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

Evolution or Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 10/25/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 670 times Debate No: 81502
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (1)




Creationism is right. You look around at this world and all the small details of it and it has to have been created by some Creator. This couldn't have just happened out of a bang. If natural selection was true, Eskimos would have fur and be hairy to keep warm, but they don't. They are as hairless as everybody else. If natural selection was true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have dark skin, which the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.


The ideology you believe is called intelligent design, in the 20th century, it was banned in some teachings of the school, because the law requires that religious teachings must not be taught in school. The reason was that intelligent design was like the bible and how god created man. However, in the modern times, hard evidence, fossils have proven, that humans did evolve. Since you think that the big bang created humans, you are wrong, the big bang happened, earth it took billions of years to form and have life. Now here is the tricky part. The misconception that you have is that life animals appeared instantly. However, that is false. At first, it started out as bacteria, cells, and small organisms. Then, in a long time, more complex cells are created by the making up of normal cells. Lastly, the cells create complex organism aka. animals, humans, life. Now if you are in a class room, you start from one end to another. Get a piece of hair and put it at the end. It was theorist that is how long life existed on earth. So you think about it, if that is how humans started, then how long did it take to form animals, cells, and life.

Now onto my arguments. Natural selection doesn't happen instantly, it happens bit by bit. however, by theory, the reason why we don't have the traits like you say above, is because humans are all the same, the differences like our faces to our body is called genetic mutation. That makes up how we look different and how some people are nicer to another.

Secondly, if your idea of creationism is true, then how did that "Creator" get created? Please elaborate more on it.

Lastly, humans are adaptive, it is our nature to adapt. if you put a human in a freezing environment, they would kill animals and use it's fur to keep warm.

In the end, vote for my side. and Please Elaborate
Debate Round No. 1


I will elaborate more this time.

The Creator was always there. He has no beginning and no end. He is. There is proof that he exists that couldn't have just come into existence. For instance:

The earth's size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mainly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the surface of the Earth. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter does. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life and all of that doesn't just come out of bang. The Earth is also located the perfect distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, from -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a tiny variance in the Earth's position to the sun--even a fraction of an inch--would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of almost 67,000 mph. It also rotates on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day. A huge bang could not have designed all of that so perfectly.

The human brain. It simultaneously processes an amazing amount of info. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and the movement of the muscles in your hands. The human brain processes more than a million messages a second. Your brain decides the importance of all this data, filtering out the unimportant. This is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in the world. The brain works differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people. How did this come from bacteria, cells, and organisms? How did their tiny brains--if they even had them--"evolve" into this complex organ?

If the Creator had to come from somewhere, where did the Bang come from?

Lots of things in life can seem uncertain but there are some things that remain constant: gravity, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter gets cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours every day, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in other galaxies far from us. How is it that those never change if natural selection and the evolving of things happen?

Those are all arguments against the theory that the Creator does not exist and natural selection and the evolving of organisms.

In school, it is true kids are taught that life can evolve if it is given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. Do you have any scientific support supporting that statement?

What are the odds that a one simple cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never! Time does not make impossible things possible.

There are certain animals that prove Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection wrong. His theory is that millions of generations later the changes in animals will result in new species. The idea of natural selection sounds great when you think about deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the "evolutionary tree" have many flaws.

One of the best examples that evolution is not real is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. Can you answer it? The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. A bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Evolutionists say birds grew hollow bones for less weight in order to fly. How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations to come in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution: the natural selection.

So please vote for my side and please answer my questions.


In the 20th century, a guy name Charles Darwin boarded a ship named the Beagle sailed around the world. Charles Darwin stopped at the Galapagos Islands and saw that each finch their had different beaks and he studied it more closely, he noticed that the beaks were adapted to the types of food. This along with many other studies shows that evolution is possible. If you say that their is no proof, than you argue with thousands of scientists of the last century, modern scientist, and most of all modernity. The technology we have today, the ideology we believe in, it was all because of modernity. If you don't believe in evolution, than you are clearly a traditionalist. From, their, I can't argue because modernity and traditionalism (alongside fundamentalist) are different ideology and I can't force you to believe in my ideas. Off topic, but on to my refutes.

On your argument that earth is perfect. According to NASA, earth did shift, and yet we are still here. The bi product is the Sahara desert in Africa. So your argument is void, earth is not stay in the same orbit. For temperature, the earth as a thin layer of ozone, therefore, making living possible. Lastly, A huge bang, took years, decades probably in order to form planets, and who say's earth is perfect. If it was perfect, it will be flat, the temperature would still be cool, and all these natural disasters wouldn't be happening. Therefore, Earth is not perfect.

Like I said, the temperature made life possible, cells appeared like how bacteria appears when the temp is right. Therefore, when cells appeared, they were possibly grouped together to form cell colonies. Later, The cell colonies started to form organs, and------etc Won't continue, the human body takes weeks to explain, not in two days.

Lastly, for the wing stub, this was through the work of genetic mutation they keep the favorable genes, and destroy the useless ones, or keep it but with no use.

Now I have one question for you.

Why do you think that the brain is because of creationism, the brain, has been formed billions of years ago, and through genetic mutations, it got better, improved to have humans to adapt. And like I said, billions of years to start forming, don't you think that was enough time?


Michael Egnor is a neurosurgeon at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. In an article on this site, "A Neurosurgeon, Not A Darwinist," he claims that the theory of evolution is bogus.

After studying Darwinism, Egnor apparently discovered that "claims of evolutionary biologists go wildly beyond the evidence." Indeed, he says, the only way complex biological systems such as biochemical pathways could have arisen is via direct divine intervention. Egnor concludes that "Darwinism itself is a religious creed that masquerades as science"""atheism"s creation myth."

While Egnor"s misguided attack on evolution tells us nothing about the truth of Darwinism, it does prove one thing: Doctors aren"t necessarily scientists. Some, like Egnor, seem completely unable to evaluate evidence. Why does he so readily dismiss a theory that has been universally accepted by scientists for over a century?

Apparently because a rather old book, Michael Denton"s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, first published in 1985, convinced him that evolutionary theory was underlain by very weak evidence. If Egnor had bothered to look just a little into Denton"s book and its current standing, he would have learned that the arguments in it have long since been firmly refuted by scientists. Indeed, they were recanted by Denton himself in a later book more than 10 years ago.

Since Egnor is decades out of date and shows no sign of knowing anything at all about evolutionary biology in the 21st century, one wonders what could have inspired his declaration at this time.

The tenets of evolutionary theory are simple: Life evolved, largely under the influence of natural selection; this evolution took a rather long time; and species alive and dead can be organized on the basis of shared similarities into a tree whose branching pattern implies that every pair of living species has a common ancestor.

Among genuine scientists, there is not the slightest doubt about the truth of these ideas. In contrast to Egnor"s claim, the evidence for all of them is not only strong but copious"so much so that evolution has graduated from a scientific theory to a scientific fact.

Let"s examine Egnor"s main criticism of evolutionary theory. "The fossil record," he writes, "shows sharp discontinuity between species, not the gradual transitions that Darwinism inherently predicts."

This is sheer nonsense. As all biologists know, we have many examples not only of gradual change within species but also of "transitional forms" between very different kinds of species. These include fossil links between fish and amphibians, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals and, of course, the famous fossils linking apelike creatures with our own species, Homo sapiens. Does Egnor not know this, or is he simply trying to mislead the reader?

Another specious claim is his assertion that "Darwin"s theory offers no coherent, evidence-based explanation for the evolution of even a single molecular pathway from primordial components." Nonsense"even the complicated pathway of blood clotting (an example much favored by creationists) is the subject of coherent, evidenced-based explanations.

Egnor also declares that "intricate biomolecules such as enzymes are so functionally complex that it"s difficult to see how they could arise by random mutations." He is right here: such complex adaptations could not have arisen under the power of random mutation alone.

What he seems to have forgotten is the process of natural selection, which filters those mutations, preserving the good ones and eliminating the bad ones. It is the combination of mutation and the selection filter that produces the extraordinary instances of adaptation we can document in nature. Bacteria, for example, evolved brand-new enzymes to break down nylon"an artificial polymer that was never encountered by bacteria before 1930.

How does Egnor account for the natural world? He does not, in fact, offer a scientific theory. Rather, he subscribes to the creationist view that complex things, which are difficult to explain, are the domain of God. If we don"t understand something, there"s no point trying to understand it"we should just throw up our hands and say, "God did it."

Imagine what would have happened if, over the history of science, we imputed to God"s hand everything we didn"t understand. We would never have cured the plague, which"like most diseases and disasters"was once thought to reflect God"s anger rather than bacteria-carrying fleas. "Barrenness" in women was thought to reflect divine displeasure; it is now treated effectively by scientific means, not by propitiating the gods.

There are no observations in nature that refute Darwinism, but there are plenty that refute Egnor"s creationist alternative. How does he explain the persistence of "dead genes" in species (like our own broken one for making vitamin C)"genes that were functional in our ancestors? What explains those annoying hominin fossils that span the gap from early apelike creatures to modern humans? Why do human fetuses produce a coat of hair after six months in the womb, and then shed it before birth? Why didn"t the creator stock oceanic islands with mammals, reptiles and amphibians? Why did He give us vestigial ear muscles that have no function? Why do whales occasionally sprout hind legs? Did God design all creatures to fool us into thinking that they evolved?

In the End, this article proves that why creationism might not be real. Vote For the Modern Side

BTW, arguments that have been proven wrong will not work, and so will the ones that contradict common sense will nott work either

Debate Round No. 2


First off, I'd like to say that you are trying to influence people by saying "Vote for the Modern side" "VOTE FOR ME FOR MODERNITY". That has nothing to do with this. There is no "old-fashioned" theory.

Second, you didn't answer my question "If the Creator had to come from somewhere, where did the Bang come from?"

Now to my arguments.

An evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This statement is devoid of reason, logic, and scientific proof. You will line up pictures of similar-looking species and then say they evolved one from another. The human "family tree" is an example of this incorrect theory. Petrified skulls and bones exist from hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. When you make those lines you line up the most promising choices to present a small progression from monkey to modern man. When there are gaps they fill those in with make-believe creatures to fit the picture.

You will find a new species of extinct monkey buried in the ground somewhere and say "look, it is the missing link". A newly discovered extinct species does not prove a "missing link" has been found. Darwin admitted that fossils of the links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." These transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species.

You try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be fake. Darwin hoped that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.

There is a certain fish: the Coelacanth fish. It was supposed to be in a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to come onto land. When it was caught in December 1938 people thought it proved evolution correct. It did not. It did not have half-formed legs or primitive lungs. It was simply a regular fish that people thought was extinct. You claimed the 350 million-year-old Coelacanth evolved into animals with legs, feet, and lungs. It did not. We see that the fish recently caught is exactly like the 350 million-year-old fossil. It has not evolved at all. You say evolution happens slowly; 350 million years is a long time. It should have "evolved" by now. After 350 million years it still does not have a leg to stand on.

Here is another argument:

Scientists about a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that maybe lightning hit a pond of water, which caused several molecules to combine in a random way, which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create one single left-hand protein molecule that's found in all animals. The Theory of Evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible. The best scientists in the world with nearly unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell.

When asked about the origin of matter you just throw up their hands because you know something cannot evolve from nothing. You stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang Theory" doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere. Please answer this argument Con.

Now I think my biggest piece of evidence is Genesis 1:1

In the beginning GOD CREATED the heavens and the earth.

The FIRST VERSE in the Bible proves evolution wrong and creationism right. It says, 3 words into the Bible that GOD CREATED the heavens and the earth.

BTW none of my arguments contradict common sense. In fact, they support it. That's the whole point of this debate.




First of all, just because the bible says it doesn't mean it is true. For example, the day that the bible predicted the earth to die based on the belief of Christian Eschatology. That proves that the bible is not a good source of info. Also, the book on evolution is updated, to the latest research, it is not left as it is. Secondly, religion was made to create hope back than, not to use as a research tool today. Lastly, just because humans can't explain it, they would just say, " God Did It." For example, if we still believed in a divine force, people would be dying, because of plagues and viruses, natural disasters everyday because people will believe that it was god's wrath. Like SciGuy said,"Did God create man, or did man create god?'

Secondly, humans have not reached their full potential, that means that there is no way to complete the evolution tree until later in the future. The theory is that if you choose to animals, and go way back in time, you would find a common ancestor. Another thing is that scientist, cannot make things up and have it published, they need to prove it with real facts and evidence in order to prove it. Lastly, for the make up creature, you are saying that in science you should not imagine things, you should not go out of the box, and you should not let your curiosity run wild. If that's the case, why don't you go back to when apes lived, and humans had no resources. If humans didn't have creativity, than how would they invent tools that helped keep them alive, the computers, laptops we have today will not be possible.

Again, I did not mention the fish, but the missing links have not been discovered yet . So you cannot prove it is wrong because you cannot predict the future.

Next, laboratories do not have infinite resources, if they did, than why can't we develop cures for deseiases, solve global warming,bring back extinct animals through DNA, The money that goes in to that project is critically low so that is why it would take so long

Now I would like to repeat,the misconception that you have is that life animals appeared instantly. However, that is false. At first, it started out as bacteria, cells, and small organisms. Then, in a long time, more complex cells are created by the making up of normal cells. Lastly, the cells create complex organism aka. animals, humans, life. Now if you are in a class room, you start from one end to another. Get a piece of hair and put it at the end. It was theorist that is how long life existed on earth. So you think about it, if that is how humans started, then how long did it take to form animals, cells, and life.

Now onto my arguments. Natural selection doesn't happen instantly, it happens bit by bit. however, by theory, the reason why we don't have the traits like you say above, is because humans are all the same, the differences like our faces to our body is called genetic mutation. That makes up how we look different and how some people are nicer to another.

In the end, their was a reason why religion teachings are banned in schools, why natural selection happens slowly, and lastly, about how you cannot predict the future of the chart. Evolution is modernity, today, Creationism, intelligent design is for traditionalists, fundamentalist, and people who strictly believe in religion

Vote For Modernity
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 12 months ago
>Reported vote: Sciguy// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con and Pro were reasonable in this debate, however they both made a convincing argument (cons was more reasonable however) though if you think that the bible is a "reliable source" then pro had that.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter does need to actually point to arguments made in the debate rather than nebulously stating that one side was more reasonable, especially if both sides are viewed as convincing.
Posted by Sciguy 1 year ago
Without a doubt Den Jackson. I am not saying that the Bible is not the word of JEHOVAH however you cannot use it as a reliable source. The more you disagree with the scientific community and not agree with scientists the more you prove yourself to be a Fundamentalists.
Posted by DenJackson 1 year ago
So if the Bible was true (which it is) I would win?
Posted by Sciguy 1 year ago
Your votes were only reasonable so long as the bible is reasonable.
Posted by DenJackson 1 year ago
Sciguy, all of my arguments were perfectly reasonable
Posted by rpopcorn6 1 year ago
Come on guys vote plz
Posted by Sciguy 1 year ago
Yeah, and meteorites were giant flying saucers in the sky to the Aztecs. Do you see how ludicrus it all sounds?! I am a Methodist but dear me.
Posted by DenJackson 1 year ago
Sciguy, the Bible is true. It is not hocus pocus it is the truth. God showed the men what to write and they wrote it down. If God himself created the Bible, how can it be false? And saying that Genesis 1:1 is a lie is saying the whole Bible is a lie, which is a lie.
Posted by Sciguy 1 year ago
Religion is just something, though I am a Methodist, that man created to further assert their power in both the primitive and modern world. Religion is only something that was being interpreted by humans who could not fully grasp the knowledge of their present world, hence the creation of the bible, Koran, etc. So Pro, your, "evidence" is mere hocus pocus and is just opinions and exaggerations that were thought of by some thirty men thousands of years ago with nearly 2000 denominations to choose from.
Posted by Sciguy 1 year ago
Pro, he did not answer,"where did the creator come from and where did the big bang come from" because I already did in a way.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Greg4586 1 year 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It's a little hard to judge this debate because neither of you offered any proof to support your side. Also, Pro you made a big mistake this whole debate. The entire time you put yourself on the defensive. You only argued for evolution was flawed but didn't really put forwards any real evidence about why creationism is real. Sure you said that the world is perfect which is evidence, but as Con stated the world is not perfect. Then you bring up that because the laws of physics do not change evolution is false, this is pretty incoherent because nowhere in the theory of evolution does it state that it changes physics. Onto pro, you did a decent job, but I would have brought up more evidence. It would have basically collapsed Con's argument because he mostly argued that we don't have transitional species. Which isn't exactly true, so without proof it is kind of hard to buy Pro's argument