Instigator / Pro
7
1576
rating
12
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#419

Abiogenesis VS Creationism

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

MagicAintReal
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Description

*Rules for Debaters and Voters*

1. The definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate and both debaters agree, by accepting, that all voters must use these definitions when weighing their vote and that if the voters do not use these definitions, both debaters will publicly request that the mods remove the vote.

2. All votes *must* have thorough, serious reasons for voting and both debaters agree, by accepting this debate, to publicly ask the mods to remove those votes, after the debate, if the votes are not serious or thorough.

3. By accepting this debate, both debaters and the voters (and maybe one day I can say the moderators too) agree that any vote that is dishonest (defined below) about what occurred in the debate will be requested publicly by both debaters, after the debate, to be removed by the mods.

Dishonest votes include:

a. Voters claiming an argument was made by a debater that was never made and then using this fabricated or exaggerated argument to vote that debater up or down.

b. Voters claiming a source that was provided by a debater states/shows something it does not state/show and then using this imaginary/exaggerated content to vote the debater up or down.

c. Voters claiming a source that was used by a debater for a particular purpose that was not the purpose the debater stated it was being used for or voters exaggerating/self-generating the purpose/intent of the debater in order to vote the debater up or down.

d. Voters ignoring arguments made by a debater to claim the arguments were never made then voting that debater up or down based on the claimed lack of arguments.

e. Voters ignoring sources provided by a debater in order to claim the debater didn't provide them, or to claim that the sources were not supporting an argument not used by the debater to support, or to claim that the purpose for using the source was something not stated by the debater to be or to claim that the purpose for using the source was one that was fabricated by the voter to be then using any or all of these fabrications to vote the debater up or down.

f. Voters claiming a lack of clarity where it is not obviously apparent and where the voter does not specifically explain why it's not very clear or voters exaggerating a lack of clarity without referencing content within the debate in order to vote the debater up or down.

g. Voters using ANYTHING not within the debate in order to vote a debater up or down.

4. Both debaters agree, by accepting the debate, that any votes that a) fail to address the majority of resolution-impacting points made by both debaters, b) are dishonest (see above) or lies about debater performance, or c) are vendetta votes/overtly biased will be requested, publicly, by both debaters to be removed by the mods.

5. Death23, ethang5, and any of their related accounts may not vote on or participate in this debate because of the dishonesty section of the rules.

*Full Resolution*
Abiogenesis is a better explanation for the origin of life on earth than creationism.

Pro has the BoP to show that abiogenesis is BETTER than, not equal to, creationism.

Con has the BoP to show that creationism is BETTER than, not equal to, abiogenesis.

*Definitions*

abiogenesis - the concept that organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances on earth.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abiogenesis

better - of a more excellent QUALITY.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/better

The QUALITY in this debate is agreed to be "explanatory power" with respects to the origin of life on earth.

explanatory power - the ability of a theory to effectively explain the subject matter it pertains to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_power

explanation - a statement or account that makes something clear.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/explanation

origin - the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/origin

life - the condition that distinguishes animals, plants, fungi, protista, archaea, and bacteria, from inorganic matter, including the capacity for metabolism, inheritance, maintaining homeostasis, and reproduction.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/life

earth - the planet on which we live that is third in order from the sun.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/earth

creationism - the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, RATHER THAN by natural processes.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/creationism

-->
@MagicAintReal
@Ramshutu

I completely agree

-->
@Ramshutu

Wow that was a very well balanced RFD...thanks

-->
@Ramshutu

Thanks for the rfd

Should I consider consider creationism better as it explains more things?

All that being said: even if I give con the widest benefit I can give as a voter, I still think he loses this one. Pros opening round was so comprehensive, and so unrefuted - that I don’t think it would be fair awarding this any other way.

Moreover, while there were several small claims made by con that were not refuted or addressed by pro: there were large numbers of small explanations from protein catalysis, and issues with MU that were addressed.

While this could have been closer had con not forfeited the final round - that con so easily dismissed the main thrust of pros comprehensive explanation gave con a mountain to climb either way.

Note: I’m certain I have mixed up pro and con so much during this RfD, it’s not done intentionally.

8.) prime mover / free will.

I have to give this to pro. Con did not explain how free will or the prime mover necessitated creationism, or is something that is explained by creationism. Pro questions the applicability later on - and I am forced to concurr.

9.) Predictions.

None of cons predictions, other than the examples of IR mentioned, were addressed by pro at all.

As these are all presented as predictions of creationism, I must consider them as unrefuted, though they are fairly weak.

10.) Conclusion

Pros supportive arguments primarily revolve around showing how good abiogenesis is at explaining the origin of life through natural means.

Cons supportive arguments primarily revolve around pointing to aspects of the world that creationism can explain.

I would consider both valid approaches, as neither were directly contested by the debaters or obviously against the definitions.

Not only did this muddy the waters a bit, but as creationism tends to be about everything, and abiogenesis being a small part of biology - it’s hard to know how and what to weigh without being unfair to either side.

Saying this, however: while pro successfully explained it that some of those elements are not part of abiogenesis - con does raise the concept of irreducible complexity as supporting creationism.

This makes things difficult to score here - as creationism and abiogenesis don’t cover the same broad aspects of origin of life.

I somewhat conclude that while pro defends abiogenesis successfully, I have to give con some credit on his argument here.

6.) improbable.

Con raises 3 issues relating to abiogenesis is improbable.

First it has too many steps. Pro argues scope of abiogenesis - I accept his rebuttal on the count of creation of the universe being outside his burden given the scope of abiogenesis, I don’t think more was necessary, including for the solar system.

Pro builds up a further rebuttal that indicates that con assumes configurations of DNA etc that are based on life now, rather than life as it could have been established - this is a good argument, as it points out con presupposes that life hasn’t changed - which pros entire opening argument contradicts.

7.) Faint young sun.

I thought pro initially dropped this, but it appeared in his penultimate round. Pro initially uses sources to show that the earth was indeed habitable by other studies. This would have been enough, but he pointed out the solution to the FYS from cons own source. This put a nail in the coffin on this argument.

In all, though, pros initial arguments on the science were broad and pretty well argued - the only part of this I could consider in doubt is the issue con raised about energy. If accepted on its face, it seems inadequate as a rebuttal to all of which pro raised and was left unrefuted; especially as Con put an emphasis on the MU rebuttal which, IMO, failed.

3.) Law of biogenesis.

In my view, pro gives me reason to expect the law of biogenesis that are true now, may not have been true in the past (previous conditions). Pro also gives a practical and reasonable explanation of why organisms cannot be spontaneously created now (they’ll be instantly eaten because the earth is biotic)

4.) Cell theory.

Con doesn’t actually make a distinct point that I can see other than referencing irreducible complexity.

Pros response, however - implicitly explained information about how the cell specifically could still function - just not technically be a live - in itself helps pros case of explanatory power - as any unknowns that pro explains with abiogenesis helps bolster its supposed explanatory power.

5.) irreducible complexity.

Cons argument defines the concept and gives examples of items that he deems to be irreducibly complex.

Pros responses, in terms of explaining the origin of the cell, and referencing his original argument with regards to RNA catalysis. He also expertly explains a whole host of evolutionary elements for the evolution of mitochondria and marine mammals. For the final example of neurons - pro gives a good reason of why this is out of the scope of abiogenesis.

-->
@Ramshutu

"Conduct to con for the forfeit. While neglecting to post a last round, I always and invariably vote for conduct on forfeits unless the rules explicitly except it."

The conduct point should go to pro, not me.

In my view, in terms of cons counter, I agree that the explanation creationism is able to explain facts better, a material mechnanism isn’t required.

2.) The technical science.

Pro provides a detailed mechanism, explanation and citations for how abiogenesis is understood to happen. Cons response was essentially that a number of aspects of the basic science have been overturned or shown to be false.

This includes the MU experiment, primordial soup, and issues relating to replication of DNA. The latter explanation I felt was particularly damaging in its own right to pro.

On the MU - pros referencing recent MU experiments and explanations were pretty devastating, giving specific reasons why cons objections on reducing atmosphere was incorrect.

Cons side argument about the MU being intelligently designed was also very well batted away - I really felt that pros argument was succinct, to the point and showed the issue - yes it was intelligently designed, and this intelligent design showed that things can happen without intelligent interaction. I thought that was a great point well argued.

For the primordial soup - I found that pro didn’t do quite as well. I found that while pro provided an explanation of catalysis, con raises issues with lack of available energy.

In this respect I don’t think pro was refuting the point con was making.

Pro to his credit, finished up with a good reference back to his original points relating to hydrothermal catalysis.

Rfd - backwards as I’m writing on my phone:
Sources:

Pros opening round was perfect for sources, every step was sourced and bolstered with a link, which we’re direct scientific resources. This makes pros rebuttal much harder - as particular information and steps have to be attacked in a broader sense.

Pro points out no less than 3 individual sources con provides that effectively refuted or undermined cons position.

Conduct to pro for the forfeit. While neglecting to post a last round, I always and invariably vote for conduct on forfeits unless the rules explicitly except it.

Arguments. Note: I am not giving any feedback as part of my vote - because we can’t have nice things - if you would like feedback separately let me know.

1.) Creationism.

Pro points out that Creationism is an act, with no attempt to explain the mechanism behind that act. In his response in round 3, con agrees citing a quote that ID, and Creationism, is not a material mechanism, but an intelligent cause. (Though con calls this a mechanism) He uses this to explain why the Cambrian explosion is better suited to Creationism rather than naturalistic causes.

Con references the Cambrian explosion several times throughout: I can’t see a single example of pro mentioning it, so I have to give the Cambrian explosion as an example of something Creationism explains better than pro.

Come on people now, let's get some votin' goin' on.

-->
@MagicAintReal

Indeed it is!

-->
@David

This is an epic battle of explanatory power!