CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
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?
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.
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.
Hey, I'm here to debate creationists. Are you going to provide an argument for creationism, or are you going to tell me that I'm cocky and shouldn't start a new debate because others similar to it already exist. OK, let's use your logic. That means everyone has to stop making debates completely because pretty much all debatable topics have been covered already. This is createdebate.com, you know, where you create debates?
This is barely a debate, it's an arrogant challenge.
No it is a debate. It is a debate challenging the validity of creationism, thats a perfectly reasonable debate. What? you don't think that people should debate against creationism? This is a debate site, which means that everything is to be debated, and if someone wants to debate about creationism, that is what this site is for. Just because the Creator of the debate takes the side of the evolutionist doesn't make it any less of a debate.
But you're right, I should leave you to wait for creationists.
Like you should have done in the first place, you didn't contribute anything to this debate but pick on the debate because it is challenging a certain position which is what debating is about.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, but the Big Bang theory is generally the most accepted theory to the cause of the universe.
No, it's the generally accepted theory to the cause of the expansion of the universe. We don't understand what was happening before expansion, so we can''t make testable hypotheses about it.
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.
What are you talking about? I think you missed the point I was making.
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.
The big bang had matter in it; therefore, a cause is required.
Why does having matter mean a cause is required? I'm not sure of your point.
All matter has to have a cause.; otherwise it has existed for eternity; which goes against the laws of thermodynamics.
Ok,
1) which law of thermodynamics are we talking about here? I think you're just making things up to give your argument some credence.
2) Physical laws that we know do not apply to a singularity, or, if the singularity did indeed begin to exist, whatever state was before the singularity, therefore you can't apply things like the law of cause and effect or the laws of thermodynamics.
3) If you insist that things can't be eternal, but then say God is, you are using a kind of logical fallacy called special pleading.
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.
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!
You are right, scientists have never produced a living cell from nothing.
Evidence does exist, if you had paid attention in high school science you probably would know about the Miller Urey experiment. I'll let you find the details because it's a bit lengthy to go into here, but basically, the Earth's early atmosphere was replicated, electricity was added (to simulate lightning), and amino acids were formed. The experiment was re calibrated to better suit the early atmosphere, and it worked even better.
Even if there was no evidence, that would not make the only remaining conclusion God. It could be another natural process, or it could be unicorns, or many gods all at once.
cells don't come from nothing. The first "cells" were bits of carbon based matter mixed with amino acids and they were extremely simple compared to our cells today. These cells weren't really living, they were the so simple they should not be thought of as "life". they just so happened to fill all the requirements of life (reproduce etc.). these things then evolved into the stuff that evolved into cells as we know them.