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

Biblical creationism has been debunked by modern science

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,589 times Debate No: 43468
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)




I am of the belief that Creationism has been comprehensively debunked by modern science and that all evidence for it has been misinterprated, based on ignorance or comes from intellectualy biased sources. Evolutionary biology and other areas of science have given us enough of an idea of the origin of life and the universe to know the bibles creation story is not tue.



I thank you for presenting a great topic for debate.

The debate of Evolution vs. Creation is a tough one for either side to debate. How does one prove or disprove the other? While my opponent has provided a very valid thesis upon which to debate, they provide only the most broad assertions where proof is concerned. What evidence disproves creationism?

My assertion is that Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive. The Bible makes no assertion to the actual mechanics of HOW life evolved. Conversely, Evolution says nothing regarding the beginnings of life. However, the proponents of either theory make the logical fallacy of not acknowledging the other theory has merit as well.

Evolution exists. It's both a scientific fact and a common sense concept. At its very basic level, evolution is survival of the fittest and for an organism to survive, it must evolve to it's environment. It's one of the more "duh" concepts in science. But where did that impetus for life begin?

Creationism provides that missing link. I proscribe to the idea of intelligent design. In other words, evolution exists, but is guided by a hand other than pure, random chance.

Let's take a look at the Bible's depiction of the dawn of man and the universe. The creation of the universe is pretty much covered in Genesis chapter 1. The creation of man is in Chapter 2. One of the strongest arguments for intelligent design is the flow of those six days. The progression of one event after another. It follows, almost perfectly, the evolutionary cycle of science. Granted, there's a little mix up with the fourth day, but the progression is still uncanny.

Consider the time in which the Bible was authored. For all of my faith, I can still view this objectively. These were uneducated, by our standards at least, superstitious men. Evolution was unknown, and unthinkable. God was the beginning and end of everything. Why did they write the segregation of days? Why not simply say "Poof! and then there was the earth!"? How did they know the order of which things came? Here we see science and the Bible marching in almost lock step.

One of the more solid arguments I've heard from proponents of Evolution is the timeline as to the age of the universe. They argue approximately 15 billion years, while the Bible argues 6 days, 7 counting the Sabbath. However, Dr. Gerald Schroeder offers an interesting insight.

Time is not constant. That is a scientific fact. It's affected by velocity and gravity. Consider the Evolution/Big Bang Theory. This theory contends that the whole of the universe was compressed into a microscopic space. From this space, an uncountable number of stars were born. Imagine the type of gravitational forces existent in that microscopic space. Imagine the flow of time as the universe expanded. Imagine as it expanded, the gravitational forces disbursed and its effects disbursed.

While I'm not arguing that Creationism explains everything, I am contending the original thesis that Creationism has been debunked. I contend that it hasn't. I contend that Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive.

I eagerly await your reply.
Debate Round No. 1


I understand what you are saying. One side often does not give merit to the other but I feel apart from the very few areas of total unknowns such as what happened before the Big Bang none of them do have merit. I would argue that everything else has a better scientific explanation and that what you have said actually backs up my argument. Biblical creationism has been debunked by the theories of evolution regarding biological life and the formation of the universe. The time frame is completely wrong to support any notions of creationism. While it is an interesting idea and does have some merit the compression of time in relation to the forces present at the big bang does not sound plausible. I find the idea that all time up until the formation of the universe could be so compressed by forces as to have only lasted six or seven days to be highly unlikely.
Biological evolution similarly disproves any kind of Garden of Eden narrative. A species cannot come to be from as small a population as two members. A lack of genetic diversity would be devastating. But as you have said you believe evolution I will think of it from that perspective. At what point did the pre Adamite human beings evolve sufficiently to become accountable for their sins? And if We did evolve how did Adam and Eve fit in? It"s not just problems with humans other species history contradict creationism. Not only was the biblical time frame for the Earth"s history vastly incompatible with the Earths real history we have problems with things like dinosaurs. We could not and did not live alongside such large and dangerous creatures and the biblical time frame forces us to coexist with them.
As for the areas where science offers a better explanation, I am of the belief that our knowledge of Abiogenesis will eventually fill in to a point where we can understand life as we now know it. Asides from a decent amount of compelling evidence as to the possibility of abiogenesis, it is the obvious falsehoods contained in the biblical creationist hypothesis that leads me to believe it has been debunked.


A very well thought out and expressed argument. However, there are a few points here.

1. There is the hangup on the term "day". The Bible is a translation from the original Hebrew. For example, Hell in the Bible is a translation of the word "Gehenna". Gehenna has a few other translations, most notably a cursed place.

More to the point, the word "day" is a translation of the Hebrew word "yom". Among the many translations, yom also means age, or an indeterminate period of time. What does this tell us? It tells us that the literal "6 days" isn't not necessarily correct. However, it opens a little wiggle room for creationism to reconcile with evolution. Taken in this manner, the Bible doesn't segregate the creation into "days", but ages or eras.

2. While Genesis certainly provides for the creation of Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel and Seth, it doesn't say that those individuals were the only ones created. In Gen 4:17, we see Cain "knew" his wife. From this we gather that Cain was married at some point. A literal reading would leave only the conclusion that Cain married Eve, since, logically, she's the only female created by God. So, we are left with two options: Either 1. there's an incestuous relationship with his own mother or 2. A female arose somewhere else. Now, it could be argued that an option three exists, that Adam and Eve had a daughter, to which Cain married. However, that's unlikely. A literal reading of Gen would have mentioned any female children of Adam and Eve.

I find it more likely that others were created by God.

3. I find your last assertion interesting. Quote : "I am of the belief that our knowledge of Abiogenesis will eventually fill in to a point where we can understand life as we now know it."

The reason I find this interesting is because the term "eventually" implies that it doesn't yet fill in the gaps. Should Abiogenesis be complete, or relatively complete, there would be no need to "eventually" fill in the gaps.

Your thesis states that Creationism has been debunked by modern science. All I have to do is prove either 1. the two don't contradict each other, or 2. Creationism is correct. I'm not debating option two. Literal creationism has many flaws. However, science is a long way away from debunking creationism as a whole.

1. What caused the Big Bang? The latest research can trace the origin of the Universe to a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. But what was the impetus that caused the explosion?

2. Evolution doesn't address this.

3. The Bible doesn't go into the specifics of how God created the Universe. Who's to say he didn't do it in the manner that science hypothesizes?

4. Science isn't absolute. It wasn't until a few hundred years ago that man finally determined that the Earth was round. Theories are concocted and discarded everyday in the face of new research and data. Evolution is a theory. It's supported by common sense and science, it still is a theory.
Debate Round No. 2


That is the problem with the major religions of today. You can interpret them in so many ways. I do suppose that day could refer to an age or something but it is still not based in reality. It is not enough to say that it could refer to an indiscriminate period of time to link it to the established time frame we have given our universe. There are also numerous problems raised from an old Earth creation point of view which although I expected to be debunking young Earth creationism but shall do as well. The order of creation as given in the bible is wrong regardless of whether it is referring to days or eras. Oxygen in the water was formed in supernovae but allegedly water is formed before the stars. It implies that day and night are not the results of the turning of the planet in the light of the sun. So to me the difference between days or eras is irrelevant.

The problem with how humanity proceeded from just two people is what I consider a major inconsistency in the bible. I fear you are arguing for some kind of theistic evolution argument and not on biblical creationism because biblical creationists are usually pretty insistent on the first humans being Adam and Eve and that we call from them. Which I think everyone of reasonable judgment can discount. It doesn"t make sense and we know that mutation and a lack of genetic diversity would destroy a species that bottlenecked to two individuals and I think it has been thoroughly discounted. If you disagree on that point please tell me. But even if we think about it from a theistic evolution point of view you still have the problem of explaining who Adam and Eve were. If they were simply members of a constantly changing species they were not the first humans. If they were born of mothers and fathers they were not created from the dust of the Earth. Evolution and creation are contradictory. If you believe in both you are disregarding or side-lining serious statements and undermining the authority of several parts of the bible which then completely falls apart.

By fill in the gaps I mean when we completely understand it from start to finish and can replicate it. I believe the theory is supported by enough evidence to disregard the creation myth held in Genesis.

1. Doesn"t mean that there is any present evidence for Gods involvement.
2.Evolution doesn"t have too. Evolution answers enough of the other important questions.
3.The bible.

4.You are correct. Evolution is a theory. But it is one of the most well defended theories out there. A theory is not a hypothesis. It has been defended for numerous years and it has made excellent and far reaching predictions that continue to be supported by both science and as you say common sense. I am not crazy enough to say evolution is beyond reproach but it is as close as a theory can get. If you are not suggesting that evolution is false then I feel it is only appropriate to disregard your last statement.


First of all, let me say this has been a very stimulating debate and you are a worthy opponent. Thank you.

The disagreement between Evolution and Creationism is the role of God in the development of what we see today.

I think you are misunderstanding my line of attack. I don't have to prove that creation happened according to the Bible. Your thesis claims that Biblical creation has been debunked by modern science. All I have to do is to poke enough holes in your thesis so that it collapses in upon itself in the mind of a reasonable person. The burden of proof is upon you, which you already know.

If you had phrased your thesis to say something like Literal Biblical Creation has been debunked, then I would have to agree with you. I understand that is what you implied, but creationism encompasses so much more than a literal reading of the Bible. Conversely, the term evolution was coined by Charles Darwin to explain the progression of life. We have extended this conversation beyond this term to define evolution to mean the creation and development of the universe.

Dr. Harold Horowitz calculated the probability of life forming on earth to be 1/10^340,000,000. Dr. Horowitz is hardly a creationist nut, he is an evolutionist. He has testified against creationism being taught in schools. However, this probability is outrageously high. Current estimates of the number of stars in the universe is approximately 10^23.

Now, a valid argument against this is that we are calculating this number "after the fact". In other words, we must be the lucky schmucks to win the ultimate lottery. However, this makes for a rather lonely universe since we would be virtually the only inhabitants of the universe. Ironically, that's an argument that fundamentalist Christians have been lambasted for. Personally, I don't believe we're the only ones in this wonderful universe and simple evolution just doesn't seem to offer more than one chance to create other life forms. When we add current research of the strong possibility of life, in the form of bacteria, on Mars, then the probability argument gets much weaker.

Considering the knowledge of the time of the authorship of the Bible, the order of creation is surprisingly accurate. Light is created, the firmament is created, dry land is created then fish, then bird and animals and finally man, which is on par with the evolutionary theory of life. The term "waters" is loosely used to represent the universe as a whole. Consider in Gen 1:2. The Spirit of God move across the face of the waters. Now, logically, the actual seas aren't created until Gen 1:9, and even then they are named seas, not waters. We see in the later story of the great flood of Noah, that the "heavens opened". How else would you reconcile a phenomenon such as rain in that time without claiming the sky was composed of water?

However, the question begs itself, why didn't God just speak the world into existence in a single word? Why drag the process out?

Adam & Eve - Here we fall back to the previous argument regarding the creation of life outside of the literal text of the Bible. While the Bible says explicitly that Adam and Eve are created, it doesn't mention further creations. This leaves us with another quandary. If we follow literal interpretation, doesn't that preclude the possibility of life on other planets? After all, it doesn't explicitly say it and simple probability would make it highly unlikely. If we reject those conclusions, we have to accept that they were created by something that ignored probability. And if we accept that, then we have to, at least, openly consider the fact that further humans may have been created to expand the "breeding stock" so to speak.

Gaps - I firmly believe everything happens for a reason. For every action, there's a reaction. Even in the field of Quantum Mechanics, I believe in the action/reaction. Like you, I believe that there are things at play in the universe that we simply don't know about yet. However, until we know what that force is, we can't discount any impetus, including that of God.

1. That's a logically fallacious argument. While it doesn't present evidence for God, it neither presents evidence against God's involvement. As I mentioned before, and you have acknowledged, there are gaps in our knowledge of the universe around us. An open mind is willing to grant that anything, including a highly improbable God, as being the reason something happens.

2. Yes, evolution does have to describe the Big Bang. It's a key part in why we exist.

3. No, the Bible doesn't contradict science on how God made the earth. It simply said he created each day. Consider this logical exercise. I bake (or create) a cake. All I have to tell you is that I baked it and you mentally know that there are steps performed in the baking of the cake. I don't have to express those steps, I simply say that I baked it.

4. As has been mentioned exhaustively already, evolution is a theory. Yes it's backed by some damn solid research, but there are still holes in it that can't be explained away quite yet, you've acknowledged that point. Until those gaps have been filled, it will remain a theory and not a scientific fact.

As I've already mentioned before, I'm a believer in Intelligent Design. I'm also a Deist that sees the wonderful world around us as a beautiful clock-work world with little influence from a higher power. I see this place as the ultimate Rubik's Cube to keep us entertained while we live in this universe. I believe God created this universe and sat back with a smile saying to himself, "Ha, let's see them figure this one out!" Science and religion are not contradictory of each other. One doesn't touch the other.

As I've also mentioned before, the onus of proof is upon you. You have to prove that God had no hand in the creation of the universe, and by extension, that God doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for atheist, this is a losing argument. Not because those of faith can prove God exists, but because atheists can't prove he doesn't exist.

I leave with one last thought. Blaise Pascal, considered the father of modern hydraulics, was also a mathematician and a theologian. One of his best known contributions is what is known as The Great Wager:

Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.

Again, thank you for a great debate, the vote is now in the hands of others.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FluffyCactus 2 years ago
Con had a much more sound argument. Pro was already made it hard for himself by his initial resolution, which is impossible to prove. I say impossible to prove because his resolution implies that he has a very limited scope as to what 'biblical creationism' is. That it is to say, one who possesses a theistic evolution is, in Pro's eyes, discounted from the term "biblical" and "creationism", whereas the great Christin tradition would never see that as being the case. It is the sad result of modernity's ignorance when it comes to literature and exegesis. One point, I think worthy of mention, is that the big bang, evolution, and so on can both be considered Biblical in nature, and Creationist in nature. No christian would ever say their idea is not 'biblical', nor 'creationist' as defined as God being the ultimate creator of reality as we know it. It seems to me that Pro misunderstands this.
Posted by Lochnivar 2 years ago

Thank you and you present an excellent interpretation of both biblical attestation and scientific fact.

The first thing we have to understand is that the current Bible is a translation from the original Hebrew, among other languages. I'm not using that as a rebuttal, but as a frame of reference.

Consider this interpretation:

Day 1, God creates light. This implies that there was no light prior to this. Darkness isn't the rotation of a planet, it's the absence of light. We have "day and night" because the body of this planet blocks the light from the Sun. What does this tell us? It tells us that light and day are not necessarily connected. You can have light without day, it's not defined by "day".

Why does Gen 1:5 make that connection? Consider the time of the authors. They didn't know about rotation of planets. To them Light WAS day. Science tells us differently.

Day 2; I would contend that this is the day that Earth is formed. Let's look at the text.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. Gen. 1:6

As you've mentioned, the firmament is a dome, or a stretched-out surface. As you've also already mentioned, this separates the waters within from the waters without. Why would the Bible say that? In other books, we find clues. in the flood story of Genesis, Gen. 7:11 says that "The windows of heaven were opened". Historic man viewed the sky as a large body of water, how else did water fall from the sky?

Gen. 1:8 goes on to say that God called the firmament "Heaven". This strongly suggests a sky. Without earth you can't have a sky.

Day 3. Gen 1:9 doesn't say the earth was created. It said that dry land separated the waters.

It's a long watch, but Gerald Schroeder does a heck of a job in a few videos. It's a series of YouTube videos of about 10 minutes in length (8 segments).
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago

Here is evidence that debunks creationism; but first the definition
Creationism: the belief in a literal interpretation of the genesis creation stories.
In other words; a belief that genesis is actually a historical account of the origins of Earth, life, and the universe.
Now the first three days of creation is all that is needed to debunk it with modern science.
Day 1: God creates light, separated it from darkness, and called the light day and the darkness night.
Day 2: God makes a "dome*" to separate the "water*" above it and below it.
Day 3: God creates the earth.

The problem: science has proven that there is no day and night without the rotation of a planet. According to genesis; God created day and night BEFORE earth. Since there isn't day and night without the rotation of a planet and God supposedly created Earth; the only planet ever referenced; after day and night; Genesis has a major error in it. Since genesis; if creationism is true; can't have any errors, science has just disproved creationism.
Posted by OtakuJordan 2 years ago
I can't wait to see what the voters think of your definitions.
Posted by Lochnivar 2 years ago

Thanks for proving my point. The problem with arguing definitions is that we can all find, or skew these definitions to be what we want them to be. The creationism vs. evolution debate isn't arguing semantics, it about whether the universe was created by chance or by God.

That being said, do you have anything constructive to address regarding my argument?


Thanks, that's some good info. However, you haven't addressed my argument, nor presented the scientific evidence you claim debunks Creationism.
Posted by OtakuJordan 2 years ago

First of all, Wikipedia goes on to say "Those holding that species had been created separately (such as Philip Gosse in 1847) were generally called 'advocates of creation' but were also called 'creationists', as in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creation"evolution controversy developed over time, the term 'anti-evolutionists' became common."

Quoting only the first sentence gives a skewed picture of what the article says. is a fundamentalist Christian site run by amateur theologians. Certainly not a reliable source for definitions in a debate on creation science.

The Stanford quote also skews what the article truly says: "The focus of this discussion is on a narrower sense of Creationism, the sense that one usually finds in popular writings (especially in America today). Here, Creationism means the taking of the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Genesis, as literally true guides to the history of the universe and to the history of life, including us humans, down here on earth (Numbers 1992). "

As biblical creationism is in the rez, this is clearly what you are debating.
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
I just checked the link and it makes it's claims based on work by Dr. Robert Gentry. This is what wikipedia says about the criticisms:

Critics of Gentry, including Thomas A. Baillieul and John Brawley , have pointed out that Po-218 is a decay product of radon, which as a gas can be given off by a grain of uranium in one part of the rock and migrate to another part of the rock to form a uraniumless halo. Apparently a large number of radon atoms are caught or absorbed at a particular point. This has not been proved experimentally, but is supported by the fact that Gentry's "polonium halos" are found along microscopic cracks in rocks that also contain uranium halos.
Gentry's work has been continued and expanded by the Radioactivity and the Age of the Earth project that was operating between 1997 and 2005. However, Collins, Wakefield and others have repeatedly offered rebuttals of the radiohalo evidence for a young Earth in peer-reviewed publications.
Posted by Lochnivar 2 years ago

Nice hat tip on that. I wasn't aware of either the movie nor the scathing critique. However, you are relying on a "theory" that you already judge incorrect to "debunk" another theory you also judge incorrect.

Sorry, I digress. More to the point, uses their own interpretation of scientific evidence to support the literal 6,000 year earth model.

The original thesis was that creationism was debunked by science. In this discussion, I have yet to hear countervailing evidence that this is so. You and the original poster have both made broad, generalized "science has debunked" assertions, but with no specific instances.

The original thesis has a relatively major flaw in it. It has painted itself into a corner. There are three options here. 1. Evolution is correct (and science has proven it), 2. Creationism is correct or 3. Neither exclude the other and are separate entities. Of course there is a fourth, that both are incorrect, but I don't take that option very seriously.

My argument from the beginning hasn't been option 2. It's been option 3, that the two are not mutually exclusive. For my opponent to win this debate, he must present specific evidence that he bases his thesis on. Unfortunately, he is also under the pressure of proving a negative, which doesn't help.
Posted by Lochnivar 2 years ago

With respect, I can toss off definitions as well.

Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. wikipedia

Creationism is the position that God created the universe.

At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

If you wish to devolve this into a simple tit-for-tat battle of definitions, that's certainly your prerogative. It neither contributes to the debate nor adds any credibility to your line of thoughts. The idea behind this logical fallacy is that you rely upon discrediting your opponent's definition you are unable to defeat it based on reasoned argument on values.

Having said that, the original thesis is that science has debunked creationism. Indeed it has not. Regardless of your definition, Creationism is the belief that God created the universe. Whether it's intelligent design or not is really beside the point.
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago

That argument has already been debunked* by many creationists.

*Not really; but that's what they claim. There was actually a movie with that idea in it but the creationist community was outraged; here's a link to what they had to say:
No votes have been placed for this debate.