CreateDebate


Debate Info

11
5
Creationism Evolutionism
Debate Score:16
Arguments:8
Total Votes:18
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Creationism (5)
 
 Evolutionism (3)

Debate Creator

Bohemian(3860) pic



Play the Devil's Advocate

I'm sure this has been tried before, but I wanted to see how this would pan out.

 

The Idea is to play devil's advocate. That is to say that for the purpose of this debate you must support the side that you would normally oppose, to see who can come up with the most convincing Devil's advocate argument.

 

I got the idea when Thewayitis said that he see things from all angles and points of views, so I wanted to put that statement to the test.

Creationism

Side Score: 11
VS.

Evolutionism

Side Score: 5
2 points

In all of the known universe, only one planet supports life, and only one planet could support human life specifically. All of the factors for which life is necessary, are so incalculably precise that they could not have all occurred simultaneously on one planet solely through the occurrence of chance events.

Some of these factors include the size of planet earth, the size of the sun, the proximity of the earth to the sun, the thickness of the atmosphere, the metallic core of the earth, the make-up of the earth's layers, the chemical composition of lakes and rivers, the tilt of the earth, the prevalence of tidal forces, relative tectonic activity, the speed of earth's rotation, the frequency of photosynthesis...I could go on. It is not reasonable to think that all of these factors conspire to support human life, as through chance, when the rest of the universe is so inhospitable to life.

Take a step outside the earth's atmosphere and you will either been incinerated by the sun's rays, or imploded by the vacuum of space. That any life is able to survive at all in such a universe is a miracle in itself. Only through the intervention of some cosmic organizer (creator), does it begin to make sense.

Side: creationism
2 points

You put up too good of an argument for them that it would be next to impossible to out-do it. We'll have to see what the devil's advocates can do for evolutionism. I can't post there because that's what I subscribe to.

Side: creationism
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

I wouldn't call it a good argument, although it is a common one and it may be difficult to outdo.

Just because something is "unlikely"(which considering the vastness of the universe...), doesn't make it impossible nor does it mean some-type of "cheat" is necessary.

I don't believe any of the common arguments for creationism are worth posting. Also a interesting one has yet to really be made and I fear I have not the ingenuity to make one. I'll think on it though.

Side: creationism
cognismantis(21) Disputed
2 points

In all the known universe we have only analyzed around 10,000 planets. Around 100 of those planets are identified to have the potential of being habitable. It is estimated that there are at least 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe. Gliese 581 c. for example is likely to be habitable.

You can't assume that it was a supreme creator who created the universe even if it is unlikely for life; which is not true. The god explanation is incorrect, more probable is a universe with unchanging forces powered by chance.

And the chance of the God's existence is extremely low; I would put it lower than the chance of life emerging on a random planet.

Side: Evolutionism
2 points

As the standard Creationist arguments go, I find myself dissatisfied, the entire world is descending into a sinful chaos and the and scientists are currently building a new tower of Babel as M-theory gains ground.

As matter is created from energy and we come ever closer to seeing what is causing everything, we will get close to explaining God's work, as we know, the more layers we peel back, the more complex something becomes. Is it not plausible then that we would eventually peel back another layer and in that would exist an energy so mighty, so complex, an energy that could create matter, out of quantum foam fluctuations (or is that just our name for one of God's ways). I argue not for the God of the bible but a deistic creator, cosmic energy that creates matter from his own energy and calls it back when he wills.

Side: creationism
2 points

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck

Side: evolutionism
ricedaragh(2494) Disputed
2 points

What Max Planck is stating is that if you want to believe something you will, scientific "truths" are valid discoveries, in that scientists are only finding out how God works, the God of the Bible is implausible as it is a contradictory being, but this does not mean that God does not exist, it merely means that the people that wrote the Bible were wrong in their assessment of God. It is in man's ignorance and vainglory that when he unwinds another coil of information that he declares himself God, and further convinces those of weak mind that they exist without a creator.

Side: creationism
Bohemian(3860) Disputed
1 point

Veiled jabs at evolution, do not constitute Devil's Advocate arguments.

Side: Creationism