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

Creationism(P) vs (C)Popular Non-theist Theory of Creation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 3/30/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 559 times Debate No: 72598
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)




I challenge anyone capable of defending the Non-Theist Theory of Creation. The debate will be entirely based the scientific mechanics of the known universe. You must believe in the theory you are defending, and not be sitting on the fence or theist.

Round One; is an acceptance round, an opportunity to ask questions and make remarks regarding technical perspectives you share on the matter.

Round two; Present your Model of creation from the beginning to end; Explaining the philosophical data and the transition stages. Leave any remarks you desire to elaborate on the idea, but ensure all information is capable of being supported with data.

Round Three. WE search for any missing information, and or errors in each others debate, and contribute such missing information in a logical manner. IN addition, summarize the model of creation and explain where All transition stages were accounted for using data, science, and if necessary the inconclusive evidence acquitted to the theory without scientific method ( stipulations of the mechanics leading from transition to transition).

Round Four: A polite acknowledgement of our opponent and his presented argument. And a potential Post-debate challenge regarding the lack of factual, relevant or substantial evidence used as substance to support each others debate.

Please be thorough in your debate and the illustration of your accepted Model of Creation.


I will gladly accept this debate.

I want to be clear that I am by no means an expert on science, but have done my research to find a position for myself. (I am an agnostic atheist)

I don't know if you could call me on the fence, but I feel in a position to defend a non-theist point of view.

Thank you in advance for the opportunity to debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Presented here to you is the Standard model of Creation in which all those of Abrahamic faith put faith; For there are many of those: even those who do not know it, And some who know it without seeing.

Model: Darkness - defined as an element void of the currently perceived element of light. Light persisting of all thermal energy, energies provided in electrical current, bio-matter, and radiation produced from electrical current.

In the Darkness, where energy is persisting as something unperceived as light, but instead actual space itself, Matter exists.

The matter had been described to work in such a manner.

An Ocean enveloped the depths: The ocean, being a reference to both bodies of 'water'; 'sky' and 'sea' consists therefor of all gaseous elements. And thus the gaseous elements are enveloping the denser matter at the core of the Pre-creation earth before the First day of creation where it resided in the darkness.

The dense matter, had accumulated thus, as it was described at the center of this very earth where light had yet existed.

The fullness of the universe was here, focused for a duration as a Movement in which, the Law ; the Word of God; the Wisdom of all Realities; dictated that light should there and then be formed.

The Earth being the fitting host for this event became ground zero for the igniting of Light.

Immediately, there was An evening, for The creation of light was proceeded by no more creation. Then, there was a Morning.

The Light energy quickly enveloped the Ocean and separated it into two entities. The least dense materials, became both liquid and gaseous bodies of water.

Once the Sky was fully formed, there was again an Evening, for nothing more happened there. And while the Earth began to absorb the energy for the first time, there was yet again another morning.

The Earth began to form a crust, for prior to this eventous morning, There were not molecules here, but only raw elements. The crust being solid and composed as apposed to individual building blocks cracked open as a whole when the inner parts of the Earth began to expand to accommodate the molecular state of the earths inner body.

Now it is clear to me, that creation did in fact happen this way, but perhaps for you, you think it is coincidence that this Model of Creation perfectly accommodates modern scientific findings regarding the workings of Molecular structures and the course and flow of energy, So I proceed to exclaim;

That when the Earth first expanded from within itself; the layers there, under the previously congregated crust, burst the crust open, leaving evidence everywhere where there is a broken divide between land and water. All coasts of the earth, including the Black and Caspian Seas are evidence of the morning of this day. In fact all geological evidence is in the Right hand of God as factual proof all other theories accommodating Atheism are entirely false. For this too was the Word of God:

The Energy then, having filled the ocean on the outside of the planet, and the Earth on the inside, now on the Third day yet, for Evening had not come, was required to establish a new home, within the spaces of the Molecules, for yet it would not reach into nothingness without prospect.

This new home was the DNA of all Plant life which bears seeds on the earth, and the seeds were of every kind. The were produced of the materials present in heir of the Morning. And so, seeds filled the earth on the third day, as it was written, accurately accommodating any and all scientific maps produced using Observations with disregard to Atheist theory which are disgraces to a Scientific Community.

When the Earth had reached it's maximum capacity for expansion, and the energy then had no place left to go, it was without hope of reaching out into open space yet, for such a feat of grasping nothing, even for Light is unattainable. So the energy began to fill the earth until it was so Grandeur in it's consuming expanse that it could grasp the entirety of the World.

There was a Morning, and this was the Fourth day. The energy forged the galactic entities ~ theory conceived as Stipulation.

The Energy within the earth was unwilling to yield in vast quantities to the openness of space at a greater rate then it's expansion, which was a consumption of the Universes Darkness. The pool of Energy then orbiting the earth, began to cling to the particles floating free in space and accumulated the Moon, and compiled it eventually in one place.

In time, the energies of the Sun, separated the moon from the earth and placed it in a vacuum orbit; for energy, now having saved itself up in volume to consume the outer space encompassing the moon placed the moon in a miraculous orbit, and sot he sun began to orbit both entities while accumulating Mercury and Venus simultaneously as a Gaseous entity and a Metallic entity.

Now, the planets are prescribed as stars, so at this time,t here was an evening within the Earth and the Sea, so the energy there, now balancing itself after the huge discharge of the sun, found place to create the DNA of every thing bearing an egg and would not be born until creation had accounted for the preservation of those things it had done.

The eggs, like the seeds, were formed in full immediately for the energy and matter were available to construct the full illustrated map dictated by the DNA to form the good things God had deemed should be established then on the 5th day.

It was only in such a full establishment of creation that perhaps only Mars and it's moons had been created, or the fullness or incompleteness of multiple gaseous giants, or even the beginning of a new star, before the Earth forged again a new Hope,

And The animals, burst from the dirt and the mud, formed in full, immediately and as exactly as prescribed.

This is the Model of Creation written on the First page of the Bible, Saved by non other than Abraham and his descendants, the Israelites; and this is the Model that accurately describes creation.

Flawless without speaking. I could say nothing to elaborate on what God has done and made clear for you so many times and years before. And hope you have a good day, for they are numbered


Thank you very much for your opening statement.

Evidence shows that our universe began 13.8 BILLION years ago. There is also evidence for a theory commonly known as The Big Bang.

Creationists try to make the Big Bang sound ridiculous, saying that something cannot come of nothing.

Is that not what creationism actually states?

Let's begin with God. The Bible's Old Testament (the Torah) begins with the statement "In the beginning". What beginning is it referring to? It conveniently leaves out the beginning of everything but Earth. It does not explain the beginning of the Universe. This is because the authors of the Bible had no knowledge of a Universe, rather, they thought it was only our solar system.

Therefore, the "beginning" common holy books refer to is not the beginning at all; it is the beginning of the human race. That is not the beginning of the Universe.

Back to the "something from nothing" argument. Did God have the sun in his pocket? The Bible states that he created the sun, or "light" from nothing. This, in my opinion, shows the unrealism of the Bible.

We can easily have come from a coincidence in genetic code. 13.8 billion years is a VERY long time. With the average lifespan at around 80 years, that's over 172,000,000 times our entire life. Does that not make the theory of the Big Bang and evolution possible?

While there is no DEFINITIVE proof of evolution and the Big Bang, there is strong evidence for it.

Let me begin by saying that the word "theory" means something entirely different in science. In normal conversation, I could say anything as crazy as I wanted to describe the beginning of the Universe, and it would be a theory. In science, a theory is an explanation for something and has a large amount of evidence, as evolution does.

Creationists like to argue that evolution has no proof. That is a common misconception. There is proof of evolution in small organisms such as bacteria. These are commonly called mutations. No one can deny the evidence of these small changes in organisms, which is evidence of the EXTREME likelihood of something similar occurring in humans.

Now I will explain evidence for the Big Bang. We do have evidence that something can indeed come from nothing. Though it is hard for our minds to comprehend, there is a high possibility that the Big Bang Theory is correct. However, it is hard to argue that the Big Bang sounds hard to believe because of the idea that something can come from nothing, when almost all religions say the same thing. They believe that God came from nothing, that He was "before" time. The statement on its own is impossible. The word before indicates time, and therefore cannot occur with the absence of time.

Your opening statement is very flawed. You provided no evidence or explanation, rather told a story on how life was created. It baffles me that you do not even acknowledge the other side of the argument, as I am about to do so. There is nothing that disproves the idea of a god. It is possible, but unlikely. I am not arrogant enough to say that there is much of a difference in intelligence between theism and atheism, rather a concept of faith. Faith is not something I can understand. I cannot have faith in something that has not been proven to me. Therefore, God has not shown anything to me. If he had, I would consider it proof and would be changed completely.

In conclusion, there is much stronger evidence to support the idea of atheistic creation than there is to support theism.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has provided the argument of Doubt against me. His argument in turn, was an argument of Benefit of the Doubt.

When the Model of Creation was provided, which is the most effective arsenal against contradicting theories, It was present in a scientifically accurate manner.
The transitions between Mornings, and Evenings, were in fact perfect interpretations of what would have taken place given the scenario which we are observing. It is not theoretical to determine that from the Pre-creation (before the first day) Planet, each proceeding event which happened in the creation account is Scientifically Proven to have be the only valid Facts regarding the circumstances.

Because, Each event taking place in this scenario is scientifically accurate, concerning which events must therefor take place in order for a change to occur leading to - not a planet, but a universe - like ours.

So I will rephrase the facts.

IN the beginning, if the Universe was consumed with Darkness and yet matter was present:
{ because light exists we must determine an origin. as a preliminary requirement }
( Light is persists in all forms of energy; thermal, electrical, organic, radiation, heat.)

The condition that would cause Light to arise int he darkness where Matter exists would be a perfect condition. A setting for which is would become the Law of Physics, The Truth/Wisdom, which determines this setting must at the point of the event, be that point of Origin for the elapsing change.

Therefor, When the Focus of God, the spirit and movement, Who is entirety of the Cosmos; and is also unified as a whole - When this focus was upon the surface of Earth, we have it in the Model, Energy broke free from the darkness, for the first time. This is a very Logical, well reasoned and plausible approach to the origin of Light regardless of any preceeding or proceeding Model, however we have one.

Now that Light had been established on the Surface of the perfect condition, it must be determined (when examining a Model accused of being Theoretical) this change would progress. Because Light was the Change in the condition, it was considered a 'More' element, and when there was then in this condition of change no More sporadically change associated with the cause of the event, an 'Evening' to place.

So we determined by science, that Energy always clings to something, and as it always takes the path of least resistance, we can determine why on the Second Morning the event was predictable for a Model of Creation.

The Matter of the Earth, was described to be arranged in this manner, "An Ocean (water and liquids and gases all consisting of gaseous elements, the least dense elements) Enveloping the world which was set at it's depths ( where the dense matter had accumulated, this matter including salts. )" And so, the Planet on the first page of the Bible was determined to be arranged least dense to denser matters as it suspended in space.

So, the Second Morning. We have determined that in this Model, The Energies persisting in Light were not present as observed and studied until the first day, as a Model, and we are following the scientifically accurate course of events which would unfold. The Energy, taking the path of least resistance, would also cling to something, and immediately it would Molecularize all the least dense matter. This is not hypothesis, this is what would occur;

The sky would immediately become a canopy of molecularized, least dense matter. As the Ocean unfolds, (previously being wrapped tightly as a mass of matter without electrons gapping the spaces) It too is molecularized. This is scientifically accurate. The energy, yet unable to disperse into space would delve deeper into the ocean. It would not be Evening in this Model, until, the energy no longer altered or interacted with the outer layers of this entity. And so when the Sky and Large quantities of the Sea had become imbued with energy, it was an Evening.

This is an accurate map of Creation:
Darkness with matter - produces light - light creates molecules -

Because the map has been previously illustrated and you have access to all sources concerning the perusing events and the mechanics of energy, Please consider the third day of Creation on your own, and determine if the Map of Creation is an accurate Model of the next events which would occur when considering the originating statement.

Because the Model of Creation is in fact Scientifically accurate considering the transition stages of Creation, it can be determined that this was not of a Human origin or any Alien ( for the map dispels such suggestions when continually followed thoroughly outwards from our Galaxy).

I have in fact fully elaborated on the Model in Round two: However it appears my opponents, those who suggest I have not provided evidence, have not thoroughly read either of my arguments if they still stand by any claim that I have not been providing Facts, Evidence, Sources, contributed Logic.

God inspires me to contribute this debate for the benefit of all humanity ~ for truly only one who denies the Word of God is tempted to murder in cold blood, rape when they are neglected, be disrespectful out of selfish pompous, steal what someone has worked long for in turn for petty gain, be politically corrupt, ignore the plight of people. It is the Word of God to be decent and respectful, and though many people who deny God do so because of earthly laws and person comfort zones, It is still the Word of God to be so (kind). With a world inclined to deny the person of God, it is also inclined to become more ruthless then it is already (crime lords, politically corrupt, rapists, murderers, thieves, disrespectful boyfriends neighbors and students).

This story of Creation is as scientifically accurate as the Law credited souly to the Word of God.


Wow. My opponent really likes to talk about darkness.

Alright. To respond to your "evidence" that you have presented, I will describe some inconsistencies and my theory.

The Universe is ever expanding. We can agree on that. However, it is not necessarily expanding in the same way that the Bible describes. It's not as spontaneous. In Genesis 1:3, the popular "Let there be light" quote is written. That isn't specific. Think of it like Java coding. You have to be very specific. Why doesn't it read "Let there be a sun for this planet"?

It doesn't.

It merely says "Let there be light". This technically means that our sun should provide light throughout the entire universe.

As I stated in my previous argument, there is proof of evolution in microscopic organisms. There is no speak of evolution in the Bible, nor does it even mention microscopic organisms. This is inconsistent and evidence that the Bible really doesn't cover much of the Universe. This goes for all of the holy books.

Let's looks at some facts.

DNA in organisms is very intricate. It is a coding filled with genes and traits such as a widow's peak (a very basic example). Evolution is really the major editing of this code. When the edit of the code lasts through natural selection, it becomes an evolution in the organism and most of the future generations will share it. This is a much more reliable source than a books that sounds like a bunch of archaic superstitions grouped together.

Religion provides explanations for things that we do not know. Do you know the origin of the term "Bless you" when someone sneezes? At one point in time, people thought a sneeze was your body ridding an evil spirit from you. This is obviously not true, but it is an amazing example of people putting God and myths in place of unknown scientific facts.

I will continue with errors in a creationist model.

All creationists believe that a god or group of gods created the world and the Universe. However, none of them mention the Universe. They all talk about EARTH.

This is due to little scientific evidence. However, we are talking about books that are meant to guide you through life in worship of the god(s) you worship. You would think they would ensure that it was accurate.

Also, there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence for any of the religions to have advantage over others. Religion is not usually a decision, it is spread my missionaries and parents who manipulate people into believing their religion by telling them they will go to heaven.

I believe I have presented an adequate argument for non-theist origins of the Universe.

Thank you for the opportunity to rebut.
Debate Round No. 3


GoOrDin forfeited this round.


EliasLegere forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
this is not an evolution debate.

If in Atheist Creation, there is no creator, you would therefor be defending the construction of reality, step by step in terms accurate to Observed scientific mechanics of physics.

Also, you would therefor be defending, the notion that life is mechanical, and choice does not exists. All things are math according to atheism, and political injustice is then justified as well as hateful parenting, and other things like destruction of property; you would be criminally insane to suggest there is only math by defending any atheist article - this would be detrimental to perverts and criminals minds.
Math only has one outcome, and it cannot vary. Atheism is a notion of FATE without purpose.

So since life is not what You are defending, because life is non existent in atheism - IN this debate, clearly,
you must establish a model of creation supported by logical reasoning concerning transition stages in the establishment of the universe as we know it.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
Have you actually taken the Model into consideration? or only my words apart from your own cognitive thinking?

By logical, I mean it systematically is supported by facts and scientific criteria.

And in a debate I am allowed to criticize your arguments; When they are not fundamental or practical, such as a debate where round 2 required a model of creation which you did not present.
And round 3 required you to elaborate on the missing gaps in the transition stages of my model.
Posted by EliasLegere 1 year ago
I am open to constructive criticism, as I am new to this, but I don't see how its proper conduct for my opponent to criticize my arguments.

My arguments aren't the best because this is an amateur site, and I am an amateur. However, going over your arguments a SECOND time, its as if you're telling some kind of story. Your evidence is much less weak than mine, as all you say is "its logical.". Oh man, it's logical.

Thank you to the one person who actually gave me CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
Thank you Kman100. however.

no. Follow the illustrated Model and it is found to be scientifically accurate. thus making my case strong. (*as a Model, being the key elements of the debate round content.)
Posted by kman100 1 year ago
But cons case is extremely weak, which is unfortunate, as Pro's case is laughable technobabble.
Posted by kman100 1 year ago
"The sky would immediately become a canopy of molecularized, least dense matter. As the Ocean unfolds, (previously being wrapped tightly as a mass of matter without electrons gapping the spaces) It too is molecularized."

Wow. Much technobabble.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
And now on top of all this. I must apologies. For my opponent is a young man.

I had yet checked his profile. I am sincerely ashamed. This is an actual apology not a clarification, which account for 90% of my formal concessions.

I thought the name Elias was feminine. I became unsure of this; and so when I checked... well um .. yeah.


You chose to partake in the Worlds biggest debate. and you refused to debate with formal conduct.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
When you do not agree in a debate you use arguments. When you do not understand you must make clarifications and seek an understanding before making forward progress**

being incapable of understanding ones debate content, means you are either unqualified or need to communicate with the opponent. Not make accusations and assertions that they are wrong, when you do not even know what they are saying.

Think on that everyone. and please read all my comments here for your personal growth. bottom to top.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
In addition, my Dictionary from early 1900's says the word Moron means someone with the intelligence of an 8-12 year old. Intelligence is based on experience and earnings. Not personal flaw.

Therefor because the word was not a word of direct insulting nature when the word was made and used in it's foundation. I don't care what definition modern idiots have changed it too thinking they were being cultural.

My Opponent debated like a child.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
IN addition. My last two quotes here wer enot attacks specifically made against my opponent.

I didn not say Stupid, I said stupider. If, souly under the condition, she chose to spite me for saying in my round 4 criteria, "his presented arguement.". For her contributions were merely taken with complete misconduct to the debate form, and debate conduct.

AS well as, I accuse my opponent for not reading my debate arguments.
this is a debate. you do not just POSt and win on content. and also,
if you do not understand the content of an argument you can not argue it in debate until you discuss it here in the COMMENT section to make fundamental forward progress. = This is a debate, not a shitt show.

XD please forgive me audience, voters, supporters, and EliasLegere for my being perceived as rude, and being rude conduct.
No votes have been placed for this debate.