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

Creationism prevails Evolutionism

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: 4/28/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 588 times Debate No: 74356
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




Now, to begin with, I am not a religious person. I am an agnostic and therefore do not believe in God. However, when I did a philosophy 2 year course in my secondary school, I started to research more on what seemed to be opposing views of evolutionism and creationism.

Now, obviously, modern world is wrapped with science - it can be found in every single thing that surrounds you. Science extremely rarely wrong, and when it is, it updates itself almost immediately. I acknowledge the fact, that evolutionism has tonnes of material evidence, such as fossils, and that the theory fills in almost every single gap of human history on Earth between now and starting point. I also acknowledge, that creationism has no such evidential basis, but rather a big old book, that has been written by countless amount of people, in countless amount of places.


With all of that knowledge, I am crazy enough to say, that evolutionism does not sound reasonable and rational to me as much as creationism does.

For that, I would like to use an argument presented by William Paley. The idea is, when one walks along a seashore and finds a watch on this deserted island, one starts to wonder of the watch's story. One starts to analyse how complex the mechanism inside of the watch is, and that clearly and commonly thinking, this watch ought to have a designer. Watch could not have come to existence on its own.

Now, I hope i made this argument clear enough for reader to be able to draw a parallel with a homo sapiens.

Human beings are, technically, biological machines. We consist of many organs, nerves and other peices, with each of them designed to carry out a certain function. Therefore, just as with the watch, I tend to think that a mechanism of such a complexity would not come to existence on its own, but would be created by an intelligent being.

And this would be my opening argument.


Thanks for the debate pro.

I would first like to start out by saying that Pro has accknowledged that evolution is an all-encompassing theory that is supported by evidence, and reasoning. Pro's only contention so far is solely based on a philosophical analogy, and not any hard sceince.

I will now refute Pro's argument in three parts.

1. The watchmaker analogy basically states that since watches are complicated and we know that they have a designer, then things such as life, is also complicated, MUST have a designer. This is a weak comparison, as it relies on only one critera. It is a comparison that refuses to accept that not every single complicated thing arises in the same way. It's like saying that because a watch is hard and made of metal, a rock is also made of metal because it is hard.
It simply draws a conclusion based on similarities without acknowloding the differences. Literally the only thing that a watch shares with a human is it's perceived complicatedness. Watches can't reproduce, evolve, move, or pass on their genes. Humans can reproduce and pass on their genes, while watches can't.

2. This analogy is also false. Watches are made by watchmakers using tools and materials. Intelligent design states that everything was made by God ex nihlo, which we know is completely impossible, because of the Law of Conservation of Mass. Furthermore, watchmaking is a process which we can observe and know how it works, while a creation by god is something involving the supernatural with no evidence or support from modern sceince.

3. It's simply outdated. Some of Paley's other arguments concerned eyes and telescopes. He stated that eyes and telescopes have the same purpose, and telescopes are designed, so eyes must be too. Nowadays, we know that eyes work completely different than telescopes. We also know how eyes evolved, and have examples of various stages of eye evolution. Paley argued that the only way a complicated thing could arise is through a designer. Now we know that complicated objects can arise other, natural ways. Another way to put this is by using the fact that people used to believe that the sun was a great ball of fire. They logically reasoned that since the sun was bright yellow and produced light and heat, it must be made of fire, because fire was the only bright yellow thing that they knew of that produced light and heat. Know we know that their are other mechanisms for light to be produced, such as through nuclear fusion as found in the sun. Basically, Paley assumes that design is the only way that something complicated can arise, because they knew of no other mechanism at that time. Now we know that complicated things can arise without design.

In conclusion, the watchmaker analogy is a subjective, false and fallacious analogy that doesn't address any hard sceince, and only attempts to fight from a philosophical view.

I look forward to my opponents responce, and apologize if my responce seemd a little rushed. I have been very buisy, and will try to expand my refutations next round.
Debate Round No. 1


blackprtzl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


blackprtzl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by kman100 3 years ago
no problem. Request a new debate with me and I would be happy to accept.
Posted by blackprtzl 3 years ago
I am so sorry. My account has been broken for the last week, website TechSupport just got it fixed.

I would love to retake this debate, if the con is willing to do so.

Big apologies for this.
Posted by blackprtzl 3 years ago
I do not think anything about animals, I specifically think about humans. Earth, once again, is of none concern to me during this debate.
Posted by blackprtzl 3 years ago
I do not think anything about animals, I specifically think about humans. Earth, once again, is of none concern to me during this debate.
Posted by kman100 3 years ago
Wait, so you think that other animals evolved, but humans didn't? And what about the age of the earth?

Posted by blackprtzl 3 years ago
Right, I should have clarified this - apologies.

I solely borrow the idea of creationism in terms of human beings - I believe that we were created by another superior being, rather then appear to be just a result of evolution.

I do not extend my view to origins of Earth, or any ideas from Holy Bible.

Any other specifications, please inquire
Posted by kman100 3 years ago
Before I write some opening arguments, I need to know what you believe. Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old like many creationists, or do you agree with the scientific age of the earth. Also, many creationists take a literal view of Genisis, including noahs flood. Do you share their views?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 3 years 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro. Spelling and Grammar were even. Con soundly refuted Pro's only argument. No one used sources.