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

Creationism VS Evolution

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,940 times Debate No: 89259
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (42)
Votes (1)




I'm for evolution. Any Christian want to debate me. No insulting because of religious belief. Use contradicting logic. No swearing unless its the word Hell.


I will argue for creationism. But in the way that I believe it to be.

I also acknowledge that microevolution , or adaptive mutations are possible over time. However, there is little evidence to substantiate macro evolution. An external force seems to have been required to bring out the gradual onset of man through the course of evolution. Adaptive mutation ALONE, simply could not have directed the course all life, nature, matter and physics. Also, it would require a massive assumption to believe macro evolution created the diverse range of species it did, all simply by means of natural selection. We already know such ideas to be highly implausible. This is why there are many competing theories in evolutionary biology. Because we know the darwinian model of "evolution" or "natural selection" simply does not fit the bill in explaining human's morality or our language. Neither does it entirely account for changes between species and how natural selection cannot effect DNA or genetic adaptations to the point of speciation.

The darwinian tree of evolutions is eerily similar to the chronology of God creating the fish in the seas, fowls in the air, then those that walk on fours and finally man. (Book of Jubillees gives an even more similar account than the Bible.)

From the book of Jubillees
And God appointed the sun to be a great sign on the earth for days and for sabbaths and for months and for feasts and for years and for sabbaths of years and for jubilees and for all seasons of the years.
And it divideth the light from the darkness [and] for prosperity, that all things may prosper which shoot and grow on the earth.
These three kinds He made on the fourth day. And on the fifth day He created great sea monsters in the depths of the waters, for these were the first things of flesh that were created by his hands, the fish and everything that moves in the waters, and everything that flies, the birds and all their kind.
And the sun rose above them to prosper (them), and above everything that was on the earth, everything that shoots out of the earth, and all fruit-bearing trees, and all flesh.
These three kinds He created on the fifth day. And on the sixth day He created all the animals of the earth, and all cattle, and everything that moves on the earth.
And after all this He created man, a man and a woman created He them, and gave him dominion over all that is upon the earth, and in the seas, and over everything that flies, and over beasts and over cattle, and over everything that moves on the earth, and over the whole earth, and over all this He gave him dominion.
And these four kinds He created on the sixth day. And there were altogether two and twenty kinds.

Also, the theory of evolution does not account for many of the most critical "steps" within evolution itself!

It has no explanation for abiogensis - creation of life from non life.
It has no explanation for speciation - creation of new species
It has no explanation for language - the unique ability to speak
It has no explanation for morality - the ability to feel empathy

So. The theory of evolution, although a good guess, is at best an entirely incomplete answer and every scientist knows this. It simply has not answered all the questions about how life began. In the absence of an alternative the most rational explanation is creationism. Namely, that there was an external force that helped or guided evolution towards the eventual path of creating humanoid beings endowed with qualities of a god. That is- the ability to understand all things. (Given the knowledge is given). This God like qualiry of humans, often leads many humans to think they are in fact God, or that they do in fact, "know all things". Although little would admit to it outright, any atheist / pseudo scientist you speak to, will immedaitely begin acting like they know certain truths about the universe they simply do not know.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay well, abiogensis. God is a form of life to you, as this conscious being that created you, yet it's backed up with the same evidence as science. Nothing. But we have concluded how we were made. You see on the fifth day of the bible God created the twilight (Stars) yet the sun on the first, let there be light came first. So the people who wrote this did not understand that the sun is indeed a star that gives off continues atoms that it produces for the creation of life. Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons. All energy that belted together as a continues ring that act like particles, so these energies don't die off. Over time the stars heat is enough to perform combustion, that allows these atoms to be forged. And as hydrogen, then helium runs out, the star will go on to produce lithium exe. All in a nuclear fusion form. Eventually the stars wont have enough heat or energy to perform the task of forging new atoms to burn, so it will become a super nova and die. This causes so much energy, that protons, neutrons, and electrons will go out flying and cling on to protons that carry orbit, and forge new atoms that finishes up all the forms of every organic atom. These atoms from dead stars will come together forging molecules, and heavy amounts of certain atoms becoming a chunk of element. This is what created all of life and and molecules, thus explaining how everything started in its creation that took billions of years. And this was only for our galaxy, not the universe. Yet twilight came after the Earth. How could such a being existed outside of an infinite universe. It makes more sense of an energy source that created all energy of the universe that created us, then an actual being of conscious behavior. Oh a fact about natural selection, off topic but interesting, people who drink milk are prime examples of ancient natural selection from thousand of years ago, when in evidence, human civilization started 13,000 years ago. Like most civilizations, they failed, without being bountiful, so they figured milk would be a sustainable source since baby's drink them. As plenty of lactose and tolerant people passed away, the ones digest milk flourished, and thus now we have more people in this world that can drink milk. As for morality and language as you said, I believe it was human logical common sense. It says in the bible if a hunter hunts, then he shall eat the animal, but some people outside this box thought eating meat was wrong and became vegans or vegetarians, representing a different kind of morality. Oh yeah and Gay people are examples to of another kind of moral sense that humans are able to create. God is against this morality but its a source of morality proving humans logical sense. Also human sympathy is what creates morality since we do produce hormones from evolution to care. Emotions happen through hormones that happened through evolution. In Ecology, it has been proven that organisms made sacrifices for what was best for the group, or for population purposes. This is the best I can do with Ecology and morality. But how bout the birds. Birds are non bible to God, yet they understand married bonds, and taking turns to raise there young children with love. Birds also developed singing tunes as language and mating rituals to attract a female partner. So say for instance a group of humans make three grunts and that meant a rock. And this passes around. Now people do three grunts to try and express rock. Now different sounds come to play with our advanced vocal chords, and in Africa some tribes use clicking sounds, how similar! So there is different tribes of hunter and gatherers that started civilizations, either earlier or later then others, and developed there own speech, because miles away from some African tribes, in the city, they speak an ancient African language that is different. There are many different languages in Africa in different civilizations. Now migration occurs, and some people split from the group, thus having civilizations that actually speak different languages, but have similar to the same words in there dictionary. Or collide with other groups that have the different languages and mix there own, like Vietnam and France. This is my explanation to languages instead of the bible saying three dudes were cursed to speak different languages. And my explanation is a bit more realistic to me. As for morality, baby's are born cute, like humans wanting to raise a puppy instead of a full grown dogs most of the time, even when the puppy craps in the house. Why do humans have cats and dogs, its because cats and dogs are actually cute and cuddly to have around. Through evolution, humans developed a hormone called Oxytocin. It is the cuddle hormone that is released through the mothers brain during child birth creating an absolutely strong bond. So much stronger then the father, that it takes the father a bit more time and holding the baby to match up to the supreme mothers love. And this dad raising a child with love is not really seen as much in other species, usually the father leaving. But in other animal groups this occur, but the mother is the one to raise the children as the father just goes out to hunt. Sometimes greed gets passed over the mothers head, and they leave the baby to the father to live there life, or the father leaves and the mother raises the child. This yes does happen, but that doesn't mean the mother or father still don't have a bond for the child, some parents cry when they reunite or either wants to see there child again eventually later in life. Oxytocin makes humans protect there love ones, with will power. Now psychopath people have a disorder that prevents such normal hormone functions. Another fact is that Oxytocin is also released during mating between a women and a man, after they mate. This creates a nice lovely bond called a relationship. So this is an example of proof to love in morality through evolution in my opinion, with a mix of psychology science with it. In natural selection, people turn to mix skin color to adapt in climates such as 1/2 white and 1/2 black, but of course this is a human and not another specie, so lets drop this topic and go to another example that proves speciation. A tiger and a lion can make a complex species called a liger, or proven ancestor of a chicken was a T-rex. Oh also the mule. And in rare cases a mule (mix of horse and donkey) has happened to give birth to a mule baby. Very rare but it happens, and Im using modern examples that see everyday as proof. This is in my opinion.


Thanks Con for your argument. But it is all over the map. Its nice to c that u have learned a good deal about stars, and their combustion. However, all con did was provide us with an imaginary tale unevidenced by any scientific observation. If you noticed, con used alot of scientific terms, but did not provide us with an iota of evidence. This is called science fiction.

Con does not KNOW or have ANY evidence for stars combusting to create organic molecules over billions of years. Does he? No. He does not. Thus , this tale is purely imaginary. Though con uses the idea of star formation (also a theory) , he should very well know that star formation does not include abiogenisis. We do not know how inorganic molecules such as hydrogen and helium can become organic. We simply have ZERO evidence to substantiate any theory over the theory that ",god did it." We are unaware of what kind of external circumstances were required for the formation of organic life. We do not know how organic life was able to evolve into such complicated forms we have today.

But even if Con's guess about abiogensis is correct, it does not place macro evolution over creation. If God is the entity to create the universe and put all the cosmos and its formation into motion, God is still the creator of life, even if the universe and evolution managed to create life on its own. Evolution becomes nothing but a tool that God has used.

Con also has not given us any examples of new species that are being created today and observable.

Also, if ,,God created the universe and life, sorry Con, i do not think God is a form of life. That is a bit illogical. If ,God is a form of life, that means ,God can also die? Certainly , thats not the kind of god that can do much, let alone create a whole universe, God is also not a conscious behaving creature, As con proposes. God is beyond Cons imagination. Or anyone elses. God certainly is not some creature or being. I dont know what God is, but i can tell that Con is already building a straw god.

The babys milk story was irrelevant. Though appreciated.

Con has not demonstrated how people acquired such advanced moral capacity only via evolution or natural selection. It seems morality for the most part goes against primate survival instincts. Many competing evolutionary biologist assert different theories for human morality, which is further evidence that there simply isnt enough evidence fo conclude the origin or our morality. The case is the same for language.

The bible is not a science book, and does not need to be entirely accurate. When the bible says on the first dAY. Let there be light. How is there even a"day" when god hasn't created the sun and the stars and the moon yet,,? Easy answer day,,= age. Day could mean 1000 yrs, and that puts things in perspective. Actually the greek or hebrew word for "day" is the same as the word "aeon" whi h also means age.

Micro evolutionary processes may take place,and star formation may have caused the first organic molecules to form. But even from that point , evolutionists also Have zERO evidence for the acquisition of language and how it worms. Noam chomsky is a leading linguist in this field and also admits blatantly of his own ignorance on how people truly acquired language. As well as their morality. Its also interesting to note that language and morality are internal capacities like skills, yet innate , like your arms and legs. This lack of physical form leads us to conclude that the external pressures that brough about such change were also nonphysical. Like God.
Debate Round No. 2

Con I went online to find an evidence to back up my statement about the stars. I'm sure Nova should be enough as a reliable source. Also energy that made the energy of the universe seems more reasonable then a conscious being. And I have gave you modern examples, and obvious conclusions, that has been backed up. As for the Oxytocin hormone that plays a role in describing one part of our morality here, use this as evidence to how we came to love. Oh and as for theory in scientific definition, it is indeed a bright observation that has been backed up with several evidence that does not lead to a conclusion, but can be expanded with more knowledge from advance observation. Ice cubes melt (fact). (Theory) The hotter the climate is, the faster water molecules will move around until it becomes a liquid form, and if boiled hot, the water molecules will move at a much faster rate, turning into a Gas. The reason why this is a theory well because there can be more to this, and scientist has added on more to this. If there was a rank in fact vs theory, theory would be the monarchy.
Just to say that you have never given me evidence yet say that scientist have nothing to show, even though it's more then the bible. And therefore what I say is kinda an opinionated faulty. In honesty its not my opinion like I said in the last round. And yes there is more evidence than you think in science. I don't use faith to believe in evolution, I use logic. I don't believe in creationism, because I don't use faith, that is the difference. A religious guy can say, I have evidence, its right here in the bible. Prove that fact in the bible with observation and evidence, instead of saying you can feel that it's the truth. Because you can feel the holy spirit doesn't mean its real. And this is not the same as oh I feel hungry I want to eat, and If I eat all this food, then therefore I knew it was real, cause I felt hungry, and consumed a plate.
Morality- well I don't want my family to get hurt, and I'm sure they don't want there family to get hurt. It's a matter of sympathy that gives us these major moralities. And if there is no time in heaven, then how does God give out days. Numbers and the calendar is only man made, just as much as religion. The bible has zero evidence, as science gives us more observations, that we can see, and appears more logical. And these logical observations can be explained to people that question things. And all mystery is solvable over a period of time and study. All animals give off language, in different ways. We have advance vocal chords, so therefore we use sounds, and if you leave two humans on there own with no language, they will eventually invent a way to communicate like pointing at things as the most basic. Animals that are not as evolved use body language, compared to monkeys, and birds. In actual history, civilizations wrote down images that brought out the representation of the specific sound to make trading more efficient. Inca Kingdom used strings knots as a history recorder. I don't know how that worked. But it was there form of writing. Not God getting mad at three men, so he makes them all speak different languages. Then what about the other people, did god change there language so they can spread the language. Thousand of languages exist. And this kind of thought is illogical compared to scientific, and historic observations.
Sure we have stated different theories in evolution, but eventually they all lead to one agreement. And if more ideas come out, eventually it will lead to a conclusive theory, like it has been happening several times already. There will always be a conclusion that will shut the other thinkers down. And so far scientist has been agreeing on the conclusion of prime mates, humans, and how living organisms were made.


How trivial does Con think creation itself really is? Con cannot simply throw out names and act like he knows how those chemicals and organisms were formed. Its not very NEW knowledge that humans are created out of the same material as stars. Its not even a new concept that ALL matter is essentially atoms and protons. Just because we find a common molecule does not mean we are ancestrally related. This is like saying ...since we are all made of water, we are also part of the ocean. Though you may want to argue evolution makes that true, it is actually meaningless to say. When we were less evolved and only ocean...we were not how could we be from the ocean?

This is the key point. Where do WE (mankind) come from? Where does lur language come from? Our morality?
Where does it come from??????? We are not the ocean. We are not plants. We are not animals. We are distinct human beings, with an uncanny abilty to understand and learn incredible things. Far beyond any other life form known on the planet at least.

The combustion of star dust and macro evolutionary biology combined does not even come close to tackeling this age old question. There is simply not enough data or no meaningful way to pull such data.

Con wants to say that eventually, science will find the answer. And I dont necessarily doubt that, but the answer that science finds may very well be God. And Con has not demonstrated why this could not be the case. Instead Con has given us a science lesson on star formation and pharmaceuticals. All he has done is give us names of the hormones that allow us to feel the emotion known as "love." Oxytocin = love is a fallacy.

Much of Cons argument is the same kind of fallacy. Essentially Con purports more knowledge than is justifiably reasonable. Yes,'science has come along way. And we have learned an immense deal about life, the stars, and the mind. But any honest scientist would admit that we havent yet begun to scratch the surface. Yet Con wants to set forth an entirely imaginary hypothesis, so as to make his case more "imaginable". Here its critical and important to note ; what is imaginable is not what is likely. What is imaginable is not even necessarily what is true.

In fact. Throughour history the UNIMAGINABLE has always held dominion over the findings of science. Even as Con admits, science is self adjusting and self correcting. Its ALWAYS wrong. A work in progress. Everytime it thinks it has the answer an unimagined discovery leads to a modification of the "theory" and progress of mankind towards the "truth". For example, no scientist honestly imagined that the stars would be accelerating away fromeach other. At one point, no scientist even imagined that humans and animals carried a genetic code. No one even could have imagined that we were made of the same molecules of star dust , or that we can affect matter across the universe using quantum mechanics. Further, every major lesson in history was unimaginable. At least to me. Shucks.

The point is that the truth is often unimagined. The fact that everything Con imagined is based off of something some other scientist already imagined, I would be inclined to say "sorry Con, i do not believe you possess knowledge on the beginning of matter and life." And last i checked, neither did a single scientist.

To clarify, Evolution ,big bang, star dust to organism. all of it can be true. But it does not mean it is the WHOLE truth. There still may be some other unimagined force that we can call "God" who has set all things in motion. This God being beyond time and space , being the creator of it, is neither bound by it. Some people refer to this as a God of the gaps argument, but in perspective, if one correctly applied the definiton of God, they would not have presupposed that God was a bearded manin he sky with a magical tool box of creation and throws lightning bolts when angry. If someone says God is the a deity like Zeus, then that God has been falsified. But even before Zeus, people believed in the Abrhamic God of the Christian Bible. Interesting.

This means. There were two different types of ppl. All through out time. Those who believed God was like Zeus(a deity) , Those who believed God was like Yahweh (the creator of life and matter). If we lump all those who believe God to be the same, then we are unable to define God in any sensible way. We are unable to know which God the believer believes in. Only in such case does the God of gaps apply. When the skeptic is ignorant to the believers notion of God. If the notion of God is yahweh version, then God of the Gaps does not apply. There isnt anything in the bible that specifies God did not use evolution or the big bang to create matter and life. Infact, even the pope says so.

The bible is full of stories, but one needs to be careful in interpretting them. It is foolish to think the biblical narratives are entirely accurate by scientific means.

The bible states in the beginning was the "word" and constantly refers to "the word" of God. Many churches establishments (actually i think almost ALL) exploit the ignorance of the masses and quickly assert the 66book bible itself is the inerrant "word of God." No where in the bible does it state that King James or constantine was authorized to dictate what was the word of God and what was not. Actually, the bible clearly states, in the beginning was the "word and that word was with God and he was God."

I come back to the question of where does out language come from? Words.

I then need to emphasize the fact that Con stated "i dont know where it comes from.but im sure its not God!"

Does Con even know what God is?
How does Con know what God can do, and how he does it, if he has not defined God?

Does Con think (nevermind he doesnt believe God exists) that God is supposed to be like Zeus or Yahweh?
Clearly Con doesnt think. Con doesnt believe and doesnt need to think. Well, if Con did a little thinking, maybe he would actually believe.

Because thinking about it lets you conclude logiically that:

If we say God is like Zeus. Then we would have evidence of his being visible and we would see him get angry every time Con blasphemes. Clearly this God can be falsified by evolution.

If we say God is like Yahweh, then things get a bit more complicated. Yahweh is invisible. He also somehow lives in and knows all human hearts. And he has fashioned the universe and everything in it by uttering "words." Such as, "let there be light." Then how does evolution falsify this God? Why was it not possible for God to utter "Let man evolve!"

According to biblical teachings the christian God actually fits so perfectly well with science that the religion has grown and stood practically uncontested for 2000 years or more. Sure science is only taking roots, but still science has not yet been able to contradict Yahweh. Though they try.

Accoridng to teachings
Yahweh is eternal = beyond time= a day for Yahweh could be 1 billion human days.
Yahweh is immaterial = beyond space = he does not need to be seen to exist (remember quantum mechanics)
Yahweh is Holy = righteous = explainging the origin of morality.
Yahweh is the Word = language = explaining the origin of human linguistic capabilities
Man is made in Yahweh's Image = explaining the purpose of evolution.
Yahweh created all living things , trees first, then fish , mammals and finally man. = explaining process of evolution.
Yahweh resides within everyone = the kingdom of heaven is within you, = Immanuel = you are star dust.

Given such qualities of Yahweh (which is not really God's name, but the supposed first "sounds" created during the creating lf the universe.), it could be imagined, that God being a timeless mind, willed into existence all matter and life and with the purpose of creating Man. God would set the bing bang and evolution into motion , with the preknowledge that eveything would evolve more or less according to presequnced design. Or DNA. This "creating" set forth from God, eventually manifested into our cosmos, but God being the creator of it matter from nothing, would not exist within physical
Time and space and therefore would be unable to detach Himself from everything that which he created. He would be everywhere and nowhere at the same time. ubiquitous and invisible. And in such state, he would be freely be able to affect all areas of life and the course of evolution without being detected. In such a scenario, everything would appear to be coincidence, and yet that is the reality in which we live.
Debate Round No. 3
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
Both are sorta weak. I'll post a critique as fast as I can.
Posted by Heirio 2 years ago
"Depending on how well Pro does,"

Eh, Pro's argument is weak atm.
Posted by Heirio 2 years ago
Con kinda punched himself in the gut when he said at the end: "This is my opinion."
Posted by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
Depending on how well Pro does, I might. I don't want to do it until Pro provides his arguments I could use an argument that Pro intends to use, which would sort of ruin the debate.
Posted by Heirio 2 years ago
I'd like to see how his argument could be torn to shreds though.
Posted by Heirio 2 years ago
A lot in the stuff in Con's argument was true, but he failed to cite sources.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
That's fine. Just try to get into the habit of formatting it into paragraphs at the least.
Posted by RetroRanter 2 years ago
Sorry for the bad format, I just wanted to bring out my point as fast as I could since I had to go do stuff.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
Also, I could tear your arguments to shreds.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
Con, try formatting your stuff please.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments neutralized each other. The resolution of the debate was not clear and did not provide a direct stance on the issue. Points go to Pro simply for formatting the otherwise wall of text that Con created. Sources go to Con for providing links, though, I don't know if they were the most credible of sources. Overall, an interesting debate that could have been significantly improved if both parties provided better sources and arguments.