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

Creationism(pro) vs. Evolution(con)

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,745 times Debate No: 61251
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (1)




This is how the debate will go down:
1. Acceptance of challenge
2. Opening statement
3. Rebuttal
4. Closing
I will be going for Creationism(pro) while my opponent will be going for Evolution(con)


Acceptance of Challenge:
As I assume you have read my remark, see my true colors. I offer you the right to disprove my claims as 'the evolutionist".
If you decline, as it may be unfair for a Theist to represent the (Con).

I will offer theology, philosophy, science, history, and personal remarks. All in favor of the Con. please thought, first read my comments bellow in ascending order.
Debate Round No. 1


Another thought to think about is that the Big Bang theory is impossible. If two particles were on course for each other for infinity, they would never collide. If it was an in infinite time before they collided, they never would have collided in the first place. Evolution is also impossible because there is a law of physics that says it is so. It is known as the law of thermodynamics. It says that, "Order cannot come from chaos." A law of physics would have to be defied for the Big Bang theory to happen. What if I told a tornado went through a junk yard, and when the tornado was over a shiny, red Lamborghini appeared. You would say I was crazy or out of my mind, but that is exactly what you want me to believe. There are many verses in the bible that can prove that God is an all knowing God. It says that the earth is round, that the earth hangs on nothing, and that everything is made up of atoms. This was written 5,000 years before any of this was confirm by scientists. Some people say that carbon dating can prove the bible wrong. It says in the book of Genesis that the population went from 2, to the entire earth being populated. That could have taken thousands, if not millions of years. We also have to think about is how earth is incredibly complex. We have seasons. We have plants that need C02 and we have humans that need oxygen. We are the perfect distance from the sun. One mile closer and earth would be too hot, and if it were a mile away earth would be a life less rock. I hope you take these thoughts into consideration.


I find your claims and stipulations easily disregarded.

order may not come from Chaos, but Chaos as an entity does not dictate order does not exist within it. The Greeks called God Chaos, because in all his complexity he was unimaginable, unfathomable, unpredictable at times. To state evolution is impossible because order cannot come from Chaos, is simply redeemed by indicating order was part of the chaos. But that alone is not satisfactory: The creation of life is not of a chaotic or orderly credential.

moving along to the previous edges along the rims to your Hammer of Faith.

The Big bang theory, though disprovable, via creation. is still has potential, and is not impossible. As God said, the possible is impossible, so you cannot make such a claim. two particles that are in collision forever is the true theory, not on a path for each-other. For the space between them is endlessly shrinking, and the spaces apart endlessly growing. If something should come from nothing, it simply came from nothing and needs not explanation. For as an atheists says, how did God do this/ where did this come from? = it is not a significant portion of faith to have the answer. > they are satisfied without it.

To say God is all knowing, is not a debate contribution. unless it was: in which case you can stipulate, even God can choose to forget.

People saying carbon dating can prove the bible wrong, is another non evolution statement, but. Because it cannot, seeing as people can eat the dinosaurs an cook the bones and/or burry them, we cannot use such a method. Peoples opinions do not play into the existence of either creationism or evolution. What a person must say however, is that that which is no longer present, can lead to skepticism.

The complexity of earth does not disprove evolution. For if science proves that the world did not come from a an era of meteors forming a molten earth, then we can stipulate, the perfection of earths existence came all at once, and the animals would be well suited. The earth hangs in balance, and does not deviate. This does not support nor conflict with evolution, But although it indicates creationism, one who is a skeptic and extremely adept at philosophies can debate it does not support it, until he is in self denial.

Ur not debating evolution, you're debating atheism. I respect that. but this is a debate.


Evolution: which I do not believe in.

can easily be stipulated to have occurred, despite unique animals like giraffes, hippos, rhino's, moose, whales, lions etc...
because simply that the human race was contacted by God, does not indicate that this was not after he delighted in a prolonged series of evolutionary events.
Debate Round No. 2


BobCampus forfeited this round.


As a Creationist, debating the side of Evolution, by argument shall be rich.

recently, the largest dinosaur known to man was discovered, a new species. As if, the fossil was mad of something which could not be directly compared to the substances of prior fossils. I regard this new dinosaur as being sculpted from the stone, and will soon be discovered to be a fake. Used by scientists to either acquire fame, or be used to prove the fallacy of the field of those who interpret the ages of dinosaurs.

however. Because I cannot use evidence that evolution is real, because I do not believe in it. I can support the theory based on skepticism.

As I disregard pepper moths, and rabbits. Which are naturally capable of adapting but not evolving to suit their environment. One can argue, the case, if disregarding the expanse of the planet that;

evolution can be forced to occur. When DNA varieties do not match, they will not match and add up to procreation. but by selective breeding, a new Kind of other animals will occur. (breed of dog, with still poor dog DNA, can create a new variety. dog non the less, never capable of evolving, can be altered into another dog.)

I should just forfeit. I specialize in defeating competitors, not standing up for something I don't believe in... one sec.

Evolution: single cell to modern variety : plausible for the sake that, without evidence, the theory is logical enough to be considered possible. despite no hard evidence is available, because of hunting and catastrophes which cannot be dated via use of a flawed carbon dating method. The 'theory' on it's own, presents no flaw in physics, which we have disproven. But although it can be stipulated to never be observed, as proportions in physical structure don't change and DNA doesn't either, The very existence of multiple species have not been studied thoroughly enough to be sure, that some evolution is not factually occurred/occurred, while other situations are related to no such thing.
ex. perhaps a fish is 100% new to the world since creation, where as the lion is primordial.
in other conditions where animals may have evolved from cells that came up from the dirt in the moment that the energy passed from foundations back into the pre-energized water, one can only stipulate that the amount of knowledge acquired by humans is phenomenal. and the theory stands apart from necessity, when regarding the founding premise of religion:
that life is not only worth living now for our own benefit, but at times it is best not to be lived for our own sufferings sake, and for the sake of others benefits or security. whilst being the provisional provider of our moral code to not rape, steal, murder, or lie.
and so necessity presents no reasons to negate it in the events you regard the creation of earth to be factually provided by a power described in the first pages of the bible, which are sound and provable sciences. sky/water both same molecular composure. earth foundation expanding from within geologically proven. Following star formations rational. light being first is both energy and thus, movement of mater being time. All this does not disprove evolution.

But what one must admit is, there is only one species of human, no matter how superior our structure is. Any lesser form of human was destroyed if humans evolved. our proportions are all equal, and organs equivalent between races.
This is the problem with believing lions evolved. Such a dominant species should thrive in many varieties without any issues.
But Lions, kill the young of the former males when taking the pride. lest the mothers have so many young that they themselves kill the new dominant male instead.

Evolution is supported in that, regardless of faith, a structural formula has been put in place that there is no need to negate it do to it's secure plausability. The necessity becomes to regard that throughout the world, it is the regions without religion where people most abuse eachother. and it is the atheist populous that rapes people, and murders people, that steals from people, and make up political unjust politicians. All from within either religious or not societies, and heretical blasphemers do not represent any religion when disregarding scriptures which institute these laws - and that this law was put in place by a higher understanding which has always credited God since the beginning of time, from the tiniest islands on either coasts of the world.

And so my argument now is. You have no debate worthy of debating evolution. Evolution can co-exist with moralities.

Evolution is not atheism.
and atheists need to know when to admit they are agnostic to avoid debates and conflict.
It is not true to claim ignorance to information one is not given, when they are ignorant to say it is not there, if it could be.
Debate Round No. 3


BobCampus forfeited this round.


My Victory Lap:

Evolution has beaten Creationism in this round.
Not because I believe in it, or proved it, but because It in itself cannot be disproven.

-If God created the world exactly as described in the Bible in 4 days: to miraculously pull a man from the dirt and give him knowledge of creation, may or may not have happened many years after creation.

-Because God is undefined, factually being who He IS, but factually being, because what he is defined to be is factually real, and what he cannot be known to be has not been specified. The scientific laws of founding-reality, those laws that give math and physics a parameter that cannot be transgressed being portions of the self-aware universes Wisdom, being, a portion credited to this being, despite our inability to perceive him in his Full Glory, We as Christians are not even required to believe Adam was pulled from the dirt miraculously, Man "could" have evolved. though I have no faith in this* it has no prominent reason to be disclaimed unless one fights to argue on the behalf of atheism in which case they are subliminally advocating a reform in moralities involving jealousy invoked adultery (neglectful boyfriends, abandonment and worse.).

-some animals may have completely evolved from another extinct or continually evolved species since God created the world in a creationist fashion, pulling Adam full from the mud (metallic and gaseous elements). Or, they simply could have evolved and stopped at perfection, which is likely the case for todays situation if evolution; C. evolution may have occurred due tot he scientific laws of the universe playing out how God established the Wisdom of his Glory.

regardless. God, being this Universe, with a self aware energy. Everything is a continual reaction with predispositioned paths. Only inside the human brain (or brains of animals perhaps) does the math of the universe relinquish this predisposition, which after we make our free will decision, the universe is still fully aware of our location and distance and velocities, providing a predisposition to all of our actions, indicating God knows everything (Because God is the Universe(that is the definition: God is in everything and everything in him)). But Jesus the Son(Universal Law, the wisdom of God), the creator who is inside Time and not Outside, only knows US as we make our decisions, pre-aware of everything that is a possible outcome regardless of the decisions you have (all knowing: because he is capable of the logistics).
~ this being so indicates that so long as you are willing to accept moralities, which are factually by definition, and no way are unattached to God, because they are the wisdom of the universe. Then Evolution has no quarrel with Theism.

But Because I feel secure in my debate that Evolution has defeated Creationism:
I feel as though, having waited 1000's more years in a world of rape and murder and negligence would be a nonsensencial way to exist in this world, and especially imagine this universe, when if evolution where real, and life forms formed from the miraculous and likely spontaneous event of the "Bing bang" which is explained more accurately in creation than in any other theory, That the entire form could have established itself in a brief moment, with all the energy and material necessary to establish the entire form in a burst. A quick, masterful chain of reactions establishing man and every animal in the moment that the motes of their DNA took root in reality.
Logic says I win again.
In Creationism and Evolution.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: bladerunner060// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Quite the waste of Con's time. Unfortunate. Conduct for the forfeits, arguments because Pro never really offered up a meaningful case. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.

[*Reason for non-removal*] This debate has been out of the voting period for more than a year, and is therefore well beyond the statute of limitations for moderation.
Posted by 400spartans 3 years ago
This is literally the best I've seen from a person arguing for something other than what they believe in. It takes a lot of skill.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
Alright wtf. howd I win this. I tied the won I should have won and now people disregard my request to vote for the other guy. XD
the evolution of the :D > :O > XD >
where to next? we may never know! ;:)
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
After reading my last post. I want all participants to vote for Pro, Mr. B.Campus int his debate.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
I don't ever repeat anything anyone else has said in the past 1000 years. do the research yourself. and apologize tot he girl u tossed out of ur house
Posted by Terridax 3 years ago
Ah, it all makes sense now... I don't believe in your god because I'm not Canadian. Maybe I'll have to take a trip up north so I can be enlightened, because apparently my grass-fed livestock are out taking testosterone boosters and lifting weights while I'm not looking.

I've given up arguing with you... if you're going to make outrageous claims without any sources, and not even bother to do any research (other than apparently reading religious-based forums) on the matter you're talking about, then there's no reason for me keep posting. You're not listening to anything that's being said anyway, just blindy spewing out things that you read on some religious site or heard at your church. If you want to be taken seriously, spend some time looking for evidence from a neutral standpoint, not just talking to other religious people, then when you've gathered all the information you need come back and I'll consider debating you. Until then, farewell, and I hope that you can get past this mental block you call god, because until you do you'll never be able to understand what's been laid out right before your eyes, you'll just continue saying "god did it" for everything you don't understand.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
that last note is grade 6 sex ed. class.

we can't sell animal meat in Canada if there is added hormones. because digestion doesn't get rid of them.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
Skepticism is Evolutions only viable debate.
As a debate, the objective is to change the perspective of your opponent to sympathize with your views.
As there is no factual support that evolution occurred, you can only stipulate it is viable under certain conditions.
My opponent if I were religious, is not to say evolution occurred, but has potential. drawing a stale mate, lest he agrees, potential exists.

Should one try to present any evidence evolution is real. They immediately fail. Because they no longer rely on facts. Facts are a mandatory component to a debate.

not to mention all evidence used to support evolution can be used against it, and regularly disprove it.

Skepticism is evolutions only hope.
as the third day of creation is a scientific fact. look it up yourself. you'll have to do the work.
there is some kind of a conspiracy here. Menopause is testosterone induced ovary failure. remember that when review available sources. { that is factual* impares development causing poor mental development, and then complete failure, inducing insanity and poor health.}
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
@Terridax, Cheyenne said, /'they would be scared to come face to face with a maker." Meaning if It actually occurred and was no longer plausible to say it wasn't possible.

However. there has been no observation of any improvements in genetic mutations** All current life forms are perfect. all mutations are negative. that doesn't support the theory of evolution at all and are best left disregarded in the favor of evolution Or I couldn't even make the claim, evolution was plausible.**

but for debate sake. It is technically, an option.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 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: Quite the waste of Con's time. Unfortunate. Conduct for the forfeits, arguments because Pro never really offered up a meaningful case. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.