Creation vs. Evolution

[AustinMiles89]

I would like to debate Creation vs. Evolution & the Big Bang.

That the universe, the world, and all life on it was Created by God, and not through the "Big Bang" or "Evolution".

I will be taking the affirmative.

 

[whitebeaches]

Hi AustinMiles89. Thanks for posting and proposing this debate. You will need a debate partner who will argue the opposing view. Once you find someone who is interested in this debate have them post here in this thread then we can proceed with drafting the stipulations.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'll debate him

 

[AustinMiles89]

I'll debate him

when would you like to begin?
and do you have a preference for the parameters?

 

[PsychoSarah]

when would you like to begin?
and do you have a preference for the parameters?

First, we have to outline our positions, in my opinion. I can't debate a position if I don't know what I am up against. As a general rule, I would ask that you don't just place god as facilitating everything. As I see it, your position is that no evolution occurs, and the Big Bang didn't happen, not that these things were facilitated by a deity.

 

[AustinMiles89]

First, we have to outline our positions, in my opinion. I can't debate a position if I don't know what I am up against. As a general rule, I would ask that you don't just place god as facilitating everything. As I see it, your position is that no evolution occurs, and the Big Bang didn't happen, not that these things were facilitated by a deity.

i cam live with that. my position then would be to disprove the scientific viability of both evolution and the big bang.

these now become two issues rather than one however. would you rather tackle just evolution from a pro or con stance based solely on scientific means?

 

[PsychoSarah]

i cam live with that. my position then would be to disprove the scientific viability of both evolution and the big bang.

these now become two issues rather than one however. would you rather tackle just evolution from a pro or con stance based solely on scientific means?

Pro or con would be too opinionated for an issue already prone to inciting subjective arguments. Also, if it was solely science, you wouldn't be able to use anything not scientifically testable, which includes deities.

 

[AustinMiles89]

Pro or con would be too opinionated for an issue already prone to inciting subjective arguments. Also, if it was solely science, you wouldn't be able to use anything not scientifically testable, which includes deities.

i meant i would take con and you pro, i should have phrased that differently. and i am perfectly ok with keeping it to the realm of purely scientific.

so our debate would be
"the theories of creationism vs. evolution"
and we would both stick solely to science for our proof

...same page so far?

 

[PsychoSarah]

i meant i would take con and you pro, i should have phrased that differently. and i am perfectly ok with keeping it to the realm of purely scientific.

so our debate would be
"the theories of creationism vs. evolution"
and we would both stick solely to science for our proof

...same page so far?

Problem, creationism isn't scientific, nor is its alias intelligent design, as per a court ruling.

 

[AustinMiles89]

Problem, creationism isn't scientific, nor is its alias intelligent design, as per a court ruling.

leave that part to me; if i in any way use non scientific means or claims as "proof", then by all means cite me for violation of our terms.

my position is that intelligent design has more scientific evidence than evolution. and that evolution is wholly untenable as a sound scientific theory.

so if your willing to allow me to argue intelligent design using scientific means, while also disproving evolution with scientific means, then we can move forward

 

[PsychoSarah]

leave that part to me; if i in any way use non scientific means or claims as "proof", then by all means cite me for violation of our terms.

my position is that intelligent design has more scientific evidence than evolution. and that evolution is wholly untenable as a sound scientific theory.

so if your willing to allow me to argue intelligent design using scientific means, while also disproving evolution with scientific means, then we can move forward

Look, I want to debate you, not massacre you, there is no scientific evidence for creationism or intelligent design, that whole deal is done.

Realistically, it would be a fairer fight if we made this more about the Big Bang than about evolution, as evolution is one of if not the most well supported theories in all of science. As in literally you would have a better chance of questioning prevailing theories on gravity than evolution if you were only going by scientific evidence.

I just don't see how you could possibly even form a position against evolution by using creationism when you can't scientifically provide evidence for any creator or even mention deities.

 

[AustinMiles89]

Look, I want to debate you, not massacre you, there is no scientific evidence for creationism or intelligent design, that whole deal is done.

Realistically, it would be a fairer fight if we made this more about the Big Bang than about evolution, as evolution is one of if not the most well supported theories in all of science. As in literally you would have a better chance of questioning prevailing theories on gravity than evolution if you were only going by scientific evidence.

I just don't see how you could possibly even form a position against evolution by using creationism when you can't scientifically provide evidence for any creator or even mention deities.

then this debate should be very interesting for you!!!

i understand how you feel, but i promise you, i can support my side of this equation scientifically. creationism vs. evolution. scientific proof only.

if you dont think its feasible, then you can go first, and allow me to rebut your arguments with sound science.

 

[PsychoSarah]

then this debate should be very interesting for you!!!

i understand how you feel, but i promise you, i can support my side of this equation scientifically. creationism vs. evolution. scientific proof only.

if you dont think its feasible, then you can go first, and allow me to rebut your arguments with sound science.

All I would have to do is pull up the court ruling and your entire position would be inadmissible to the debate. Just go with the Big Bang.

 

[AustinMiles89]

All I would have to do is pull up the court ruling and your entire position would be inadmissible to the debate. Just go with the Big Bang.

not necessarily so. we aren't in court, and if we were creationism would not have been ruled untenable as a scientific theory.

what i am asking for, is to kick us off with your official argument for evolution, and my response to dismantle it will be purely scientific. my goal here is not to prove creationism, but to prove that it is a more scientifically sound theory than evolution.

court rulings get overturned all the time, based upon new findings or better evidence. and i can win this debate without using anything but sound science

but if you want to do the big bang after this one, we could do that too
im just gung ho about this one first, i hope your ok with that.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Do it Sarah!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Do it Sarah!

Massacre him? I would rather not, I prefer a challenge when it comes to debates, not a victory on a silver platter.

 

[AustinMiles89]

Massacre him? I would rather not, I prefer a challenge when it comes to debates, not a victory on a silver platter.

lol no faith in me huh

i understand your skepticism and surety of your stance, but if you'll accept, i promise it wont be an easy argument to overcome.

on a personal note, i was a nuclear missile technician in the Navy for five years, i am not some passive observer of the scientific arena.

 

[whitebeaches]

Hi AustinMiles89 and PsychoSarah. Once you have agreed on the topic of debate please post here and we will proceed. I will set up the stipulations here and we can review them and discuss them before we open the debate. This would be done within 24 hours of your agreed upon debate topic.

Looks like it will be one interesting debate whichever way you chose. Look forward to what you decide and will check in later.

 

[PsychoSarah]

lol no faith in me huh

i understand your skepticism and surety of your stance, but if you'll accept, i promise it wont be an easy argument to overcome.

on a personal note, i was a nuclear missile technician in the Navy for five years, i am not some passive observer of the scientific arena.

You have two options, you can admit your position is more religious and belief based than science based, or you can instead make this a physics debate involving the Big Bang rather than a biology debate involving evolution. You can't claim creationism is science or scientifically supported, especially considering it has deities as a factor in it. You couldn't mention any salvation or afterlife stuff, you couldn't mention the bible, you couldn't reference most of what is in any creationist position if you honestly only used science.

 

[Strathos]

You shouldn't underestimate a determined creationist. Often they'll dig up a bunch of really obscure quotes or scientific papers that seem to support their position, and take a lot of research to actually refute, thus making it so you have to to through a lot more effort than they do.