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

Evolution is more plausible 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/8/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 564 times Debate No: 77418
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




Hello! I plan on having on having a debate with anyone who is interested.

1st round: Acceptance
2nd round: Stating our evidence
3rd round: debunking said evidence
4th round: Conclusion

Thank you and hopefully we can have a knowledgeable and fun debate! :)


Oops, I wrote my argument before I checked your post. Damn, nvm.

I accept.

I wish I could go first though.
Debate Round No. 1


The Debate topic is "Evolution is more plausible than Creationism"

The BOP is shared as I need to show why Evolution is more plausible and you must show why it is not and show why Creationism is the better way of looking at the world.

Evolution - "Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations"

Top 5 proof's for evolution.

1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.

2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats , 80% with cows , 75% with mice , and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.

4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.

5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

Thank you!


Hmm, I'll try to rebut you, but I'll probably get shrekt.

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.

Note that I typed and thought of these myself (unlike someone >.>), thus I might make a few mistakes.

1. Population of Christians that make up the world

The percentage of Christians that are in the world currently is a staggering 31.50%, with United States made out of 83%. This surely proves something about our Religion.


2. Many Religions are related to Christianity

Islam (Muslim, I think) is also partially about the Bible, except that we Christians don't go around shooting people and taking over the world, and worship a piece of rock. The Jewish Religion is also related to us, just that in their Bible, they do not have the New Testaments. We believe that Jesus is Christ, the Jews believe that he was a prophet or a really good teacher.

3. The Universe is ultimately, definitely created by a Creator
Science proves that from the tiniest and smallest DNA Strand, to the the biggest animals, that *there is a definite Creator/Designer in this Universe(s)*. Check up the internet if you want.

3.(a) A unique measurement shows that a single Golden Ratio is one with nature.
From Beautiful (from human perspective) and Human Measurement, it is even related to Music and Plants. This should prove something.


3.(b) Which Designer?

Solomon's Temple. Solomon's Temple is a real place on Earth, visited by Jews and Christians, considered Holy. (I'm not sure if it's there anymore, actually, I heard it was demolished or some sh1t)

Solomon was from the Bible. Bible is the Word of God. Moreover, there are many other measurements, parts, of nature and us that proves that a Creator is at work. Not just PHI/1.618. Aristotle and other archaic mathematicians thought that God was a perfect Architect that used special Dimensions to build the universe. Then again, proves something?

Note that the Bible does not contradict itself.

5. No sign of extraterrestrial life
There have been no discover of extraterrestrial life so far, and there are many mysteries even we haven't discovered yet.
No sign of extraterrestrial life means that humans did not come from other planets and evolve.

6. The Inception of the Earth and of Living Kinds May Have Been Relatively Recent

"Radiometric dating methods (such as the uranium-lead and potassium-argon methods) depend on three assumptions: (a) that no decay product (lead or argon) was present initially or that the initial quantities can be accurately estimated, (b) that the decay system was closed through the years (so that radioactive material or product did not move in or out of the rock), and (c) that the decay rate was constant over time. Each of these assumptions may be questionable: (a) some nonradiogenic lead or argon was perhaps present initially;(b) the radioactive isotope (uranium or potassium isotopes) can perhaps migrate out of, and the decay product (lead or argon) can migrate into, many rocks over the years; and (c) the decay rate can perhaps change by neutrino bombardment and other causes. Numerous radiometric estimates have been hundreds of millions of years in excess of the true age. Thus ages estimated by the radiometric dating methods may very well be grossly in error. Alternate dating methods suggest much younger ages for the earth and life. "

This article is all about Earth being created *recently*.


7. Life Was Suddenly Created

Life suddenly just pops out of nowhere in the fossil records, and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds. These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created.


I guess this is the end of my argument. Thank you Pro! =)

I almost wanted to rebut your stuff instantly on the spot, but had to abide by the rules >.<

It was so tempting...
Debate Round No. 2


I got my term evolution from an online definition source which i worked off of, But you can create your creationism definition however you want :)

1. Population of Christians
Just because a lot of people believe in something does not make that claim true which is why i did not use the argument that the vast majority of scientist support evolution over 97% percent. This is a logical fallacy known as the argument of ad populum which appeals to the popularity of certain ideas to say that it is true. We can see just by looking back at human history that most of the time the most popular idea was not always the correct one.

2. Religions connect.
Im not sure how this is relevant to showing how creationism is most likely true but ill try my best to refute it. Using the same logic someone can claim Buddhism is true by saying that Hinduism is true. If your aware of Buddhism you realize that the founder of it was first brought up as a Hindu and then he rejected it. In total these religions make up about 1 billion followers so does that mean those creation myth's are true? But i have to state again on what does this have to do with showing creationism to be true at best it might be another way of showing that a lot of people believe in it which i will guide back to my previous rebuttal above this one.

3. The Universe was created
The examples given by Con can be explained by natural processes,
Animals seem designed because of evolution. For example a animal that can survive on its own in a environment will be able to pass on its gens to the next generation while animals that aren't fit for the environment die off. So the "Design" of animals for there environment is nothing more than natural selection picking out who's gens can best survive in a certain environment.
The Origin of Dna is still a unknown mystery but we have some natural explanations on how it could of come about. Dna is a complex molecule which most scientist's believe came about through a gradual process which is called the "Rna world hypothesis" Which states that before Dna there was Rna and before Rna there was amino acids and proteins which came together in chemical reactions (Which is still trying to be figured out) all these came about to make Dna. We might not have a exact theory on the subject but scientist's are figuring out how life could of come out in natural processes.

3 (a) Im not sure what this measurement proves of creationism its just a mathematical way of describing certain patterns I fail to see how this relates to god creating the universe, Con needs to show this connection

3 (b) Con is right to bring up which designer designed our universe or even us for that matter. One thing i would like to bring up to Con is why cant there be a designer for the universe but not a designer for life? Maybe the designer created this universe but just forgot about it. Also just because a real place was brought up in a fiction book does not make the rest of the fiction book true if that were the case, Percy Jackson would be true because it has the empire state building which can be seen.
In terms of the bible being not contradictory, this is completely wrong wrong. Im running out of characters but for a list of contradictions please check out these links

5. No sign of extraterrestrial life
I will agree that there has been no direct evidence of some type of alien life so far but we are getting closer. Plus even if we were alone in the universe that does not mean were were created, merely that going from chemicals to life has to go over major hurdles in order to become "Life". However recent discovers in astrobiolgy have confirmed that in our galaxy alone there could be up to 40 billion earth like planets and don't get me started on the other 100-200 billion galaxy's in our universe. Later this decade more powerful space telescopes can tell what type of atmosphere's these planets might have and therefore find chemical signatures of there being life. The math shows that with the amount of planets out there it would be almost impossible for there to not be alien life.

7. "Life was suddenly created"
Im having trouble understanding on what you mean by "Suddenly created" do you mean the Cambrian explosion? or life arising? As i have shown a few rebuttals up that life from chemicals went over a gradual process and the difference between life and non-life was almost nonexistent the only difference was that "Life" had a self replicating molecule and before that it was just basic organic chemicals. When the earth finally formed through collisions of debris from the proto planetary disk it took nearly a billion years for the first thing that can be seen as life to come about and a few hundred million years after that to show basic structures of cells. So life didn't just "Appear" it came about through a natural process through millions of years.

6. Sorry that i skipped 6, Whoops. Anyway, your last objection i believe is that our dating methods don't work and that other methods show that our earth is young. The entire argument was pulled from a creationist website which i took my time to go to but sadly i found that they had no link to real scientific, peer reviewed journals that showed that our understanding of chemistry is wrong. I would like voters to read how we know how old a certain thing is.
Some Objections that Con brings up are taken into account when scientists look at the dating method which is shown in the links above.

Thank you Con for the arguments brought up in favor of your position :)
Im also glad you followed the rules, Cant wait to see your response!.


ChickenBakuba forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3



I Have shown 5 basic proof's for evolution which Con has yet to refute. These proof's show how the fossil record and genetics can bring us a tree of life that shows us how life as we see it today came about. We know how old these layers of rocks are by radiometric and carbon dating methods. I also show a simple proof that when we introduce antibiotics that within a few years the bacteria that survive the antibiotics are the one's with genes that can make them survive the environment of antibiotics and so they reproduce and make a whole new colony of bacteria that resist the antibiotics.

Con brings some arguments for Creationism which i explain in the next round why they aren't good. I await Con's response to my evidence and to the problems i point out to his evidence in the round below me. Here is the link where i got my 5 proof's for evoultion.

Vote Pro!!


ChickenBakuba forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NumingDisasterAnon 1 year ago
I would vote, but apparently I need to have done 3 debates in order to debate. Which is the most asinine rule I have ever seen anywhere, especially in regards to voting. But, whatever.

I am in full support of Pro, for Con has not offered much of an argument for their case.
Posted by ChickenBakuba 1 year ago

Emphasise on "sometimes"
Posted by AdventurerExplorer 1 year ago
Rules suck at least we can agree to that xD
But sometimes rules are needed for making a debate more cleaner and run a bit more efficiently.
Posted by ChickenBakuba 1 year ago
First time doing a debate with rules, feels very...restricted .-.
Posted by ChickenBakuba 1 year ago
I'm sorry Adventure, I think I did a lousy job....

Some of mah stuff were quoted from Links.
Posted by ChickenBakuba 1 year ago

I don't like these rules, but I've no choice but to abide by them

I usually just yolo and go and rebut everything
Posted by ChickenBakuba 1 year ago

And here I thought you were going to forfeit and I could start first
Posted by AdventurerExplorer 1 year ago
Remember that round 2 for you is presenting evidence for why creationism is more better than evolution. Debunking my claims comes in Round 3.
Posted by ChickenBakuba 1 year ago

I can start first!
Posted by ChickenBakuba 1 year ago
I hate it when people say good luck T.T

Makes me feel a sense of demise, like I'm gonna lose this Debate.

Especially in your case, I'm going to die.


Hopefully this will be an intellectual debate...

Most of my debates are noobsnipes and I haven't really met a proper opponent except for once. He used the title of the debate to his advantage, which I guess is my fault partially, considering I didn't really think of that.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited twice, which means he dropped all of Pro's contentions, so Pro wins.