The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

Atheism Evolution vs Creation by God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,332 times Debate No: 64926
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (2)




I affirm, due to personal experience, observational, and scientific studies that all of creation demands that there be a living God that created ALL things. I know of no logical argument for the non-existence of a god, and have never seen any proof of evidence supporting the big band and evolution theories that attempt to give an alternative explanation of how everything we see came to be.
Street rules for this debate. I only require a rebuttal for every argument and no insulting. Sarcasm is allowed. And no new argument on round 5 because I will not be able to give a rebuttal.


Thanks for the challenge! I'll allow you to go first, as you brought up the argument, so go ahead!
Debate Round No. 1


First of all I would like to validate the Scriptures as a trust worthy reference to history:
For one, we have very much manuscript evidence that prove to be unaltered and unchanged. We have two main manuscripts of the Old Covenant writings. The one called the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation from the ancient Hebrew manuscripts that we no longer have, and the other is The Aramaic Tanak (Old covenant). We have many ancient manuscripts of both that match each other Probably about 95% word for word. The New Covenant holds even more evidence. We have 365 manuscripts written in Aramaic (called the Peshitta) that date back to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries that all match each other word for word letter for letter 99.9% all the way through. This shows clear proof of preservation of these writings. This shows that, apart from how unbelievable an event may seem, it is more trust worthy than the American and world history books of today which everyone regards as fact.
You may know of many passages in the Scriptures that seem to contradict. I would like to hear a couple, because I see this happen too often due to either miss translation or miss interpretation of the Scriptures.
Now touching on the things that are hard to believe, or deemed impossible:
Many say that miracles that are written in the Scriptures didn't happen based on impossibility under the laws of physics. Let me ask, how did the universe BEGIN? Newton's first law states: "An object that is at rest will stay at rest unless an external force acts upon it, and an object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless an external force acts upon it."'s_laws_of_motion
Antoine Lavoisier's law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation states that mass can neither be created nor destroyed. Within these two laws of physics alone it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to simply "come to be" out of absolutely nothing. But we know for sure that is did, somehow; and "how" is the debate. Likewise, as the BEGINNING of the universe is impossible and yet we do not deny the existence of it, we also must not deny the existence of the happenings of the miracles in the Scriptures strictly on impossibility. Rather, we investigate the probability if the God that did things deemed impossible under laws of physics in the Scriptures, Is the same God that did the impossible thing of CREATING the universe. You may ask, "what proof do you have that it had to be a God that did the impossible?" My answer: What or who ever did this thing impossible, had to be something or someone that was able to operate outside of the laws of the universe, being that the universe did not exist. something or someone this powerful, whether animate or inanimate has to be considered a God. And if done alone, the only God.
So now the question is, animate or inanimate? First of all let us define animate and inanimate.
Animate: adjective-
1. alive, possessing life
2. of or relating to animal life
3. able to move voluntarily
Inanimate: adjective-
1. not alive, especially in the manner of animals and humans
2. showing no signs of life, lifeless
From Google translate.

Think of this.. Can a rock DO anything by itself? how about a plant? water? a tree? no, because none possess life. What about a cat? dog? lion? human? The answer is yes to all, because all possess live, or are living. So we see that it is not an inanimate god that can DO something as impossible as CREATE the universe, or let alone be a god at all, But It has to be an animate God or, living God, that brought all things into existence.

So recapping, we see that all of creation demands there to be an intelligent and living creator that operates outside the laws of physics. And if this is so, it would be no big thing for any of the miracles of the Scriptures to happen.


Thanks, Yoshidino, once again I'm glad we're able to have an actual debate on here instead of just arguing in comments.

Scripture =/= historical

"we have very much manuscript evidence that prove to be unaltered and unchanged"

-If you are to make a claim that we have evidence to support the idea, let alone prove it, that much of a manuscript has been unaltered or unchanged, you'll need to provide a source. I can say, for example, Amelius was a Greek philosopher of the second half of the third century, and that would hold just as much merit as your assertion, considering there is nothing to back it up other than your/my words. However, I actually have a source - a book written by a Professor at Providence College, which can be seen here [1], but also, more specifically related to Amelius, individual chapters, downloadable via PDF here [2]. So you and I both made a claim, however my claim was supported with a quick informative sentence about the professor who published a book regarding what I'm talking about, as well as the textbook, which holds dozens of dozens of sources to back itself up with.

"This shows clear proof of preservation of these writings"

-You said we have manuscripts that match each other. Please, I'd like to see your sources to back up this claim. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you really do need some type of source to back this up with.

"it is more trust worthy than the American and world history books..."

-Let me stop you here. There is zero difference between someone writing something down now, in the year 2014, and someone writing something down in the year 237, 361, 498... If neither has any type of proof or evidence or logic behind their claims, their "writings," or as you call them, manuscripts, hold no merit. I can write that a comet flew across the sky and glowed colours of pink and green and blue, and in the year 3700 someone could read that. Would they believe me? Why would they? Because I wrote it 1700 years ago? Time has no relevance to truth.

The difference between biblical manuscript or scripture and world history books is that the history books we have are backed with significant evidence. Carbon dating, tracing DNA samples, fossil examination and other forensic studies can show evidence that supports a claim such as, say, Columbus finding America, or more recently, the Holocaust, which I'll get back to near the end of this. Did Columbus find America? Well, DNA evidence can back up our claims. The path across the pacific that DNA from old chicken bones took suggests that Europeans, not Polynesians, were the first to find South America [3], [4].

See the research put into ensuring world history books are as accurate as possible? Tracing DNA of chicken bones back hundreds of years across South America and the Pacific can show the relation to Europeans and Polynesians, and in turn validate our claims that Columbus could have very well been the first to land in South America.

A person who wrote something thousands of years ago is not the same as extensive DNA forensics research. However if it makes you feel better, Columbus also had a diary, which, well, was translated about a hundred years ago [5], and unfortunately, quoting my source here [6], "The only version of the diary of the first voyage that we have is the one transcribed by Bartolome de Las Casas in the 1530s."

This is all reasonable evidence that suggests Columbus did find America - Chicken bone DNA, diary entries, writings, and just the idea of doing something like he did does seem possible. Our history books can still have plenty of information about Columbus, even though he died about 500 years ago. Our history books aren't written by Joe who owns the corner store down the street, they're written by historians who heavily study ancient writings and conduct experiments and incredible research on the topic at hand, as well as incorporating scientists and forensic analysists to confirm hypothesis, etc. It isn't as simple as "well, these two guys wrote the same thing, so it's obviously true."


Unfortunately for the both of us, your links to Wikipedia just direct me to the main page. Maybe this is a browser issue on my end, or you just haven't pasted the links properly, I recommend a format where you simply put a number corresponding to which link you posted, and post the link at the bottom of the page, where there is enough room for the link to be "full."

But luckily for us, I know about Newton's law of motion, and Lavoisier's law of conservations.


An object will lay at rest unless an external force acts upon it, you're correct. This does not prove God exists, this simply means something must have caused the Big Bang (our most recognized theory) to happen in the first place.


Unfortunately for your friend Antoine, I disagree with him, and science is also disagreeing with him.

Before I get into this, I must remind you, we're talking about math, logic, time, mechanics, and matter, along with much more, on the quantum level. Not sure if you'll get this, but... remember when your buddy Dave told you about the "biggest number ever!!1!" being a "googol"? That's a one, followed by one hundred zeros. That's a hell of a lot, huh? Well, not quite. It's a drop in the bucket when we start talking about time in relation with our universe. Please keep in mind when we are talking about time (along with the several other main points of interest) on the quantum level, we aren't assuming the Universe has existed for a mere ~11,000 years, as the Bible claims.

Now, let me bring up a topic that I've been doing a lot of research on recently - quantum fluctuations.

First, here's a definition from Wikipedia [7], and a short elaboration on energetic particles by a great site explaining phenomena in the universe. For reference, try to wrap your head around this image -

- This can be explained through the Uncertainty Principle, the theory that wave properties (yes, at the quantum level) cannot be perfectly examined [9]. Also, here is a PDF illustrating an experiment of macroscopic quantum fluctuations [10]. I know a lot of this is really going to be hard to understand, and some of it downright impossible for people without a PhD in quantum mathematics, but to sum it up, the certain amount of energy can create particles, or matter, that currently cancel each other out, with our technology, but theories have been proved with the process of Spontaneous Parametric Down-Conversion. This method [11] has been proved with video evidence (although quite grainy and poor quality) [12].

If that's all too much to take in, this will help - energy always exists. Even in black holes, even in "vacuums" (which are no longer considered vacuums, assuming energy can always exist, energy can form particles for nanoseconds inside these vacuums), really everywhere. A period of time will exist when all energy has nothing to feed off of, and will produce these quantum fluctuations. This is suggested to happen, well, 10^{10^{56}} years from now, or somewhere in that time period. Mind you, this is just a theory, however considering quantum fluctuations have been recorded on a minimal scale, there could be a very good chance that they could happen on a quantum level - this means matter can be created from pure energy (what a lot of people consider "nothing"), and evidently, countering your argument regarding it being "impossible" for the universe to come out of "nothing," considering "nothing" doesn't exist [13].

Now... back to the miracles...

The difference between reading about miracles in the Bible and reading about anything in history or science books is that we can cross-examine, or even personally witness closely related events or findings in our science or history books. Let's use, for example, Moses splitting the Red Sea. You consider this a miracle, and although against the laws of, well, everything really, you say it is possible. We have nothing to show this is even remotely possible of happening, as nobody has recorded anything even close to something like that happening.

And as I gave reasonable examples of, the Universe didn't technically from from "nothing."

Just so we're both on the same page, plants and trees are alive. They most likely don't have any type of conscience, but they're living things. A plant is not the same as a rock. A plant grows and adapts to it's environment, and needs nutrients to survive. A rock does not.


- I have shown (so far) our history books are more valid than scripture.
- Miracles are not only physically impossible, but nothing is able to back up or even relate to any example of a "miracle."
- I have shown it is quite possible for something to come from "nothing," considering "nothing" most likely doesn't exist.
- Not everything needs a conscience creator to come into existence.
- Saying "an intelligent creator probably created the universe, so miracles are probably likely" is not a strong argument at all.

Thanks a lot for a good first round, looking forward to the next!













Debate Round No. 2


I specifically told you the names of our manuscripts; "the Septuagint, Aramaic tanak, and the Aramaic Peshitta new covenant. I am pretty sure you have a search engine cause you're on DDO. I don't have a specific website to link to you cause I didn't get it off the internet. I've held this info for quite some time in something you call a brain. My father has studied the manuscript evidence for over 20 years and passed the info down to me. You can use your search engine and a little studying to see if what I am saying is correct.
We also have evidence that supports miracles like the flood and the Red Sea crossing. Water gushing from a big rock in Saudi Arabia, And the ruins of what obviously looks like a big boat up in Ararat Mountain in Turkey. Chariots found at the bottom of the Red Sea. The Rock Layers support The flood, not millions of years. According to Evolution, the sediment layers took millions of years to form. Explain to me why standing petrified trees are found all over within these rock layers? When a tree dies it falls over. How long do trees remain standing after dying where you live?? It is a well proven fact that all of these layers would easily form under the conditions of a world wide flood within about 20 minutes. Our flood story easily explains these trees standing in the rock layers, as the sediments quickly formed around them in the flood. In Saudi Arabia, there is a mountain that is burnt to a crisp all the way up. How would you say this happened? Our scriptures tell us that Yahuwah Almighty came down on a mountain in that area by fire that consumed the entire mountain. Also in the same peninsula was found a huge rock about 45-50 feet tall split right through to the bottom. It has evidence of erosion all over and inside of it. Might I remind you that this is in the desert where no water dwells. Our Scriptures tell us that God made water gush out of a rock in Horeb to give drink to us. Also in these rock layers, petrified animals are found all over frozen in the "scared" position. How would your evolution support this? animals don't just die in the "scared" position. What were they scared of? The flood according to our scriptures tell it all. Don't tell me I have no evidence. I have plenty of it. What evidence do you have for your evolution? you tell me rock layers and fossils, but don't give any examples. Evolutionists always do this. Give me an example or don't say it. And carbon dating does not work. It has been proven wrong many times. Carbon dating is done by measuring the remaining C14 in a decaying fossil in which the animal possessed that ate plants that absorb C14 from the atmosphere. This C14 is very radioactive and decays quickly. Half of it decays every 5,750 years. You can measure rate of decay and how much is left, but without knowing exactly how much it had in the first place you can not know how long it has been decaying. This being said, I'll give a couple of examples of carbon dating failures: In 1949, the lower leg of a mammoth was carbon dated 15,380 RCY (radio carbon years) while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. In 1963, living mollusc's shells carbon dated as being 2,300 years old. 1971, a freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago. Shells from living snails were carbon dated 27,000 years old in 1984. Just a couple of examples. It doesn't work.
Now to Lavoisier: You attempted to prove him wrong using quantum mechanics. Your quantum mechanic ideas hold no merit in this debate because, as you said, they are only theories, not fact! Don't use an unproven theory as rebuttal, it doesn't work! When I say nothing I am not talking about "empty space," I know it is really something. When I say nothing, I mean the absence of space, matter, and any type of energy; EVERYTHING. How did it all COME TO BE? Laws of physics deny it the possibility. There has to be and animate God that rules outside the laws of physics to make this happen. quantum theories PROVE nothing! they're just stupid theories that scientists are wasting millions of dollars to try to prove. My first argument still stands. Your quantum theories hold no merit.



The purpose of the "sources" voting field is to judge whether or not each person participating in the debate has credible sources. I can easily link Bible verses here [1], so you should be able to link your manuscript sources. You also somewhat contradict yourself in your very first paragraph, you claim that I can "use my search engine and a little studying to see if what you're saying is correct," yet you won't even bother linking your own research on the topic you're debating and that you strongly believe in, and you also say you didn't even get your information from the internet. I linked more than one source for some of my arguments because I want to show how believable and reliable multiple studies are relating to one topic. I didn't say "look up quantum fluctuations and you'll see how wrong you are," I gave a brief summary of what quantum fluctuations are, and then proceeded to post not only several links, but a diagram explaining how matter can come into existence through energy.

So please, provide some sources. I'm not willing to go out of my way to a library to read your manuscripts if I can't find them online.

You use sarcasm with your "brain" comment (being borderline disrespectful), yet you go on to say how your father passed down information to you, and you blindly accepted it all as fact. Whenever my dad tells me something, I become interested in the subject and do research on it. Same with anyone who's important to me, I want to see if what they're saying is backed by evidence, or if they're just trying to pass faith down to me, as some of my relatives have tried.

So once again, if you're going to make a claim, please provide at least one link to a website (preferably not a strictly religious one) that agrees with you. And for the sake of your future augments on this site, I'd recommend against saying things like "I hold information that my dad gave me in my brain, ever heard of it? Also I don't have any sources to back up anything I'm saying, go do your own work to find out if what I'm saying is true." - That kind of contradicts the entire point of debating, you aren't bringing up your own points, you're just telling me to look up what you're talking about to see if it's true or not...


Now before I begin responding to your claims.... you haven't provided a single source or even link in any of your three rounds, and I see you haven't provided anything to back up your claims about miracles, so I could very well just pass everything you say off as opinion or say I won't respond considering you have not provided anything other than scripture to back up your claims with, but I really don't like doing that. I'd rather respond to your un-backed claims with scientific research. And please remember, if science currently can't give a definitive answer to something, such as your "burnt mountain" example, it does not mean God did it.


These are completely natural phenomenon caused by extreme heat under the Earth's crust boiling the water above it, causing it to rise and sometimes erupt or simply trickle out of pathways, or holes, on the surface of the Earth [2]. The diagram below shows how a geyser works, which was taken from this site [3]. Water coming up and out of a rock is odd and strange, as I have witnessed it personally and recorded it, but it is definitely not unnatural, and it is definitely not due to divine intervention or a result of a catastrophic flood.
How Geysers Work. Vector diagram — Stock Vector #23716505

Ararat Mountain

This mountain has geological evidence of being formed after the flood was said to have happened, due to volcanic eruptions [4]. This gives us the impression that if this boat actually came to be on this mountain by natural means, it must have been on flat land when this mountain formed, causing the boat to rise. Creationists also claim that through Carbon dating (surprising, now they like this method...), the wood used in the ark is 4800 years old, approximately the exact time the flood happened! This is fool proof right? ...No. For the wood to be 4800 years old would mean that the trees used for the wood would have had to have formed exactly at the time of the flood, and this is, well, more than improbable. And finally, seeing a wooden structure resembling a boat in a mountain does not mean there was a huge flood. It can be an idea, sure, even a theory, but there really is nothing to back this theory up with, except speculation.

Stuff at the bottom of the oceans

As you can probably imagine, there's a lot of weird stuff that sinks to the bottom of the oceans, for several reasons. Destroyed ships, humans tossing garbage, and lots more... Ancient computers, gunships, Nazi silver [5], and more. Finding trash at the bottom of the sea, or old parts of ships or even chariots, as your example claims, does not mean the sea was parted. It does not mean billions of gallons of water had been pushed apart, and we actually have a more credible reason for these pieces of chariots (which you fail to provide a source for) to have gotten to that part of the sea: currents [6]. Very simple explanation, considering the currents in the Red Sea are also effected by the jet stream above it. There is also one more explanation, however unlikely - Have you heard of the Bering Strait Land Bridge [7]? Geologists say there is a great possibility that water levels were significantly lower about 15,000 years ago, leading to the land under the water to be exposed, between Eastern Russia/Asia and Alaska. However after the ice melted around the poles, the water rose significantly above the "land bridge," and using this information, it can be assumed that a quite similar event happened to the Red Sea. This is natural though, and has nothing to do with divine intervention, or Moses splitting the sea.

Please keep in mind evolution is the understanding of mutations taking place in species to adapt to their environment, not the formation of rocks. And please also keep in mind we will not witness "evolution" take place between different species of animals, as evolution at that level happens over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. And yes, sorry, this kind of argues against the idea that the Earth is a mere several thousand years old.

Please provide a source for your tree example.

Mount Sinai

Science currently can not explain the burnt rocks on your mountain, however we have theories and ideas. Maybe volcanic eruption a long time ago? Maybe the sun is so incredibly hot that it burnt the dirt and sand and rocks on top of the mountain? Maybe someone actually did set fire to the rocks, in a biblical ritual? However rocks being set on fire or containing charcoal does not hint at divine intervention, or a miracle, and remember, lack of absolute knowledge does not "prove" God, or anything miraculous.

Please refer to my geyser explanation for your large split rock example. Even in a desert, there very well could be water deep under the surface, which is being heated by possible volcanic activity under the water, which in turn pushes the water up out of the rock, even in desert areas.

If you can give me a reliable source that says carbon dating is not reliable, I would like to see it. Because according to your creationist friends, they like to use carbon dating to determine the age of the Ark... but then they go around and say it's not reliable. Pick one! Also, you're using examples of mishaps from decades ago, surprisingly (not) anything recent.


Several things...

I gave you a video that showed quantum fluctuations on a macroscopic level. I also provided resources and incredibly in-depth explanations with scientific research backing it up to explain how quantum fluctuations work.

Sure, quantum fluctuations on a cosmic level are still a theory, considering (I'm pretty sure) we haven't actually witnessed anything of the sort, but your creation theory is also "just a theory," so literally by your own logic, your own argument also doesn't hold any merit. Remember, we're looking for the most reasonable, sound, realistic, rational, believable theory to explain how the universe/matter has come into existence.

I can use the exact same argument against your creation theory... it hasn't been proved, so don't use it, it doesn't work!

I know what you mean by nothing. "Nothing" doesn't exist. It was once called dark matter, and earlier I mentioned we have come to an understanding that Dark Matter has been "proved" to not even exist in the first place. If you can prove that absolute nothing has ever existed, then we'll be on the same page. But I provided sources that show "nothing" probably doesn't even exist.

"Quantum theories are stupid theories." And you say because the laws of physics deny the possibility. ...I honestly don't think you can say something like that, considering you assert that one man pushed billions, maybe trillions of gallons of water apart... that the entire Earth was flooded with rainwater in 40 days... that snakes can talk... that someone can walk on water.... turn water to wine... that one man and his family built a wooden boat to hold one of every species of animal... and you say in the quantum space-time level, energy creating matter is stupid? ....I don't know what to say to that.


I'll explain more about this next time. It's simply the theory (backed up with scientific research and studies) that living organisms adapt to their environments in different ways.

I'll also get into that Holocaust scenario later too...









Debate Round No. 3


I really don't care if I win or lose the debate according to voting standards. Nobody hardly votes on this site anyways. Website are mostly bias, so why would I post a site that supports me based on our bias that we share. It's better to look at both sides in your own research and figure out who supports their claims with the most facts, evidence and logic. It would do you no good for me to post my manuscript sites, because you probably can't read Hebrew or Aramaic, and if you can, you probably can't understand. correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't get my manuscript evidence from the internet to begin, but I have checked out the claims later (Not during this debate) and it would take me just as long to find the good sites again as it would you. I guess I will try to suffice you anyway, I apologize:
This last one posted is a good one and I suggest you read the section about contradictions. While the masoretic text and the Septuagint have a couple of inconsistencies, the Aramaic Peshitta has hardly any.
These tell a little about the Aramaic Peshitta New Covenant.
But the main topic is not "manuscript evidence." It is "Creation by God."
Don't complain about sarcasm, everybody does it.
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
"the miracle of rising from the grave"
A miracle is something that specifically can not be explained through science. I gave examples of proof of claimed miracle from the scriptures and you have tried to explain them with science, But I will now show how your rebuttal is flawed:
You say that you have recorded water coming out of a rock. I would like to see, if possible, this recording. Did it gush out in a way that split the rock completely in half and leave erosion marks all around and inside that would be visible years later? For some reason I doubt this, but show me. Were there any like it around the same place? The rock I'm talking about Is 45-50 feet tall and is the only one in the area, or in the world that is split from top to bottom with erosion all over. A simple geyser would not leave erosion marks. Erosion takes time. Our story tells us that the water continued to flow from the rock for a while, giving us water in the desert. Obviously this would cause erosion. Here Is a link to see "The Rock at Horeb":
Your link about Ararat only gave me a little information about HOW they know when and how this mountain formed and didn't tell who even did the studies. It sounded more like a guess as to when and how it was formed. And how would they know when it was formed, carbon dating? I already explained how carbon dating is very faulty. Here is something recent that happened (18 years ago) In 1996 up at Berkeley University, they used two advanced and different dating methods, the bones of "Erectus" were found to be between 53,000 to 27,000 years old. That's a 96% error. It's not getting better with time. I do not stand with the dating claims about the wood of the formation. I see too much error in carbon dating to trust it. I don't have to pick which I believe. I am against carbon dating 100%. And you are correct, all we can do is speculate. But I'd say logic says it was a boat. It it being a boat supported your evolution theory you would support it whole heatedly knowing that it looks like it was obviously a boat. But since it would support rather a big flood, you ignore logic. But moving on...

There are good reasons for all the things you mentioned and sited to be found in the bottom of the sea as they are all things that relate to a sea ship of some sort or something that would go on a ship. But and army of chariots in one spot at the Red Sea where the scriptures just so happened to claim the parting of the sea and drowning of the Egyptians has no good scientific explanation. Your water elevation land bridge argument doesn't work and actually made me laugh. You want me to believe that an army of chariots hung out at that spot and just sat there for thousand of years until the water level started flooding the area and then just stayed until they were buried in water? That's hilarious! That's the only way that could work! The Red Sea currents would not explain how the chariots got in the water in the first place. And if it was the currents that put the chariots there, the chariots would be scattered all along the Red Sea. But they're not, they're only in one spot. Also, the chariots are found in a spot in the Red Sea where the ocean floor is significantly raised. If they got there by current, there would be no way of getting them to the top of the raised ocean floor. Instead the rise in the ocean floor would act as a stopper preventing the chariots to continue down current. Here is a good link about these chariots:

Here is a video about Sinai and the split rock:

For the petrified trees:

Please explain...
Now to the quantum theories. I said don't use a theory to support you evolution theory at hand. Use fact. You can talk about your evolution theory all you wand just Like I can talk about my Creation "theory" all I want in this debate. But I am not using other theories to support my Creation "theory" and simply ask that you don't either. Let's stick to facts and evidence please.
Ok you aren't getting the idea of nothing and it's quite funny. Nothing can not exist. If it existed, it wouldn't be nothing. Nothing is the abstract concept of non existence.
not anything; no single thing.
"I said nothing"
synonyms:not a thing, not anything, nil, zero, naught/nought
Evolution: I know that living organisms adapt to their environments in different ways. But only on a small scale withing its own kind. Not from kind to kind.
I apologize for the lack of sites.


First, the videos

The Red Sea videos are just videos of what you've been saying. I've already explained how it's possible for garbage and debris to be pulled by the current across the sea floor.

Same goes for Mount Sinai. A rock was found that was mentioned in the Bible. This does not prove anything. Just because a place was mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean creationism is 100% true.

The "human" hands found are widely accepted throughout the scientific community to be turtle hands [1]. And the trees? Erosion happens. Volcanic eruptions, other normal Earthly events can cause rocks to crumble while the tree is fossilized through the layers. There are many reasonable explanations as to why or how trees can be buried through different layers of the geologic column, like this site explains [2].

So basically, the videos are just extended versions of your arguments.

Now back to the debate

The reason I brought up the "sources" category is because it's extremely helpful in a debate to cite where you get your information, instead of making claims then telling me to do my own homework. I wish this was a simple "who has the better argument" type of debate, but it isn't. Claims like these require evidence, and we can't provide evidence without at least citing websites that have members who do extensive research and contains documentation on the subject at hand. I appreciate the sites, they do help your argument, as they do seem credible and do give you grounds, instead of making a claim that something says something without anything else agreeing with you, so thanks.

I actually did read the part about contradictions before I even saw you asked me to, however I fail to see the relevance of the misconceptions between Edom and Aram in regards to our debate, other than just being consistent.

The reason I "complained" about sarcasm is that I just find it kind of annoying when someone who I (think) am having a friendly debate with decides to "sarcastically" belittle my intelligence and insinuate that I don't have a brain.


Here's that rock -

The water flows up to a certain point, and there is erosion. When we scooped water out, it would rise back up. No, this isn't a "geyser," but it's a natural (yet strange) phenomenon that happens. The main thing that I like about this comparison is your "miracle" happened through a rock, and in my situation, there is water coming out of this rock too.

Just because something is strange does not mean it is evidence of creation by God, considering we have evidence of geysers around the world, and I explained how geysers work, and water is known to be below the desert floor, so the chance that it can happen here isn't incredibly low, and definitely not a miracle.

I kind of got confused at your last few statements there. Carbon dating isn't perfect, you're correct, however there are other methods of studying the age of inorganic matter [3]. A boat in a mountain can give the impression there was a large flood, sure, but it doesn't prove anything, considering there are many other ideas and theories that are yet to be disproved.

Red Sea

If someone were to mention ancient computers or Nazi silver, transporting them by ships wouldn't come to mind. ...Does this also mean you're ruling out the possibility that chariots or their parts were not transported by ships?

"No good scientific explanation."

-The tides rushing in and out due to the melting polar ice caps caused the line of people to get swept out and drown?

-The ground was elevated in several spots, and the people thought they could survive on the higher ground but the water came in and eventually surrounded them all?

-The water went out due to tidal surges before a tsunami, and the water rushed back in and killed them all?

*This is all assuming you're right, and it was actually dry land that everyone walked along*

-Maybe they all started going when the tide was out, or a tidal surge had pulled the water out to sea, and it rushed back so quickly that they didn't have time to get back to land, and their chariots got swept to sea?

There's plenty of scientific theories relating to old technology at the bottom of the sea.

How'd the chariots get in the water in the first place? Maybe someone threw faulty chariots in there? That's a pretty reasonable explanation right there.

Your "raised ocean floor" point kind of validates my theory that the people sought refuge on top higher ground when the water started filling back up.

Quantum theories

I'm not using quantum mathematics to validate the theory of evolution. The reason I brought up anything on the quantum level in the first place is because you claimed nothing can be created nor destroyed, therefore the universe could not have just "came to be." So I explained how quantum fluctuations work to show there is a very good chance (backed with video proof) that matter actuallycan come into existence without an external force.

So I'm not supporting my evolution theory with my quantum fluctuations theory. I'm disputing your claim (something you asked me to do in your first round) about matter not being able to come into existence, as you said - "I only require a rebuttal for every argument." So I gave you my rebuttal, and you're saying "no, it's just a theory." ...Yeah and so is practically everything in existence, not a whole lot of scientific ideas are regarded as absolute fact, and certainly no religious theories are considered fact. Even evolution is not 100% fact, however there are many pieces of evidence that support the theory of evolution.


What's funny is your misunderstanding of the phrase "nothing doesn't exist." Everywhere is something. Even dark matter has been shown to most likely not even exist, and is replaced with actual matter, or energy. Whenever you say "nothing," I know you're saying the lack of anything, however as I showed you much earlier in the debate, there's a pretty solid argument against the fact that there actually is "nothing" in the Universe. Instead of the empty space, there is energy, if no matter exists. You're asserting there was one point in time (or space) that nothing existed. Given our current understandings of what "nothing" is, it can be argued that where someone thinks there was "nothing," something actually was there, and it was most likely energy, which can create matter, as shown by my quantum fluctuation example.


You seem to fail to grasp the concept of evolution completely. Since I've taken care of everything else already, I've got plenty of space to explain evolution and how it works and the evidence we have to support the theory. Please keep in mind when someone is talking about evolution, they're most likely referring to the mutations and change in a species of animal, and the idea that all life (or animate life) came from the same type of cells at a time. For example, through the right atmosphere and environment along with the combination of water and breathable air, organic molecules started mutating and growing, and ended up replicating themselves (most likely) in an African body of water. Simple adaptations to the environment (considering the molecules are organic, they have the ability to do that) caused certain things to happen; cell membranes formed, different molecules such as proteins being responsible for metabolic functions, or DNA responsible for transmitting information throughout the cell, etc. This [4] explains everything I went over in greater detail, with diagrams.

You ask for a common ancestor, well we're not too certain. However it is quite possible that life originated around an air vent at the bottom of an ocean or sea or body of water [5]. Please feel free to take a look through the rest of the pages in the links I provided, as they go into great detail explaining how life can form through chemical compounds and how it can adapt to it's environment and evolve.

"Kind to Kind"

I hear way too many creationists say this. This does not happen. This is not evolution. This is nothing. This is your misinterpretation of what evolution is. Evolution is the changing and adaptation of a species and bacteria and any living thing. Evolution is not a dog turning into a lion overnight. It is not a fly turning into a monkey. The idea that we all share a common ancestor has nothing to do with different species, who share different DNA, "evolving" into a completely different species. You even agreed that evolution exists on a "small scale," I'm assuming you mean microscopic, but even if you did, how can you rule out the possibility of evolution existing within larger animals if it exists in small animals? Because our idea that it takes hundreds of thousands of years for animals to evolve into what they are today doesn't fit with your "11,000 year old Earth" idea?

Microevolution [6] is adapting to an environment. Macroevolution [7] is studied through fossils, geology, and the change or current state of other living organisms. If you can accept that different animals have adapted to their environment, I don't see why you can't accept that they've continuously adapted and changed over millions and millions of years.

Also, when you say "kind," I think you mean "species" [8].

Darwin can help explain evolution to you [9].

Glad we finally got the evolution argument out of the way!

Thanks, I won't bring up new arguments next round, I'll just counter yours.









Debate Round No. 4


I already debunked your explanation about currents.
The petrified trees are standing up within the sediment layers that are claimed to be formed over the course of millions of years. Were they formed by erosion/volcanoes or millions of years of Evolution? pick one. Erosion doesn't actually explain them though.
the process of eroding or being eroded by wind, water, or other natural agents.
"the problem of soil erosion"
the gradual destruction or diminution of something.
Not the gradual build up of sediments, but the gradual destruction of sediments. Volcanoes would not have been able to separate the sediment layers like water would, so volcanoes are also out of the question. But let's say the sediment layers WERE formed by volcanoes... That would be to say that they DIDN'T form from billions of years of evolution. So like I said, pick one. If you pick volcanoes that destroys your geologic columns. But you can't pick volcanoes cause they wouldn't separate the sediment layers. You can't pick billions of years of evolution, because that doesn't explain the standing petrified trees. So you're stuck with sediment layers formed by a LOT of water. This is the only way to explain both the separation of sediment layers and the standing petrified trees.

That rock you showed me is TOTALLY comparable to the 45-50 foot tall rock found in Saudi Arabia that is so big you can walk in to the spit made in the rock. I mean, the rock in your picture is HUGE! And look at all the erosion all around the rock!.... Oh wait, that's just grass. (ps. this comment is completely sarcastic.) Huge erosion is found all over the Split Rock. Rocks around it are flattened by erosion (as shown in the video) giving clear evidence that water once gushed out of this rock and spit it in half. This was found in the same place as the burnt mountain with carvings of cows (Egyptian god), an altar, and ancient Hebrew writing on the stones. Logic tells that something like the story in the book of Exodus actually happened.

All of your guesses are pretty ridiculous and have no historical record, or legend to back them up. I gave the examples to show that we have evidence that supports the stories found in the scriptures. Why do you want so badly not to believe that something like that could happen? Instead you make up a collection of "possibilities" that hold no historical record of support whatsoever. (ps. no such weather patterns are recorded over the Red Sea that make anything of what you are saying "naturally" possible.) Also, in your list of possibilities, you have decided to switch from the gradual rising of the ocean floor to a very quick and huge natural disaster that has never been recorded anywhere.
Faulty chariots being thrown into the Sea would be a good explanation maybe if there wasn't found with them horse and human bones. Why are they there?

No theory can count in support of your argument or as a rebuttal to mine. I want facts and evidence for rebuttals and support for your subject theory of Evolution/Big Bang. Do you have any at all?? If not, why do you believe it?
The argument is not on micro evolution within a kind which can be observed, it's on macro evolution which can not be proven, neither can any evidence or logic be given for it.

Oh my Gosh! Nothing isn't anything! "nothing" is not matter, not space, not energy." "nothing" is not a noun, "it's" a pronoun. "It" can not exist neither could "it" have ever in the past or in the future. If "it" did exist, "it" wouldn't be "nothing" but something. "nothing" is the abstract concept of the absence of existence. I'm not arguing about "nothing" any more. It's elementary.

I asked you not to say something without proof.
Give me evidence. I understand what evolution is.
The DNA code for one kind of animal is different than that of a different kind of animal. The DNA varies within it's kind, but does not evolve into something else.

"Evolution is not a dog turning into a lion overnight." Oh, so instead it happens in millions of years? evidence please? You have none. You only have evidence of adaptations within a specie (micro evolution). But that is not the debate. The debate is your above statement. You believe something you can not prove with science, evidence, or logic. A website that explains the theory is not evidence that it is true.
'You even agreed that evolution exists on a "small scale," I'm assuming you mean microscopic." No, I do not mean microscopic. There is no evidence for that either. I simply mean within a species. Ex. wolf; coyote; dog. Its variation within a species. Not hard science. I said I object to the term, "micro evolution." I only use it because it is what scientists call it. But the moment you believe a dog can ever turn into a lion, you move from science to religion, because you now have no evidence to support what you believe. I don't care if you believe it, but don't call it science. I don't believe the earth is 11,000 years old, I believe it is only almost 6,000 years old. You have failed to prove this not true with facts and evidence.

Your faith in the evolution of all organisms, matter, and energy is not based on scientific evidence or facts of any kind. You have simply chosen to believe it. Your faith in this evolution is a religion.




I gave several reasonable explanations as to how wheels could have ended up in the sea in that area.

Lol, telling me to "pick one" isn't really an option right now. You're asserting that because we have trees that are standing up through years of sediment, God created the world and it's been around for only a few thousand years. I'm giving reasonable explanations as to how this can be possible. Although neither can be definitive 100% "proof," it's up to scientists and geologists and archaeologists and others to determine what's the current most reasonable idea, and the theory that through volcanic ash, erosion, sediment build up, earthquakes, other natural events, the trees managed to be held up through the years, seems to be more reasonable and favours evolution more than creationism.

Yes, erosion explains how the ground around the trees can break away or cause the trees to fall/sink into the Earth, while staying upright. This is a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Some material forming around the trees can hold them upright. The trees can sink deeper into the Earth. There are many things that can cause trees to stay upright through layers of geological columns, and hey sure, water could be one, however this doesn't mean that there was a flood that covered the entire Earth.


...Have you ever heard of a "comparison"? I gave an example of water flowing through a rock, showing that it's completely natural for this to happen, and it can be possible for a geyser to form on a grand scale, splitting a rock in half. You saying "look, a natural event!" Does not prove God or creation, or disprove evolution.

Red Sea

No historical record? So other than the Bible (a book filled with metaphors, a lot used to simply be life lessons or good moral values to live by), there's no historical record saying billions of gallons of water were pushed apart by an unknown force. I want to believe this can happen, however it is completely impossible according to our understanding of logic, science, gravity, reality, etc. I'm giving other possibilities as to what could have caused a bunch of stuff to float to a point in the bottom of the sea because this is my stance in the debate... to give other explanations as to what could have caused something that you claim to be a miracle or God or something religious. "Why are they there?" - Well why is anything in the sea? Stuff gets dumped or finds its way to the bottom of the ocean floors, I'm sure you could find rabbit bones and wolf bones and steel and metal and other stuff too. Does that mean there was a rabbit-wolf sword fight down there too?


I've given you probably a dozen reputable sites backing me up on my theory of an expanding universe. You want facts yet your "facts" are "this one part in the Bible makes sense, therefore it is all 100% truth." I also gave you several sites that support the theory of evolution.

If you're not satisfied with my previous sites regarding an expanding universe, here's a few more...

Macro evolution can't be "proved" in the sense where we can witness it happening, as it takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, however the evidence does support this theory very well, as I've shown in my previous reply. There's hardly any evidence that supports your biblical theory to be more reasonable than my scientific theory.


You claimed that "something can't come from nothing." I claimed that there is always something, even if it doesn't look like anything is there, in other words, nothing doesn't exist, as there is something in place of what you consider to be "nothing." Great, this argument didn't get anywhere considering you wouldn't believe me (even though I gave great evidence, such as this [1]) that your idea of "nothing" doesn't exist.


I explained how reasonable it is to understand that we all came from a common ancestor and evolved in different ways from one another, along with scientific studies and information to back that up with. The DNA codes are different because the environment and that species' adaptation to that environment caused the DNA codes to change. You make an assertion that something cannot happen, yet when I explain how it is possible that it can, and I show how people have done experiments and studies on it, you just say "no evidence" (which I'm assuming the only type of "evidence" you want would be a video of a dog changing into something that isn't a dog...) and not even consider what I'm showing you. I don't know what kind of evidence you want, I've given you enough evidence that supports the idea that everything has evolved from a common ancestor billions of years ago, which makes a lot more sense than "everything appeared at once."

Kind to Kind

You have absolutely no idea what evolution even means, and it shows. It's not the current types of species turning into different current types of species, it's something evolving in separate ways, and as of now, a couple of those things would be, say, fish and sharks. If we're talking about from the very beginning, the very start of life, if it did start in the ocean, that one type of organism would mutate in millions of different ways as it reproduces or replicates, and eventually turning into what we have today.

I gave evidence that supports the idea of what I'm arguing. You can't prove anything related to God with science, evidence, or logic... I actually did explain mine, even if you don't consider the evidence to be enough or if you don't accept the science as it is, the logic works. So if anything, that's 1/3 for me, and 0/3 for you. My theory is still more logical than yours at the very least.

I do have evidence. I have evidence that supports this idea. I obviously don't have a video or even reason to believe something that doesn't even fall into the category of what evolution is. But I showed you the evidence that supports my idea.

You keep asking for "evidence," yet I have no idea what kind of evidence you want. It seems like all you'll accept (considering I provided dozens of links to reputable sites with scientists and geologists and archaeologists and astronomers have done experiments on) would be like videos or something of specifically a dog turning into a lion... I gave reason to believe the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, and you couldn't defend that very well at all.

All you've said is "no, you haven't provided the exact evidence I want," even though the "evidence" you provided that "supports" your creation theory can hardly be considered evidence at all, or even be related to anything biblical or miraculous.

Thanks a bunch for the debate, I'm hoping you learned something, as I know I did!

Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Thanks a lot for the feedback, thisnameasused. Sometimes it's better to be blatantly honest in order to get our points accross, and you did a great job at that.
Posted by thisnameasused 2 years ago
Yoshidino, you debate like a petulant child, your tone is nauseatingly arrogance and self assured and you have completely missed the points being presented to you several times. Nothing changes on that front I see. A lot of your arguments are disappointing. It comes back to the same thing - you have not and cannot provide any non-subjective, tangible evidence for the existence of a cosmic creator. Also, take a look at abiogenesis (I'm not providing a source because, to quote your reasoning - you likely wouldn't understand it) - wrap your head around that and then re-read your comments on inanimate objects.

You were outmatched and outargued. As I say, I can't vote but could I, it would be going to Mister Man hands down. Feel free to drum up a debate and give me a heads up on the topic and we'll see about getting a debate going Yoshidino
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Also, yoshi, you're now trying to find stuff to argue about which is completely irrelevant to the debate. You know how many religious people I've seen vote against others (including myself) simply because they disagree? Nothing to do with who had the better argument, more reliable sources, etc., just that "I disagree with the atheist, therefore 7pts to the theist."
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
I know what you mean by nothing. Try opening your mind a bit, maybe everything in existence is eternal. Maybe everything didn't "come from nothing," as most cosmologists and scientists and astrophysicists are now starting to consider the possibility of. You're ASSERTING that before all this existed, there was nothing, therefore God had to be the acting force to push everything into existence - a good argument if you can back up your original argument that at one point in time (presumably about 14 billion years ago), nothing existed. Then you'd have to prove how God existed if nothing existed. Then you'd have to prove how God created matter from nothing. Then you'd have to explain a lot more. You didn't do any of that because you were too hung up on simply disagreeing with me...
lol, "one species evolved into another" ...yeah like I've said several times, you don't quite understand how evolution works. That isn't a thing. A species evolving into another species is your made up idea of what you believe evolution to be, so of course there's no evidence for that. That would be like me saying "give me evidence that Jesus could fly."
Posted by chewster911 2 years ago
I said that i didn't agree because i wanted to see if you could actually present a strong argument. My votes for "agree before the debate" will always be a tie. And i didn't agree with him because he's an atheist,or because he believes the same as i do,i voted because his arguments were strong as steel. And you couldn't rebut them. At least you tried.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
I love how an atheist votes and says that he did't agree with either of us at the beginning of the debate! You're atheist! Of course you agreed with the atheist!!
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
On your last argument about nothing... I'v been saying that "nothing" doesn't exist the ENTIRE TIME! Everything that exists, whether we see it or not, is something, not nothing. My point was that at one point, everything that exists had to have not existed if it is not eternal. so before there was anything, there was nothing. literally nothing. According to the laws of the universe, something can't just "COME TO BE" from absolutely nothing without another force that operates outside the laws of the universe. The universe is expanding.... What is it expanding into?? I believe that the universe is expanding. The Scriptures say that God STRETCHES out the heavens. So scientific evidence of the universe expanding supports both arguments, therefore it can prove neither.
What kind of evidence do I want?? Just evidence that one specie evolved into another. You telling me that there is proof that genes change under the effects of habitat is not evidence. Give me the name of the experiment that proved this so i can check it out. I bet you aint got one. Also, If animals lived at one point for thousands or millions of years that were mid species between the species we know of today, than there should be countless fossils found of these "missing links." This is just logic and you're ignoring it. We have plenty of fossils of the species we know today. According to your evolution theory, these mid species existed for thousands and millions of years as they slowly transitioned. Were is the evidence for this? Where are the missing links? This is the kind of evidence I want.
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Guess he could have used some semantics and said I never even produced an argument against the Big Band Theory, haha
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Thanks a lot for the feedback Chewster, glad someone learned something! I always like when people message me saying they learned something from one of my debates :) and Bubbagump - He won't budge, lol.
Posted by Philosophybro 2 years ago
lol "the big band" theory :O
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: con used very good sources to rebut pro and prove evolution.
Vote Placed by chewster911 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to present a strong case against evolution,and there were some fallacies there. Con's case was much stronger on the other hand. He rebutted Pro's arguments quite well. And that Also points to Con for the sources. It was an interesting debate,and i learned something new from Con that i did not know before,so kudos to him.