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

Creationism is the best theory for the origin of life

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 630 times Debate No: 68126
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




Creationism is the best theory for how life came to be. If you do not believe that a creator put life on our planet then you must believe that life formed under extremely unlikely circumstances. All theories other than creationism on the origin of life are so poorly supported and founded that I find it extremely difficult to believe in any one of them. I am not being arrogant about creationsim and saying that it must be the only answer, i am just saying that out of all the other theories it is by far the best. Now for what creator or God you wish to associate with the theory of creationsim that is for a different debate. I would like for someone to debate with me for a superior theory on the origin of life. And i assume if you believe that life came from natural processes then you also believe that life progressed through evolution. I also do not believe in evolution. I used to always believe in evolution, and almost treated it as a fact because that was how it was taught in school. But it wasn't until I actually looked at the theory and did research myself that I realized it had various holes in it and was in my opinion completely ridiculous. It is not supported whatsoever by the fossil record and the cambrian explosion directly contradicts evolution's slow process. There are so many holes in this theory! I urge anyone who believes in evolution like I did to actually look at it as a whole before coming to a conclusion. It is so misleading. I urge anyone to debate me on a better theory for the origin of life and show me why you believe evolution to be true. I look forward to hearing what you have to say, and I will listen with an open mind! Thank you!
Debate Round No. 1


Just tell me what theory you believe in and why. And explain to me whether or not you believe in evolution.


Creationism is the best theory. Meaning my adversary has the BOP to show that no other theory is better than creationism. I'll over my own case to start with then offer rebuttals in the later rounds.

1) Basics

If you role back time to the point of singularity, it is entirely possible that the universe could cause itself to exist. Given the right constraints it is entirely possible the universe could arise from nothing. There are multiple theories that also support this such as the string theory, and multi verse theory. All are viable theories.

2) Evolution

This is logical as there is mounds of evidence to support it. Hundreds and thousands of people have books dedicated to this and it is basically a fact. The only reason it is not a fact is because it is no observable.

3) God of the gaps

What he basically does it make a God of the gaps argument. There is no answer for this, so God did it. The issue with this argument is that anything can be ascribed to that value and take the place of God. He is mistaking a lack of understanding and available knowledge, and inserting just a random argument that has no proof for it. His only stance is that, how can we exist if someone did not put us here. That is not an argument, it's an assertion that has not evidence to back it. His argument as the affirmative cannot be "give me a better argument", as I have already gave other alternatives. He has to show why creationism is the best alternative in comparison which he has failed to do.

4) His burden

His burden is to show that creationism is the best alternative. I have provided theories that are just as if not more reasonable than creationism. If i show that a theory is *just as* plausible as creationism, I win this debate because he does not affirm his resolution that that creationism is *the best possible* explanation.
Debate Round No. 2


First off you gave no evidence for string theory or multi verse theory. You just brought up two other theories. Also these are not theories for the origin of life necessarily, they are theories for the origin of the universe. In my opinion they are not good theories whatsoever. Something cannot come from nothing. If you were to say you believe in a mulitverse then you believe our universe came from another universe. But then you would have to say where did that universe come from and then so on and so forth and you have an infinite regress never answering the problem for how the original universe came to be. This is also not a viable theory because it has NO evidence supporting it. We can barely see a spec of our universe in all of its enormity, yet you are postulating already that there are infinte other universes out there? That is absolutely absurd. If that is your best theory then that is very sad indeed. You need evidence for this theory which you have none. You basically just said the theory and gave us no reason to believe in it and then claimed it was superior to creationism. Your multiverse theory seems to be more of an argument from ignorance more than anything else since it cannot be disproven yet has almost no evidence to go off of.

As for evolution your evidence for why this is true is stating that there have been a lot of books written about it? If that is your evidence for why it is true then creationism is also true due to the fact that there have been hundreds and thousands of books written about it as well. Not only that but there have been many books written about why evolution is false my favorite being "the case for a creator" by Lee Strobel. You cannot simply just say a theory is true because books have been written about it, you must apply reasoning and logic and evidence into why it is true which you did not do. And by saying evolution is pretty much a fact reveals your ignorance on the subject. If it were pretty much a fact why do you think it is still so controversial? Even by scientists and athiests it is an extremely controversial theory. It is far from a fact. And since your main reason fot believing things is that they have books written about them then your main reason for believing evolution is from a book written in the 19th century. Thank you for truly showing where your "pounds of evidence" come from. Next time actually give some good evidence for evolution.

I am not saying that creationism is only true because the other theories do not work so it is the only answer left. I believe in creationism for many reasons.

Among these reasons is the fine tuning or various universal constants of the universe. World renown physicist Paul Davies said, "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects "fine-tuned' for life." There are so many universal constants that have to lie in such an extremely narrow way and all have to line up to be conducive to life that it is virtually impossible for all of these constants to line up the way they do randomly. This points to grand design by a creator to make all these universal constants the way they are for life to be created. And also to go against evolution and natural selection humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe). These traits and the knowledge of goid and evil and morality point towards a creator and a moral law giver. And we know that everything must have a cause, which you cannot possibly refute, so it all comes down to whether you think the univere came from a multiverse leading to an infinite regress or simply sprang into existence from nothing which is ridiculous or you believe in a God. Now since we can reasonably infer that the universe has no mind of its own it can't simply make itself. This leads you to believe that there is a creator behind it. Now you would have to ask if there is a creator who created him? Well if the creator did indeed create everything including the universe and all of its laws and time itself then he doesn't need a beginning. He literally created the beginning, time itself. If the creator is the cause for the universe then you do not need to explain the answer to how the universe began. That is looking for what caused the cause. We do not need to do this. You never need to explain the cause. It just simply is the cause. Now you could say that about anything else that could possibly create the universe as well, even by saying the universe just created itself so it is its own cause. But then you would have to give reason to this and show that the universe has a cause for itself and virtually a mind of its own which it clearly does not, and you would still have the problem of morality. This is why it is much more plausible to believe in a creator who created time and morality than to believe the universe created itself. And since we are beings within the constraints of time we will never be able to understand a being who is not held to the constraints of time but literally created time itself. The structure of DNA itself shows extremely intelligent design that natural selection through evolution can't account for. It is way more plausible to believe that a creator created all of the structure and intelligence we see in the world rather than it simply occurring randomly.

And as the great C.S Lewis said, "If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." So this is why I believe in creationalism and a creator who sets in place a meaning and purpose for our lives and who morality comes from. The other theories simply do not add up or fail to answer all the criticisms of them or they lead to an infinite regress.


I am going to go briefly over this. Pro asserts that creationism is the best theory by trying to negate other theories. Which still does not make it the best theory. Going from this method pro would have to establish every other theory is false, and creationism is the only theory. The problem with this is that, any variable can be used in place of God. A flying pink monkey could make made the world. Anything can be substituted for God and it would have the same impact. Pro has to show that * God* created the universe and that is the only viable explanation in order to go the route hes going.

Note : He also has provided no evidence to support his claim, just speculation.

1) String Theory

Very little is known in detail about subatomic particles in the universe and everything we know is summarized and labeled as the basic or standard model of the universe. This goes into detail about what the world and universe is comprised of and the 12 essential building blocks. The next thing we need to note is that there are four fundamental forces in the universe which are gravity, electromagnetism, and then strong and weak nuclear forces.

The idea is rather complex but it expands on the idea that the fundamental particles of the standard model are manifestations of one singular object. Under a typical mircrosope if we view an object we see the object itself, the theory suggests that with a power enough mircrscope we would actually see it as a string. A string can oscillate in different manners and gives off patterns. It basically is an extension of the standard model . Everything is the result of vibrations and the result of oscillating strings. The real bread and water is that string theory itself allows for multiple universes and the big ban would have occurred due the right conditions past the point of singularity.

2) Multiverse Theory

Also called M-Theory . Going into detail from the previous point, at the point of singularity it is impossible to predict psychical behavior. The Multiverse theory for the universe is basically a theory that describes the continuous formation of universes through the collapse of giant stars and the formation of black holes. Each universe would basically begin with it's own big bang, develop it's own sets of laws and rules at the point of singularity then expand and possible collapse at a certain interval. This even touches on parallel universes and how they are reasonable given the right conditions. In any of these universes one may not supported life, but with enough universes over an infinite amount of time we can assume that one could develop the traits to support life.

1. The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes - And Its Implications , David Deutsch

3) Evolution

I don't even feel the need to really go into this as it is basically ironclad. Evolution is the belief and idea that through speciation and separation different animals can evolve and even adapt to their surroundings. If you have a certian species that is the only type of that species and divide it in half. You put one half in one location, and the other half in another location, over time they will both develop and evolve to adapt to their surroundings if the environment is different. This is just a brief touch on it, but I don't feel the need to hit this hard, as it's so accepted that even the Catholic Church accepted it as a fact.


= You cannot simply just say a theory is true because books have been written about it, you must apply reasoning and logic and evidence into why it is true which you did not do =

This sums up my adversaries position not mine. I can throw a thousand theories at him and he has to contest that everyone is false. He has to show that every single theory is wrong in order to show that creationism is the best possible theory because of the argument he is running. I in turn have to show the theories and what they state.

In addition most of his responses around fine tuning are answer by the multi verse theory and string theory revolving around a infinite amount of time and repeating, that given the right circumstance it is plausible that life could sustain itself at some point.
Debate Round No. 3


Asgoggans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
I didn't know creationism became a theory. When did that happen?
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
Creationism" refers to the religious belief in a supernatural deity or force that intervenes, or has intervened, directly in the physical world. Creationism is considered a Pseudoscience because it is impossible to prove that a divine being created a world, because we cannot study divine beings. Creation Science" is an oxymoron since science is concerned only with naturalistic explanations of empirical phenomena and does not concern itself with supernatural explanations of metaphysical phenomena. Creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously. Science only deals with things that can be observed and reported, and is based on facts, not beliefs.
Posted by XVIII18 1 year ago
Professors of the highest degree/ scholars all agree that Evolution is the best way to explain how we came to be, if anyone is being close-minded it is you. You really should have highlighted what you mean by creationism as there are multiple views to go off of regarding the subject do you mean the 6000 years theory? Or that a God produced the Big Gang? or something else? What evidence do you have that supports creationism other than the Bible? Put that up against any scientific standpoint and it cannot logically stand up for itself.
Posted by Asgoggans 1 year ago
My claims are not based on supernatural knowledge, that is ridiculous. Creationism is not soley based on faith it has tons of good evidence behind which is why i believe it. Science supports it more than any other theory, and it is not even close. I just gave tons of evidence for this and it seems to be that no matter what you hear you will dismiss it as an argument only backed by faith which it is not. Stop being close minded. I have no need or desire to believe in a creator, i never have, so i have no reason to believe in a creator other than that is what the evidence overwhelmingly points to. And my only argument is not that since you cannot prove there isn't a creator then there must be one. I never said that. And i could say the same for you, since we cannot disprove say string theory or mulitverse theory then it must be true. And saying creationism isn't a theory is absurd. That is disrespectful and not only me but scientists all over the world would disagree with you. It is absolutely a good theory, in my opinion, it is by far the best. And as for your opinion saying creationists only have faith I say to you that you have twenty times more faith to believe in another theory besides creationism because creationism is that much better than every other theory. Stop being ignorant and actually look at the evidence. I am not some religious fanatic or anything like that, I just look soley at the evidence which it appears you do not do since you dismiss it as a theory in whole. But thank you for your comment, but please actually look at creationism and the tons of evidence behind it and stop dismissing it as a theory of faith, knowledge on this subject will surely lead you to a different conclusion.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
Pro's claims are based on supernatural knowledge. By definition creationism is not a theory, theories are based on facts not faith and without faith the idea of creationism has no meaning. The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by an intelligent creator does not prove that it is. If there is no evidence or contrary evidence for accepting a person's beliefs, it is not an act of reason. It is an act of faith. The facts of reality exist independent of belief and without belief in a creator, creationism is meaningless. It all comes down to faith, and faith pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant. The truth is we do not know how the universe started, science readily admits its ignorance in this, the religious do not. Creationism is a myth based on faith.
Posted by Asburnu 1 year ago
Which creation myth are we needing to accept as true?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
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 Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never really argues for his proposition. Pro spends most of his time arguing against other theories. This seems to be a general logic flaw from creationist. "If I prove evolution incorrect, creationism wins." Wrong. Even if evolution isn't true (it is by the way) that wouldn't mean creationism is true. Pro's round 2 has no argument. Pro FF a round. Con wins.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF get fvcked creationist noob