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

Did the universe and life evolve, or was it specially created in 6 days?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 918 times Debate No: 26464
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)




Round 1: is strictly greetings and acceptance
Round 2: Opening essay
Round 3: Second essay (rebuttal and/or new material)
Round 4: Final essay (rebuttal, summary, etc.)

I am for creation. My opponent will be for the religion of evolution.

I praise God for the opportunity to speak with my opponent and for the people that will see this debate -- "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against. the knowledge of God" (2 Cor. 10:5) thank you in advance for accepting the debate


I accept your debate and your terms, but I ammend (yes fans, I said 'ammend') your reference to the Theory of Evolution as a religion. It is science, not religion. It utlizes the known to explain the unknown (religion utlizes the unknown to explain the known). I also wish to point out that belief in the theory of evolution is sometimes held by religious practitioners. That much said, humble greetings to my worthy opponent! (I like to get initial technicalities out of the way before the debate begins.)

I also wish to initially specify several rules, under which I prefer to operate in a debate:
1. Arguments must be comprehensible, meaning that the language must be roughly understandable and sensical. This rule does not bar typos, though it would be best that they be avoided if possible. Absolutely no 'text-speak.'
2. No overt insults. Limit your expressions of disdain for the opposition to covert insinuations.
3. Arguments most supported, either by logical assessment or citations, should be most honored. Unfounded claims are to be avoided (unfounded claims include use of opinions as supporting evidence, and do not include syllogisms and theories, as well as logical, scientific conjecture).

Since you seem to have set the debate up to begin with quotation of scriptures, I too shall quote the Bible:
"When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence." (Deuteronomy 22:8)

King James Bible
Debate Round No. 1


First of all, I'll accept your definition of Evolution, as long as you accept my definition of Creation science, which is the same. Using the term "religion" can mean anything so lets just toss that out! (Although i will provide a link to show you how Evolution is indeed a religion[1]). True christianity is not just "religion" it is revelation from God, not a man-made means to connect with some type of Supreme Being.

Besides, which type of "science" are you speaking of? Observational or Historical?[2] They are radically different. How does the 1st Law of Thermodynamics "prove" the Big Bang, when it emphatically states the matter can neither be created nor destroyed? That is that is true science rejecting cosmic evolution. Regarding your last statement, i could also point out that many scientists are Christians and some completely reject Evolution and believe in the biblical model of Creation. Here is a list of Creation scientists at this link: Even the scientific method was formulated by the creation scientist and (gasp) theologian, Sir Francis Bacon.

Now lets get back to which "science" your talking about when you call Evolution science. Neither creationism, Darwinian biological evolution, nor cosmic evolution is observational science, and they are not observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable events.[3] So we could state that you cannot "empirically prove" them. Creationists and Evolutionists have the same sets of data, the same evidence, and often the same techniques to examine their evidence. The different conclusions though are based on presuppositions (or worldviews). A simple example of this would be a creationist finding soft tissue and blood vessels in the bone of a dinosaur. the creationist would say, "Because there is still soft tissue and blood vessels that means the bone is only a few thousand years old!" The evolutionist, however, would look at the same evidence and say, "This must mean things such as soft tissue can survive over millions of years under certain conditions..." Then the creationist would hypothesize another problem, and the evolutionist would rebut, etc.

Historical science by its very nature is based on worldview/religion. This is the process of using the methods of science in the present to determine what happened in the past.
  • Either the universe started out as a singularity, which billions of years ago exploded and has caused an expanding universe ever since, or God created it.
  • Either life evolved out of non-living chemicals, or aliens seeded the universe (but this only raises the question of how the aliens became alive), or God created life as described in Genesis 1-2.
So we have a very different starting point -- Facts always have to be interpreted within a framework,[5] which is built upon starting assumptions (unprovable beliefs). Because the past is not accessible to direct observation or experiment, historical science (e.g paleontology) is severely limited compared to operational (experimental) science.[6] So again we both have the same facts, but different assumptions. Evolution is built upon the unstated assumption that any action by the miracle-working Creator God of the bible must be excluded from even the definition of science, regardless of how the facts might fit[7] (that would be news to the creationist founders of modern science, like Newton). Modern historical geology was build on philosophical assumptions[8] which excluded the biblical notion of a recent global watery catastrophe--by definition, rather than observation.

Aware of the impossibility of knowing the past with certainty without an eyewitness historical account (which is what the Bible claims to be), Bible-believing scientists start with an alternative set of beliefs. They would argue that, if you start from the assumption that our creator really has spoked through His prophets (Hebrews 1:1; 2 Timothy 3:16), then what we see around us ought to fit with what the bible says about how it all got here. And it does.

Now. I don't have enough space to state my argument, so briefly,

Evidences for a Young World
  1. Galaxies wind themselves up to fast
  2. Too few supernova remnants
  3. Comets disintegrate too quickly
  4. Not enough mud on the sea floor
  5. Not enough sodium in the sea
  6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast
  7. Many strata are too tightly bent
  8. Biological material decays too fast.
  9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geological ages to a few years
  10. Too much helium in minerals
  11. Too much carbon-14 in deef geological strata
  12. Not enough stone age skeletons
  13. Agriculture is too recent
  14. History is too short [9]

Please go ahead and do your opening essay while i provide a link to my citations. I dont have enough space.




I see that instating some definitions is in order.

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Now, a scientific principle is clearly not a religion. Christianity is not a theory, as is evolution. Creation 'science' is only a hypothesis, meaning that there is no supporting evidence for it.

The Laws of Thermodynamics and the Big Bang Theory do not contradict each other. The energy that became the matter of the universe was already there. Nothing was created, nor destroyed. Regarding your list of Creation scientists, would you like me to share one of scientists? I am aware that many Christians reject evolution and the Big Bang, as do some atheists, while some Christians accept such principles. However, the convenient thing about science is that it is true, whether you believe it or not. That the scientific method was devised, in part, by a Creation scientist does not mean anything. Relativity was discovered by a Jew. Does that mean Judaism is true?

Ah, you have a critical flaw in your argument: Evolution can be observed. Now, it cannot be recreated in a lab. However, we can observe, in such organisms as bacteria and vira, which multiply and mutate rapidly, and even in larger objects, microevolution. Even Creation scientists cannot ignore it. Now, it stands to reason that enough minuscule mutations, driftings, and adaptations in an organism would eventually lead to outwardly observable changes.

P1: It can be observed that minuscule changes take place in an organism's genotype and phenotype after large periods of time.
P2: Large numbers of unobservable changes eventually lead to observable changes.
C: After large periods of time, observable changes take place in an organism's genotype and phenotype.

A reason why, in your scenario of the bone and the soft tissue, the Creationist would be incorrect in his hypothesis, is that the evolutionist is the one with his time most likely correct. By use of carbon dating, it can be determined what the age of an object is. If the object is millions of years old (as can be conclusively proven by carbon dating), then coming to the conclusion that it is not millions of years old because it contains soft tissue and blood vessels is simply incorrect. Your conclusion is analogous to concluding that because someone does not have white hair, they must be under age twenty.

Well, if you wish to get into the realms of magic and miracles, can you produce for me any scientific or even rational evidence of the supernatural? For I would contest that there is more rational evidence for the existence of Santa Claus than God. The Bible may claim to be an 'eyewitness historical account,' but it happens to hold a striking resemblance to ancient Egyptian and Sumerian sensational literature (namely the Epic of Gilgamesh and certain books detailing Egyptian literature). Its historical records also do not agree with our archaeological evidence.

Ah, point by point! Thank you, that makes things easier.
1. Up to fast what?
2. After a supernova, the remnants do not just sit there, they form nebulae, and then new stars and systems.
3. Please explain.
4. What is that supposed to mean, and how is it relevant?
5. "
6. Can you support this?
7. "
8. Likewise to 4.
9. Likewise to 6.
10. Please explain.
11. "
12. "
13. "
14. "

Ah, interesting. Using a Christian science website for sources.

Now, it is, of course, understood, as you have said, that no total consensus may be reached, because none of these things can be concretely and indisputably proven by verification in controlled environment, as of yet. However, I shall make my case, due to constrained room, by syllogisms and analogy.

P1: Science can competently explain the origin of the universe without the help of the supernatural.
P2: Creation science cannot offer an evidence-based explanation for the origin of the universe.
C: Science, being supported by more evidence than Creationism, should be treated as more reliable.

Your logic, as I understand it (given in analogy):
P1: The Silmarillion says Iluvatar created the world.
P2: The world is here.
C: The Silmarillion must be right.

Now, I would say more, but, room.

Debate Round No. 2


Brief - emphasis on citations.

Evolution is a belief about what happened in the unobservable past. It is a belief about what caused the universe to come into existence. It even comments on 'purpose', or morality as admitted by evolutionist Richard Dawkins. The interviewer asked him, "There's a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they percieve as a moral vacuum..." Evolution clearly fits the definition of religion.

I never called Biology a religion, as it can also be defined here: I never said mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift did not happen. The Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.

As our understanding of genetics has improved, it has become increasingly clear that mutations + time + chance do not equal evolution. All observed mutations demonstrate a loss of genetic information from the genetic code, or they are neutral. Evolution claims that the process has no direction or goal. If you look at the complexity of the “first” organism, it must be accepted that a massive amount of information has been produced to explain the variety of life we see today. Mutations cannot generate new genetic information; so they cannot be used to explain how evolution has proceeded from a cell with less information than is present in modern cells ( the biblical creation model recognizes that one kind cannot change into another and that the changes are a result of variation within the created kinds—not descent from a single common ancestor. As a result of the Curse, genetic mutations, representing a loss of information, have been accumulating, but these do not cause new kinds to emerge. Accepting the idea of a single common ancestor denies the authority of God’s Word. (

Natural Selection
Natural selection, yes. Evolution, no.” As it turns out, there are several factors that sharply limit the amount of change that can be produced by time, chance, and Darwinian natural selection. Perfection of complex structures has always been one of the strongest evidences of creation. After all, “perfection need not have a history,” no trial-and-error development over time from chance trait combinations and selection. So, evidence for evolution must be sought in “oddities and imperfections” that clearly show the effects of time and chance.

But creationists recognize imperfection, too. The Bible clearly indicates that “time and chance and struggle” have indeed corrupted what God originally had created in perfection. Imperfection, then, is not the issue; perfection is. And evolutionists from Darwin to Leontin and Gould admit that “perfection of structure” has always been “the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.”

natural selection works only because each kind was created with sufficient variety to multiply and fill the earth in all its ecologic and geographic variety. Without realizing it at the time, Darwin actually discovered important evidence pointing both to God’s creation (the variation) and to the corruption of creation (struggle and death). See, Refuting Evolution chapter 2; natural selection vs. evolution. by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.

Creation science is a hypothesis? That's nonsense and foolish.
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe:
The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth:
Geology, helium, radio isotopes, etc.
Astronomy and Astrophysics:
Big Bang and Thermodynamics:

Observed Evolution? The examples commonly cited as “evolution happening today” usually involving adaptation by natural selection, are without exception instances in which the net result is a loss of information in the population—either by mutation or by way of reduced genetic variety.

Bone/soft tissue:
Was JUST an analogy. But dating methods are far from flawless

Oh, the old Sumerian text argument:

Archaeological Finds.... ? and

Please forgive me, explore the citations yourself. The character limit really hurts the debate.

1-14: Did you not see the citation? Ill cite opening essay in comments.


I do feel obligated to point out that half of your citations are to Answers in Genesis, and that six of the remaining ten citations are to The last three are to the Institute of Creation Research (there is one further reference, to Now, I endorse people trying to support their beliefs as much as the next guy. But you have listed only one citation that is not slanted toward proving your point. I have no problem with this, it makes my job a lot easier. But for your own sake, you would do much better to list neutral, scientific sources.

Now, since you set this debate up, you have little room to complain about the character constraints. I therefore will focus on making my case, not reading your supported websites. The point of a citation is not "Read this, it contains my major points," but to list reliable sources from which you document your information and points. If you wish to make the case that Creationism is not a hypothesis, you had better do so, not inform us that your source websites make that point.

Oh yes. Your little argument against my reference to the Epic of Gilgamesh has a gaping hole. The website you source uses Bible verses to somehow prove that the Epic of Gilgamesh is not as old as Genesis (archaeological findings don't agree). Additionally, neither story is even remotely plausible, as even if every drop of water on the planet, including the polar ice caps, and all the ice covering Antarctica, were to evaporate (which would, by the way, trap in so much infrared radiation that the temperatures on the planet would not allow the water to condense, and eventually the temperatures would reach such height that water would become unstable, and break up altogether), then rain back down, it would not be able to produce such an epic planetwide flood. In fact, it would raise the water level less than two-hundred feet. This would not be nearly enough to completely cover every piece of land on Earth, even taking into account the changes in mountain height from tectonic stress. So, planetwide flood that wipes out all life? Not possible. Now, suppose, for a minute, that there had been a planetwide flood for so long. When Noah landed in his boat (which was not, as described, nearly large enough to contain multiple specimens of every vertebrate living in the time period), upon Mount Ararat, it is my understanding that he became aware of dry land because a bird brought him leaves from a tree. Just hold on for a second, and ponder where the tree came from. Being totally submerged underwater for at least 960 hours is sufficient to kill every tree on the planet, as they are not able to breath water any more than you or I. So there are multiple, gaping holes in your Noah story.

That much said, I would like to get back on topic. The title of the debate indicates that the item at stake is whether or not the universe and life are the product of billions of years of development, or six days of creation. I have yet to see your evidence, or supporting arguments, that anything was created in six days. On the other hand, a star the size of our sun has a life cycle of about 10 billion years. The elements that are around today, including those of which we are made, and on which we live, are descended from the earliest stars, which were supermassive, and thus lasted a good deal shorter. However, there still would not have been enough time in six days for over 150 elements and nuclides to fuse within these stars. Now, I would assume that you would make the case that God just spoke all of the elements into existence. My answer to that would be "Explain universal Red Shift."

The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinov
Life: The Science of Biology, Fifth Edition
Debate Round No. 3


AiG forfeited this round.


Well, it is a shame that you didn't get to make a closing statement. Nonetheless, it has been interesting debating you, and would be welcome, sometime, to a rematch, if you so desire. Fare thee well!
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by AiG 4 years ago


This is the 14 evidences in the opening essay (above)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Rayze 3 years 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Last round forfeit
Vote Placed by Muted 3 years 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Smithereens 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: last round forfeit
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 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: FF