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

Evolution or Creation?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,381 times Debate No: 55041
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (2)




As Pro, I will be arguing for creation while Con will be arguing for evolution.

Resolution: The biblical creation model fits the evidence whilst evolution does not.

Definitions for this debate:

Creation - the model as derived from the Bible (Creation, ~6,000 year old Earth, and Flood)

Evolution - the model as derived from Darwin which describes all organisms as having a common ancestor from which all creatures have evolved (Abiogenesis, ~4.5Gy old Earth, macroevolution, and the geologic column)

Round 1 - Acceptance

Round 2 - Arguements

Round 3 - Rebuttals

Round 4 - Closing Statements (no new rebuttals or arguements)


Thanks Creationtruth:

I will be arguing for Evolution:

Though I will have to point out that Pro has misconstrued the definition of Evolution:

"Theory of Evolution" does not include Abiogenesis (life beginning from non living elements) which is a Hypothesis and a Science all of it's own.

The "Theory Of Evolution" does not deal with Geology or the 4.5 billion year old Earth 4.5Ga.

Essentially, Evolution only deals with changes in already living organisms.
It does not deal with how life begins and the only geology involved is the discovery of fossils of once living creatures.

The earliest evidence of life is chemical, or of photosynthesis processes taking place around 3.5Ga.

I will look forward to Pro's Arguments.

Thanks Pro! Over to you?

Debate Round No. 1


After discussing definitions of evolution in the comments section, we agreed to this definition for evolution:

"Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance. The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother. Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales." (

Evidence for a Creator

The law of biogenesis (life comes from life), which continues to be a valid law as no exceptions have been observed, demonstrates the necessity of all life having originally risen from a creative act of God since neither creationists nor evolutionists believe that life has always existed; it must have had an origin at some point (creationists say less than 10,000 years ago, evolutionists say nearly 4,000,000,000 years ago) ( Unless my opponent can cite such a exception to the law of biogenesis, the most logical answer to the origins of life is that all life has come into being as the result of the creative act of God

When the law of biogenesis is combined with the laws of information science as they relate to the genetic code, the evidence for an intelligent Creator is made very clear. The laws of information science as worked out by Dr. Werner Gitt, in particular, demonstrate the logicality of accepting that all life had been created (

Unless my opponent can cite such exceptions to the law of biogenesis or the laws of information science, the most logical answer to the question of the origins of life is that all life has come into being as the result of the creative act of God.

Evidence for a Young Earth

There is no one dating method which can tell us the age of the Earth but there are plenty of demonstrable methods which can place an upper limit to the Earth's age using uniformitarian principles. Here is list a few evidences of a young Earth, the upper limit age they give, and a brief summary of them:

Oceanic Na+ content [>62My] - Based on measured input/output rates of sodium (Na+), the ocean can be calculated to be less than 62,000,000 years old (

Atmoshperic He content [>2My] - Based on measured input/output rates of helium (He), the atmosphere can be calculated to be less than 2,000,000 years old (

Phanerozoic C-14 content [>250ky] - Based on measured amounts of C-14 in "ancient" organic substances such as coal in the evolutionary asigned Phanerozoic epoch, the Phaneozoic epoch can be calculated to be less than 250,000 years old (

Planetary magnetic field decay [>10ky] - Based on the measured decay rate of the Earth's magnetic field, the Earth can be calculated to be less than 10,000 years old (

Precambrian zircon He content [>9ky] - Based on measured diffusion/retention rates of helium (He) in Precambrian zircon crystals, the Earth can be calculated to be less than 8,000 years old (

Precambrian feldspar Ar content [>9ky] - Based on measured diffusion/retention ratesof argon (Ar) in Precambrian microcline feldspar, the Earth can be calculated to be less than 8,000 years old (

Evidence for Worldwide Flood

As there are many evidences to cite (too many to be posted here), I will only make a few statements which I will expand on if requested:

1.) Geologic formations such as the Grand Canyon are better explained by a global hydrologic catastrophe rather than slow gradual processes. There are many cases to cite where only a global flood makes sense of particular phenomena(

2.) Computational results of the flood model have demonstrated its feasability (

3.) Flood models have been developed and are testable demonstrating the truely scentific nature of flood geology (

Evidence against Neo-Darwinian Evolution

With the evidences of both a young Earth and a global flood, the deep-time necessary for Neo-Darwinian evolution to take place disapears. With that said, even if deep-time was granted, say 3.8Gy, the mechanisms for evolution, which are demonstrably real occurances, cannot produce the type of change necessary for the "microbe-to-microbiologist" idea of common descent. Natural selection only works to select from what is already available in the genome, hence, given particular environmental changes or conditions, an animal may adapt and even change morphologically, but the animal will still remain within certain boundaries. For instance, a wolf may "evolve" into a dog via "unnatural selection" (man-caused breeding), but this dog can never go back to being a wolf, and it can never become something other than a canine. The limit of "kind," per the Bible, corresponds to certain taxonomic designations, depending on the type of creature (i.e. dogs and wolfs belong to the canine kind). This boundary does not require the biblical usage of the word "kind" though to be established as a scientific fact.

Natural selection, as already stated, only works to select from existing genetic code. The reason a dog cannot evolve back into a wolf by itself is that the genome has lost information in the evolution from wolf to dog, but in order to go back to wolf, that information would need to be added back into the genome. The only way this can actually be done is by introducing wolf genes back into the dog via mating (or invetro fertilization). For these same reasons, a dog cannot evolve into something other than a canine---new genetic information is required. The main mechanism for evolutionary change is mutations. Mutations can surely change an organisms genome (typically in detrimental ways), but they cannot provide the type of information-adding changes required for evolution. Even beneficial mutations do not equate to information-adding changes since all known examples involve either recombination or degredation, both mechanisms for change, but not the type of change required for Neo-Darwinian evolution (

You can think about it this way: how would you get windows 7 to become windows 8? We can try altering the software code by typing in random 1s and 0s, duplicate sections of the binary code, and even delete sections or individual numbers. All these alterations will never get you windows 8. The only sure-fire way to get windows 8 is to upgrade windows 7 and install the new information required for windows 8. This relates very much to genetic information. Think of the cell as the hardware and the genetic code as the software. In order to go from, say, a T-rex genome to, say, a chicken genome, the addition of new and functional information is required. Mutations, much like the random interjections of 1s and 0s in the binary code, along with recombination and deletion, will never get you from a T-rex genome to a chicken genome. The development of the genetic information for feathers, a new skeletal system, and a new lung system, just to name a few, would be required. This is simply not possible for mutations to accomplish. I challenge my opponent to provide one example of a mutation which has added new previously unknown, functional genetic information to an organisms genome.

My opponent is likely to quibble about my usage of suh words as "evolution," "kind," "information" and probably even "science," but I am hoping that instead he will address the science claims so that we may have a debate about science and not semantics. Let us see how my opponent responds and I will defend my claims in the following round.

On to you Sagey...



Firstly I'll give a brief description of Science and the two existing forms of Creationism.

Science is the study of everything from an Evidence Based Perspective.

The Evidence Speaks For Itself.

It is considered as scientific fraud to try to alter scientific evidence to fit a personal preconception.

In the past scientists have been found guilty of trying to alter experiments and evidence to fit what they thought was right before they started their experiments, this is deception/fraud and those scientists have been condemned/charged if still alive and their false conclusions destroyed and published findings discredited. Note: Young Earth Creationists are still publishing those discredited conclusions as truth.

Science & Religion: Science has nothing to do with religion and the first experimental scientists were in fact Christian monks in a Catholic monastery where they had vineyards and produced their own wines. The monks thought that if they used their wine testing laboratory to investigate God's Laws (the natural laws) maybe they could find proof of God.

So these Catholic monks devised the Scientific Method to find God through his works.

To their dismay, their investigations and discoveries did not find God, but instead opened up one of the greatest human endeavours ever undertaken, the systematic discovery of Reality.

That is a definition of Science: The Systematic Investigation and Discovery Of Reality.

Those monks such as Hugh of the monastic school of Saint Victor (12th Century CE) proposed scientific enquiry as a means to find God the rest was history.

At least 80% of Christian Creationists are are still of this belief and they see no problem with Evolution nor Abiogenesis (life from chemistry) as they believe that the Laws Of Chemistry and Evolution are God's Laws. Evolution is How God Makes Organisms.

These Christians are Old Earth Creationists (OECs).

Stupid groups like Answers-In-Genesis actually hate and attack OECs as being sinners more than it attacks Atheists. Ken Ham hates Intelligent Christians, he prefers the least intelligent kind which I will get to next.

Young Earth Creationism (YECs or Creatards): The belief that God made The Universe in Six Earth Days (which did not exist while the earth was forming anyway) and Genesis 1 is Absolute Fact.

You know, that first book of the Bible where the Earth is a Flat Disk supported by pillars and Heaven is a solid (firmament) Dome over the Earth with stars attached to it like with silly putty.

Where this dome is supported by pillars and if the dome was shaken, all the stars will fall to Earth (Revelations 16). So the bible starts and ends on concepts of rampant Stupidity.

Many OECs call YECs like Ken Ham, Creationist Retards, thus the term Creatards.

Because OECs are creationists, but their concepts are Rational, but the YECs concepts are Retarded and insults OECs creationism, giving them a bad image as well.

So there is a war between Christians, OECs and YECs, and Ken Ham is fueling the fire with his brand of complete Nonsense.

A very brief history of YECs. [#1]

Young Earth Creationism was led in the 18th century by William Paley with his book “Natural Theology” which claims that if you found a watch on a beach you would perceive that a designer existed, and the complexity of life demands a designer. This the exact line of reasoning Con is taking in this debate. Essentially it is an argument out of Ignorance fallacy, as was Paley's book a book written out of ignorance. [#2]

After Darwin published his “Origins Of Species” which was a chapter by chapter refutation or even a destruction/debunking of William Paley's “Natural Thology” YECs died out and remained in tiny groups, as they were criticised and ridiculed by the general scientific community.

Until the 19th Century when YEC again raised it's ignorant head in the form of Ellen G. White, who after having a brain damage based Hallucination, started and headed the YEC pseudo-Christian sect called the Seventh Day Adventist movement. Her hallucination was touring with Jesus to meet God (separate entities (so much for the Trinity)) and witness God creating the world in Six Earth Days. [#3]

Her ardent supporters included one George McCready Price, a field geologist but not very knowledgeable in the field who published many very naive, pseudo-geological nonsensical papers and books supporting the Genesis Flood. One of these works was entitled “Illogical Geology “ [#4]

Essentially YECs have been plagiarising Prices misconceptions of geology ever since.

Basically Science follows this line of Reasoning: The Conclusion Must Always Agree With The Evidence.

The YECs follow this line of Reasoning: Evidence and Conclusion Must Always Agree With The Bible!

Thus if scientific evidence does not support the Bible, the scientific evidence must be Wrong.

Their arguments Fallacious on three grounds.

1: It is an Argument/Conclusion From Ignorance Fallacy.

2: It is an Argument/Conclusion from Confirmation Bias.

3: Scientifically they are committing deliberate Scientific Deception/Fraud.

Con is limited to a few Pseudo-Scientific Sources which support the YECs viewpoint.

All these sites push the 3 forms of fallacious nonsense mentioned above.

These include:,, Answers-In-Genesis and World Net Daily and a few others.

Not one of these sites is a source for any valid scientific information, they all commit the three grounds above.

While I will be citing genuine scientific knowledge, not pseudo-scientific confirmation bias based fallacies like Con’s sources.

ABIOGENESIS: Life from Non-Living Substances.

Evolution only deals with Biogenesis or Life Produced From Living Organisms.

Evolution deals with all such forms of organism reproduction which includes Sexual or Asexual Reproduction, Cloning (stem cells and growing plants from cuttings) and Grafting.

Though to conclude that Biogenesis is a Law that cannot be broken is a conclusion from ignorance.

There is another scientific field in Chemistry called Abiogenesis where scientists are investigating how life can be formed from natural chemical reactions and they are getting very close to understanding how it can be done and have already produced basic life in the laboratory.

Here are some of the basic fundamentals now discovered by the scientific teams working in this interesting field.

They have found over 70 Amino Acids (organic Monomers) existing in meteorites that have struck the Earth.

This strongly supports the concept that organic molecules that are inportant to form life, exist throughout our entire universe and also supports the notion that life possibly exists on other planets, especially since, a team of scientists simulated shooting some of these amino acids to simulate meteorites striking the Earth's surface.

This impact created more complex molecules or Peptides which are used to form proteins.

Thus peptides and even proteins (polymers)

Yet it appears that such complex molecules are not required for life to begin from Chemical Reactions (Abiogenisis).

[Monomers diffuse into fatty acid vesicle

monomers spontaneously polymerize and copy any template

Heat separates strands, increases membrane permeability ot monomers.

Polymer backbones attract ions increasing osmotic pressure

Pressure on the membrane drives its growth at the expense of nearby vesicles containing less polymer.

Vesicles Grow into tubular structures

Mechanical forces cause vesicles to divide

Daughter vesicles inherit polymers from the parent vesicle

Polymer sequences that replicate faster will dominate the population.

Thus beginning Evolution

Early genomes were completely random and therefore contained No Information.

It was their ability to spontaneously replicate irrespective of sequence that drove growth and division of the fatty acid vesicles.

Any mutation that increases the rate of polymer replication would be selected for dominance.

Mutation + Natural Selection = Increased Information

Early beneficial mutations would include

- Change sequence to contain only the most common neucleotides.

- Don't form secondary structures that block replication

- Form sequences that are stable yet separate easily.

- Form secondary structues that show some enzymatic activity

Just like RNA, early nucleotides could both store information and function as enzymes.

Early polymer enzymes would:

- Enhance replication

- Use high energy molecules in the environment (near thermal vents) to recharge monomers.

- Synthesize lipids from other molecules in the environment

- Modify your lipids so they don't leave your membrane

That's It: A simple 2 component system that SPONTANEOUSLY forms in the pre-biotic environment.

Can eat, grow, contain information, replicate, and EVOLVE.

Simply through thermodynamic, mechanical and electrical forces.

No ridiculous improbability and no Supernatural forces.] [From #5]



The Fossil Record from Dinosaurs To Birds is complete and Tissue analysis of the soft tissue found in Dinosaur Bones now Confirms this as beyond any Doubt. [#6, #7]

The nearest living relative to Birds is now Alligators and Crocodiles.

I’ll deal with this in more detail in my next statement:

For now I’ll leave you with a source for the latest evidence posted recently.








Back To You CT:

Debate Round No. 2


creationtruth forfeited this round.


Since Con missed the deadline:

I'll end this debate with a few rebuttals of Con's opening statement.

Con stated:The law of biogenesis (life comes from life), which continues to be a valid law”

Before the science of Abiogenesis appeared, Biogenesis was considered as a law and Luis Pasteur concluded that it could not be broken, but Biogenesis only applies to Existing Living Organisms.

The Law of Biogenesis can only now be considered as: Existing living organisms can only propagate from living material.

Though a consideration in Biogenesis is Panspermia, or life exists right throughout the universe and the first cells on Earth were microbes from another solar system, which travel on comets and meteorites.

Thus Evolution may have started from the first evidence of microbial life on Earth some 4 billion years ago.

So even if Biogenesis was a solid law on planet Earth, the principle of Panspermia would mean that life may very well have been seeded on Earth from another planet, solar system, galaxy or even universe. Because biogenesis applies here, does not mean that it doesn't apply in another universe and life may have existed since the beginning of time

Thus the possibility of Panspermia, means Con would also be wrong in stating life had to be produced as is by a divine entity and evolution is still the most practical and probable answer to the origins of life. Which again has nothing to do with Evolution which is based wholly on Biogenesis and nothing else.

For a Definition of Panspermia:

If life has not existed in the cosmos since the beginning of time, then it must be possible for life to come from non-living materials.

This is where Abiogenesis come in.

As there is now the Law of Abiogenesis: Given the right conditions and catalysts Life Will Eventuate.

Not by any manner of need, nor purpose, but simply by the natural laws of Organic Chemistry.

I've already outlined the basic principles in my opening statement, though I will let the world's current leading researcher into Abiogenesis fill you in on the history and details.

For the most recent advances in Abiogenesis:

Check it out for yourself, it's very educational.

Item 2: Con States: “The laws of information science as worked out by Dr. Werner Gitt, in particular, demonstrate the logicality of accepting that all life had been created”

And then cites a pseudo-scientific creationist, Confirmation Biased Creationist site of as mentioned in my opening statement as evidence.

That is like stating Spiderman is real and citing a Spiderman fan site as evidence.

Of course they will try to make Werner Gitt's nonsense appear as real evidence when it is not.

I have Information Science credentials and I know that the modelling techniques used by Gitt leave a lot of room for errors and they conclude nothing like real evidence in any form.

Creationists using Werner Gitt's analytics have been debunked several times easily:

Here are some reports on the debunking of Werner Gitt.

Though I like this single line debunking of the stupid Gitt.

Since Gitt has gotten Shannon backwards, his writing is completely scrambled and confused.

More fun debunking Young Earth Creationist Nonsense

Con's other items bear little evidence for a Young Earth.

Scientists know that the magnetic fields decay and may switch poles and then go through the cycle all over again, so magnetic field decay has possibly happened prior to the switching of the Earth's magnetic poles are shifting all the time according to NASA:

So to try and use such changes as proof of a Young Earth is ludicrous indeed.

Though Young Earth Creationists will stop at nothing and tell massive lies to make their nonsense believable.

Young Earth Creationists/ Intelligent Design Advocates, don't utilise Scientific Data, they Obfuscate it to make it appear to support their stupid claims, especially when it does not.

Item 3: Con concludes: “Natural selection, as already stated, only works to select from existing genetic code. The reason a dog cannot evolve back into a wolf by itself is that the genome has lost information in the evolution from wolf to dog”

Not altogether true, in fact the Wolf to Dog scenario is not natural selection, but Unnatural selection as Darwin mentioned many times in his “Origin Of Species”.

Though it appears that in many cases of Natural Selection, such as from Dinosaur to Bird, the entire genetic material to produce a dinosaur still exists within the bird's genetics.

In many cases Genes are not lost or replaced, but have been simply switched off by Natural Selection or Adapted for a different Use by Natural Selection.

Such as the dinosaur's arms are now wings, by extending them and covering them with feathers instead of scales.

Yet, the genetics for the original arms and scales are according to research still there.

Even the genetics for the dinosaur teeth and long tails still exist in chicken embryos.

These Genes are simply turned off as Natural Selection has by their activities and habits, determined them as not useful for survival.

The long tails would certainly make their flying and perching activities more difficult.

I've included here the five part documentary on the research being conducted to devolve an Ostrich back into a Velociraptor, which they now consider very possible and probable in the next 50 years.

Oh: BTW On the Earth being no older than 6 to 10 thousand years.

The mountains (ha ha Mountains) of evidence against such nonsense is high indeed and the evidence includes Mountains themselves.

Other evidence includes:

Continental drift

Fossil areas across landmasses.

Based on the continuity of fossil deposits and other geological formations between the South American and African tectonic plates, there is much evidence that at some point in history the two continents were part of the same landmass. Because tectonic drift is an incredibly slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years. With modern technology, this can be accurately quantified. Satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year (roughly the speed of fingernail growth), which means that for these diverging continents to have been together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.[6]


Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and grow upon the residues of their calcareous remains. These corals and residues gradually become structures known as coral reefs. This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger reefs have been "growing" for hundreds of thousands of years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years, and that coral reef structures have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for at least 600,000 years.[7] “


There is much more there in the way of Evidence.

Even the lack of DNA in most fossils is evidence against a 6,000 year old earth, since DNA material can remain intact in buried bones for many thousands of years and the fossilization process is a very slow process, so DNA material should exist in most fossils not just the extremely rare one that happened to be buried quickly under the right conditions.

Thanks to Con for initiating this Debate.

I wish you all the best in your future endeavours!

Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre should not be a Young Earth Creationist supporter as he states he is a Catholic and the Catholic church is anti-YEC.
So he's going against his own religion.

His vote more like a dummy spit!

RFD backs that up!
Tch Tch!
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Takes too long to work up the number of comments!
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Looks like GarretKadeDupe has spat the dummy and is vote bombing against Moi!
Tsk Tsk.
BTW: Idiotic RFD!
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Thanks CreationTruth:
Don't work too hard and have lots of fun M8!

2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 2 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: For the name calling, Pro gets conduct. Pro gets argument points because he put upper limits on the age of the Earth that made Con's Evolutionary Timescale implausible. Pro's Law of Biogenesis argument was very powerful in making his point that God created life and that we've never seen life arise spontaneously. Con's rebuttals to this point were very weak and frankly bizzare. Using Con's logic, it's an argument from ignorance to assume the laws of physics can't be broken. Con loses S&G points for his awkward capitalization of random words. Con also falsely claimed Evolution has nothing to do with Geology or a 4.5 billion year earth. Apparently Con doesn't understand his own position very well. Pro gets reliable sources for citing and its scientific journal because the information is very well researched and written plainly while admitting all assumptions made right off the bat, unlike Con's sources which give a false sense of objectivity.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was a mess, and it made my head hurt to try to follow it. Conduct to CON for the forfeit.