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

Biblical Creationism is Incorrect

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 713 times Debate No: 55608
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




1st: Acceptance only.
2nd: Opening arguments only.
3rd: Both rebuttals and new arguments.
4th: Rebuttals only.
5th: Summaries only.


Hello! I look forward to debating this topic with you.

May the Truth prevail.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for this debate.


2P1: Lack of Scientific Basis

There is no reason to believe something to be true unless it has factual (and therefore scientific) basis. Unfortuntely for Biblical Creationists, science is against Biblical Creationism.


2P1A: Falsifiability

Biblical Creationism is not science because it is unfalsifiable. Why? Because whenever an evolutionist proves that an aspect of creationism is scientifically impossible, incredibly improbable, or contradictory, a Biblical Creationist can just say that "God did it using magic, so, uhm, that makes it possible!" This can never be disproven, because God will always make creationism appear possible, making it impossible to find a disproof of creationism.

It's like this: Say I tell you that there's a gigantic pink elephant sitting next to you. You doubt me, noticing a distinct lack of elephant, pink or otherwise. I tell you that it's there, but it's just invisible to you and me, because the Flying Spaghetti Monster gave it an invisibility + nonmateriality cloak. There is no way that you can prove me wrong -- and no way that I can prove myself correct.

As such, either my opponent must accept that Biblical Creationism is NOT science because if is unfalsifiable, or that God cannot intervene outside of where mentioned by the Bible, because that would make it unfalsifiable and fit the former reason.


2P1B: Timescale

Biblical Creationism argues that the world is below 6,000 years old [01]. If the world is proven to be older than 6,000 years, then the Bible is not inerrant, and Biblical Creationism is false. Clearly, the world is older than 6,000 years, because many artifacts have been dated to older than 6,000 years old. Let me provide a few samples:

5,063 years - Currently unnamed tree [02]. This tree is too old for Biblical Creationism not because it would be older than the world but because it would have had to been alive since before the flood began.

11,750 years - King Clone creosote bush ring [03][04][05]. Dated both through known creosote growth rates and through carbon 14 dating, this bush ring is 5,750 years too old for Biblical Creationism.

160,000 years - Ice cores [06]. Using multiple dating methods, this ice sheet is too old both for the existence of the Earth and for a global flood. The only way to account for this level of ice core development within 6,000 years would be to have 27 layers of ice fall each year, every year, on the polar ice caps, which has not een documented ever and would need a mechanism.

8,550,000 years - Magnetic reversals [07]. The change of polarity of the earth occurs once about every 50,000 to 800,000 years, and very very very rarely much more frequently than that. About 171 reversals are currently documented, which places the Earth at a minimum of 8.55 million years old, or 8,544,000 years too old for Biblical Creationism.

13,000,000,000 years - SDSS 1306+0356 [08][09]. This quasar is 13 billion light-years away from earth; consequently, if the speed of light has not changed, then the universe must be a minimum of 13 billion years old. 12,999,994,000 years too old for Biblical Creationism.

Biblical Creationism cannot be true, because it predicts a false age of the Earth; given that its entire theory is based on the inerrancy of the literal Bible, which is now errant, it falls.


2P1C. The Global Flood (Or Not)

If the entire world was flooded, then certainly there must be evidence of it. I ask my opponent to provide this evidence, because otherwise there is no reason to believe that it is true.

Moreover, there's simply not enough water on Earth to cause a global flood, as one should realize when one realizes that water sinks to the lowest location. Flooding the world up to Mount Everest (as the Bible dictates) would require 4,530,000,000 km^3 of water, or about 3 times as much water is present on Earth [10]. Where did the water come from? Where did it go? Why?

Some might argue that the flood created the mountains. This is unfeasible -- a flood that created both the Sahara (noted for flatness) and Mount Everest (noted for lack of flatness) could not occur, simply because a great enough to flatten a desert has plenty to quickly erode a mountain, leaving us only with the possibility that God preserved the landscape of the world, which would also be required for Noah to land back into his native Middle East. (Think sand castles -- how often does a wave roll in and create both a flat area and a nonflat area?)

Moreover, the Ark simply would not float. Aside from the fact that the Ark is not large enough [11], the Ark could never have survived multiple-mile-high waves [12] formed by the winds sweeping water around without any ground to break them up. No land animals could possibly have survived.

This is not to mention what the sediment would do to sea creatures or how viruses and bacteria were transported.

Biblical Creationism cannot be true, because it predicts an impossible global flood of the Earth; given that its entire theory is based on the inerrancy of the literal Bible, which is now errant, it falls.


2P2: Biblical Flaws with Biblical Creationism


2P2A. Biblical Errancy

Only one contradiction or error is enough to prove the Bible errant, Biblical inerrancy wrong, and Biblical Creationism totally unbased. I've provided three.

1: God the frenemy

Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27: Love God.

Deuteronomy 6:13, Psalms 33:8, 34:9, 111:10, 115:13, 128:1, 147:11, Proverbs 8:13, 16:6, 19:23, 22:4, Isaiah 8:13, Luke 12:5, 1st Peter 2:17: Fear God.

1st John 4:18: There is no fear in love.

2. Death waits not

Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27: Jesus says to his listeners that some of them will not taste death before he comes again in his kingdom. Jesus said this a little under 2000 years ago. I leave it an exercise to the reader to tell whether or not his promise held true.

3. Identity crisis

2nd Corinthians 13:11, 14, 1st John 4:8, 16: God is love.

Genesis 4:15, Deuteronomy 32:19-27, Isaiah 34:8: God is a vengeful god.

Biblical Creationism cannot be true, because the Bible is contradictory and/or false; given that its entire theory is based on the inerrancy of the literal Bible, which is now errant, it falls.


2P2B. Biblical Literalism (Or Not)

To quote Jesus, "I speak to them in parables..."[13]

The Bible makes use of stories and parables, metaphor and allegory.[14] Why should these stories be taken literally? Genesis, too is one of these stories [15][16][17]. This is why there are two Genesis accounts -- they are not a literal telling of the creation of the world, but a creation myth created by priests for the Jewish people to believe so that their religion sounds good.

Why take a story literally, especially when it was written as metaphor and is impossible to be taken literally?

Biblical Creationism cannot be true, because the Bible not supposed to be inerrant; given that its entire theory is based on the inerrancy of the literal Bible, which is now errant, it falls.



[07] Laurie R. Godfrey (1983). "Scientists Confront Creationism". W. W. Norton & Company, Canada. Pages 35-36. ISBN 0393301540.
[12] Meyer, Nathan M. 1977. Noah's Ark-Pitched and Parked. Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books.
[15];(Look at title.)



Thank you to my opponent.

May God's Will prevail.

Round #2

The structure of my Round #2 argument is as follows: the evidences for a creator, how the evidences point to the Biblical Creator God, and finally how the Bible is substantiated by science.

1. Evidences for a creator:

a. Design and undeniably exact proportions:
-Ardent atheist Richard Dawkins stated, "We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully designed to have come into existence by chance." Even he, known for his dogmatically atheistic worldview, admitted that there must be a designer---a higher intelligence. Although he saw 'blind nature' as the designer, he, nonetheless, saw the need that everything originated by the work of a higher intelligence. [1]
The question remains; must everything in existence be the work of a creator?
-Isaac Asimov, another anti-creationist, claimed the human brain to be "the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe." [2] Getting immediately to the point, would it not be a rational assumption to say that if the human brain has discovered such as calculus, aerodynamics, meteorology, molecular biology, and designed such as the computer, the 747, and the cell phone, then the human brain is also product of intelligent design? [3]
-Additionally, creation testifies to a creator. Consider the number of exactly correct proportions on earth alone: the earth is exactly the necessary distance from the sun for life to survive, the earth's atmosphere contains the exact amount of chemicals, namely ozone, to absorb the majority of the sun's energy and heat so that life can sustain*,the earth's air mass just happens to have the exact amount of gases that the human lungs can tolerate**, the organs of the human body work together with exact synergy so that they all fulfill their individual functions, and the earth is the exact position in the Milky Way galaxy for life to survive***. [4]

*Regarding the sun's energy proportion---the sun gives off 239 trillion horsepower of energy, which could kill all life on earth in a second, if the earth's ozone layer did not absorb the majority of it. The ozone layer, in fact, allows just 0.45 billionth of that total energy to strike earth. Is it not, therefore, logical to assume that someone created it this way, instead of believing that it occurred by blind forces? [5]

**Regarding the oxygen to carbon dioxide proportions in the air---the air consists of precisely 21% oxygen, the carbon dioxide levels are fixed, and the air pressure is exactly what the human body can tolerate. If this oxygen level percent fluctuated even by 1% up or down, or if the carbon dioxide levels altered, or if the atmospheric air pressure was any higher or lower than it is, all life would instantaneously cease on earth. [6]

***Regarding our positioning in our Galaxy
---most all other galaxies lack the necessary elements for a correct balance of stars and planets, which the Milky Way has.
---The Solar System is directly two-thirds the distance away from the center of the Milky Way, the exact place where the earth is least likely to collide with comets and meteors. [7]

b. Information [8]
-DNA is the most complex substance known to man; in fact, it is billions of times more complex than anything man-made.
Knowing this, The Laws of Information state:
Information cannot originate in statistical processes and thus information can only originate from an intelligent sender.
Therefore, because DNA is a form of information, one far more intricate than anything else in existence, it must have come from a highly intelligent sender.
If anyone disagrees with these scientific laws of information, they must falsify them by proving that information can come about by purely naturalistic source. No one has ever done this.

d. Laws of Nature
- "Natural laws are hierarchical in nature; secondary laws of nature are based on primary laws of nature, which have to be just right in order for our universe to be possible. But, where did these laws come from, and why do they exist? If the universe were merely the accidental by-product of a big bang, then why should it obey orderly principles"or any principles at all for that matter? Such laws are consistent with biblical creation. Natural laws exist because the universe has a Creator God who is logical and has imposed order on His universe (Genesis 1:1)." [9]
If the universe is result of random, accidental process, why should it abide by laws of nature, and why does it have them?
With every law, there is a lawgiver.

2. Evidence for the Biblical Creator God:

e. Morality [10]
-Very often, we make judgments on acts---good or bad, godly or sinful. We, everyday, expect a certain moral behavior from each other. Consider the following:
A man walks into a bus and shoves another man off his seat.
The man who was shoved asked, "Why did you do that?" (Implying that he expects and demands a moral decency from the other man).
The bully says, "Why shouldn't I?" by which the other responds, "It was mean, wrong, and rude."
The bully says, "Why should I care? If shoving you benefits me, why should I care what others think of it? Why shouldn't I be selfish?"
The man responds, "Because it benefits society to be unselfish."
The bully says, "Why should I care about the well being of society; why shouldn't I only care about what affects me personally?"
The man responds, "Because you OUGHT TO behave unselfishly."

To the point, there is an innate sense of morals we all have, which we expect of others. Would it not be logical to believe that this sense was given by a Moral Being (instead of coming from a blind nature which has no sense of morals); I.E. God, who is described as being perfectly moral in the Bible?

f. Jesus Christ [11]
-Jesus was the most influential person to ever live. He claimed to be the only Way to God in heaven and to be the Son of God.
-The question is, "did He prove these claims?"
It is up to you to decide:
-He fulfilled all 61 Old Testament predictions of the Messiah's life, which were made hundreds of years before His birth, some of which were completely out of His control such as His birthplace and bloodline.
-Furthermore, His proved His divinity through His resurrection. Albeit theories attempt to explain His resurrection in materialistic ways, no evidence substantiates them.

g. Christian Testimonies
-All but one of Jesus' Disciples were martyred for their faith. Among the Christian martyrs were these: Peter who was crucified, James who was beaten to death with a club, Matthew who was speared to death, Paul who was beheaded, Luke who was crucified, Mark who was dragged through the streets until he died, and many of the rest were stoned, beheaded, and/or crucified. [12]
-Today, many Christian have remarkable testimonies of their faith. For instance, a man at my church was diagnosed with hepatitis C, a nearly incurable disease. The doctors told him he would have it for the rest of his life; however, he went to a church service that night and prayed. Astonished, the doctors called him soon after and told him tests came back negative with absolutely NO hepatitis virus in his bloodstream! Praise The Lord!

3. Scientific Facts in the Bible:
A. It reveals that the earth is round and hangs upon pure space, when science, at that time, claimed that it rested on the back of 2 giant turtles and some believed it was flat.
B. It speaks of the water cycle, once again hundreds of years before science discovered it.
C. It speaks of the air currents that pass through all directions on earth, thousands of years before science discovered air currents.
D. It portrays an analogy of a pot of clay in a potters hands, and relates it to the earth's rotation. Science, at the time, claimed that the sun revolved around the earth.
E. It claimed that white light is made of seven colors, something science did not discover until 1650.
F. It claims that to wash one's hands, it must be done under "running water", not still water. Hospitals discovered that germs remain in the still water thousands of years after God had told His people to do this.
G. It contains God's command that the Israelite male babies be circumcised on the 8th day after birth. We now know that the babies immune system in the strongest on the 8th day, so this was a smart thing to do to avoid illness in the newborn.
H. It contains God's command to the Israelites to refrain from eating eat raw meat. We know now that this was a precaution for bacteria intake.
I. It claims that humans all have a common ancestor, something science has proved is 99% correct. (this does not allude to evolution, however).
J. It speaks of ALL factors which make up the universe in the first chapter (time, space, matter, power, motion); something science has confirmed: "In the beginning (time), God created (power) the heavens and the earth (matter)...And the Spirit of God moved (motion)."
K. It predicted (hundreds of years before these events occurred) the conflict in the middle east, the crucifixion of Jesus, Russia's attack on Israel, Nuclear warfare, increases in homosexuality, hypocrisy, blasphemy, etc.
L. It speaks of the expanding universe, something science has recently discovered.
M. It predicted the moon turning a red color---something that has happened very recently. [13]

Thank you again, opponent, for your time.
[1] The New Answers Book, Ham.
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[5] Exploring the Evidence for Creation, Morris.
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid
[8] The News Answers Book 2
[10] Mere Christianity, Lewis.
[13] Scientific Facts In the Bible, Comfort
Debate Round No. 2


FuzzyCatPotato forfeited this round.


Thank you again, opponent.



A. You immediately necessitate that something be falsifiable to be scientific. This notion is wrong. Take, for instance, the law of gravity. The law of gravity is unfalsifiable, because it has been backed-up with insurmountable evidence and thus seen as a scientific law, and scientific.
Likewise, something, like Biblical Creationism, need not be falsifiable to be scientific.
B. God does not use 'magic'. He is omnipotent, meaning all-powerful.
C. No part of Biblical Creationism is "scientifically impossible, incredibly improbable, or contradictory". You only see it this way because you are allowing your atheistic worldview to stand in the way of the Truth.
F. There is such a thing as absolute truth; something that is unfalsifiable, something the is the basis for all laws, whether moral or scientific. It is "fixed, invariable, unalterable fact" [1]. If you reject the Bible, you must adopt a basis for your thinking; an absolute truth, what you might consider your worldview. However, you are then contradicting science because by saying your worldview is absolute truth, you are viewing your worldview as unfalsifiable and therefore not having a scientific basis (according to your above logic). See the problem in this dilemma?
E. I would also like to note that you may have jumped to these conclusions because the Bible has never been falsified---and therefore these views are your only copout options. Moreover, there is conclusive evidence, from archeology to the points I have made in my first argument, that the Bible is an extraordinary religious text.


A. I would first like to say that the Bible does not strictly espouse a certain age of the earth, it only proposes one, of which you have noted.
B. You have much faith in dating methods; allow me to coagulate some facts for you:
-You are assuming that initial amounts of the elements remained are "accurately known".
-You are assuming that the "amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay".
-You are assuming that the decay rate has remained constant throughout the millions of years.

-Consider this: You walk into a room with an hourglass with sand falling from the top and sand on the bottom. By estimating the rate by which the sand has been falling and examining the amount of sand on the bottom, you could conclude the time ago the glass with turned over, right?
However, like with dating elements, you assume the initial conditions and that the rate of fall has not altered.

-Now that you see dating is based on critical assumptions, ponder these:
1. After Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1986, the newly formed rocks were dated using potassium-argon dating. They dated back to .5 to 2.8 million years.
2. After Mount Ngauruhoe erupted in 1949, 1954, and 1975, eleven samples were taken from each of the three eruptions. They dated back to .27 to 3.5 million years old.
-With both of these instances, assumption #1 was false. As you can see, 1 single false assumption can lead to catastrophically outrageous ages. Therefore, when fallible dating methods fail to give accurate dates on elements of which we are certain the age, how can we trust them to give us the correct conclusion of elements from millions and billions of years ago of which their formation has not been observed?


-Evidences for the global flood:
1. "Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents above: Most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas."
2. Rapid burial of creatures: "billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial."
3. "Sediment transported long distances: We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for "300 million years" water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global Flood."
4. The very fact that the Epic of Gilgamesh, Sumerian Eridu, and the Atra-Hasis affirm it. All three claim an ark was built, the Atra-Hasis says it was an immense boat, all three say that there were animals and food stored on it, the Atra-Hasis says, that the family waited 7 days before the flood, the Atra Hasis and the Epic say the flood covered mountains, the Epic says the it rested on a mountain of Armenia, and the Epic speaks of the rainbow covenant God made with man. Every single one of these affirmations is distinctly discussed in the Bible.

-There is enough water currently on earth to cover the entire earth by a depth of 1.7 miles. Where did it come from? "the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were open..." (Genesis 7) So, the water came from above the earth and from below the earth. Where did it go? "and the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days, the waters decreased."

-"Aside from the fact that the Ark is not large enough, the Ark could never have survived multiple-mile-high waves formed by the winds sweeping water around without any ground to break them up. No land animals could possibly have survived."
A. The ark was giant, for the record. It was "three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high", that is "450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high." [hub]
B. A 1992 Korean study conclusively confirmed that the proportions of the ark would not only survive torrential waves and winds but also be comfortable living environment for the animals. Part of the reason modern ships are not catastrophically damaged by oceanic forces is because they possess similar proportions to that of Noah's Ark.


1. This type of fear that we are to express toward God is not the commonly used definition of fear. It is not to say that we are to be afraid of Him or fear Him as a child would the 'monster under his/her bed'. Fear can also be defined as a 'awe', which is the type of fear we are to have for God. 1st John 4:18 is using the common perception of fear, in fact, the next verse discusses that there is torment in fear (affirming that it means the 'being afraid' definition of fear). The verses that say we are to fear God simply mean we are to have a reverential awe for Him.

2. "The prophecy that "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2:1-13. If you read Acts chapter one, Jesus spoke after his resurrection about the kingdom. He also told them to wait in Jerusalem for him to send the Holy Spirit on them. Acts 2 is when Peter was given the keys to the kingdom (Matthew 16). This pouring out of power on the Day of Pentecost was "the Day of the Lord" prophesied by Jesus and also by Joel. It was a day of the coming of the kingdom."

3. This is not a contradiction. A contradiction is 'X and not X'. Vengeance and/or jealously do not deny love. In fact, each of these instances where God is portrayed as vengeful are all justified because man's sin provoked it. He is just
Debate Round No. 3


My Round 3 argument:


Rebuttal Rebuttals:

3C1A1: "[F]alsifiable to be scientific ... is wrong. .... [G]ravity is unfalsifiable, because ... backed-up with ... evidence[.]"

1. Falsifiability is a hallmark of science, because any scientific theory must be testable.

2. Falsifiability doesn't involve the level of support for a theory, but the ability to prove a theory wrong.

3. Gravity is falsifiable. If I drop an object and it doesn't move towards the area of highest mass, gravity has been falsified. Contrast with Biblical Creationism. If I prove that a certain event is impossible (say, the global flood), then my opponent can say "God did it" and it is possible again. This is why my opponent must either accept that (a) only events written in the Bible are accepted as having occurred, NOT unwritten potential acts of God, or (b) Biblical Creationism is unscientific.

3C1A2: "God does not use 'magic'."

Sure. What does he use?

3C1A3: "Biblical Creationism [not] "scientifically impossible, incredibly improbable, or contradictory". ... [A]theistic worldview ... in the way of ... Truth."

1. My opponent can assert that Biblical Creationism does not fit that description, but unless my opponent can rebut my points, then Biblical Creationism is as I described it.

2. My opponent asserts I am biased (without proof). However, my opponent does not prove that they are unbiased. As such, this argument applies to my opponent too.

3C1A4: "If ... reject ... Bible ... must adopt ... an absolute truth ... your worldview. ... [Y]ou are ... viewing your worldview as unfalsifiable ... not ... scientific[.]"

I don't consider my worldview to be absolute truth, so this doesn't apply. Further, my opponent's belief in the absolute truth of the Bible applies, and is thus "unfalsifiable" and "not ... scientific".

3C1A5: "[T]he Bible has never been falsified ... these ... are ... copout options. .... [T]he Bible is ... extraordinary[.]"

1. If God can do anything, then the Bible hasn't ever been falsified only because it's unfalsifiable. If not, then Biblical Creationism has been falsified quite often, as the rest of my case points out.

2. It doesn't matter how "extraordinary" something is if it's incorrect.


3C1B: "You ... assum[e] ... initial amounts of ... elements ... are ... known[,] ... amount of ... daughter ... has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay[,] ... decay rate has remained constant[.] .... Mt. St. Helens erupted ... newly formed rocks ... dated using [K-Ar] dating ... to .5 to 2.8 million years. ... After [Mt.] Ngauruhoe erupted ... .27 to 3.5 million years old."

1. I don't use radiometric dating in any of my proofs of an old universe. I use dendrochronology twice, ice core layers once, geomagnetic reversals once, and the distance between the Earth and a quasar once, none of which rely on radiometric dating. My opponent fails to attack any of these methods. As such, extend ALL of my points about other proofs of an old universe.

2. My opponent attacks uniformitarianism, which is the assumption that natural laws have remained the same, because it's a simpler assumption to make unless there is a reason to believe the opposite. My opponent has not provided a reason why natural laws would have changed (other than volcanism, which I address). As such, uniformitarianism stands.

3. My opponent provides two examples of "incorrect" dating methods due to volcanism. This makes sense, because (a) heat contamination causes crazy dates [1] and (b) dating volcanoes and volcanic eruptions with K-Ar dating suffers from argon contamination from the atmosphere, which must be adjusted for (but here was not) [2]. We can't date volcanoes correctly 100% of the time, at least without compensating for contamination. However, there are many, many thousands of correct radiometric dating where contamination could not have occurred or was corrected for, and these two examples don't significantly challenge that.


3C1C1: "Fossils of sea creatures ... above sea level[.] ... [R]ock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas."

1. This is evidence AGAINST a global flood. If a global flood had occured, we would not HAVE mountains or places high above sea level simply because the immense force of multiple billions of km of water would nearly flatten the features of the Earth, both through massive erosion and massive downward pressure. This is not what is observed.

2. Marine fossils in the Grand Canyon are not evidence of a young Earth, because erosion by the Colorado River gradually has reduced the height of the river [3]. Finding marine fossils in an area that was once a marine habitat is unsurprising, especially because higher, older layers have older fossils and lower, younger layers have younger fossils [4]. My opponent must provide a mechanism through which different types of marine creatures would have been placed at different altitudes during a global flood, or this is evidence AGAINST a global flood.

3. Mt. Everest was formed due to the tectonic movement of the Indian Subcontinent against the Asian Continent [5][6]. Hundreds of millions of years ago, Mt. Everest was under water, in a shallow sea [6]. Marine fossils are thus not unexpected on Mt. Everest. However, only very old fossils are found on Mt. Everest, not all kinds of fossils. Unless my opponent can provide a mechanism for this, this is evidence AGAINST a global flood.

3C1C2. "[N]autiloid fossils ... in ... Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon[.]"

1. Limestone is built by the slow deposition of marine creatures [7]. During the Global Flood, it would not have been possible for hundreds of ft of animal corpses to be deposited and to have become limestone [7].

2. If a Global Flood happened, then 4,530,000,000 km^3 of water would have impacted the Earth. Why would the Grand Canyon meander and have turns, when the massive and sudden flood of water would have destroyed this in favor of a straight path [7]? This is evidence AGAINST a global flood.

3C1C3. "Coconino Sandstone ... transported from ... northern ... United States[.]"

The Cocinino Sandstone could not have been formed by a global flood, because (1) it was formed in a desert environment [8], which is rather different from a global flood, (2) it would require a constant waterflow of no more than 5.5 ft per second [8], which a Global Flood would far surpass (4,530,000,000 km^3 * (3.53146667*10^10) ft^3 / 40 days / 24 hours / 60 minutes / 60 seconds / 510,100,000 km^2 = 90745.3241688 ft^3 of water per second over each and every km^2 of the Earth), and (3) it would have a predicted slope of deposition of 10 degrees, or 15 degrees too low for the 25 degrees observed [8].

3C1C4. "Epic of Gilgamesh, Sumerian Eridu, and ... Atra-Hasis affirm [a global flood.]"

1. Simply because people have flood myths does not mean that it happened, because people can be wrong. Many people around the world also worshiped lightning as a god. Does my opponent believe in Zeus and Thor?

2. If the Earth was inundated in water, then why doesn't archeology see a sudden, worldwide, cataclysmic watery wipeout of every single civilization, rather than just myths?

3C1C5: "[W]ater ... cover the entire earth ... 1.7 miles. ... [T]he water came from above ... and ... below the earth[.]"

1. 1.7 miles is nice, but a depth of 5.4979 miles is required to cover Mt. Everest [9].

2. Seeing as the TOTAL water of Earth is estimated at 1,386,000,000 km^3 [10], an additional 4,530,000,000 km^3 of rainwater and groundwater would be required on and in the Earth.

3C1C6: "The ark was giant[.] ... [T]he ark would ... survive torrential waves[.]"

1. Compare the Ark and the Titanic:

2. No ship can survive mile-high waves, which I have proven to exist in a global flood.


3C1D1: "[F]ear ... God ... not ... afraid of Him[,] ... awe ... [of] God. 1st John 4:18 ... 'being afraid' definition of fear."

1. "Awe" can easily mean "being afraid" of something. People "in awe" of lightning are both afraid of lightning and appreciate its power.

2. From Deuteronomy 6:13-15: "13 You shall fear the Lord your God ... You shall not go after other gods ... lest the anger of the Lord your God be aroused against you and destroy you from the face of the earth" [11]. I'm not sure where the line between "awe" and "fear" gets drawn, but it seems pretty clear that fear is a part of Biblical faith in God.

3C1D2. "[F]ulfilled ... in Acts 2:1-13."

Acts 2:1-13 talks about how the Holy Spirit came down and made people talk crazy for awhile [12], NOT about how those people never died.

3C1D3. A contradiction is 'X and not X'. Vengeance ... do[es] not deny love. God ... justified ... man's sin[.]"

How can someone love someone if they might smite them at any moment for breaking arbitrary laws? Further, cross-apply this to 3C1D1, in that people are afraid of God's vengeance.


My opponent did not respond to 2P2B. Extend the fact that not all parts of the Bible should to be taken literally, and that Genesis is one of those parts.

















Rebuttal Rebuttals-

A. Intelligent Design

1.You are asking me to objectively prove that the universe is intelligently designed using a product of intelligent design (that of human design; a computer), which is a kind of circular reasoning.
2.Common sense: Although a computer cannot use it, it is the key to determining everything is intelligently designed and is "a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people" [1], and therefore objective.
3.May I pose a question to you? After examining the immensity of complexity within DNA, genomes, the brain, and the like, how can you deny that they were intelligently designed?
4.You seem like a very intelligent person; however, if your brain is not a product of intelligent design, by whose standard of "intelligent" is it truly knowledgeable?
5.Albert Einstein once said, "The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." [2] Something need to be a complicated theorem or law to be scientific; therefore, because there is design in the universe, we know that there must have been a designer! That simple.

B. Richard Dawkins Quote

1.You claim that evolution, by natural selection and mutation (I assume), can produce order and design. The fact is that natural selection does not and cannot create information; it only works with already existing information. This is one of numerous problems with the theory: it cannot account for "how it all started", only for how it happened afterwards.

2.Asimov does not need a degree in neuroscience to be credible. Nonetheless, Michio Kaku agreed with him, as do most of the scientific community, "The human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected to 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your shoulders is the most complicated object in the known universe." [3]

C. Proportions

1.Citation two does support the claim that is succeeds. Citations 5-7 are from page 44. My apologies, the author of citations 5-7 was Henry Morris III.
2.Anthropic principle: these points do not merely affirm that humans can live on earth, but are comfortable in doing so. If some of these facts did not hold true any longer, we may still be able to live, just under circumstances of extreme discomfort. Further, life could still exist on earth if some of these fluctuated, but likely would be manifested by primordial soup or bacterium---not the conscious human organism we observe today in all its specifically designed structure and order.
3.Just because there are 300 sextillion stars, does not mean that each and everyone one of them can sustain life, let alone life that as advanced as human life.
4."The earth"s orbit is not completely circular"" The chance of earth and other space objects colliding is, in actuality, very slim". [4]
5.The coccyx is an extremely important attachment for muscle, tendons, and ligaments. The appendix strengthens the human immune system [5] and provides a place for beneficial bacterium to relocate [6]. "Modern technologies such as forks, spoons and knives, has made the need for wisdom teeth nonexistent" [7], so it is plausible that we originally needed them. The Plica semilunaris aids in cleaning the eyeball and acts as a third eyelid. [8]. Finally, goose bumps retain the body"s heat that would otherwise escape [9].
6."An omnipotent God could just remove..." I am sure He could have; but He did not. This does not in any way disprove His existence.


1.Information cannot arise from non-information because "natural selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes"it does not produce new information" [10].

E. Morals

1.I am not talking about the morals that supposedly came about from evolution; I am talking about the innate, intuitive sense that is there from birth in every human.
2.Actually, the innate morals we have by birth align quite well with the Biblical God"s character; we know intuitively that to lie, steal, etc. are wrong.

F. Jesus

1.Asking me to prove Jesus was real while ignoring the Gospel accounts is like asking you to prove evolution without the fossil record.
2.Jesus of Nazareth was the most influential person in history, and to be so would indicate that, of course, He existed. Further, His disciples" lives were changed because of His influence.
3.Our calendar"s year is based strictly off His birth.
4.The gospel accounts are historical documents. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were eyewitnesses to Jesus" life and to say that they are implausible because they are in the Bible is absurd. There is absolutely no reason to trust any other historical document any more so then the Gospel accounts. No to mention, non-Christian historians, like Josephus and Tacitus, spoke of Jesus. [11]
5.Consider the lives He changed: all twelve Disciples, Stephen, Paul, Timothy, etc.
6.You ask me why I should take the Gospels literally. I ask you "why should we not?" You do not question whether Plato or Socrates existed, most likely, but there is actually more evidence of Jesus than both of them.
7.God has actually made it obvious, if you read His word, what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken as allegory, or the like. Further, just because the Bible uses literary technique like allegory, does not negate or weaken the entire message of Scripture. [12] 2 Peter 1:20-21 says, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." You see, the Holy Spirit has ultimate authority how passages are to be interpreted; it is the Christians job to do the best he/she can by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In fact, most all denominations of Christianity agree with the Bible's core message, affirming that God intended us to interpret it the way we are.

G. Crucifixion

1.Jesus" willingness to be brutally executed proves that either He was insane, or He what He said was true. Absolutely NO historical evidence supports that He was insane, so the only logical conclusion is that His claims have, AT THE LEAST, credibility.

H. Church friend healed

1.The man himself told the congregation this story. His life has been changed as mine has all by the power of Christ. God healed him, that simple. There was no mention of "false diagnosis", so that falls.

I. Should the Bible be taken literally?


J. "Simply because the Bible was not incorrect in some instances does not mean that it is correct in all instances."

1.True. However, if you seek God with your full heart, soul, mind, and strength, you will find that it has never been incorrect nor will it ever be. I hope you will cease placing your faith in the fallible words of humans, and instead in God who does not lie.

Debate Round No. 4


Again, I thank Con for this debate. Apologies for sass, it's late.


4C1: Intelligent Design

4C1A: "[P]rove ... intelligent ... design ... using a product of intelligent design ... circular reasoning."

1. Con accepts that using products of intelligent design (such as humans) to prove intelligent design is circular reasoning, and thus that Con's worldview is based on circular reasoning.

2. Circular logic is using the premise to prove the premise, which I am not doing.

4C1B: "Common sense ... is ... objective."

1. Objective means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts," [1] that which can be logically proven to be true, NOT something most people share.

2. Humans (and thus common sense) are biased [2], and thus not objective.

4C1C: "DNA ... the brain .... [H]ow can you deny ... they were intelligently designed?"

1. The lack of evidence + Occam's Razor. Con have not provided a mechanism (which I asked for in Round 3, 2C1.1 [3]) to determine whether or not something is intelligently designed (other than flawed "common sense"), there is no reason that it is true.

2. If intelligent design is true, then there should be no errors in the universe. As I proved in Round 3, points 2C1B.5 and 2C1B.7 [3], there are.

4C1D: "Albert Einstein ... 'The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe.' "

1. Great. Then how can you know if something is intelligently designed?

4C1E: "[N]eed ... complicated ... to be scientific ... because there is design in the universe ... there must have been a designer!"

1. Please objectively prove that "Scientific laws need to be complicated to be scientific".

2. See 4C1C.1.

3. Design proves design. Wow.

4C1F: "[N]atural selection ... cannot create information."

1. Mutations often add "information" in the form of increased amounts of genetic material (through gene duplication error) [4], new genetic material and thus new phenotypes [4][5][6], and increased genetic variability in a population [4], as well as in other ways.

2. Evolution via natural selection provably adds order over time in the form of nested hierarchies [7].

4C1G: "The human brain ... is the most complicated object in the known universe."

1. See 4C1C.1.

2. Michio Kaku is an astrophysicist, not a neuroscientist.

3. The human brain does have a massive amount of connections, most of which are formed via learning [8] rather than "design".

4. Evolution would favor a powerful brain. Because evolution is true, why couldn't the brain have evolved?

4C1H: "Citation two does support the claim that is succeeds."

Morris is still an engineer, not an astrophysicist. He does not have the expertise required. This is a fallacious argument from authority.

4C1I: "[H]umans ... are comfortable[.] ... [L]ife could ... exist ... but ... would be ... bacterium[,] not ... conscious ... organism[s]."

1. "Comfort" again falls to the anthropic principle -- we are comfortable here, because we evolved to be comfortable here.

2. Citation needed.

3. This point is false. Dinosaurs lived in a low-oxygen environment [9] (different from Earth) and were quite conscious, and could potentially have evolved brains as functionally complex as human brains, if only a meteor hadn't showed up.

4C1J. "[N]ot ... each ... [star] of them can sustain life, let alone life ... as advanced as human life."

1. Yep. But seeing as a chance of habitability of 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,003 would make life probable, and given that life is pretty spunky (see 2C1B.8), this make it pretty likely that life and potentially conscious life could evolve.

4C1K: "The chance of earth and ... space objects colliding is ... slim[.]"

1. Circular means "circular", not "unlikely to collide with other planets".

4C1L: "The appendix strengthens the human immune system[.] ... Modern technologies ... has made the need for wisdom teeth nonexistent[.] ... The Plica semilunaris aids in cleaning the eyeball and acts as a third eyelid. Finally, goose bumps retain the body"s heat that would otherwise escape."

1. Vestigal: "having attained a simple structure and reduced size and function during the evolution of the species," [10]. These organs once had a full function, that since has been lost. Why wouldn't an intelligent designer just make a better organ to do these minor functions without any of the problems?

2. Citation needed for the coccyx.

3. The appendix allows appendicitis, which affects 140 of every 100,000 people [11]. Why not fix this and give the immune-helping job to another organ?

4. The Plica semilunaris acts as a third eyelid in reptiles, not humans [12]. I'd appreciate a third eyelid, dunno about you.

5. Con's citation disproves goosebumps as useful for humans [13]. "In animals with a thick hair coat this ... serves as insulation. In people this ... is useless because we do not have a hair coat," [13].

4C1M. "[The Asteroid Belt, the Kuiper Belt, the Hills cloud, and the Oort Cloud] ... not ... disprove His existence."

1. I'm not disproving God.

2. These DO disprove intelligent design. Why put a bunch of potentially apocalypse-level objects next to the planet of the only race you care about?


4C2. "[N]atural selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes[.]"

See 4C1F.1.


4C3: "I am talking about the innate ... sense that is there from birth in every human."

Interestingly, so am I. It's quite evolutionarily useful for humans to act morally and not screw each other over. So why is God necessary?


4C4: Biblical Authenticity


4C4A: "[T]o prove Jesus ... while ignoring ... Gospel ... is like ... prove evolution without the fossil record."

1. The Gospels were written by extremely religious people who converted to an entirely new religion based on the word of mouth surrounding one dude. The fossil record is dead living beings. One of these sources is biased, the other is not.

2. Con should read the excellent 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution ( by Douglas Theobald, PhD, a biochemist ( Only 1 proof substantially requires the fossil record, making it quite possible to prove evolution via, say, the nested hierarchies present in Earthly taxa. (Apparently not so for Jesus.)

3. I'm not attempting to prove Jesus didn't exist, only that he didn't live the life depicted in the Gospel..

4C4B: "Jesus ... was the most influential person in history ... so ... of course, He existed. ... His disciples' lives were changed[.]"

1. Influence does not mean truth. People have believed in lies. Consider the 39 members of Heaven's Gate who committed suicide in the belief that a UFO following the comet Hale-Bopp would transport them to "Their World". They had influence. Are they correct? Probably not.

2. See 4C4A.3.

4C4C: "Our calendar ... is based strictly off His birth."

1. If it is, then it's off a few years [13].

2. See 4C4B.1.

4C4D: "There is ... no reason to trust any other historical document ... more ... then the Gospel accounts."

1. Why?

2. See 4C4A.1.

4C4E: No to mention, non-Christian historians, like Josephus and Tacitus, spoke of Jesus.

1. See 4C4A.3.

2. The passage from Tacitus, is likely fake, considering that it was not cited by early Church Fathers, who cited his books extensively, nor by Eusebius [14], that the passage puts Pilate as "procurator" rather than "prefect", interesting given that Tacitus was an imperial author [14], and that it's questionable whether Christians were called "Christians" by this date [14].

3. The Josephian passages are, too, quite likely fakes, considering their brevity [15], lack of reference to before Eusebius [16], and contradiction of Joephus's faith [16].

4C4F: "[W]hy ... take the Gospels literally. I ask ... "why ... not?"

1. Occam's Razor.

4C4G: "Plato or Socrates existed ... but there is ... more evidence of Jesus than both of them."

1. Citations are lovely.

2. Plato and Socrates were philosophers. Jesus was a living god. Different levels of proof required.

4C4H: "God has ... made it obvious .... what is ... literally and ... allegory[.]"

1. Which is why we have beliefs of Predeterminism and Free Will, of Rapture and Reverse Rapture, of Triune and Une (or whatever), of 144,000 ascending and of all Christians ascending.

4C4J: "Jesus" willingness to be ... executed proves ... He was insane, or ... what He said was true. ... NO ... evidence ... insane[.]"

1. And no evidence against -- because there's little evidence on the psychology of Jesus. We can't assume one way or another.

2. See 4C4B.1.


4C5: "There was no mention of "false diagnosis", so that falls."

1. No mention of something ALWAYS means that it didn't and couldn't happen.



Biblical Creationism is either (a) unfalsifiable or (b) 14 billion years and a great flood off and baseless in an errant Bible that wasn't meant to be taken literally.







[5] (Lenski's website available here:














Thank you, Pro for this debate.

This was supposed to be a summaries only round; not a rebuttal round. So, I will offer some rebuttals to major topics and conclude with a summary.


1. It is circular reasoning to LITERALLY test whether or not something is intelligently designed with a product of intelligent design (a computer); Proving intelligent design using a product of it (a human being) as evidence is not.

1. To answer your question once and for all:
"What would constitute objective proof of God? Well, consider the following self-evident and universally recognized truth: Concept and design necessitate an intelligent designer. The presence of intelligent design proves the existence of an intelligent designer. It's simply cause and effect. In our search for proof of God's existence, we could examine the various claims of supernatural occurrences, determine whether or not these are legitimate experiences, and build a case for the existence of the supernatural, which would be a step towards identifying a supernatural Creator God. Or we can just apply what we already know and search for signs of intelligent design within creation itself. We know that design necessitates a designer. In fact, in accordance with this fundamental axiom, design detection methodology is a prerequisite in many fields of human endeavor, including archaeology, anthropology, forensics, criminal jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law, reverse engineering, crypto analysis, random number generation, and SETI. And how do we recognize intelligent design? In general, we find "specified complexity" to be a reliable indicator of the presence of intelligent design. Chance can explain complexity alone but not specification -- a random sequence of letters is complex but not specified (it's meaningless). A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified (it's meaningful). We can't have a Shakespearean sonnet without Shakespeare." [1]

2. More Evidence for a Creator:
"Through the microscope, we observe the E. coli bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is what propels E. coli bacteria through its microscopic world. It consists of about 40 individual protein parts including a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It's a microscopic outboard motor! The individual parts come into focus when magnified 50,000 times (using electron micrographs). And even though these microscopic outboard motors run at an incredible 100,000 rpm, they can stop on a microscopic dime. It takes only a quarter turn for them to stop, shift directions and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the opposite direction! The flagella motor has two gears (forward and reverse), is water-cooled, and is hardwired into a signal transduction (sensory mechanism) so that it receives feedback from its environment." [2]

4C1C: "If intelligent design is true, then there should be no errors in the universe"

1. If you assume that intelligent design demands utter perfection, then this claim is true. However, the Bible states that the universe is not perfect and contains error because of the sin of man; therefore, the evidence is consistent with Biblical Creationism.


1. "Design proves design. Wow." No, design proves Designer.


1. "Mutations often add "information" in the form of increased amounts of genetic material (through gene duplication error) [4], new genetic material and thus new phenotypes [4][5][6], and increased genetic variability in a population [4], as well as in other ways."
So says the secularists who presuppose this with no evidence; "Think about it this way: if I give someone a copy of a book they already own, then they don"t have any new information, just a copy of information they already had. If I subsequently take a marker and mark out some of the letters or words in the copy of the book I gave them, they still don"t have any new information"just a messed up copy of one of the books." [3]
"Duplications are the result of duplicating existing genetic information, and mutations alter existing genetic information (whether original or duplicated). Neither of them adds new information." [4]


1. "But seeing as a chance of habitability of 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,003 would make life probable, and given that life is pretty spunky (see 2C1B.8), this make it pretty likely that life and potentially conscious life could evolve."
To quote my opponent, "could you objectively prove this?"


1. "These organs once had a full function, that since has been lost. Why wouldn't an intelligent designer just make a better organ to do these minor functions without any of the problems?"
Not so. As I have noted, these organs still have very significant functions. Answer to the question: I do not know because I am not Him. This is not, in any way, evidence against Him.
2. "Why not fix this and give the immune-helping job to another organ?" He promises His followers to give them new life in perfect heaven without illness or disease. We live in a sin-fallen world and therefore have illness and disease; once again, Biblical Creationism stands consistent with the evidence.


1. "Why put a bunch of potentially apocalypse-level objects next to the planet of the only race you care about?" Once again, I do not know. What I do know is that His plans are greater than ours, whether we like it or not. They DO NOT disprove intelligent design. All they do is confirm that we live in an imperfect universe, as the Bible states.


1. "It's quite evolutionarily useful for humans to act morally and not screw each other over. So why is God necessary?" Evolution only works on the natural world, the visible. We have an innate sense of morals ingrained in us by a conscience which is in the realm of thought, which is not part of the natural world. God, specifically the Moral God of the Bible, is necessary because blind nature does not have morals and therefore cannot ingrain in us a sense of them.


1. " Only 1 proof substantially requires the fossil record, making it quite possible to prove evolution via, say, the nested hierarchies present in Earthly taxa. (Apparently not so for Jesus.)" Very interesting. So, despite there being few if any transitional fossils, you continue to exercise blind faith in the words of fallible men.


1. It is 2014 In the Year of Our Lord. Before Jesus' birth it was based on B.C, before Christ.


1."Jesus was a living god". Yes He was, but with a capital G.




This debate ultimately has been a clash of the Secular and Christian worldviews. Pro has placed his faith in the fallible theories of humans and I have placed my faith in Almighty God.

Let me close with a passage of Scripture:

Romans 1:20-22: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools."

God offers Salvation to all those who seek after Him. He changed my life and He will change anyone else's, if they soften their heart and humble themselves.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by DefenderOfTheTruth 2 years ago
Thank you, Pro. I certainly wish more people voted so there would be a more fair outcome.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
Thanks for the debate. I would love to do it again, or another similar debate, if you so wish.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
Not usually.
Posted by DefenderOfTheTruth 2 years ago
Pro, This is my first debate on this site. So, does it normally take this long for users to vote?
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Well this debate turned to be rather uneventful. Con better pick it up in the last round.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
I would like to continue this debate. My apologies, I could not access a computer yesterday.

Would you mind if I posted a link to my rebuttal in the comments?
Posted by DefenderOfTheTruth 2 years ago
Pro, are you willing to continue this debate or are you forfeiting the rest of it?
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
For Pro:
"2P2A. Biblical Errancy" - Off topic
"2P2B. Biblical Literalism (Or Not)"
Note: Although I agree on the literalism, metaphors do not equal falsehood. Creationism would therefore be false by that logic, but metaphors would not make the bible errant.

For- Con
"Evidences for a creator"- Not needed.
"Scientific Facts in the Bible"- Facts did not get original discovery from the bible, Not needed.
"Evidence for the Biblical Creator God"- Not only are many of these completely wrong, but it's again, not Needed.
Note: He is not arguing that God exist. You do not have to try and prove this point in this debate. Stick to creationism(the topic) please.
Note: You should also really look for a better argument on both god and the Christian god. Almost all of those failed.
-This is why Pro forfeited. There was no need to respond.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments are sound, Con could not demonstrate Creationism is correct, nor that it is even remotely scientific, falsifiable. Most of Con's points are subjective, theological and even fallacious. To some, subjectively, Creation is correct, but in objective reality Con could not demonstrate any valid correctness. Morality is not an argument for Creationism, it is an argument for social/group evolution.