, etc. That does nothing but harm our survival rate. And the biggest question mark of all, why on Earth would we evolve into a species that obsessively believes in a God that does not exist? What animal is there that would stop running from a preditor because they believe everything will be ok in a fictitious afterlife? People in here go on and on and on about how much damage religion and the belief in God has done to us. Well why has evolution given that God instinct to us then? From the most primitive to the most modern society we are innately born with this God thing that weighs on us. And if I buy into the scientific explaination of everything then that means evolution itself has given us that trait. Clearly that doesn't make sense. That is absolutely in contrast to what evolution would equip any species with. Humans are cut from a different cloth in so many strange ways. We are unique

Side: creationism
1 point

well science has been wrong also. before, scientist used the theory that the universe was infinite to disprove gods creation of it and now we see that the universe had a beginning. creationism or coincidence?

i don't want to get deep in the debate but i think its a lot of both. i believe you cant go to god with your brain at the door. its illogical to accept god illogically. you must evaluate god with logic to prove what he says is true or false.

we have not proved that humans actually evolved form monkeys and that is not what scientist believe ether, that is some myth.

scientist believe we evolved form something similar to monkeys. like a ancestor to both monkeys and humans. from here its your choice to ether say that this is correct or that there was no ancestor species and just humans or not.

and also i believe in evolution to the extent of adaptation, that is evolving to your environment.

but evolving a mind with reasoning and mortality is some thing a creature who had no past experiences before hand is impossible. the creation cant be bigger then the creator. 2+2 cant equal more then 4. some thing with out a conscience cant just form one regardless of how much time you want to say it took to form one. nature, ruthless, merciless, unloving, uncaring, cant spit or evolve some thing with all these attributes. its impossible, we are so different and alienated form nature that it just looks like we don't belong and i think its because we don't. we weren't created like this world.

humans are the only example of a creature having emotions such as guilt and shame, reasoning and wisdom, and a morality that no onter species shows at all. so before i put my claims of god down to atheist science, i wont more proof, more examples of other species doing what we supposedly accomplished. and most of all, a non religious reasonable explanation of how and why i have characteristics that no other species has. not some hypothetical guess.

i mean scientist say its so illogical and unreasonable to believe that something greater created us that they will look for more confusing, more "out there ideas" of our existence. when i feel instead our crazy adventures for disproving god have in a way helped prove him.

and for the whole flat earth thing, that was a short lived thing made up by Asian religions and myths. no logical man thought the world was flat. they could see by the curve in the horizon and the appearing of a ships mast before its hull and like ways that the earth was curved. so give up your whole Christians are dumb cause they thought the earth was flat, and if even they did (like some may have) how does this disprove god? as i said earlier scientist believed that the universe was infinite, but we see its not so should i not believe science ever again? no thats stupid. theories change and adapt.

Side: creationism
1 point

Well first,let me say this: I'm putting my argument on the side for creationism because it is losing by a lot!!! But I honestly thing that both are true. The Big bang theory,funny as it may sound,makes me valid points in it's explanation. I believe that the Big Bang Theory was actually the event that created God,not only the Christian god,but also the God(s) from other religions as well. Then, of course,it's obvious where creationism came in,in all of this.

Side: creationism
1 point

So if the big bang is true why can't it be explained how lifeless dirt turned into living organisms.

the Bible says that god made adam out of Dirt from the ground.

Just a FYI human skin has been tested many times and the same conclusion occurs. Human skin is made of different elements of Dirt and minerals found in rocks and dirt.

Side: creationism

Tell me again... Why do either of these oppose creationism? Would it not make sense that a God would have a way for everything to fit together? If God is a perfect being, wouldn't his universe be without 'plot holes?' I mean, think about creationism in the sense of writing. Creating a character is no different than creating a person. You must create the backstory, the mythology behind them, and the way they fit together in the scheme of things. Similarly, any plot points you create must be concrete. Consider that evolution and the big bang are the MEANS by which things happen and not the start. That's why this debate has always bothered me. They describe two totally different and unopposing things.

Side: creationism
0 points

So if you believe in Big Bang or creation. I believe in creation. But where did all of the material come from if there was a Big Bang? Too many impossible answers for it to be a mere coincidence. Even if you do believe in Big Bang the chance of all living things and are planet and the Sun being a perfect distance away all of the things that require a perfect balance for life for it to be just lucky is impossible.

Side: creationism
3 points

No one ever said that the universe came from nothing. We can't know what came before the big bang at present because its impossible to measure. Therefore when it comes to what came before the big bang science says "no comment."

As far as "the chances of everything being the perfect distance", do you know how big the universe is? Just in our own solar system there are 9 planets, so it isn't surprising that one fell into the habitable zone. That's not even talking about the billions of stars in the galaxy, or the trillions of galaxies in the universe. When you think about it that way, it would be surprising if life didn't arise somewhere. It just happened to be here is all, and that's why we can even have this debate. There are trillions upon trillions of other places where this debate is not happening because life didn't arise.

Side: BBT/E
5 points

Hm, stories made up by people back when everyone thought the world was flat, and continued by people who tell stories for a living (preachers priests etc) with absolutely no proof and an obvious incentive to continue the charade,

Or theories based on actual scientific evidence from people who study for a living, and with absolutely nothing to gain by making stuff up.

this is a tough one...

Side: BBT/E
Cicero(239) Disputed
2 points

What if I said God created the big bang, and used evolution according to his design. Would that not be creationism?

Side: creationism
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

Well, I would say you are replacing something extraordinary simple, a singularity that exploded because of an imbalance, with something infinitely complex, god.

I would say that, we observe our universe takes approximately 3 trillion years of expansion and cooling and allowing atoms to combine then allowing those things the atoms make to evolve, in order to make something with enough intelligence to ask themselves this question,

and I would say you are proposing none of this was necessary, as the ultimate intelligence had always existed.

Why then, bother with all of these trillions of years, if someone could have waved a wand - or what have you?

If we are strictly speaking of possibility, if there is an unknown it is impossible to say anything is impossible.

But imagining one had never heard of any god, and was thrust upon this earth with what scientific knowledge available to us, the idea of a god would seem quite insane.

Side: BBT/E
1 point

What if I said God created the big bang, and used evolution according to his design. Would that not be creationism?

Yes, in an ignore the Bible and invent your own religion sort of way.

Side: BBT/E
1 point

What if I said God created the big bang, and used evolution according to his design. Would that not be creationism?

No that would be Theistic evolution.

Side: creationism
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
2 points

The people who though the world was flat never read their bible if they did they would have known all along the world was round. If you look into Flat people they where for the most part non believers. Not all thought the world was flat Columbus didn't think so. The teachings of people actually thought the world was flat is less than you think it's that crap education that they feed you and believe it. Just like Columbus being the first to sail when it was the Norwegians centuries earlier but that doesn't make as good as a story as Columbus.

Side: creationism
aveskde(1935) Disputed
4 points

The people who though the world was flat never read their bible if they did they would have known all along the world was round.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zetetic_Astronomy#Origins_of_the_Flat_Earth_movement

You should research these things...

Side: BBT/E
2 points

We've had this argument way too much...

In any case, Big Bang FTW

Side: BBT/E
2 points

scientists have discovered facts about the creation of the universe and life on Earth, whereas creationism has religion to a god that to date ceases to exist

Side: BBT/E
2 points

OK I think some things need to be put straight. Firstly, creationism is pure ignorance of truth and fact, we know beyond doubt (and not just beyond reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt) that the world isn't 10, 000 years old and that we weren't all created, as we are, by 'God' in seven days. Radioactive decay is proof that the earth is well over 4 billion years old.

Secondly, evolution has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt, it is no longer a theory, it is scientifically accepted fact, there may still be a small amount of ambiguity as to whether 'survival of the fittest' is the driving force behind evolution, but none as to whether evolution is the driving force behind life - to deny just proves you really don't understand what your talking about.

Thirdly, most any argument as to why there 'must' be a god is usually circular logic; IE. 'there must be a God because the cosmos is so complex that it had to have been the product of a conscious mind' - by that logic then God itself must be infinitely more complex, and therefore must have been created by a greater 'God', and so on ad infinite. Those are arguments of logic, other arguments are just bred through pure ignorance and aren't even worth combating.

In summary; evolution is fact, creationism is based on an archaic system of beliefs that existed literally millenia before we had any reason to believe otherwise. The big bang theory is just that, a theory - no one is suggesting that is fact (if they are then again they don't know of what they speak). It makes sense because all the things we see in the cosmos coincide with the idea; IE. red/blue shift of galaxies, radiation decay etc. These things follow the theory of what we call 'the big bang' and there is no hard evidence to disprove it - however science, unlike religion, recognizes that it doesn't know everything and that certain things may be proved false in the future, the big bang is a theory and may be replaced by another when we have garnered more knowledge.

However it is completely irrational to attribute everything we don't know yet to God. Hundreds of years ago we didn't know what caused wind, waves or fire - so we reasoned that it must be a great god - now we know better but we still aren't advanced enough to answer all our questions, so we say that anything we don't yet have an answer for must have been God - unacceptable in this day and age if you ask me.

Side: BBT/E
2 points

I must absolutely agree. Might I add: The circular logic does not hold up, because there are theories that make infinitely more sense than God that reduce this "Complexity" to a very simple system.

Side: BBT/E
1 point

Scientist have proven thousands of theories throughout history. We found dinosaur bones. Proved the ice age was a reality. Life has continued to evolve for millions of years. I enjoy some of the stories portrayed in the bible, the majority of our constitution is based on the bible. Scientific evidence is always relied upon for criminal investigations leading to the conviction of an individual of a crime. If we cant believe in scientific proof for how earth was created then why do we rely on it for criminal convictions?

Side: BBT/E
1 point

The big bang theory is not a problem for Bible thumpers it helps their arguement. Evolution is completely true but not macro-evolution. Species evolve all the time but species don't cross paths and become totally different species. Man coming from ape, pigs turning to cows, etc, those things do not happen.

Side: BBT/E
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

The big bang theory is not a problem for Bible thumpers it helps their arguement.

No it doesn't. Biblical cosmology suggests a fixed space that was moulded outwards like hammering metal, this is the firmament.

Evolution is completely true but not macro-evolution. Species evolve all the time but species don't cross paths and become totally different species. Man coming from ape, pigs turning to cows, etc, those things do not happen.

Man IS an ape. We look superficially different, but we belong with the apes. Likewise, species diverge all the time.

Side: BBT/E
Euroscope1(90) Disputed
2 points

What are you talking about man is an ape? We have 100% apes in the world and we have 100% humans. Why are there not 'evolving' 80% apes or 40% humans? Because something walks on 2 legs it is automatically our relative? WHat is the ape obsession lol

Side: creationism
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

Really species diverge all the time? Name me one. You must certainly have something in your arsenal such as an article or study to back this debate.

Side: creationism
2 points

The big bang theory is not a problem for Bible thumpers it helps their arguement.

That every species on Earth has been the same for the entirety of Earth's existence? I am afraid that is not the case.

Evolution is completely true but not macro-evolution.

Sigh.

Species evolve all the time but species don't cross paths and become totally different species.

The theory does not suggest that at all.

Man coming from ape

That is not what evolution says. We share a common genetic ancestor. We did not evolve from apes, but with them.

pigs turning to cows, etc, those things do not happen.

Neither do people come back from the dead. The Bible says they do though.

Side: creationism
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

The big bang theory is not a problem for Bible thumpers it helps their arguement.

If they are willing to accept that the Universe is very Old...then yes. Of course many of them don't.

Species evolve all the time but species don't cross paths and become totally different species.

They can and they have. We've actually witnessed new species coming into existence.

Man coming from ape, pigs turning to cows, etc, those things do not happen.

And where does evolution state that pigs turn into cows? It doesn't work like that. No living animal is an intermediate for any other currently living animal. All animals on earth today are the end of their respective evolutionary lineage. That being said both pigs and cows are descended from some other animal that is now extinct. The animals we see alive today are simply the tip of the iceberg, more than an estimated 99% of animals that ever lived are now extinct.

Side: creationism
Euroscope1(90) Disputed
1 point

Their are old Earth creationists and new Earth creationists, each of which believe the universe is billions vs thousands of years old. I myself have heard good arguements on both sides of the fense so i'm not 100% sold on either view. One thing that is often overlooked when it comes to dating rocks, planets, etc, is that there is always a HUGE assumption that goes along with it. THe assumption is this; The rate at which things are churning today is the rate at which they have always been churning. As a made up example the continent of Africa is drifting by an inch every year so scientists will 'confirm' that rate per year. The rate at which uranium turns to lead is the speed of 'X.' So again they 'confirm' that rate.

But think about how unpredictable (since nobody was there) the consistancy and speed of developement could have been when the universe was forming. Think about cooking your dinner at a high boil and then lowering the heat to simmer. Who's to say that the rate of rock formation or the rate of anything was not at a super high boil at some point during formation and it is only resembling a simmer now. Surely it's not hard to imagine something at a much faster pace while it's being formed than after it has formed, that happens around us everyday. I totally could be wrong on this but it's possible. The fact is that when science dates things they are always making this assumption. The universe could be like a dropped bottle of soda that spent 30 seconds firing soda accross the room but now is only slowly dripping out.

Side: BBT/E

I am not a religious nut. I believe in rational, logical science. It may not be perfect, but it suits me better than religion.

Side: BBT/E
Euroscope1(90) Disputed
1 point

Yeah but when it comes to evolution and creation you are not even committed to any certain religion, you are just committed to the concept of 'A God' no matter what in the world that might mean, an overseeing power, force, intelligence, whatever. You're less pot committed to any form of religion but yet people are still terrified to give any scientific credit to the theory that their may be a God. They seem to be afraid to be called a 'Religious Nut' as you put it. You don't have to fight religion to the death, if the concept of God makes sense in certain areas just admit it without the fear of advancing the spread of organized religion lol. I have arguements on both sides that I favor but most people seem to be too all or nothing. You're not a 'Religious Nut' if you say "Wow the big bang would seem to indicate some type of powerful creator." Even Einstein believed in a higher power, some type of God

Side: creationism
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

You're less pot committed to any form of religion but yet people are still terrified to give any scientific credit to the theory that their may be a God.

People aren't terrified of god, it is seen as a poor idea that actually has no explanatory power.

You don't have to fight religion to the death, if the concept of God makes sense in certain areas just admit it without the fear of advancing the spread of organized religion lol.

"God" doesn't fit within science. It defies the naturalistic and parsimonious requirements of science and it offers no explanatory power, it merely replaces the question with another question.

You're not a 'Religious Nut' if you say "Wow the big bang would seem to indicate some type of powerful creator." Even Einstein believed in a higher power, some type of God

You're foolish if you think the only way to make sense of the most abstruse theory of our origins is to tack god on it and expect it to maintain itself under any kind of scrutiny.

The big question of life, how reality got here, is as should be expected very profound and quite frankly beyond the capacity of many people to truly understand. Small minds therefore choose to believe in a god figure because if they spent their entire life studying physics and cosmology they would still be unable to grasp the fine mathematical properties of our universe that allow it to come into being on its own from simpler forces.

Side: BBT/E
trumpeter93(999) Disputed
1 point

For the most part I respect peoples religious views. To me religion seems irrational and I don't need it in my life. I just don't believe in God and I don't see the need to.

Side: BBT/E
trumpeter93(999) Disputed
1 point

Religion is not rational or logical.If there is a supreme being then why would it give us the ability to question its ability or powers? Why would it give us the ability to create laws suggesting that he doesn't exist? I.e. Evolution, big bang, gravity. I believe the big bang was the beginning of time and space and that it was a natural phenomenon.

Side: BBT/E
1 point

This is a tired debate and unfortunately it seems like common sense will never reign. "Creationism/Intelligent Design" (Whatever special names you make up) is complete nonsense. If a supreme being suddenly created man one day why hasn't it done anything else so spectacular? Why hasn't it created other creatures or scenarios? I always find it funny thinking of "Creationism" because I relate it back to the old Star Trek episode "Arena" where a supreme being made Capt. Kirk appear on a planet (with the cheesy futuristic "boing" sound) followed by the Gorn creature (and the cheesy "boing" sound) where a fight scene ensued.

Side: BBT/E
1 point

Although the BBT has not been proved it has made more sense then most creation theories and quite a lot of religious people believe in the BBT as well but that god caused the matter to burst out which is true weather god caused it or it was chance we shall not know any time soon :) aside that there is more evidence that the BBT caused all that there is.

Side: BBT/E