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

Creationism should be Recognized as another Explanation for Life on Earth

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: 12/1/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 702 times Debate No: 27669
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




I believe it is unfair that present day school books and teachings are extremely bias towards evolution. It comes across as if Evolution is the only plausible explanation for life on Earth. In reality, we honestly have to agree that when life started, we weren't there. There is no way for us to prove 100% that Evolution or Creationism is correct. I believe that Creationism is just as valid of an argument as Evolution and should be treated that way.


Seeing as how you never specified any of the following, I am just going to assume (A) You have the burden of proof since you are affirming the resolution, (B) You have yet to post any of your arguments, and (C) First round is acceptance only, so... I accept. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Creationism is just as valid as an argument as Evolution. Even in the famous 1925 "Scopes Monkey Trial" Atheist Lawyer Clarence Darrow stated "It is bigotry to only teach one view of origins. Students should be taught both the creation and the evolution theories." (1). In order to support my side, I need to use arguments in explanation of why Creationism is just as possible as Evolution. Here are my arguments:

1) Evolution is just as logical or illogical as Creationism in origin

The word science means "knowledge." Science is the study of what we know. In order for something to be truly scientific in the strict sense of the word, it must be observable, testable, and demonstrable. The entire subject of origins (both creation and evolution) is actually outside the field of science. (1).

If you found a very old box, and inside it was a golden locket, and someone asked you "how did that get there?". You would most likely respond, "Well, someone put it in there". Lets first look at the fact that Evolution does ignore this logic and instead replace it with a different type of logic. With Evolution we must understand that the locket must have come from materials inside the box that developed over time.

2) No instance of Macro Evolution has ever been proven

Macro Evolution being considered the adaptation of a species that is completely assumed, like an adaptation from a non-flying organism to a organism with wings. Micro Evolution is adaptation within its kind, such as thicker fur on wolves living in colder regions. Evolutionists will quote instances of Micro Evolution as if that proves Evolution (4), when in reality, even the bible says "bring forth after their kind." (Genesis 1) (3). Which allows for Micro Evolution under a previously designed genetic code.

3) The Origin of Life cannot be explained by Evolution

Next I want to explore the fact that Evolutionists have not actually proven that life could have formed from amino acids and salts in a body of water somewhere. School textbooks will read that Scientists Miller and Urey "proved" the origin of life from inorganic compounds possible. The truth is far from that, there experiment failed to create life. (1). For life to have been created, the Earth would have had to have no Oxygen at the time, because the organism would be oxidized quickly and killed. Although, without Oxygen you have no ozone layer to protect earth from the sun, therefore the Suns powerful rays would have destroyed it as well. (2).

3) The Bible
4) Dutko, Bob. Top Ten Proofs Evolution is Scientifically Impossible. Book.


My opponent is right in saying he needs to use arguments to explain why creationism is just as valid as evolution. You'd think he'd do so by providing some evidence, any evidence at all, that would support the plausibility of creationism. But by the end of round 2, we are left with none.

Instead of trying to convince us of the validity of creationism, he tries to convince us of the invalidity of evolution, like both are little more than just guesses based on imaginative speculation. Unfortunately for my opponent, though, the theory of evolution is much more than that.

Before I continue, however, I'd like to define what evolution is, because I'm sure there is some confusion here. Evolution is "the process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection". [1] In no way does the theory of evolution attempt to explain the origins of life on Earth. That phenomenon would be abiogenesis, not evolution.

Now, to look at Dane's arguments:

1) Evolution is just as invalid as creationism because we weren't around to actually witness the evolution of apes thousands of years ago.

The mere fact we weren't around to physically witness an event doesn't mean we cannot determine how that event transpired. If you disagree, perhaps you think we should release the populations of every prison in the nation? After all, what good are trivial things like evidence in a court of law when we can't be 100 percent sure a crime occurred or not unless we were there?

The fact is, we can be confident how an event transpired (even if we weren't there) as long as we have sufficient evidence. And in the battle of evolution versus creationism, all the evidence seems to point toward evolution. Everything from vestigial organs [2] to DNA similarities (particularly Chromosome 2 in reference to human evolution) [3] to the fossil record [4] all suggest we, and every other species on the planet, evolve, and have evolved from earlier species. I mean, why do you think we need to get a new flu shot every year? Because the virus strand evolves that quickly.

What evidence is there that creationism is true?

2) Macro-evolution has never been proven.

The mere fact you make a point to distinguish between micro and macro evolution is a bit telling. Evolution is the genetic change populations undergo from generation to generation. Eventually, the genetic change becomes great enough to where long-past separated populations can no longer interbreed (known as speciation).

This has been observed in multiple instances, both in the lab (including Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky's fruit flies) and in nature (including ring species, such as the salamanders of the United State's Pacific coast). [5][6]

3) Evolution can't explain the origins of life on Earth.

This is like saying marine biology can't explain the ion density necessary for a deuterium-tritium fusion, so therefore marine biology is invalid. This argument is entirely nonsensical and should be discarded as such.

Debate Round No. 2


Dane20 forfeited this round.


Vote for a real eduction for our children. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Muted 3 years ago
Oh, DK, I was not saying you were exactly using that tactic, but it is eerily similar.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago



Posted by DakotaKrafick 3 years ago
"See the similarities?

Perhaps I would if any of the things I said were "half-truths, lies," or "straw-man arguments".
Posted by Muted 3 years ago
Con, "Everything from vestigial organs [2] to DNA similarities (particularly Chromosome 2 in reference to human evolution) [3] to the fossil record [4]"

See the similarities?
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
WISHES 3:7--We just need to raise our conciousness. Just a simple small step, and all agree that questioning the origins of human life becasue of our current scientific knowledge is NOT somehow inherintley wrong, or rude, or offensive in any way just because those truths contradict words in a holy book. Once we all agree on that, we will begin to embrace the beautiful truths and explanations for the complexity of life and ultimitley have the conciousness to let go of the dull lazy answers that "god did it", "its gods will", "its gods way of testing us" "It says so in my holy binky" ,"he didnt mean it that way", "you just dont know him like I do", "my relationship with god is a metaphysical thing", so is believing Elvis is alive, its a metaphysical thing :)

QUOTES 5:31--"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock proclaiming victory."--Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

Pointless 6:44--When we face a crisis, I have some ideas. I think we should murmur, or chant, or pray, and if that doesnt make things better, we'll pull out all the stops, open some fortune cookies and read some palms and horoscopes, that should do the trick just in case the sky daddy is resting again :)

WAKEUP 2:2--Cornell University is a very respectable institution. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences, and dozens of other scientific organizations, ALL AGREE with this, A Very brief guide for the curious and confused... :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Muted 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, arguments and sources. Obvious win is obvious.