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

Evolution is more credible than Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 1/29/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 946 times Debate No: 69140
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




Evolution is fact. Fact in science, as described by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, is data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent,"

One means of evolution is *natural selection*. Organisms with favourable traits are more likely to reproduce. An example of this are day flying moths, which at first were had light coloured skin, and there were a few dark skinned moths. At first the light skinned moths had a better chance at surviving and reproducing because they were camouflaged against the white colour of the nearby trees, which made it harder for birds to see them. But when factories were built, it caused pollution, which made the nearby trees turn black. And now, the dark skinned moths camouflaged against the trees, and the light skinned moths stood out, causing more of them to be eaten by birds. More dark skinned moths reproduced, and they became the majority. But after there were controls put against pollution, the lighter skinned moths again had the advantage, and now they're more common than the dark skinned moths.

The other example is one of *artificial selection*. In which humans selectively breed animals based on certain qualities, such as appearance, usefulness etc. An example of this is dogs, which were at first wolves. When humans and wolves first encountered, The wolves would go after the food the humans brought, so they wouldn't have to hunt for themselves. And the humans defended themselves using fire. Some wolves, became submissive, and became the human's pets. The reproduction of these submissive wolves was manipulated by humans, based on their looks, and behaviour. Which is why now, there are so many breeds of dogs, which didn't exist before.


I thank my opponent for this debate.

Before we get into the meat of the round, I would like to define a few terms to ensure that we are all debating on the same page:
EVOLUTION - the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. (Oxford Dictionaries)
CREATIONISM - the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. (Oxford Dictionaries)
CREDIBLE - Able to be believed; convincing (Oxford Dictionaries)
So basically, whoever is able to provide more evidence for their side and can convince our audience should win this round.
I ask my opponent to agree or disagree with my definitions in his next round.

With all that said, let's dive into my arguments.

I can agree with my opponent that those moths in his previous speech did exist. I looked it up. I agree. However, this is not evidence for evolution.
As a creationist, I believe that all different animals and plants were always that animal and plants.
A dog will always be a dog.
A monkey will always be a monkey.
A human will always be a human.
My opponent's argument showed no evidence for one species evolving into another. It showed evidence for one species evolving into... the same exact species. Those moths were still moths.
This is an example of MICRO evolution. Let's use Oxford Dictionaries again. Oxford Dictionaries defines "micro evolution" as: "Evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms".
This is a fact. I do not argue with that. But this is NOT what we are arguing about.

My opponent argues that all species evolves from one single organism. That one species can evolve into another. This is not a fact. this is an unproven theory.
I cannot give any examples of macro evolution because there are none.
I urge my opponent in the next round to show at least one example of MACRO evolution. I will not, however, accept examples of MICRO evolution. that is not what we are arguing about.

In conclusion, as a creationist, I still believe in micro evolution, this is a fact. I do not, however, believe in macro evolution. this is an unproven theory. The resolution asks: Is Evolution or Creationism more Credible? The answer is clear. Evolution has no grounds. It is a theory. And we cannot give credit to such things.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. And I agree with the definitions stated in the previous round.

My opponent states that microevolution, “Evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms”, is fact. But macroevolution isn’t.

The definition of macroevolution is the large-scale pattern of change over time that has resulted from the operation of micro evolutionary mechanisms. Macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. So the difference between them is of time and scale. Macroevolution can occur with the gradual compounding of small changes.

An example of this is Homo habilis, which is thought to be the first species of Homo. It developed from the Australopithecus, it had smaller molars, and a 50% larger brain capacity than its predecessor. Homo habilis later developed into Homo erectus. More small changes occurred, Homo erectus had a cranial capacity that was great than that of Homo habilis, and the frontal lobe of the brain was not as sloped. They were slender, with long arms and legs, and stood up straight.

Small changes like these are what led up to Homo sapiens. All of these small changes gave these species an advantage over the other ones, and they were more likely to survive and reproduce. You can’t say that Homo sapiens and Australopithecus are still the same species.

Lastly, I’d like to remind that this debate isn’t about definitively proving either evolution or creationism, but showing which one’s more credible. My opponent, in the previous round, provided no evidence on the validity of creationism.


"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree."
The eye is an amazing organ. But there are some things, as large as the human body or as small as the cell, that are so complex that there is no conceivable way that they could have been formed by natural selection.
This quote actually came from Charles Darwin, the author of "On the Origin of Species". (
Because I agree with his statement, I stand as the Pro, that Evolution is more credible than Creationism.

In this second round of the debate, I would like to go over and refute the arguments brought up by the Con in his last speech.

In his last speech, my opponent brought up, as an example of macro evolution, the evolution from Australopithecus to Homo sapiens. I noted that he did not cite any evidence for this example. I would now like to do so for him.
Taking from the Wikipedia page on Australopithecus, "The skeleton shows evidence of small skull capacity akin to that of apes and of bipedal upright walk akin to that of humans, supporting the debated view that bipedalism preceded increase in brain size in human evolution" ( What is fascinating is that the only pin that they can put on the connection to humans is the ability to walk upright. This is a trait shown in common monkeys. So this example is... a monkey.
As for Homo habilis, wrote an article about it, but I noticed that the only difference between it and a monkey is a bit larger skull and a few missing teeth. This is hardly evidence for a new species. (
The Smithsonian website has a bit on Homo erectus, but what they say about these fossils is quite interesting: "Although he had a disability which hindered his movement, his body shows long legs and narrow shoulders typical of humans who live in hot, dry climate today." ( Interesting. So the only difference between Homo erectus and Homo Sapiens is... absolutely nothing.
So we see from these examples that all these "evolutionary stages" from monkey to man are actually just monkeys and men. There is no "intermediate stages".
All of this means that, so far, there are no good examples of macro evolution. And, therefore, for the purpose of this debate, evolution is not credible.

My opponent (and a few commenters) pointed out that although I showed how evolution was not credible in my last speech, I did nothing to show how creationism was credible.
I admit my mistake. My fault. I will now take some time to show this point.
Creationism, as I defined and my opponent agreed, is "the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation." So what I must show is evidence of a designer. I can do this in three sub-points, and, at the same time, show another flaw in the evolutionary theory.
SUBPOINT 1: The Formation of the Earth
Allow me to, quickly, review the creationist and evolutionary view on the formation of the earth.
Creationist: God formed earth on Day one of creation, and then He populated it during the next five days. (The Bible, Genesis)
Evolutionary: After the big bang, blobs of matter came together to form the earth, which was molten, and over millions of years, it cooled down and became rocky. Then it rained for millions of years and the oceans formed. Somewhere along the way, cells with DNA came about and life evolved. (
SUBPOINT 2: Evidence against the Evolutionary Standpoint
First off, there have been studies showing that planetesimals cannot form planets. It"s too long to write down here, so, here's the URL: (I know that it's a creation-based study, but nonetheless, it has outside sources. I urge readers to at least glance over it.) Second, it"s impossible for it to "rain for millions of years to fill up the oceans" if I understood the water cycle correctly in biology. That water had to be there to begin with. Lastly, the second law of thermodynamics states that things are in a state of constant decay. No new information can be added, only taken away. Due to this, life cannot evolve from a lower form to a higher form.
SUBPOINT 3: Evidence for The Creationist Standpoint
In addition to the fact that creation and a designer deity would solve all the problems brought up in Subpoint 2, there is also a point that warrants mentioning. That point is: All design needs a designer.
Think about this logically for a moment. No one looks at Mount Rushmore and says "amazing that years of eroding would do that". No, everything that has intelligent design must, by definition, have an intelligent designer behind it.
When we look at our universe, from things large as a planet to small as a cell, we see intelligent design.
The cell is actually an excellent example of this intelligent design.
I urge viewers to watch this video:
Dr. Antony Flew was an atheist until 2004, when he wrote: "I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so...The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that"s the best argument you have, then the game is over."

In conclusion, whereas Creationism has many examples to back it, evolution does not. Evolution is an unproved theory. Because of this, I stand as the Pro, that Evolution is more credible than Creationism.
Debate Round No. 2


Macroevolution, as my opponent says, is one species evolving into another. He says it isn't credible, and impossible to conceive how one species can evolve into another. I point out, that evolution doesn't happen in a few years, it happens over millions of years. At some point, so many changes can be caused by microevolution that after a few millions of years, the species has in fact, evolved into something else.
My opponent has agreed that microevolution is a fact, and I ask him, can macroevolution not be microevolution over a long period of time?
After looking at, they try to disprove the nebular hypothesis by saying that it's not possible that all of the change could've occurred by asteroid collisions. But, the likelihood of an asteroid hitting a planet in between the time span of millions of years is still greater, and makes more sense, than the idea of God.
The creationist standpoint according to my opponent is:
Creationist: God formed earth on Day one of creation, and then He populated it during the next five days. (The Bible, Genesis)

There is no evidence of this, nothing close to it has been observed, and there isn't even a hypothetical theory that can explain how such a thing could occur. How can one being create the Earth, and then populate it during the next five days, my opponent cannot provide an answer to this, because there is none.
My opponent said:
"In addition to the fact that creation and a designer deity would solve all the problems brought up in Subpoint 2, there is also a point that warrants mentioning. That point is: All design needs a designer.
Think about this logically for a moment. No one looks at Mount Rushmore and says "amazing that years of eroding would do that". No, everything that has intelligent design must, by definition, have an intelligent designer behind it.
When we look at our universe, from things large as a planet to small as a cell, we see intelligent design."
This also, isn't any evidence of creationism. "All design needs a designer" isn't evidence of creationism. "A designer deity would solve all the problems brought up in subpoint 2." However, there is absolutely no evidence for this, I can make up a theory that a clown wearing a tophat created the Earth in 2 hours, just because that "solves all the problems," doesn't mean it's a theory that can be taken seriously. There is no example of creationism that has been observed by humans. As my opponent said in round 1, Evolution has no grounds. It is a theory. And we cannot give credit to such things. Evolution clearly has more grounds than creationism, microevolution has been observed, and macroevolution is the result of microevolution over a large amount of time. The theory of Creationism on the other hand, hasn't been observed, or explained, and in the end, it just doesn't make sense, the only source of Creationism is the Bible, and the Bible cannot be considered a credible source.

To close, I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate.


"For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation." - Isaac Newton, 1706 Opticks (2nd Edition)

In this last speech of the round, I would like to address the main arguments brought up by my opponent in his last speech. I would like to consolidate them into three main arguments, which I will phrase as questions. I urge the readers to answer these questions in order to cast their vote.

This was a question brought up by my opponent in his last speech. Allow me to explain, from a genetic standpoint, the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution occurs by means of variations occurring in the genetic code, but new information is not added. Mircoevolution causes changes through use of both recessive genes and the different combinations of recessive with dominant. No new information is added, microevolution is a result of information already within the genetic code.
Macroevolution is just the opposite. It relies on the unconfirmed and unobserved belief that information will be ADDED to the genetic code. That is fundamentally different from the theory of microevolution. The problem with this is that the only thing close to macroevolution is not actually macroevolution. Mutations are credited with being a way in which macroevolution COULD work. HOWEVER, this is simply not the case. Mutations do not create new information. What they really do is take information away. Additionally, mutations can not be counted on to create a BETTER species. Imagine that you are editing the code of a computer program. If you randomly switched up some of the 0s and the 1s, you are more likely to encounter error than success. Or, imagine that you have a Rubix Cube. If you are halfway to solving it, and you try to twist it randomly, in hopes to will get closer, you will actually make it worse.
Macroevolution has never been observed, in modern times or in the fossil record, and is in complete disagreement with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that things will become more chaotic, not more organized. (
So the answer to this question is no.

Technically, nothing can be proven on this count. But, in fairness, there is no evidence for evolution either. So, therefore, we must look at what is most probable.
A good point is that non-life cannot create (or give rise to) life. While the argument is that random chance did it, all laws of physics, chemistry, and logic defy this idea. How can random, swirling atoms come about to form a being which can think on it's own? For that matter, where did atoms come from? It had to be created. It couldn't just "come about". Honestly, it would require a miracle. And miracles are only possible when coming from a miracle-maker, a designer deity, a creationist God. Any other argument is illogical. In fact, as Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle says: "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'" (
In the end, practically, the answer to this question is yes. All practical evidence points toward a creator.

The evidence is overwhelming. Microevolution is a fact. Macroevolution is not. Even though neither can be proven observationally, Creationism has logical evidence while evolution does not.
For all of these reasons, and the ones brought up in my previous speeches, the answer to this question, and the main topic we are debating, is obviously NO. I urge the voters to stand with me in negating the resolution, that Evolution is NOT more credible than Creationism.

Thank you. I have enjoyed this debate very much. Good luck in the voting period.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
I'd like to point out to Varrack that the debate was about evolution. Not the origin of the universe.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
*did well
Posted by DDDDaniel 1 year ago
Whoops. I made a mistake in round 2. At the beginning and the end, I said "I stand as the pro, that Evolution is more credible than Creationism"
I meant to say "I stand as the Con, that Evolution is NOT more credible than Creationism."
Posted by Tminusfour20 1 year ago
A wolf will always be a wolf. Until you allow it to spend time in close proximity to humans for 10s of thousands of years, then they start to look and act like dogs. Less about the terminology and more about the facts. Change over time is a fact. More time = More change. Basically impossible to document in a human lifetime or even 10 human lifetimes for that matter.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
What true and useful knowledge do we gain from Creationism? Would it help us understand germ theory or biology?
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
There is no credibility to Creationism either? How can we trust a book that was written thousands of years ago? This book may have easily been altered by anyone.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con was the only one who presented original sources, so Con gets that point. Conduct and S/G were tied. Pro argued that there is no evidence for creationism and that macroevolution is shown by the evolution of homo habilis into homosapiens. Con met this point and argued that evolution does not show an origin for the universe, but creationism does. Pro didn't ever reply to Con's homosapien rebuttal, so it seems as if Con was a little more prepared in the research area. Both debaters did will, but Con had the edge in this debate.