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

Creationism can be proven scientifically.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 753 times Debate No: 65389
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




I believe that creationism can be proven scientifically. Before all you atheists vote this down, finish reading my argument.

First, I will use Antoine Lavoisier's theory of the law of conservation of mass. This law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves.

The universe obviously exists, and this matter all came from somewhere. The laws of conservation assert that it is not possible that everything came from nothing, and the only way such a phenomena is able to occur is as a result of a higher being.


The laws of conservation asserts that it is not possible that everything came from nothing, TRUE.
BUT, It NEVER stated it is a result of a so called "HIGHER BEING" .
What you're stating isn't even existing in the first place. Creationism cannot be proved scientifically.
Creationism is scientifically impossible. And I don't think there's facts under the rug about it. It's not just atheists who believe in evolution either, I know good Christians and I myself (agnostic) who believe in it. Plus what kind of tests could be done to prove creationism. We've already proved that the world is older than suggested by the Bible. Dinosaur bones are older than Adam and Eve.
Creationism isn't a scientific theory, it's a religious belief.
Debate Round No. 1


The law of conservation does not state the existence of a higher being, I never said it did. This was an assertion I made myself. I'm saying that the fact that nothing cannot beget nothing, and so some higher power was at work. Now for your argument regarding the Bible.

My first response is that I did not state anything specifically regarding Christianity or the Bible. Creationism is a common theme in most religions, so this argument is tangential rather than directly responding to mine.

The other response is that if we are going to focus on the Bible specifically, we need to realize the significance of the numbers "7" and "40" in Christianity. Both of these numbers were similar to "a lot" or "many" so the time frame is not literal.


This is so called assertion you made yourself has not even proven scientifically. On the other hand, what people try to do because they don't fully understand the origins of the universe is tend to think that everything has been "created" by a higher god, this is pretty visible in your case.

If the so called higher god existed, Can you tell me who "created" this "Higher God"? Everything has been created, yes, isn't that what you're stating? That every matter present in the world is present due to a Creator? Even for the higher god to create things in this world, first of all, this higher god has to be created, Now, a very simple question is Who created this Higher God?

Lastly, Creationism presupposes that there was nothing except a creator and He made everything. On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, science presupposes nothing, it simply states that prior to a certain point in time they are incapable of finding any meaningful measurements.
Debate Round No. 2


I'd like to start off by thanking my opponent for their time. I've enjoyed this debate.
Now down to business. I want to point out that I never stated that science DOES prove the existence of a higher power, but rather that it CAN.
Second, the creation of the higher power is using a human ideal that is common. We assume that their is a beginning and an end to everything. This higher power could therefore have no beginning nor end, as it supernatural and does not abide by conventional laws of physics.
Finally I think we need to remember I don't advocate it having the potential to prove Christianity specifically, but rather some higher power at work in the creation process.


It has indeed been a well off debate, thank you. I would also like to remind you that being Agnostic and I really believe that we can never attain the full potential to understand if either Creationism or Evolution exists. Now, Are you actually stating that we have all been created and present today on Earth because some supernatural power had the desire to create us all of a sudden? Isn't it illogical? Creationism is a belief that allows people to be satisfied with their existence without questioning how this so called "creator" was created in the first place unlike people who believe in Evolution and who actually question the existence of everything without just believing in some supernatural being ignorantly.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by warren42 1 year ago
*there, sorry for my incorrect grammar in Round 3 :)
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
I'm not even sure that Pro made an argument at all.
Posted by warren42 1 year ago
@kitten1504 I am not disputing the big bang, but in order for it to occur, the matter had to have been there in the first place. It came from somewhere.

Second, there is a reason the Bible was not mentioned by me in round one. I stated creationism could be proven, not the Bible. I was trying to keep this debate non-specific to any certain religion.
Posted by kitten1504 1 year ago
Does he not know of The Big Bang?
'nothing cannot beget nothing'.
You are totally right there Sir, but the solar nebula can gravitationally attract matter and a series of collisions can tilt at an angle, what we would call, the Earth and form the Moon. Then, over time, the planet can cool and form a hard crust allowing it to sufficiently sustain liquid water. That, my creationist friend, is how the Earth was made.
Oh, and by the way, you do know the bible was written by humans don't you? Not your god, humans...I just have lost the ability to even with this debate.
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
You guys need actual content in your arguments..
Posted by NoMagic 1 year ago
Why do the religious try so hard to hitch their wagon to science? Is it that they clearly recognize the strength of science and see the fragile nature of religion? Is it that the religious wish to try and strengthen their unsupported belief with a discipline that has proven reliable? I think so.
Posted by chewster911 1 year ago
In order for something to be scientific (or proven scientifically),it needs to match the criteria for the scientific theory. Creationism matches none of those criteria. I don't see how Pro will be able to win this debate. Looks to me like Pro made this debate without doing any research and relying only on his arguments in R1,which do nothing to help his position,and are even irrelevant to his claim.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro said it can be proven, but pro didn't prove it. Wonder why Pro thinks it, if he can't argue it?