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

Creationism and Evolution are BOTH right.

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: 1/22/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 354 times Debate No: 85399
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Now here me out;

For over 150+ years, Creationist and Evolutionist have bitterly argued with each other over which philosophy is right. Creationist believe in an all-mighty god who made everything. Evolutionist believe that we as a human race and as life itself evolved from lower life forms. Each side has their strengths and flaws. I myself used to be a heavy believer in the Evolution side. However, I have began to rethink my philosophy. Its always been a matter of black or white in this long going debate. Its always either Creationist or Evolutionist who are right and the other side is either a bunch of bible-reading jackoffs or ape-worshippers. But what if neither side was wrong? What if both sides were RIGHT? I like to think that God made the universe. After all, SOMETHING had to have made the universe (although who or what made God is another mystery we may never solve). After God made the universe, he let Evolution do the rest of the work for him. It makes sense on both sides. Its unarguable that species evolve. But what can be argued for is the existence of a God and what hand he played in the creation of life. The theory I have present makes sense on both sides.


I agree with part of what you said, for 150+ years, creationists and evolutionists have argued this point greatly. For several thousand years before that point, most people just believed that God existed without questioning it. So what you are saying is that now, people should just believe both, because finding out the truth is just too difficult?

For now, I'm going to ignore the Bible and specific religions, since you only lightly mentioned one, and just focus on the idea of God. Assuming that you mean a monotheist God, here is the definition of what God is:

"The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." (Courtesy of )

We know the universe had to come from somewhere, and a lot of people obviously attribute this to God. But what seems like the more likely thing to be the first thing to ever exist: A sentient being, capable of creating and ruling a universe as complex as the one we see now, or something like a small packet of energy that caused the big bang? We have a hard time figuring out how we got here, because of how complex we are and how complex the universe around us is. So we are supposed to just accept that a fully formed intelligent omnipotent being just exists and created the universe and all of us? That doesn't seem to be very scientific.

I also hear a lot of people say "If it was a small packet of energy, then that means everything was random chance! Do you know how small those chances are?!" I do, but think about this. If you have a 1 in 10 chance that something will happen, if you give it one opportunity, there is a 10% chance of it happening. But what if you give that chance a lot of opportunities to occur, say you repeat it 5 times? The chances are a lot higher, around a 40.95% chance that it will occur. So even if the odds are astronomically small, you also have to account for the number of times that it has a chance to occur. And given the size of the universe, it has had a LOT of chances to occur.

You specifically state that you "like to think that God made the universe". If you like to think that, go right ahead. I like to think that dragons exist, because dragons are awesome. Does that make dragons real? Not really. If there is any rational evidence for dragons, well, I'll start believing that dragons exist. But just saying that you can make a false idea and a true idea work together doesn't prove anything. I can say "Well, dragons were once around, but you don't see them anymore because they all left Earth at some point." You can't prove that wrong. But that doesn't make it any more right.
Debate Round No. 1


I am not saying people should believe both because the truth is "too difficult." I am saying to believe both because, for the longest of time, its been a "black-or-white" mentality. A mentality of one being right and the other being wrong. I am suggesting that neither are wrong.

And when I mention "God" I am referring to the typical image of God. A Single Higher-Power with magical powers.

Anyway, yes, I will say that I agree and support the idea that the Big Bang Theory makes much more sense as to what created THE UNIVERSE. However...that leave the question of what created the big bang? All the elements, all the stars, all the chemicals that made that loud boom billions of years ago had to have been made by something. I find very little other explanation other then a higher-power making said big bang happen.

When I say that "Creationism and Evolution are both right" I do not mean they are both 100% right. That is flat-out impossible. What I am saying is that both philosophies have grains of truth in them. Evolution more so then Creationism, but still. Let me go into detail:

God (or whatever higher-power you want it to be) makes The Big Bang happen. After that, God/Higher-Power lets science (Evolution) do the rest.


I would like to point out that you ignored the entire last paragraph of my previous argument. You also ignored part of what I said in my third paragraph. I'm not saying you are automatically wrong, just that you didn't address those points.

Alright, so lets look at the big bang theory. The big bang is defined as:

"A theory that deduces a cataclysmic birth of the universe (big bang) from the observed expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation, abundance of the elements, and the laws of physics." (Courtesy of )

So it would make sense that something caused that large "cataclysmic birth" of the universe. Again, I ask you. What would be more likely to be the first thing to come into existence to cause the big bang: A fully formed sentient being, capable of creating and ruling a universe as complex as the one we see now, or something like a small packet of unstable energy existing in a single point? Both of those things could have created the universe. But one is far more complex than the other, and is less likely to have been the first thing ever to exist.

I made points for this that you didn't respond to in my last argument, so I won't go over them again. But let me ask you: Do you believe in dragons? Really? Why? Can you prove that they never existed? Of course you can't, but you cannot prove that they did exist either, which is why it makes no sense to believe in them.
Debate Round No. 2


The hard pill about a "God made the universe" theory is that you basically have to willing suspend your logic for it to make sense. We as a species do not like having our logic suspend for belief. I think that this lacking of willing suspension of logic stems from the fact that humans like to think ourselves as Gods. With the power of high IQ, fire, and bipedal movement; we conquered the planet and became the dominate life form. So the idea of a higher-power much greater then us, which would surely be beyond human comprehension, is insane for many of us. I also find it a bit silly...but I also find it to make a surprising amount of sense. I wont argue against the fact that the Big Bang sent the universe in motion. But even if the Big Bang was created by energy, that only leaves the question of where that energy came from. And that question leads to the other question of what made whatever made the energy that made the Big Bang. The only conclusion I can come up with is the higher-power. The reason it seems so ludicrous is because we have never seen said higher-power ourselves. But hey; when the first reports of the Platypus rolled around, did anybody believe it existed?

Now, just because I cant be proven wrong does not mean I am right. I am not 100% sure I am right. In fact, I cant be proven right...depending. You see, the whole idea of both Evolution and Creationism both being right relies entirely in on the fact of whether or not a person believes in a higher-power of any sorts with any amount of power. People who believe in a higher-power would find this theory more sound then someone who does not believe in a higher-power.


You specifically say you have to suspend your logic in order for it to make sense. I should be able to rest my case after that point onward.

You seem to make the assumption that people don't want to believe in a God, they would much rather believe in their logic... I would actually much prefer to believe in a God. Knowing that he will take care of the worlds problems one day, or at least the knowledge that my life would have some kind of purpose, that would be really nice. But it doesn't make logical sense, and it can't be proven, so much like dragons, I don't believe in God.

Alright, so if we had to suspend our logic in order to believe that there WASN'T a God, do you think anybody would believe it? Do you think anyone would decide to suspend logic in order to believe that there was no God? Obviously not, the only reason there are people now that don't believe in God is because they reasoned that God must not exist, even though it isn't really a popular belief to have. The only reason they actually went against society is because of that reasoning.

Like I said in my previous post (which you are obviously ignoring points from that you don't like) there are other options for things that could have started the Big Bang. Like a packet of pure energy existing in a single point, for instance. A much more likely candidate then a God, who's complexity would be far greater than that energy. Where did that energy come from? I could also ask: Well, where did God come from? The first thing ever to exist was more likely to be a random energy packet, much less likely to be a sentient omnipotent God.

You mention how no one believed the platypus existed when reports "rolled around". Where are these "reports" of God? We have religious texts, nothing else. You have not shown me any scientific evidence for a God, or really any evidence whatsoever. The difference between the platypus and God? People proved that the platypus exists. Nobody has proven anything about God.

You know what? I think you're right. I think I'll suspend my logic and believe in dragons now.
Debate Round No. 3


Think of it this way: Yes...there is no proof right now that a higher power of any kind exists. But just because we have not found any evidence yet does not disprove the theory of a higher power entirely.

And no matter how far back you trace the energy, it all had to have originated from one source of energy. But that, once again, leaves the question of where the originally energy source that caused everything came from. You claim that a higher power is not likely compared to a pocket of energy. I also find a pocket of energy that magically that just happened to come into existence one day to also be unlikely.

I say "suspend Logic" because some things just do not work (both figuratively and literally sometimes) when we think about them (we call it "The Centipede Dilemma"). Logic and Higher Powers don't really fit together...if you apply them both 100% Like I have stated before, my theory is that a higher power started the first ball of energy or big bang or whatever; then let science take over the rest. Science is still at work, animals still evolve, etc. The Higher Power has little to do with most of it. I am just saying that the higher power set the ball in motion.


No. It doesn't disprove that a higher power exists at all. But with no evidence, there is no reason to believe in it.

I will agree that both God and a pocket of energy are both unlikely to have just "popped" into existence. But one is far more complex than the other, and something that is more complex is LESS likely to have spontaneously come into existence. But see, the thing is, I don't believe in a packet of energy that just randomly came into existence. I have no proof that there ever was a packet of energy like that. And because of that, I will freely say: I don't know how the world got here. I really don't. But I am not going to start believing in something because I don't know, I will leave the question open ended until I find evidence pointing one way or another. Because there is no evidence, there is no belief. This comes into play in every aspect of our lives, both scientific and social. For instance, making assumptions about people or their motives without evidence, or following a certain health routine without evidence.

For example, imagine this scenario: I am going to tell you that a person exists. I won't give you very many details about this person whatsoever (because I am approaching this from a non-religious standpoint, certain religions that provide many details about God are provably wrong), but I expect you to believe that this person invented every piece of technology ever, and every single human advancement was actually all coming from this one person. This person is not omnipotent, but he/she is immortal and can put thoughts into people's minds, which explains the various people that get the credit.

Given this imaginary scenario, would you believe that this person existed? You do know that people exist, and you do know they have made scientific advancement. You do know that certain people get credit for this. This is a possible explanation for that advancement. There is no evidence, and it logically doesn't doesn't make sense, but you cannot disprove it. Are you going to believe that this person exists because you can't disprove it?

Moving on to what you said about having to suspend logic, the centipede dilemma has nothing to do with that. The centipede dilemma involves thinking about an unconscious activity being interrupted if you think about it too hard. Is thinking an unconscious activity? No. Is believing an unconscious activity? Also no. An unconscious activity is something you do without realizing it, either instinctively or by habit. Thinking about that activity makes it difficult. That is what the centipede dilemma is. If we stop consciously thinking, then we will be either mental vegetables, capable of only nervous ticks and breathing, or perhaps closer to lower animals, acting only on instinct.

If logic and higher powers/God cannot be reconciled, then your 'theory' helps no one but those who already believe in a higher power. Those that already believe in God are still going to believe in a higher power, and those that don't are still not going to believe in it. And they are still going to argue about it. So really, this idea that "God created the universe and then science took over" changes nothing.

Debate Round No. 4


LDG forfeited this round.


I guess since you forfeited, I should just make a few things clear about my previous arguments. You haven't proved that there is no God, or that there is. So if you happen to get any evidence for or against it, show it please! But showing that their are ways to find explanations for the existence of God and evolution does nothing, I believe that's what conspiracy theorists do as well. You can't disprove the Illuminati, there will always be an explanation. They can do anything, so the possibilities for how they could hide their existence are endless. I heard someone say they wanted to become a joke because that way no one would seriously think that they were real. The problem with these explanations arises when they don't have evidence for that explanation.

I also don't really believe for sure that a packet of energy caused the creation of the universe, I don't know what did. The entire point of that was to tell you that there are other options, God isn't the only possible explanation. And so, until I find evidence supporting one claim or another, or perhaps even supporting no claims currently out there, I will keep my mind open.

I could be wrong. God might exist. But if he does, it would be nice if he provided some evidence for it.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ZaneCross 9 months ago
I did want to deeply apologize for being so late with my response outside of my argument. I was finding it difficult to return to it, I was rather busy for the last couple of weeks.
Posted by geho89 9 months ago
Although I don't strictly disagree with Pro, since I too, believe the possibility of Creationism and Evolution being both correct from utilizing both a religious and scientific viewpoint, but Pro has failed to show how both can be right, and instead claim the possibility. Where is the evidence that God created the Big Bang and then letting evolution doing the rest? Having an opinion does not necessitate that it is right.
Posted by reeltalk 9 months ago
It depends on the type of evolution that you are referring to. Micro-evolution is scientifically proven because we know about species adapting to their environment. Macro-evolution on the other hand, is not. We have no evidence that one species has evolved into another. If you are comparing macro-evolution with creationism, know that the two are completely INCOMPATIBLE
No votes have been placed for this debate.