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

Evolution based on Abiogenesis is more Rational than Creationism

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,982 times Debate No: 37256
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (3)




Important Definitions:

Evolution - Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Natural Selection - The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

Abiogenesis - The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

God - A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

Creationism - the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.

1) 10,000 characters will be allotted for each round of debate. All arguments and sources must be made within these 10,000 characters; nothing within in the comment section should be counted. Any glitch which would allow a debater to bypass this 10,000 character limit is strictly prohibited.

2) Any tactic which could be reasonably seen as semantics is forbidden.

3) The burden of proof is shared.

Breaking any of these rules will result in an automatic loss (via voters awarding all 7 points to the other participant). By accepting this debate, my opponent accepts and agrees to these rules.

We will be debating whether or not evolution after abiogenesis is more rational than Creationism based on accurate peer-reviewed evidence as well as logically sound arguments. I would prefer Con to accept the definitions and rules above before accepting the debate. I want a genuine believer to argue and show his/her best evidence and reasoning for an actual, observable, and provable account of Creationism. First round is for acceptance. My previous debate on the same topic resulted in Con forfeighting the last two rounds. I hope that the debator who accepts this debate, will stick to their convictions and fulfill all five rounds with relevant arguments. I hope to have a stimulating and worthwhile debate with Con.


I accept, but would like to state that I will be using a more logical form of debate as Creationism is not based on fact.
Debate Round No. 1


I do not have enough characters to make the case for both abiogenesis and evolution in one round. I will present the case for evolution in my next round, and probably respond to many of Con's claims as well. I would like to ask Con which religion and denomination he subscribes to, so that I respond to his beliefs in a more specific manner. I am an agnostic atheist (they are not mutually exclusive) and I believe that ideas like Creationism, perpetuated by theists, are ancient misinformed stories with not evidential basis. I must point out that Con has already admitted that Creationism has no factual basis, so right off the bat it can be said that abiogenesis and evolution have more evidential support than Creationism.

Abiogenesis Occurs when the Simplest Possible Life Form Emerges:
I must first point out that there is no one unambiguous definition of "living.” The current understand of life is a descriptive set of characteristics and traits outlined below:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components and decomposing organic matter. Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolutionand is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun, and chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

Any living organism may have all of these characteristics or only some of them. Abiogenesis occurs when the simplest possible life form emerges, a life form which had at least one of the characteristics of life. We humans are a higher animal species; we are definitely alive and are the product of billions of years of evolution. It is perfectly acceptable that there is no precise definition of “living” only that there is an evolutionary path from non-living compounds to living matter.

Probabilities and Rationality:

If the chances of abiogenesis occurring in any one habitable planet in our universe was one in a hundred million, it would be not only probable but extremely likely. Estimates predict that the number of habitable planets in the milky way alone is 100 billion, while the total in our entire universe is 50 sextillion [1.]. When we consider the probabilities of abiogenesis taking place anywhere on a habitable planet in our universe then even a one in a hundred million chance would result in 500,000,000,000 (five hundred trillion) instances. Therefore, even an extremely low probability of abiogenesis taking place in any one habitable planet could result in highly frequent instances as the universe is unimaginably vast. However, I hope my opponent can agree that finding out an accurate probability of these types of events are ridiculous as there are many different theories regarding abiogenesis and none of them can be quantified precisely. The core of the errors in the probability calculations is a failure to assume that life evolved in steps, with each step governed by physical laws. For example, calculate the probability of a snowflake forming. If one supposes that each of the illions of water molecules randomly arrives at its position in a six-pointed snowflake, then there is no chance of a single snowflake forming in the history of the universe. In fact, snowflakes form as a consequence of rules that are part of the properties of water molecules. The probability is correctly calculated only from an understanding of the governing laws and the process. For these reasons, I will be discussing the evidence, tests, hypotheses, and theories instead of probabilities to support the justification and rationality of believing in abiogenesis as the primary source of life.

Theories and Supporting Evidence of Abiogenesis:

There is no one “standard” model of the origin of life. Many accepted models draw from the outline described under the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. This hypothesis postulates a reduced atmosphere when life began around 3.5 billion years ago. One of the main sources I will be using comes from the Wikipedia page for abiogenesis which contains around 176 different scientific references and several relevant hypotheses/theories [2.].

There is no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis poses that the early Earth’s atmosphere was chemically reducing and primarily consisted of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) orcarbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent. In this atmosphere electrical activity, impact shocks, and ultraviolet light has the potential to catalyze the creation of the basic molecules (and monomers) of life.

The Miller-Urey experiment showed that this is possible under simulated conditions of the early earth [3.]. It confirmed the hypothesis that our Earth favored the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic compounds. The experiment produces over 20 different amino acids all of which are seen naturally in living organisms to this day. It must also be noted that even if our Earth didn’t synthesize organic compounds (evidence says it does and that it is a highly favored reaction) many organic compounds may have come to earth via meteorites. Over 27,000 of these types of meteorites called chondrites [4.] have already been discovered and many are shown to be rich with organic molecules. One specific example is a very popular chondrite known as the Murchison meteorite [5.]; it has been thoroughly researched and shown to contain organic compounds.

Sidney W. Fox studied the spontaneous formation of peptide structures under conditions early Earth conditions. He demonstrated that amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides. These amino acids and peptides could then form proteinoid microspheres which have multiple properties that are similar to cells. The microspheres are able to asexually divide via binary fission, could form junctions with other microspheres, and developed a double membrane corresponding to that of a cell [6.].

The RNA world hypothesis says that the polymerization of nucleotides into RNA may be the result of self-replicating ribozymes [7.]. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity may have resulted in ribozymes which catalysepeptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosomemay have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis. Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.

Expert opinion says abiogenesis is inevitable:

Forty of the top scientists studying abiogenesis have collaborated on a book Origins, Abiogenesis and the Search for Life in the Universe, Michael Russell, etc... They conclude that abiogenesis is not merely likely, but inevitable. It seems all but impossible for abiogenesis to not occur in someplace at sometime it is all just a consequence of chemistry.

Clearly there are many possible explanations from the origin of organic monomers, and polymers, leading to the modern evolution of the cell. The very limited list of hypotheses I posted above show one possible route leading to abiogenesis, for a full comprehensive list of possible routes to abiogenesis I would like to refer you to my previously sourced page referenced as #2. From a purely rational standpoint, we know that life is made of strictly chemicals and that chemicals have been on the Earth for quite a long time. Science has explained quite well many plausible naturalistic explanations which are much more reasonable than the Creationist explanation which in essence is “God did it.” Abiogenesis is the most rational theory we have to this day as it has the greatest explanatory power and mounds of evidence to support it. I thank Con for accepting the debate and look forward to his opening arguments.



The belief of Creationism is as follows. All of the universe was created by something such as a higher being.

The belief of Evolution is as follows. Everything has always existed and has simply changed arrangement and form.

Darwin did have a point. Everything is made up of abiotic substances. It is also true that with enough time anything can happen including life comming from abiotic substances, but where did the abiotic substances come from. It does not take complex logic to realize that saying," it was just always there" isn't a sound argument. Many people turn to Evolution because it makes more since. This is interesting because it takes even more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe in Creationism. In Creationism it is accepted that something cannot come from nothing, but god has always existed because he is and always has been. It is logically acceptable to say this because god is a divine figure. In order for matter to exist forever you would have to say that it was like god, which would defeat the point of Evolution which is to eliminate the need for god.

One can state anything they want and it would happen eventually. Unicorns could theorettically exist. The fact of something happening does not need proof. Humans exist. The sky is blue. Therefore you could just say that it happened this way no matter how improbable. There are an infinite number of explanations for everything. And no one could say it was wrong because the outcome was correct, but their is one inescapable fact that defies Evolutions explanation for this outcome.

Nothing can just exist. You have to justify everything, including matter itself.

To quote the great Sherlock holmes, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

In other words I accept what tou are saying. It is quite possible for life to spontaneously form, but it must form from matter, and matter must form from something that is not matter. Because nothing can form from itself.

Evolutionists have been hung up on creating a way for life to begin. Sadly, this has caused them to ignore the fact that matter can't just exist.

I am aware of my dissadvantage, but I am also aware of yours. You have given me plenty of facts to support something theoretical. Because life exists, something must have caused it to exist. You spent forever just listing facts and quotes that everyone allready knows. Yet the jury is still out on whcih is right. You are an excellent debater, but you believe anybody with a degree. A degree does not mean that everything that comes out of your mouth is correct. You have fallen into a pit of self questioning.

Just to say, Darwin was a christian untill his wife died and he tried to elliminate god because he didnt understand why god would do that. So isnt funny how Evolution came from lack of understanding.

Thank you, and I hope you will give me your vote.
Debate Round No. 2


Please note how Con has now completely redefined both Creationism and Evolution. He accepted the debate and definitions in Round 1 without any controversy, so I say now that this is a semantic trick Con ploys to cheat his way into some points. Not only does con try to redefine the most important terms of this debate, he does so erroneously. Evolution is not the belief that “Everything has always existed and has simply changed arrangement and form.” That is a completely different topic altogether, the evolution I explicitly defined in round 1 and set focus on was biological evolution: “Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.” Although the entire debate seems to now shift to the origins of the universe, I have no problem with it. I will show why belief in a universe starting from completely naturalistic causes is always more rational than a universe from a supernatural being. I will also outline my arguments for evolution as I stated I would in round 2. Even with Con’s sly redefinitions that no evolutionist adopts, most of his arguments are still fallacious and malformed as I will outline below. And I also must point out that Con lays out his entire defense on an idea (Creationism) that he has yet to provide any evidence for.

Con: “Evolutionists have been hung up on creating a way for life to begin. Sadly, this has caused them to ignore the fact that matter can't just exist.”

Sadly, Con does not know the difference between abiogenesis and evolutionary theories. Abiogenists are the ones who try to figure out the different possible ways in which simple organic chemicals can turn into simple life forms. Evolution only applies to after life has been created. Neither abiogenesis nor evolutionists make any theories or experiments that apply to how matter came into existence. The beginning of the universe as well as the development of matter is a completely different topic that is best understood by physicists. One of the most well-known and scholarly physicists of our time, Lawrence Krauss, has even demonstrated how the universe may have come from nothing through completely naturalistic causes in his book: “A Universe from Nothing” [8.].

The Origin of the Universe is Unknown:
Nobody truly knows the origin of the universe, and anyone who states they do should immediately be treated with tough skepticism. Theists like Con are glad to announce and proclaim that God is the creator of the universe. However no person can actually provide any proof of this claim, Con certainly hasn’t. If God is the creator of the universe then who created God? If one can claim that God had no creator and he is eternal, then it is equally valid to claim that the universe had no creator and is eternal. According to Occam’s razor [9.;], since the universe is much simpler than a God, then the eternal universe explanation is more likely to be true. In reality, nobody knows the true origin of the universe therefore, we cannot make any definitive proclamation on the issue only reasonable speculations of which is more likely or more rational:
1) The universe and the Big Bang could have been created by completely naturalistic causes.
2) The Big Bang could have been created by uncaused causes. Uncaused causes seem to occur all the time through spontaneous quantum phenomena such as radioactive decay [10.] and quantum fluctuations [11.].
3) The universe could have always existed.
4) God always existed, and created the universe.
Again, it is better to adopt the universe explanations (1,2, or 3) as the universe is less complex then God and therefore more likely to be correct. It is up to Con to prove that (4) is more likely than all other possibilities.

The Evidence for Evolution is Overwhelming:
Evolution is a scientific theory as it passes all of the criterion for one, Creationism does not pass any. It is common knowledge that the genetic composition of a population does indeed change with each generation for pretty much every species. It is easily testable by comparing DNA sequences of a mother, a father, and their child in us humans it is commonly called DNA profiling. This is how Maury knows with a very high level of certainty whether the guy on his show is the father of a child or not. All species use the same biological method of processing genetic information known as DNA. Since all living organisms on this planet (animals and plants alike) have some form of DNA it is highly likely that all organisms developed from a common ancestor (this supports theories of abiogenesis). Evolution along with natural selection predicts and explains how certain features become prevalent in an organism, and how they developed to be in the context of their environment and function. This can be explained through a completely naturalistic and gradual process. Creationism, and creation science in general has quite a lot of negative hearsay and is not accepted by the scientific community because it has absolutely no compelling evidence, and is religiously motivated. Below is a very short list of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that supports evolution:

1. Evolution reproduced in the lab or documented in nature:

a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)

b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).

c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.

d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.

2. Fossil evidence - (too much to list) The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always corresponds to relative development ... more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. Absolute dating of fossils using radiometry. Constant discovery of new transitional forms. E.g. reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows.

3. Genetic evidence - the fact that humans have a huge number of genes (as much as 96%) in common with other great apes ... and (as much as 50%) with wheat plants. The pattern of genetic evidence follows the tell-tale patterns of ancestral relationships (more genes in common between recently related species, and fading the further back in time).

4. Molecular evidence - These are commonalities in DNA ... which is separate from genetic commonalities ... much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations (basically 'typos') enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the 'molecular clock' and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record (using radiometric dating).

5. Evidence from proteins - the exact structure of the insulin molecule; the proteins responsible for color vision. The specific proteins found in human color vision are exactly the same as those found in Old World primates. These proteins are absent in New World primates , and from all other mammals. In fact among the New World primates, only the howler monkey has color vision ... but these use slightly different proteins, coded on different locations and chromosomes, than humans and the Old World primates. This is yet more evidence of a closer link between humans and the Old World primates.

6. Vestigial and atavistic organs - E.g. Leg and pelvic bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes; unused eyes in blind cave fish, unused wings in flightless birds and insects; flowers in non-fertilizing plants (like dandelions); in humans, wisdom teeth, tailbones, appendix, the plantaris muscle in the calf (useless in humans, used for grasping with the feet in primates).

7. Embryology - E.g. Legs on dolphin embryos; tails and gill folds on human embryos; snake embryos with legs; marsupial eggshell and carnuncle.

8. Biogeography - The current and past distribution of species on the planet. E.g. almost all marsupials and almost no placental mammals are native to Australia ... the result of speciation in a geographically isolated area.

9. Homology - E.g. the same bones in the same relative positions in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, mammals, whale and penguin flippers, pterosaur wings, horse legs, the forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs.

10. Bacteriology, virology, immunology, pest-control - I.e. the way that bacteria evolve in response to antibiotics (we can compare strains of tuberculosis today, with samples of older epidemics and can see the specific structures), or viruses respond to antivirals, or insects evolving in response to pesticides.

This list can go on well into the hundreds but I do have a character limit to uphold. As I have demonstrated, evolutionary theory has heavy evidential artillery on it's side, while Creationism has nothing but assertions. For a bigger list (the evidence is always growing so it will never be a complete list) of evolutionary evidence with references, please check out the following link [13.]. I hope that Con now sees that no evolutionist or abiogenist believes what Con has stated. Regardless, of Con's redefinitions, I have shown why belief in abiogenesis and evolution is more rational and has more support than Creationism.


I feel sry for my opponent. Accepting something just because everyone else does is idiotic and sheep-like.

I am sorry that I was unclear when explaining evolution and creationism. I was explaining aspects of them. No religion that believes in creationism believes the universe has just been. All religions of that nature have some explanation.

Please note that this is relevant to the debate. If Evolution based on Abiogenesis cant even explain where the universe came from, is it really all that rational.

All atheists believe that the universe has always existed. This doesn't make any since when you think about it. Nothing can just exist. The universe cant just exist. So please. I am not forfietting, but answer my question.

What is your explanation on how the universe and everything just happened?
Debate Round No. 3


Con: "I feel sry for my opponent. Accepting something just because everyone else does is idiotic and sheep-like."

Con has clearly violated the Code of Conduct for [10.] that clearly state:

-No use of profanities or swear words.
-No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.

I have a strong back and thick skin, so his insults are truly meaningless to me they only represent that Con is grasping at straws here, and has no good arguments, only ad hominem attacks.

Con: "I am sorry that I was unclear when explaining evolution and creationism. I was explaining aspects of them. No religion that believes in creationism believes the universe has just been. All religions of that nature have some explanation."

Evolutionists do not actually believe anything that you claimed they did, therefore you did not mention any aspect of evolution correctly. Many different religions have completely different explanations, but they cannot all be possibly correct as they are contradictory. Furthermore, no religion expresses these explanations in light of any scientific evidence, they are ancient fairytales with absolutely no evidential support.

Con: "Please note that this is relevant to the debate. If Evolution based on Abiogenesis cant even explain where the universe came from, is it really all that rational."

Absolutely not. Evolution and Abiogenesis do not even aim to explain how the universe started, they only aim to explain the beginning of life and it's development. Therefore, they are completely rational and justified as they explain what they intend to explain with high accuracy and loads of peer-reviewed evidential support.

Con: "All atheists believe that the universe has always existed. This doesn't make any since when you think about it. Nothing can just exist. The universe cant just exist. So please. I am not forfietting, but answer my question."

Again, that is completely wrong. The only thing all atheists agree upon is that they do not believe in any Gods. Some may believe the universe always existed, others may think it began through naturalistic causes, none believe that a supernatural being had anything to do with it's origin. Who are you to say the universe can't just exist? Many people believe the universe has always existed even in light of the big bang, they can be justified in believing that the universe existed in some form before the big bang. I told you in Round 3 the three possible naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe and I think 1-3 are all more likely than 4. I cannot say I know with absolute certainty which of them is true, I can only speculate on probabilities and show you why 1-3 are more rational to believe (Occam's razor) and therefore more likely to be true.

Con has not provided any compelling argument or evidence for Creationism. Con has provided vague and incorrect defintions, unsupported assertions, and ad hominem attacks. I have laid out many different arguments and shown the evidence to be on the scientific side of abiogenesis and evolution. Therefore the resolution stands firm: Evolution after Abiogensis is more Rational than Creationism.


When I started this debate I believed I would learn something. I believed I would either come to believe more strongly, or I would lose it all together. Sadly that is not what happened. I am a person of facts. And the facts that the con has provided have not proved anything. He twisted my poorly spoken words because he is more experienced.

Here is my final argument.

Evolution based on abiogenesis requires that the universe just exist. This cannot happen. Nothing can just exist. It is ----Irrational----.

Sadly this debate is no longer about what is write and what is wrong. It is about winning. Winning on a debate website. I have always loved debate because you would find out which one was right, but sadly because of my opponent it is just about winning.

And yes. I do forfeit, but only because I see no purpose in spending my time to type arguments into a text box, if it wont do anything.

My opponent is stubborn. He does not care what I say. He will always be right in his own eyes.

I ask you, how can you debate pro if you cant see both sides.
Debate Round No. 4


Con forfeights the debate, so at this point we are just chatting. Unfortunately my opponent thinks that I do not care what he has to say. I clearly do, which is why I tried to have a real debate with you. Clearly though Con is not interested in providing any good arguments or showing any relevent evidence he just wants to play the childish game of excuses. Con had many opportunities to show and support his case for Creationism, and show how evolution is flawed but he does not even know what true biological evolution is, and it shows with his redefinitions. If Con or anyone else for that matter showed me some serious flaws of evolution and provided a more rational alternative I would have no choice but to accept it. Unfortunately, I have yet to see any such argument or supportive evidence, Con certainly did not provide anything relevant or worthwhile throughout this entire debate. I could have argued for Con's side (way better than Con) with much more compelling arguments and evidence but I know the side of evolution just blows it out of the water. Sorry Con, I do know both sides of the argument apparently much better than you do so please spare me and the audience with your excuses and please present some kind of relevent argument, or better yet just admit that your belief is not as justified as mine. I must say sorry to the readers of this debate for my inadequacy to get a competant opposition that sticks to the focus on the debate (origins and development of life). This is already my second debate on this topic and I have yet to see any good argument against abiogenesis or evolution.


Now that the debate is over, and we are just chatting. I am the one who doesnt care. Good for you. You won, but im still right.

Soooooo. Yah.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 2-D 4 years ago
"I believe that you are not sure what you believe, and you are looking for self assurance. This is a way that you can feel correct and safe. It is for lack of assurance that you became an athiest. You now find less assurance than you expected, and are looking for more."

Since nothing about Orangatang's profile or arguments suggest this it's more likely that you are projecting your own insecurity. Facts are comforting when you are willing to follow wherever they lead and not the other way around.
Posted by Mikal 4 years ago
For a Side note Con is not right in any way, nor could he back up any claims
Posted by Mikal 4 years ago
For a Side note Con is not right in any way, nor could he back up any claims
Posted by Orangatang 4 years ago
Truth is you lost the debate as you don't know what the truth really is nor how to argue for your claims. As, I said in the beginning all I care about is justifications to belief, I have provided them you have not.
Posted by Frenchfrie14 4 years ago
Im sorry I violated the code of conduct , but I thought you only cared about the truth.
Posted by Orangatang 4 years ago
Some Creationists believe in evolution and abiogenesis, but many do not. When I created the debate, I intended to argue against the position that life was created supernaturally, by showing life developing and evolving gradually from completely naturalistic causes. The definition I provided for Creationism in round 1 explicitly states that life is created by a supernatural being rather than created naturalistically through some chemical process. My opponent seems to not believe in the theory of evolution either, and this is fine because this is what I intended to debate in the first place.
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 4 years ago
Evolution is a part of Creationism, so is natural selection, abiogenesis, and the aforementioned statements. Evolution proves the existence of an intelligent being, an organizer, someone that puts things in order.
Posted by Frenchfrie14 4 years ago
So do I.
Posted by Orangatang 4 years ago
You can believe whatever you want. All I care about is justifications sufficient to belief.
Posted by Frenchfrie14 4 years ago
I believe you think you are doing the latter, but you subconsciously do the former. I will.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 2-D 4 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 Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not present any relevant arguments insulted pro and finished congratulating himself for being right. I went back to review spelling grammar out of spite and sure enough these points easily go to pro. Con used no sources while Pro's were reliable. Abiogenesis is much more difficult to defend than evolution and this could have been an opportunity for a creationist that knew anything about the topic.
Vote Placed by mrsatan 4 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro due to Cons insults. Arguments to Pro due to Cons declaration of forfeit. Personally, I would say neither is necessarily rational. Whether or not the acceptance of something is rational is not about what's being accepted, but about the thought process and reasoning leading to that acceptance. All Con had to do is show logical reasoning for a belief in creationism. This wouldn't be difficult, considering Pros definition for creationism does not require a "young earth", everything about evolution could be accepted as truth without contradicting the Pros definition of creationism. Had this been done, both could be considered equally rational, and the resolution would have been refuted. Con barely even touched on rational reasoning behind creationism, and so arguments would go to Pro anyways.
Vote Placed by Mikal 4 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 Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: This may seem like a votebomb but its not. Conduct to Pro because Con said his belief was idiotic in a roundabout way. Arguments to Pro because everything was laid out presented well, and went to strengthen his resolution. Con offered no real contentions to begin with so it was kind of one sided. Pro had great S&G while Con misspelled multiple things and had a horrid sentence structure. Sources would be a tie because Pro used Wiki and Con had none to begin with, but I clicked on the links in wiki and went to the supporting sites. They all gave evidence and backed up pros stance in this debate. It was a pretty lopsided debate and Con gave little to no effort along with conceding in the last round.