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

Evolution is more credible than Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 2/22/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 760 times Debate No: 87027
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (1)




My premise is that the evidence for Evolution is strong while the evidence for Creationism is insufficient.

Evolution - The theory first proposed by Charles Darwin that species evolve through natural selection to more complex species.

Creationism - The belief that everything that exists was created in 6 days as literally described in Genesis.


Allow me express my abounding thanks for the most gracious invitation from my esteemed opponent and may our justifications for each views bring a deeper understanding to the subjects set before all. Let us begin.

item#1 Premise#1 Evidence for evolution is stronger while evidence for creationism is insufficient.

Evidence#1 I submit that Matt8800 must capitulate premise #1 at onset as EVIDENCE as defined in the English language IS- 1.the available body of FACTS or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
synonyms: proof " confirmation " verification " substantiation " corroboration " affirmation " attestation
as of this current writing no such EVIDENCE for evolution exist!

Evidence #2 Theory or theories by its very definition is 1.a SUPPOSITION or a system of IDEAS intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:
"Darwin's theory of evolution" synonyms: hypothesis " thesis " conjecture " supposition "
speculation " postulation " postulate " proposition " premise " surmise " assumption " presupposition " opinion " view " belief " contention " principles " ideas " concepts " philosophy " ideology " system of ideas " science.

I submit that IF the English dictionary indisputably placed Darwin's theory of evolution squarely in the realm of nonfactual evidence. Then Matt8800 CANNOT REFER TO EVOLUTION AS evidence!

By the meaning as defined in the English language dictionaries. Science is not perceived nor DEFINED as proofs of any kind, merely ideas, conjectures, and suppositions- none of which, were one to look up each synonym associated with theory in the English dictionary would find even one that IS DEFINED as a FACT!

Premise#2 Evidence for Creationism is insufficient.
Creation of the building blocks of Life, deoxyribonucleic acid, heretofore referred to as DNA as defined by English dictionaries: DNA
Word Origin <------- See more synonyms on
Genetics. deoxyribonucleic acid: an extremely long macromolecule that is the main component of chromosomes and is the material that transfers genetic characteristics IN ALL LIFE FORMS, constructed of two nucleotide strands coiled around each other in a ladder like arrangement with the side pieces composed of alternating phosphate and deoxyribose units and the rungs composed of the purine and pyrimidine bases adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine: the GENETIC INFORMATION of DNA is ENCODED in the sequence of the bases and is transcribed as the strands unwind and replicate.
Compare base pair, gene, genetic code, RNA.
the set of nongenetic traits, qualities, or features that characterize a person or thing:
Humility is just not in her DNA.

By definition dictionary and scientific literature undeniably elude to a set order, using terms as encoding and plan that comprises all living life forms. This is highly suggestive of an INTELLIGENT DESIGN, undeniably present at the very beginning of Life creation on Earth, when Mankind did not as yet exist!
#1- I submit, evidence actively and irrefutably exists, even by the greatest scientific minds of the ages, whom all capitulate that intelligence was in fact required to begin such a process.
#2- I submit that scientist, engineers, quantum, physicists, NASA propulsion scientist, computer programmers, Bio-mechanical engineers, High technicians of governments world wide, create, encode and Now alter the DNA, to facilitate, a goal and or process, such as cloninig, I further submit that not a soul in the entirety of the Globe would even SUGGEST that they are performing these things through a natural order, nor accidentally but are in fact INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNING their experiments!

#3-Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, 23 April 1858 " 4 October 1947) was a German theoretical physicist whose work on quantum theory won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918.

Max Planck said in 1944, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
*note* This is a Factual statement by a Non-Believing Theoretical physist- He was not a Believer in God!

#4- Albert Einstein- Theoretical Physicist
German-born theoretical physicist who developed the general theory of relativity, one of the two pillars of modern physics. While best known for his mass"energy equivalence formula E = mc", he received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". The latter was pivotal in establishing quantum theory.
Einstein stated:
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.
Einstein stated:
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
Conclusion on Einstein:
No, Albert Einstein was not a Christian or even a theist (one who believes in a personal God), probably because he failed to understand why evil existed. These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.

Niels Bohr - Physicist
Niels Henrik David Bohr was a Danish physicist who made foundational contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum theory, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. Bohr was also a philosopher and a promoter of scientific research.
quotes: "Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it."
"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."

I believe we are off to a great beginning and it is my prayer that all who observe these debates, will, set aside all preconceived notions and be an open slate with which to transcribe truths, evident since the foundation of the world! Amen!
Debate Round No. 1


First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I look forward to friendly and thought provoking dialogue.

With that said, this debate is not just about discrediting evolution. Con needs to make his argument that creationism has more evidence.

I will both defend evolution and also argue that creationism is false to demonstrate that the theory of evolution is far more credible than the theory of creationism.

“Evidence#1 I submit that Matt8800 must capitulate premise #1 at onset as EVIDENCE as defined in the English language IS- 1.the available body of FACTS or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
synonyms: proof " confirmation " verification " substantiation " corroboration " affirmation " attestation
as of this current writing no such EVIDENCE for evolution exist!”

That is incorrect. There are numerous facts that indicate that evolution is true. Here are some facts:

Fact #1 - Species adapt to their environment through natural selection.

Here is an example: In 1971, scientists transplanted five adult pairs of the reptiles from their original island home in Pod Kopiste to the tiny neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru, both in the south Adriatic Sea. Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s. Because of a drastically changed food supply, they evolved new physical adaptations for their new environment, including cecal valves between their large and small intestine to aid in the digestion of their new diet. Source

Another observed example of adaptation is the seawater Threespine Stickleback fish evolving to survive in freshwater. See -

Fact #2 – Fossils appear in the correct sequence in the geologic column.

One evidence is rock layers specifically, what is called the geologic column. Scientists have learned that rocks are stacked in layers containing fossils with the oldest fossils at the deepest layers, and the youngest, or most recent fossils, near the top. It's as if rock layers are a vertical timeline. At the bottom of the timeline there are no fossils of modern animals. As you move towards the surface, you find fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, mammals, birds, and finally modern mammals including humans. Source

Fact #2 – Fossils of some species exhibit traits of being transitional species.

While there are many examples of transitional species, a good example is Ambulocetus. Ambulocetus is referred to as walking whale because it is a mammal that could walk on land but primarily lived in the water. Transitional species between the Ambulocetus and the modern whale show a migration of the nostrils from the front of the snout to the back of the head in whales. Source -

Fact #3 - Evolutionary adaptations happened in an E. coli long-term experiment.

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 60,000 in April 2014.

Just as evolution would predict, some of the changes were detrimental and some were beneficial. According to evolution, the beneficial changes would be promoted through increased survival and the detrimental changes would disappear eventually due to decreased survival. One population evolved the ability to metabolize citrate in an oxygen rich environment. Source

Fact #4 - Ring species sometimes drift genetically enough that they can no longer interbreed.

Ring species demonstrate that if populations of the same species are isolated long enough, they may undergo enough genetic drift that they can no longer breed with the original species they came from. This occurs when a single species becomes geographically distributed in a circular pattern over a large area. Immediately adjacent or neighboring populations of the species vary slightly but can interbreed. But at the extremes of the distribution - the opposite ends of the pattern that link to form a circle - natural variation has produced so much difference between the populations that they function as though they were two separate, non-interbreeding species. Source

I don’t have to claim these established facts prove evolution. They are just facts that I am presenting that would seem to indicate whether the “belief or proposition” of evolution is valid.

“Evidence #2 Theory or theories by its very definition is 1.a SUPPOSITION or a system of IDEAS intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:
"Darwin's theory of evolution" synonyms: hypothesis " thesis " conjecture " supposition "
speculation " postulation" science.
I submit that IF the English dictionary indisputably placed Darwin's theory of evolution squarely in the realm of nonfactual evidence. Then Matt8800 CANNOT REFER TO EVOLUTION AS evidence!”

As I stated above, I don’t need to prove that evolution is more than a theory. I just need to show that it is a better theory than creationism, which is a ridiculous theory.

The rest of Con’s argument centers around how the universe is too complex to exist without a creator. Con presented some quotes attributed to Einstein about God. Ironically, I agree with Einstein’s opinions on God. I never argued that a god does not exist. I am merely saying the evidence for evolution is strong and that the god as described by the Christians didn’t create the universe as described in Genesis.

Here are some other quotes by Einstein that may be of interest:

“conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible.” - Albert Einstein

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this" - Albert Einstein

Obviously, creationism would be one of those childish, primitive legends he was referring to.

“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” (Albert Einstein, 1954) (emphasis mine)

Einstein never directly expressed any opinion for or against evolution but between superstition based creationism and science based evolution, which one do you think he would pick?

The bible is hearsay upon hearsay. Other than a few commonly accepted historic events and places, there is no reason to believe anything in a book that completely contradicts common sense.

I have presented verifiable facts that strongly indicate that the theory of evolution is valid. There are many more facts that support evolution that I have not presented because of limited space. What verifiable facts indicate that the god as described by Christianity created the universe as described by Genesis? To say there are any at all is overstating because there are absolutely none. My opponent certainly won’t run out of space to present his verifiable facts that support creationism.



Opponent Fact #1 - Species adapt to their environment through natural selection.

""Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
Charles Darwin, - My Life & Letters

Charles Darwin, - Origin of Species, Chapter Difficulties
""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 Freely Confess, Absurd In The Highest Degree."

Opponent Fact #2 " Fossils of some species exhibit traits of being transitional species.

Giraffes have some identical skeletal traits as Horses, even some of the exact same internal organs. Are we to believe the Horse is a new species of the same animal?

Tom Kemp, - Oxford University
""As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record."

Dr. David Raup, - Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago
""...most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favour of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true."

David Kitts, - Ph.D. Palaeontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution, Vol. 28 Sept. 1974 p.467
""Despite the bright promise that palaeontology provides means of "seeing" Evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for Evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them."

William R. Fix, - The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p.150
""The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools ... Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is "no doubt" how man originated: if only they had the evidence..."

Francis Hitching, - Archaeologist
""The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places."

J. O" Rourke, - In The American Journal of Science
""The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply."

Dr. Gary Parker, - Biologist/Palaeontologist and Former Ardent Evolutionist
""In most people"s minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It"s those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. WHAT WE DO FIND ARE SEPARATE AND COMPLEX KINDS, POINTING TO CREATION."

Michael Denton, - "Evolution, A Theory in Crisis" Page 358
""Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of Evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century."

K. Hsu, - Geologist At The Geological Institute At Zurich
""We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: "THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES"

Sir Fred Hoyle, - Evolutionist
""The notion that ... the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."

Scott M. Huse, - The Collapse of Evolution Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp 127
""Far from being an established fact of science that it is so typically portrayed to be, Evolution is, in reality, an unreasonable and unfounded hypothesis that is riddled with countless scientific fallacies."

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, - A Former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Physiologist
""Scientists who go about teaching that Evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining Evolution we do not have one iota of fact."

Dr, Louise Bounoure, - Director of Research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research, Director of the Zoological Museum and former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg
""Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

George Kocan, - Evolution Isn't Faith But Theory, Chicago Tribune 9 Monday April 21 1980
""Unfortunately many scientists and non-scientists have made Evolution into a religion, something to be defended against infidels. In my experience, many students of biology - professors and textbook writers included - have been so carried away with the arguments for Evolution that they neglect to question it. They preach it ... College students, having gone through such a closed system of education, themselves become teachers, entering high schools to continue the process, using textbooks written by former classmates or professors. High standards of scholarship and teaching break down. Propaganda and the pursuit of power replace the pursuit knowledge. Education becomes a fraud."

I. L. Cohen, - Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities P.O. Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pp 6-8, 209-210, 214-215. I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.
""Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, Evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish ... It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction ... In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process ... After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of Evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers ... If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let"s cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back ... Every single concept advanced by the theory of Evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong... The theory of Evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."

Sir Fred Hoyle, - Well-Known British Mathematician, Astronomer & Cosmologist
""Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate .... It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect ... higher intelligences ... even to the limit of God ... such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific."
Debate Round No. 2


Let’s take a look at your best arguments:

""Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
Charles Darwin, - My Life & Letters”

That was written in 1887. Darwin was the only biologist looking for change because he was the first evolutionist. Now, because we have people all over the world looking, we have found many examples besides the fish and lizard example I already provided. We now have numerous examples of observed proof that a species has changed.

“Charles Darwin, - Origin of Species, Chapter Difficulties
"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 Freely Confess, Absurd In The Highest Degree."”

I remember this argument from when I was raised Christian so I find this one particularly interesting. During Darwin’s time, biology was in its infancy and had very little data compared to what we have today.

Today, we know the eye evolved in a progression as shown in the chart below:

s://; alt="" width="350" height="488" data-file-width="584" data-file-height="815" />

I am not going to spend my allowable characters in this debate explaining the diagram so the full explanation can be found here:

“Giraffes have some identical skeletal traits as Horses, even some of the exact same internal organs. Are we to believe the Horse is a new species of the same animal?”

No, they are descended from a common ancestor. Genetic drift over a long period of time with positive phenotypical traits was reinforced by their environment through natural selection, which eventually became two distinct species. The fact that they have some identical skeletal traits and the same internal organs is just MORE evidence for evolution from common descent.

Most of the people you quoted said nothing to detract from the evidence for evolution other than essentially saying, “I don’t like it. Evolution is bad.” So really the point you are making is that people that have been formally educated and also believe in Creationism exist. It is a sad state of affairs for the theory of creationism when that is the extent of the argument for creationism.

You quoted a couple people that basically said life is too complex to be mathematically possible. I was tempted to post a long list of scientists that claimed something was impossible yet eventually become reality. To save on space, I will list one simply to make my point:

“There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” – Albert Einstein, 1934

Here is a list of more incorrect scientists claiming impossibilities:

Despite claims that it is mathematically impossible, I have presented cases of species we have observed that have significantly changed to adapt to their environment. When your theory contradicts what we can observe in reality, it’s time to get a new theory. I’m sure Einstein would agree with that.

Are there scientists that do not believe in evolution? Yes. Two percent (2%) of scientists do not believe in evolution, which means ninety-eight percent (98%) DO believe in evolution. The 98% have reviewed the arguments of their peers in the 2% and have found them wanting. Are there any other controversial subjects that any group of highly educated professionals can agree on more? Source

The best a creationist can hope for is some angle to discredit evolution because there is no evidence whatsoever that creationism can stand on. Even creationists have to admit that the only evidence for creationism is a book written during a time of magic and superstition by people that are long dead. How do they know that this book claiming magical stories is true? Because it says so. Can you imagine a society where that was the standard of proof for anything ever written? The author simply has to say all his words are true. Every religion makes the same claim that theirs is the only one true religion yet none of them see the irony in that.

The reason we are solely arguing the evidence for evolution but Con has not provided any evidence for creationism is because of two facts:

There actually is evidence suggesting evolution that people can debate.

2. There is literally no evidence to suggest creationism is true that anyone can present.

Despite Con’s critique of Evolution, he has been unable to present one single shred of evidence in favor of creationism.

It is one theory that literally has no shred of evidence versus another theory with tons of supporting evidence (as I have outlined). Commons sense tells us which one is more valid.

Please vote Pro.



Good Morning Matt8800. Welcome, I have enjoyed our debate immensely, and appreciate, your participation! I beg your indulgence for a few moments as I would like to address others who might be listening in!

How does one explain, the precision masterpiece called man. IF evolution was real, it would have evolved, equally among all creatures by the miracle of the DNA strand the origin of life that scientists of All kinds and generations past and present believer and nonbeliever alike agree to be The Building Block of Life!
The greatest minds in the world have struggled to the limits of their reason in search of the three greatest questions of Life. Who are we? Where do we come from? What happens " next? It is Consciousness that sets us apart from creation. That part of you -- you call you? The intangible controlling the tangible? You don"t get to pick your body but you do get to call all the shots, from where your gonna go, to the choice of your favorite ice cream, to what your gonna believe.
Nothing in creation brings about the metaphysical, dimensional, and spiritual faster than the life sciences and the neurosciences.
When you consider that among the billions of intelligent species that exist on this Earth ". ONLY MAN Has Free Will? Everything else driven by instincts. IF LIFE occurred accidently and randomly as evolution implies, why would man be the sole bearer of Free Will? Who selected us for so great an honor among billions of other species? If not God then"" WHO, or was this too just another miraculously convenient accident?

Let me ask you this? If your CONCIOUSNESS is separate from your physical body, and your PHYSICAL BODY DIES, then that would have to mean ". You still exist ".. Right?

It does say in Romans chapter 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God"s invisible qualities"his eternal power and divine nature"have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

If you ask any God fearing, Bible believing Follower of God, if they believe that we are Living in what the Bible calls the last days "" they would all say ". Yes! That means that God"s free gift of eternal Life by Grace, is rapidly coming to an end. The signs of the times are calling for man to repent and be saved. Most aren"t listening, it is my prayer and hope that someone somewhere IS listening!

Now back to debate. The evidence for the validity of the Genesis account lies in the inception of Life itself. The instantaneous emergence of the building block of Life, the DNA strand. A topic evolutionist DELIBERATELY avoid because the fallacy of it's theory hinges on the vague, and unavailable, the opinion instead of the Fact: relying instead on adaptations rather that real and genuine emergence of new Life. Species are dying off in droves, and NOT BEING (capital for emphasis) REPLACED. Food chains are rapidly declining, species upon species are in full extinction mode, without a single new species to take their place! If there IS an evolution don't you think it would have begun to replace, the food sources that it's killing off.

Evolution has no credible answer to the DNA strand, because the DNA is a super-construction of precision, sheer mathematical genius, 3 dimensional 4 bit code, while the science and mathematicians of today can still only work in 2 bit code ..... 0's and 1's. While Gods code is components of chromosomes and IS the material that transfers genetic characteristics IN ALL LIFE FORMS, constructed of two nucleotide strands coiled around each other in a ladder like arrangement with the side pieces composed of alternating phosphate and deoxyribose units and the rungs composed of the purine and pyrimidine bases adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine: the GENETIC INFORMATION of DNA is ENCODED in the sequence of the bases and is transcribed as the strands unwind and replicate.

Evolution violates so many proven facts of science that it is outwardly mystifying that in the entirety of the Globe not a single emergence of a new species has been recorded.

Evolution Violates the Antropic Principle: But FAVORS GENESIS ACCOUNT:
The anthropic principle (from Greek anthropos, meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it.
That is to say that the ability for God"s creation to readily OBSERVE the intricate and irreducibly complex fine-tuning of the world in which they Live, demonstrates a clear and obvious intelligent design, and is therefore not random.
Evolution Violates law of entropy- which FAVORS Genesis Account:- the 2nd law of thermodynamics- that things decline over time, and do not increase over time. We see species go extinct we Don"t see a new species coming into being but we have plenty of examples of them going extinct.
When I say new species I mean an entirely new kind of creature EMERGING to become!

Evolution Violates Biogenesis but FAVORS Genesis Account-Which states that Life only comes from other Life!
Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.
Evolution Violates Mendel"s laws of Genetics but FAVORS Genesis- The software that makes up a rabbit is completely different from that of a turtle, the two CANNOT mate. Same for all other species. To put it into perspective for you. Just like a computer, each program has SPECIFIC CODING to allow the program to function properly!
Carried further APES CANNOT IMPREGNATE A HUMAN OR HUMAN AN APE WHY? Cause we don"t come from them. Completely different species, Throw your poster away!

Evolution Violates Laws of Information"s Systems which FAVORS Genesis Account- Information always has a source.
Evolution Violates laws of Specified Complexity which FAVORS Genesis Account- Goes hand in Hand with laws of Information systems, what your looking at is specific information, click, click, click, click. Not random it is DIRECT STREAMLINE INSTRUCTIONS that build LIVING biological organisms!

Evolution Violates laws of Irreducible Complexity which FAVORS Genesis Account- The entirety of that organism is comprised of organs and parts all of which it needs. Those parts are comprised of cells which require all of their parts, those cells are run by digital software which require all of their coding from the information"s system to run the inside of the cell. All of these parts are made of quantum particles their not random either, it IS irreducible complex from top to bottom.

Evolution Violates Natural Selection which FAVORS Genesis Account- IF YOU HAVE 2DOGS, BALD DOG AND FURRY DOG, snow storm comes environment changes ".. You lose your bald dog! You now have fewer dogs than you started with. Survival of the fittest! Goes hand in hand with entropy- As environments change resources go away, you see species drop off of the map this is WHY we observe species die or leave but we do not see new species become!

Evolution Violates laws of Statistical Mathematics which FAVORS Genesis Account- The study of the collection, analysis, interpretation, presentation, and organization of data.
Evolution Violates Fossil Record which absolutely FAVORS Genesis Account-
Evolution Violates Genetic Complexity, Benefictial Mutation, Informations Theory All of which FAVOR Genesis Account- Truth is if we were to look at all the things that are exactly 180 degrees from evolution theory, we would be here all day.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lightseeker 3 months ago
as for finding fossils of species undergoing mutative process, take a look at this:
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 5 months ago
Evolution is more credible than Creationism

looking verry shaky Matt, bordering on the moronic, don't you think? I don't think you could convince an Elementary student of those odds.

Natural formation of Millions of Adult creatures to BEGIN life?
Helpless Newborns by the millions SURVIVING to Adulthood WITHOUT Adults to care for them to BEGIN life? Hmmm I don't think so!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 5 months ago
Evolutionary Scientist FAILED to mention that they USED an ADULT subject in all their Models? THEY USED INACCURATE DATA! yes of course go check it out! You mean YOU NEVER NOTICED? Never thought about HOW that adult lizard crawled out of the primordial ooze? You just bought off on Life forming AS AN ADULT without questioning THE HOW?Matt, Matt, I thought you were more astute than THAT?
So your saying it NEVER OCCURRED to you HOW Newborns could SURVIVE TO ADULTHOOD, without and ADULT to feed, water and protect them? How peculiar? Well you seemed MORE on the Ball last time I talked to you? Oh well! So Science has 2 options BOTH IMPOSSIBLE!

1.) MILLIONS OF ADULT SPECIES FORMED NATURALLY! Which doesn't even happen today? OR 2.)Millions of Newborn creatures magically SURVIVED TO ADULTHOOD, without anyone to give them food, water, protection.

That means the ONLY PLAUSIBLE explanation WAS The GENESIS account where God created all creatures INCLUDING Man ... as ADULTS!

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

accept or Die in ignorance ... You MUST NOW SUPPRESS the TRUTH, and THAT carries a severe penalty found in Revelation 21:8
Posted by matt8800 6 months ago
@followerofchrist1955 I would let the scientific community know what proof you have because they still believe in evolution. If you can provide proof, it would rock the scientific community and you would be famous.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 6 months ago
God has been proven to be Real and Evolution a Lie in Debate" The Proof that God exists IS Mans unique existence."
Posted by jglass841 7 months ago
And, for those that say evolution is not a fact, research the definition of fact. A fact is falsifiable. That means that you can prove it wrong or right, which differentiates it from an opinion. That means that yes, evolution is a scientific fact.
Posted by jglass841 7 months ago
98% of scientists agree with it. It meets all of the criteria to be a theory, and it is such. The only people who legitimately disagree with it now are the ones who have been misinformed.
Posted by ssadi 7 months ago
First of all, (I don't know yet what the video is about and can't watch it right now) saying that something is not a well-established scientific theory doesn't mean there is no evidence for/against it or it doesn't mean it is wrong/true. It is becoming certain that you haven't read the paper I shared yet, or if you have read it then you haven't understood it.

I can say that I have a brother who is 2 years younger than me. This is true and there are evidences that supports it. BUT this will not be a scientific theory unless I, for example, provide DNA tests etc. to show that there is really a person who is exactly 2 years younger than me and he is a son of my parents. I may even have those data but it wouldn't still be a theory until I reveal them and make a well organized mathematical calculations etc. that clearly supports my claim.

This is the point I am making... The evolution of species is not yet a scientific theory because it doesn't have the basic requirements for being a scientific theory.. Some reasons are explained in the paper I shared. You could see if you read the paper that it doesn't claim that the evolution is true/false, it only states that it is not a well=established scientific theory. If you have any objection to that, then let me know.

BTW, I will watch the video asap..
Posted by matt8800 7 months ago
There are mountains of evidence and I cant do it justice putting it in a comment section. A breakdown of the evidence can be found here:

I would be happy to discuss any of those points illustrated in the video if you let me know which one you object to.
Posted by ssadi 7 months ago
I don't have a specific question, I am saying and providing scientific publications as evidence that the theory of evolution of species in principle is not a well-established scientific theory. You are objecting, but not providing anything scientific.. Just asking me questions or making some bare assertions against my case.

You must be a good debater, just how did you come to a position as if you provided some good evidences against my case and I am objecting with no evidence asking you some general questions..?! :)

You started making a point against my only point that the evolution of species is not a well-established scientific theory. The reason is explained in the paper I shared. If you have any specific objection about my source, then present it and I will answer it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JayShay 8 months 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided evidence for evolution such as the threespine stickleback fish, transitional fossils and e coli experiments. Con did not refute any of these points. The majority of Con's case was an attempt to illustrate that evolution is flawed, mainly by quoting scientists who disagree with evolution. Pro mentioned that many of those quotes were from a long time ago, where the evidence for evolution was more minimal than today's. Some of Con's quotes had more to do with the beginning of life, which is irrelevant to this debate. Con only attempted to disprove evolution, and never supplied any evidence for creationism. In the final round, Con attempted to shows how evolution violates certain laws but never went into enough detail to make a strong case. Pro was able to successfully refute each of Con's points, such as how horses and giraffes shared a common ancestor.