Creation vs. Evolution Part 1: The Origin of the Universe
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 3 votes and 9 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
In general, Creationism is the speculative assertion that our reality was created by some personal entity.
Creationism does not provide an explanation of the method or mechanism by which the universe was created, or sheds no light onto the underlying laws, processes or motivations to explain why the universe was created. Indeed, creationism does not seek to explain how the universe was created, why or even really when.
It offers no predictions, nor any testable principles. It reveals no facts, or knowledge of physical laws we had not already known about prior, nor has it revealed any fundamental truths, or understanding. There are no practical applications, or use to creationism to aid or facilitate further discoveries. Worse, as an all powerful entity can do anything they want, follow any rules, and are not bound by rigorous mathematical laws, creationism is often presented as an unfalsifiable framework - one that can’t be proven wrong - even if it is.
As a result, it offers no real or useful explanation concerning the origins of the universe.
In fact, due to its reliance on happenstance and post hoc justifications that the universe is the way it is - just because: creationism itself is not an explanation or something that can be considered to advance knowledge: it’s rather the opposite. Creationism is the absence of any meaningful explanation, often asserted with the inherent goal of getting people to stop looking for one.
In this respect, Creationism is a failure at revealing any information or truth about the origins of the universe.
2.) Evolution / science.
Evolution is a theory pertaining to the changes to organisms over long periods of time and multiple generations - and none of its process are applicable outside of this.
However, it is often used as a catch-all process concerning a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe - and as such it will be assumed in this way.
The scientific origin for what we see around us is not some conjecture or hypothesis; but instead a broadly accepted theory, supported by evidence and which explains a wide variety of facts and observations.
To start with, it has been widely observed since Edwin Hubble’s famous star survey that all the objects in the universe are moving away from each other.
This leads to the common sense conclusion that the universe in the past was much closer together than it was today. Given the relationship of expansion (that the speed of recession is proportional to distance), there is an indication that space itself is expanding, rather than everything moving away from us. This is observation is consistent with everything moving apart from everything else.
Given the demonstrable behaviour of gravity and the fact that all objects in the universe must necessarily have been much closer together than they are today, the theory was put forward that the matter would have all been in one place in the form of a singularity (for which the maths is already well known)
So, the theory of the origin of the universe - that all the matter in the universe was packed into a single place then the space and matter in the universe began rapidly expanding at the start of the universe was posited.
In this scenario, two main predictions were made: that if the universe began super hot and cooled as it expanded - there would be a point where the atomic plasma absorbed all the light - and the when cooled enough became opaque. This would look like a burst of radiation in the radio band, that matched the emission spectra of hydrogen, red shifted consistent with being further away than any visible galaxy.
This background radiation predicted was famously discovered and has been well studied .
The second lesser well known prediction is the relative abundance of primary atoms in the universe. When the universe was super dense and hot, the amount of initial fusion that would occur can be calculated, and matched against the measured proportion of atoms in the universe. This too is a match. 
So, this theory of origin is measured against primary observable evidence, and has made and been validated by multiple predictions.
In all these cases, this theory, regardless of its flaws and limitations is already far more successful, useful and relevant than creationism.
- a. Missing Monopoles: Particle physicists claim that many magnetic monopoles should have been created in the high temperature conditions of the big bang. Since monopoles are stable, they should have lasted to this day. Yet, despite considerable search efforts, monopoles have not been found. Where are the monopoles? The fact that we don’t find any monopoles suggests that the universe never was that hot. This indicates that there never was a big bang, but it is perfectly consistent with the Bible’s account of creation, since the universe did not start infinitely hot.
- b. The Flatness Problem: The expansion rate of the universe appears to be very finely balanced with the force of gravity; this condition is known as flat. If the universe were the accidental by-product of a big bang, it is difficult to imagine how such a fantastic coincidence could occur. Big-bang cosmology cannot explain why the matter density in the universe isn’t greater, causing it to collapse upon itself (closed universe), or less, causing the universe to rapidly fly apart (open universe). The problem is even more severe when we extrapolate into the past. Since any deviation from perfect flatness tends to increase as time moves forward, it logically follows that the universe must have been even more precisely balanced in the past than it is today. Thus, at the moment of the big bang, the universe would have been virtually flat to an extremely high precision. This must have been the case (assuming the big bang), despite the fact that the laws of physics allow for an infinite range of values. This is a coincidence that stretches credulity to the breaking point. Of course, in the creation model, “balance” is expected since the Lord has fine-tuned the universe for life.
- c. Many secular astronomers have come up with an idea called “inflation” in an attempt to address the flatness and monopole problems (as well as other problems not addressed in detail here, such as the horizon problem). Inflation proposes that the universe temporarily went through a period of accelerated expansion. Amazingly, there is no real supporting evidence for inflation; it appears to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated conjecture—much like the big bang itself. Moreover, the inflation idea has difficulties of its own, such as what would start it and how it would stop smoothly. In addition, other problems with the big bang are not solved, even if inflation were true.
- d. Antimatter: Consider the “baryon number problem.” Recall that the big bang supposes that matter (hydrogen and helium gas) was created from energy as the universe expanded. However, experimental physics tells us that whenever matter is created from energy, such a reaction also produces antimatter. Antimatter has similar properties to matter, except the charges of the particles are reversed. (So whereas a proton has a positive charge, an antiproton has a negative charge.) Any reaction where energy is transformed into matter produces an exactly equal amount of antimatter; there are no known exceptions. The big bang (which has no matter to begin with, only energy) should have produced exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and that should be what we see today. But we do not. The visible universe is comprised almost entirely of matter—with only trace amounts of antimatter anywhere. This devastating problem for the big bang is actually consistent with biblical creation; it is a design feature. God created the universe to be essentially matter only—and it’s a good thing He did. When matter and antimatter come together, they violently destroy each other. If the universe had equal amounts of matter and antimatter (as the big bang requires), life would not be possible.
- e. No Population III Stars: The big-bang model by itself can only account for the existence of the three lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium). This leaves about 90 or so of the other naturally occurring elements to be explained. Since the conditions in the big bang are not right to form these heavier elements (as big-bang supporters readily concede), secular astronomers believe that stars have produced the remaining elements by nuclear fusion in the core. This is thought to occur in the final stages of a massive star as it explodes (a supernova). The explosion then distributes the heavier elements into space. Second- and third-generation stars are thus “contaminated” with small amounts of these heavier elements. If this story were true, then the first stars would have been comprised of only the three lightest elements (since these would have been the only elements in existence initially). Some such stars should still be around today since their potential life span is calculated to exceed the (big bang) age of the universe. Such stars would be called “Population III” stars. Amazingly (to those who believe in the big bang), Population III stars have not been found anywhere. All known stars have at least trace amounts of heavy elements in them. It is amazing to think that our galaxy alone is estimated to have over 100 billion stars in it, yet not one star has been discovered that is comprised of only the three lightest elements.
Sorry about that. I am a teacher and I had a busy last few days grading.
No it isnt. The “beginning of the evolutionary process” was the point at which there was some proto organic object which was able to imperfectly self replicate.
Yep - though evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe.
FF, and trying to prevent this being swayed by any last minute vote-bombs.
Indirect ff gets more towards end.
I would like to thank both opponents for this debate.
Pro has ff the majority of the rounds of the debate which is poor conduct
I ask the other voters to consider this when voting on conduct as well.