The Instigator
Pro (for)
17 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Evolution vs Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 5 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,495 times Debate No: 37627
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (91)
Votes (5)




Evolution is a fact. It explains how living species came to be from pre-existing species without the need of any supernatural phenomena. Enormous amount of evidence, from geological timescale, fossil record to molecular genetics points toward this one fact. Despite all evidence, religious people, blinded by their faith, continue to believe creationism, and mislead younger generations pushing them away from reason and science.


You state that evolution is a fact, yet the only fact about evolution is the fact that it remains a theory for a variety of reasons. The theory of evolution has many flaws, first in order for this theory to be accurate it would require a sequence of events that are not only highly improbable but virtually impossible. There is no empirical evidence suggesting that inanimate matter came into existence and developed into highly complex organisms. There is also no evidence to support the billions of transitional records required to support how these inanimate blobs of atoms became fully evolved, living, breathing, human beings.

The theory of evolution begins after the creation of the Earth, which makes this theory even more complex and irrational. In order for the Earth to come into existence to support these blobs that formed into highly complex living beings, the Big Bang had to occur. The Big Bang had to defy the laws of thermodynamics in that it required an enormous force of energy to take place. Remember thermodynamics states that "energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed" so what was required to support all life had to have been "is, was and always will be."
Debate Round No. 1


Of course evolution is a theory, so is gravity, magnetic force fields, quantum mechanics etc. In fact, all science is theories. Science is a physical module, developed by mankind to understand the way of universe. It is the absolute truth, closest to the reality. Some parts of it proven wrong, eventually, but new modules are develop to replace the old ones. Why do you think, Scientist from different countries, different disciplines unanimously agree that evolution is a fact? In order to a theory to be accurate, it requires evidence, not fairy tales.

Evolution isn't a random event. It is absurd to say evolution is random and you are basically expressing your lack of knowledge about the subject itself. It's an event that take place over billions of years with 'selective probability'. Evolution itself doesn't explain the origin of the first organism, but it explains how new species are arrived from pre-existing species, through gradual change with time. This theory supported by evidence directly contradict with teaching of old scripture like Bible or the Quran, because they point out that all living species was created individually by a supernatural force, which is even more improbable to begin with.

Irrational to you doesn't mean it's irrational to everybody else. In fact it's not irrational at all. Yes, the theory is complex, isn't as easy as creationism. It requires a basic understanding of science. I think you are gravitating away from the main subject here, which is evolution, not Big Bang or the origin of Earth, But since you made a point there, I would like to give you an answer.

Agree, the laws of thermodynamics state "energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed" but that's only applicable to a closed system. Universe, isn't a closed system. Next time, if you are making a point, please quote the full statement or a law, don't just state a part of it to make your point.

Even though evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of life itself, But again, since you have made a point, i'd like to answer it. Origin of life is well explained by Alexander Oparin's Biochemical origin of life. According to his theory, it explains how raw elements required to initiate life, were already available within earth's early environment, especially within primordial soup. Lipids, as they always does, form into little 'blobs' as you like to call them, these are now known as cell surface membranes. The origin of the first replicating nucleotide is unknown, but it is pretty obvious that it was formed in the same way the rest of the life molecules are formed. This self-replicating nucleotides are covered by the lipid membranes, and this gives rise to the earliest types of anaerobic cellular organisms. Although i've stated it briefly, I recommend you to read more about this, which will give you a full understanding about the theory of biochemical origin.

So far your argument is directed toward evolution, which is one side of the argument. What evidence that you have to claim that creationism is the perfect explanation to origin of life? I must stress the point, that any literacy or scripture like the Bible or the Quran wouldn't testify solid proof evidence within scientific community. If you intend to, It is like claiming harry potter is real, by showing evidence from his book.

If you don't mind, watch the attached video, which shows some evidence of evolution, from the fossil record


I am approaching this debate using science to disprove a lack of science. I have studied science for many years, I was a student of natural resources, forestry, biology, animal and plant science, so your accusations are invalid. I have a good grasp of both creation and science of which I believe coincide more then they contradict one another. Firstly I would like to once again open by stating that there are absolutely no fossil records to support a transitional period of evolution. I hope you can address this in the next debate session.

I would like to touch on dating systems as well as scientific laws, all of which can be used to disprove evolution as a factual science. The radiometric methods which are used to date the age of the earth, strata and fossil records are extremely questionable. The particular methods used are not in any way absolute, mainly because the rates fluctuate , and more often then not the methods used to date geological stratum fail to produce similar dates. In fact the dates can be off by literally hundreds of millions of years. This system of dating cannot give an accurate age of the earth which is required to prove the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution must fulfill the time requirement in order for this theory to ever be taken as factual and the dating methods are so varied that one cannot give an absolute on this matter.

Due to the use and application of modern science in relation to dating methods we now have a better grasp on previous dating methods and thus the theory of evolution has been put through the blender. Carbon-14 has also been found to be a terrible dating source. Carbon 14 only has a lifespan into the thousands of years and therefore cannot adequately estimate the age of rocks and fossils that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old. In order for the theory of evolution to be remotely plausible it must fulfill an extremely old earth crieria. There is also new evidence from the University of Montana which indicates that red blood cells have been extracted from within preserved soft tissue of a T Rex leg bone. The life span of red blood cells is also only in the thousands of years.

How can science prove something that contradicts science? There are a host of guidelines, applications and laws that a theory must follow in order to even be considered as factual. The theory of evolution breaks two significant laws and therefore should be deemed as a shameful representative of science. This theory fails to provide the evidence required to ever be taught as factual. The first law the theory of evolution breaks is Bio genesis.

Bio genesis is a law that specifically deals with the production of living organisms. This law specifically states that living organisms can only come from other living organisms in a process known as reproduction. The law of bio genesis completely contradicts the idea that life could arise from inanimate matter as suggested by a spontaneous generation theory. This law has been through the ringer and thus the applications have proven it to be a factual law of science, unlike abiogenesis which is a contradictory hypothesis to other laws of science.

Secondly, we have the laws of Thermodynamics which also contradict both evolution and a big bang theory. The first law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but that it can be transferred from one form to another. In my previous post you replied to this issue by suggesting this only applies to a closed system. I would like you to state scientific proof that supports the theory of an open system. I cannot fathom the idea of so many flaws, especially flaws that do not bear the burden of proof.

Like I have stated before, there is no evidence supporting that any new creation has arisen from simple matter to highly complex organization, which brings me to the Second law of Thermodynamics. This law states that all forms of usable energy in the Universe break down in time. You cannot get order out of chaos. There has never been one case in history where something has come more orderly, in fact it is just the opposite. The effects of usable energy decaying through time are evident in all forms of living and non living objects. Humans age, decay, and fall apart. Please give me one example of something orderly that has come out of chaos spontaneously. If we left the destruction o Katrina as is, would we eventually get a functional city? The answer is absolutely No, because order does not come from chaos.
Debate Round No. 2


First of all, disproving Evolution doesn't mean it automatically prove Creationism. It's easy as that. In order to prove creationism, you need evidence to start off with, which none of you seems to have. Unlike you, if evidence came along, I would consider to change my mind. For example let's say evidence did turn up, then I would believe the life was created. That's what scientist do. We change our minds when new evidence come along. We don't fix ourselves into single perspective. Scientific philosophy does not come from a book, it comes from a mixture of scientific opinion, which is questioned and debated, over generations of people. Scientists are certain about evolution, to the same degree historians certain about the existence of Napoleon. I'm surprised that a biology student not being able to grasp the theory of evolution, as you've made some bold statements about it. It is a common misconception, often used by theist to disprove evolution. Evolution is not random. How can you say Creationism and Evolution coincide? It's obviously contradict each other in so many levels. Biblical creationism claims that all life forms on earth was created within six days, 6000 years ago. Evolution supported by evidence claims all life forms were evolved from pre-existing species over a time period of 3.5 Billion years, not created by any supernatural force. How is this not contradicting? What we have here is two theories. It would be completely unscientific to think that both theories explain this phenomena, given that there's enormous amount of evidence on one side, and absolutely no evidence on the other.

There's lots of transitional fossils which support a transitional period of evolution. So many, It would take even more than thousand words if I tried to explain it all here. I've attached a link[1] down below if you insist to know more about these transitional states. But since you've asked I would give you one example. It is evolution of whales. There's a picture[2] I've attached below which is one example of transitional states of evolution. I find evolution of the whale amazing. The idea that life could migrate habitat from land to water over time, is kinda amazing, at least to me it is. The fossils of Pakicetus to the fossils of Balaena to bones of modern whales, it is a perfect example of evolution over transitional stages. I would also like to point out a fun fact there. Note that modern whales have reduced form of hind limbs and pelvic girdle. This is one of the left overs of mammalian endoskeleton. This part is completely useless for the animal. But it is there, just to show that they are descendants of other mammals in the animal kingdom. If the whale was designed by a superior being, I wonder why he does such a clumsy job.

Carbon 14 isn't the only dating system we have come across for dating fossils. In fact there's a whole list[3] of radiometric dating techniques. Argon-Argon, Fission track dating helium, iodine-xenon, Lanthanum-Barium, lead-lead, Lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, optically simulated luminescence, Potassium-Argon, Rhenium-osmium and countless others. All these techniques points toward same time period within " 100 years of error margin. In fact all these techniques show, that the oldest rock we have found from the earth, is over 4.54 " 0.04 Billion years.
Yes, all radioactive decays are 1st degree exponential curves, rates obviously fluctuate, the error caused by these fluctuations are insignificant, compared to billions of years. Agree, all does not point at the same single date, but the dates they all pointing falls into same period of history, period of the error margin. Again, the theory of evolution doesn't require age of the earth, in fact there has been no life on earth for the first billion years. And you are also correct, no one can give an absolute date, scientist don't give an absolute age of the earth. These values are extremely dynamic, for example if we find even an older rock, these values are obviously wrong. But we are absolutely certain that Earth is more than 4.5 Billion years old. This prove claims like 'Earth is 6000 years old' are wrong with absolute certainty.

Reading your passage about Carbon-14 radiometric technique, gives me the impression that you have no idea how it is done. Let me educate you, in a polite way. Yes, the half-life of Carbon-14 does falls in thousands of year range (to be more precise it's 5,730"40 years). This is the least count of measure. Least count is the minimum measurement that can be taken from any scale. This 5,730 year range is the least count.
Think of it in this way, take a standard meter ruler calibrated in centimetres. You can see the meter is divided into hundred, and again each centimetre is divided to ten. Therefore the least count of the meter ruler is 1 millimetre. This one millimetre is equivalent to 5,730 years in Carbon-14 scale. Although the least count limit to 5000 years or so, doesn't mean it can only measure 5000 years. I hope this explanation educate you about the dating mechanism to some extent.

You claimed some evidence of red blood cells in a Tyrannosaurus bone, which is obvious because blood cells are produced by the red bone marrow of long bones and destroyed in the spleen, as a biology student you already know this. The life span of red blood cells change from species to species, in humans it is around 100-120 days. I'm little unclear about your point there, I don't know how it would even remotely disprove evolution. But If it is science, please provide a genuine source.

Science always tries to prove anything that contradict it. That's how new science is born. If a new phenomena disprove the old phenomena, science builds new modules to explain the new phenomena. That is Science. No, Theories follows guidelines because they are factual, not the other way around. Scientific method starts form observation of evidence, not by theories. I have to say, your approach to scientific method is completely reverse. Theory of evolution doesn't have any laws, I'm pretty sure it does not. Theory of evolution has overwhelming amount of evidence, only thing lacking here is your open mindedness to look it these evidence, which make you a shameful representative of science yourself. Again, Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, I don't know why you are repeating this, but i've given world scientific view on it, on the previous argument.

Laws of thermodynamics are formulated for isolated systems, by definition[4]. Prove me wrong. And the big bang itself is defined within the physical framework, so it can't deny any physical laws because currently accepted module of the big bang is formulated using laws of thermodynamics and other physical quantities. Don't you think, even if there is a contradiction, scientist would have thought it through before claiming? Again, you are approaching these scientific ideology completely in the reverse order.

The property of disorder you are claiming in your last paragraph is called entropy (W10;S), which we study under thermodynamics. It is physical quantity of randomness. As the equation suggests (W10;G=W10;H - TW10;S) Yes, the universal entropy is increasing but in closed systems it could increase or decrease in same probability. When water freezes, its entropy reduce. When crystals are formed, its entropy is reduced. There you go, not one but two examples, order from disorder spontaneously.

I would like to stress this point, Disproving Evolution doesn't mean it automatically prove Creationism. So far, you have made no argument to prove that creationism is correct. Your train of arguments is only going in one direction. Shall we explore the world view according to creationism?



Facts are based on observations that have undergone rigorous and repeated confirmation. Yes, a theory is based on facts and evidence but it will typically be discarded if evidence suggests that the theory is wrong. The evidence of bio genesis and the laws of thermodynamics should be enough. While there may be some accuracy within a theory, once it breaks scientific law it should no longer remain a theory. Every single scientific theory has a mathematical formula except for evolution. Scientists have yet to create a theory because the theory cannot support one.

Even the most basic bacteria has about 500 genes, while we as human beings have well over 22,000. According to the theory of evolution, simple bacteria transformed into a much more complex being, but how can that be without adding a gene? The lack of a genetic mechanism in this theory proves to be difficult to overcome. A gene mutation can only change an existing gene it cannot add a new one and thus once again the theory fails.

As far as me stating that evolution and creation coincide, I didn't say that, I meant in my statement that science and the explanation of the earth and all life from a creationists standpoint can coincide. Science and creation coincide using the laws of bio genesis and thermodynamics. From a creationists perspective the Earth came to be by a force that is, was, and always will be. This coincides with thermodynamics because energy cannot be created or destroyed. Bio genesis states that life came from other life and while it doesn't solve how life got there it is in line with creationism because the Bible describes in detail the reproductive cycle or process in the book of Genesis.

Order cannot come from chaos as described in the second law of thermodynamics, but given that from a creationist perspective creation was a designed plan, in a particular order, by a force that is, was and always will be , the theory of creation does not step outside the boundary of the law. Creationism holds to the idea that the earth is relatively new, however the source of this idea is the Bible and it does not give a definitive answer to this question. We know the earth was created abruptly but we do not know how long Adam and Eve lived in the garden prior to sin.

I believe that there is plenty of evidence to support creation. The earth was placed in a mathematical position, just far enough away from the sun that it would not scorch us, and just close enough for it to support life through heat and light. The moon is also an example of intelligent creation. The placement of planets, the cycle of water, the circle of life, are all proof that this is not a random coincidence. Fossil records also support a creation theory, there are millions and millions of fossil records that appear abruptly. There are systematically occurring gaps within the fossil records of various living things and all of this points to an abrupt or sudden explosion of complex life forms.

Many fossil records exist that prove man walked with dinosaurs as described in the book of Job 40 . The Bible may not be a science book but it certainly coincides with science on so many levels. The book of Job 26:7 describes the earth as being suspended, keep in mind this was written long before this idea became widely distributed and accepted. The book of Ecclesiastes gives an accurate and very complete explanation of our atmospheric direction. And multiple books including Job: 36 27-29 describe in detail our hydrological cycle.

The Bible accurately describes the circulation of water in Job 26:8. The book of Isaiah gives a description of the earth describing it as a circle long before anybody suggested this . About 3,000 years prior to the discovery of hydrothermal vents, the Bible described it in detail, one such verse is found in Job: 38 which states "Have you entered the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?" How could of Job known the Ocean is spring fed? Lucky guess? We recently discovered that Oceans are in fact spring fed. These are just a few of dozens and dozens of verses that give scientific explanations and descriptions.
Debate Round No. 3


You are again using the reverse approach to scientific method here. We formulate theories after confirmation of the hypothesis through experiments drawn from the evidence. Not 'Formulate theory and then look into evidence'. Evidence can't suggest theory is wrong because evidence is the thing we drew the theory from. If you are unaware of what scientific method is, it consist of five sequential steps. First evidence based observation, then secondly questioning and debating which leads to the third, making hypothesis. Fourth is conducting experiments and making predictions and then we formulate theory. Then theory eventually becomes a law. These steps are in sequential order. You can't just skip a step, or go down a step. If you do, you are just being unscientific. The theory of evolution, wasn't drawn from old primitive and anonymous scripture like creationism. No, it was a result of repeated experiments on evidence, and these evidence are not just the fossils, a wide variety of evidence from geological time scale, to molecular genetics.

You've stated "Every single scientific theory has a mathematical formula except for evolution". Could this be any more wrong? Sorry to say this, but I was disappointed because this came from a biology student. This statement is absolutely obnoxious. No, there's no need of mathematical formulas to explain everything in science. Is there any mathematical formula to show how human conception occur? Is there any mathematical formula to show the theory of endosymbiosis? Does this mean human conception or endosymbiosis doesn't occur? You are learning biology. Is there mathematical equations to prove everything you learn in biology? Does human anatomy, photosynthesis, cellular respiration, bio diversity, excretion, skeletal systems, is there any mathematical functions to describe them all? Let me teach you something about science, Mathematics is the language of science, Mathematics is important to make 'predictions' based of physical variables. But evidence is more stronger than predictions. Because if the predictions are wrong, we can't just change the evidence, we change our theories to make our future predictions more accurate. Theory of evolution is here to stay. Scientific community is absolutely unanimously certain about this, and you can't change this fact. Your statement is also wrong to some extent because some parts of evolution does include some mathematical functions to decide gene flow through a population. I'm sure you have heard of "Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium" and "Drake's rule". These mathematical modules predict occurrence of dominant or recessive allele pairs down the generations and how the occurrence of some percentage mutations will cause the change in phenotype ratio, hence using this module, scientist are even able to calculate the time required to evolution of humans from any given species just using the data from molecular genetics and with some assumptions.

And about the bacteria gene argument, you've stated "Bacteria has about 500 genes, and humans are having over 22,000". "According to the theory of evolution, simple bacteria transformed into a much more complex being" I absolutely agree on that. And then you asked "how can that be without adding a gene?" If you just do the math, you could see that, from evolution of bacteria to human 21,500 genes are added (based on your numbers). It looks like your point just ate itself. "A gene mutation can only change an existing gene" this is true, but genes make other genes all the time, It's called DNA Replication, I'm sure you have heard of this too. There's a theory called 'Conjoined Genes' which perfectly explain how new genes are added to gene pool of a species and how it is regulated, as a biology student, you must have learned about this. Just because you don't know, doesn't mean the entire theory falls, it just means your understanding about the theory, collapses.

Since you've made the same point several times, The second law of thermodynamics is "In an isolated physical system, there is a tendency towards spatial homogeneity. In particular, when an isolated physical system reaches its own internal state of thermodynamic equilibrium" This is the most basic explanation, and this is a direct quote[1]. Again, I must stress the point 'isolated physical system' which the universe is not. if you are continuing to repeat the same point over and over, in this round or the next, I believe you have ran out 'evidence' to claim creationism.

Is there any evidence in bio-genesis? Biogenesis is defined as the production of new living organisms or organelles. Is this evidence for supernatural god? Does second law of thermodynamic specifically suggest that there is a supernatural god able to create life? Is there any logic to that conclusion? If you are answering these questions simply 'yes', then all I have to say is 'It is just illogical thinking' And also, please explain me how dinosaur fossils prove creationism?

Bible, nor the Quran doesn't teach us science. It just re-teaches us morals, which we had since the dawn of the mankind. The book of genesis never tried to explain anything in specific details because it can't. You can't just emphasise the occasional good verses from the bible ignoring all obviously wrong scientific errors in the bible. We are talking about the bible here. A book that says unicorns exist. A book that says the earth is flat. I assume you don't believe in either. You can't just cherry-pick only the correct ones from a book that contains many inaccuracy. One might say that bible is sometime not literal, for those, the only thing I have to say is they are just moulding what the bible says to prove their own argument. This is 21st century. And you are a smart person. How can a smart person believe in a talking snake, noah's ark, Jonah living in a whale. Are they any different from other fairytales you've heard. Don't you think when you were little if you were taught that jack and the beanstalk was religion, and Jonah living in a whale is fairytale, would you be defending Jack's story over Jonah's as the absolute truth? Bible doesn't say a word about dinosaurs, the job 40 actually refers to an rhinoceros, and you know that. Most religious people are actually smart, they know what is true and what is not, but some go to great lengths to defend such ridiculous irrational events as the absolute truth. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy the literature from the artistic view. It seems like i'm gravitating away from the main subject here.

You are using the 'fine tuning argument' which basically says everything earth has is very suitable to life, not too hot, not too cold, and somehow this translates as evidence of supernatural creator. I would like to approach your argument in this way. Let's assume there's infinite number of solar systems in the universe, from these solar systems lets say large number of them has a perfectly stable planetary system. For the sake of argument, let's say life did originated in each an every plant I've described above. So we have large number of stable planets orbiting around the sun, all are sustainable of life, and yet some of them are too close to the sun which is too hot, some of them so far away which is cold. The only life that survives in this way, is the life in the planets of not-so-cold-not-so-hot region. Isn't is the case for our own solar system? with the discovery of riverbeds and ancient dead bacterial colonies on mars which died out due to the planet being too hot. If you look at this holistically it's much like survival of the fittest in darwinian terms. Does this make us any special? Do we need a god to explain this natural phenomena? You can claim every thing in this world as proof for god, "look the mountains are proof, the moon is the proof" but is it really any proof at all?



The books of the Bible that I described previously, give reference to the circular earth that is suspended. Isaiah 40: 22, is one example of a round earth "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers" The book of Job 26:7 states "He stretcheth out the North over the empty place and hangeth the earth upon nothing" in verse 10 it states "He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end" Job 40 is in no way speaking of a Rhino or as some suggest a hippo, because it states that "He moveth his tail like a cedar" "Behold he drinkith up a river and hasteth not" This indicates he is huge and his tail is strong like a cedar, Rhinos do not have this power.

Job 41 discusses the Leviathan which is a beastly creature, so huge that he laughs at the swords and arrows that try to pierce him. The book describes his scales as mighty, fashioned so tightly that nothing can escape or pierce them. He is also described as a fire breathing creature. As far as Unicorns are concerned the Hebrew word for this is "Ream" which means "one horn" the word was translated into Unicorn, which also means Uni, or one. This does not actually mean a physical Unicorn but rather a one horned animal.

Let's suppose I had all of the evidence in the World to prove the existence of God and his son Jesus Christ, would you believe then? You believe in the theory of evolution, I believe that this world and all life were fashioned by intelligent design. You cannot prove anything beyond creation of life on earth, correct? Can you prove a Big Bang? Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth and all life was created in a random sequence of events? Where did the bacteria responsible for life come from? Where did what created that come from? Where did energy come from? How did nothing, which came from nothing, create everything?

Let's suppose, that you and I presented our evidence of creation and all living things to a court of law. As of right now we both have circumstantial evidence. There are many historical, fossil, and archaeological evidence pointing to the idea that the Bible is an accurate means of relevancy, to prove existence. Can you prove that you exist without using the testimony of another person? To disprove a creation theory, first you have to say that it is "impossible" for something to have designed the Universe and all living and non living beings? Can you do this and prove this beyond a reasonable doubt as if this were a court of law?

One thing to consider about Biblical records, is the testimony of other people, including people outside of the written accounts of the Bible. A court of law is not strictly evidence based, in fact the testimony of multiple people alone can convict someone. Since you and I both have evidence to prove our theories where else can we go? Here is a small list of some major Biblical excavation sites proving the Bible can be taken seriously as a historical document.

The Palace of Jericho, the east gate of shechem, the temple of Baal, the pools of Gibeon and Hishbon, the Royal palace at Samaria, the major water tunnels beneath Jerusalem, Jacobs well, the Royal palace of Babylon and Herod's place. All of these places were described in Biblical documentation, all of these places have been found and excavated by archaeologists. One major discovery was the Capitol of the Hittites. Keep in mind the Hittites were always considered a Biblical fairytale people. We now know these people existed and we also discovered well documented records of this people.

the great flood can be found through many outside records. In fact the Eleventh tablet of Gilgamesh Epic, speaks about a great flood where animals were taken on a huge ark. There are 277 documented flood cases found on every single continent and in these records, 88% speak of a favored family who survives, 70% speak of a huge boat and 67% speak about animals being taken on this boat.

When it comes to outside sources describing Jesus and early Christians, there are a tremendous amount of records. Roman historian Tacitus documented the cruxifiction of Christ, Pliny, who was a Roman governor of Bithynia wrote many letters to the emperor Trajan, regarding the proper legal proceedings for convicted early Christians. Josephus, was a first century Jewish historian, he wrote several clear and precise historically documented references to Christ in the Jewish antiquities.

I would have to write a book to give you all of the historical testimonies as well as the archaeological evidence that proves the Bible to be an accurate documentation of early mankind. Most scholars will not doubt that Jesus Christ existed, most scholars will in no way deny that this man along with his followers faced severe persecution. This persecution has not stopped and continues to this day. Did you know that around 90,000 or more Christians are killed annually? Why does one man named Jesus Christ have such an historical impact globally?

I would like to end, by asking you if once again you can prove that God doesn't exist? Can you prove that you exist without using the testimony of anyone other then yourself? Can you prove this to me with science and science alone? Can science prove that God doesn't exist? If not then would you also agree that the idea of creation is infect a plausible idea? The fact that there are so many widely available testimonies regarding Jesus Christ is enough to convince me. I am not really here to debate who is right or wrong. Evolution has many flaws, it has not convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt. If I were a juror in a court of law I would need evidence that cannot be disputed, I would also want witnesses and testimony before I could convict.
Debate Round No. 4


I can't believe how much you deviated from the main subject here. Your topic of debate was 'Creationism' not 'Bible accuracy'. You are thinking 'The bible was right about this and that, so this prove creationism is right'. No. Simply no. In fact, this kind of thinking is not encouraged by science at all. Your logic, 'to show that part of bible is right, so the whole book must be right' is simply wrong. These are just verses. They could mean anything you want them to mean. You could interpret the verse "upon the circle of the earth" as the earth is spherical, But I'm pretty sure a person who believe the earth is flat would interpret it as the earth is flat like a circle. You say it's a dinosaur, I say it's just a rhino (by the way, how did you concluded that it had a strong tail by that verse?) It is just the way you understand it. Bible is not teaching any science. And don't forget the bible wasn't originally written in english either. Who knows, maybe it was changed, because everything changes. If you look into the Quran, there's thousands of similar verses that one might think as science. Does that mean Allah is the god? Does that mean you are going to hell for not believing in Allah? You believe man was created using a rib, they believe man was created using mud, but are we really need that kind of primitive answer? Just admit it, the only reason you believe creationism is because the bible says god created you. You were taught that when you were young, and you never looked back. If you were born in middle east, you would say Allah created you. Religion is relative, Science is Absolute. We don't teach two versions of science in the world. Unlike religion, science doesn't require any authorities to keep accurate, because it is the reality. The false cannot survive in science. That's why we don't teach any superstition in science, because they are all false and not evidence based.

Yes, let's suppose you did put forward evidence of creationism (which you fail to do in all these rounds) You know what? If the evidence is stronger than the other side of the argument, Yes, I would definitely believe in creationism. Let me put it in this way "I'm open to anything for which there is evidence. Show me a god and I will believe in him. If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the halftime show of this Sunday"s Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, I'll think two things: first, "How dare he interrupt Madonna, she is going to be pissed." And two: "Oh look at that, I was wrong. There he is. My bad. Praise the lord!" This is a quote from Bill Mahar. Show me a god and I will believe it. All you are doing is taking the assumption that the bible is always correct, hence the creationism mentioned in the first chapter must be right. As I said before, to prove the book is correct, one should not read from the book. It is equivalent to me trying to prove Harry Potter is real, just by reading from his book. It's ridiculous.

Evolution is a fact. Scientist unanimously agrees. Why do you think that your book has a greater source of knowledge than the modern science? Knowledge built up on the shoulder's of others. There won't be an Einstein without a Newton. Scientists are complicated people. They think of evidenced based reality not scripture based superstition, and you calling them liars and deluded. Evolution is the truth. We even have modern applications of evolution. Why do you think we have to produce new types of vaccinations everyday? Why do we need to produce new types of insecticides, pesticides and herbicides everyday? It's because the pests evolve! They adapt and become new species! Evolution takes millions of years to happen, We can't see it because we don't live long enough. But theres few visible instances[1]. My last video suggest something very important, if you have watched it. It shows a collection of human like skeletons from a single valley. If god created us in the current form, we have a problem in terms of evidence, because evidence says that humans evolved. Before you deny the evidence, I kindly ask to look at that video on Round 2 and suggest me an alternative Biblical explanation. And yes, in the court of law, I'm pretty sure they are expecting evidence rather than testimonies, because anyone could lie. Evidence don't lie. Evidence isn't a reasonable doubt.

You are again repeating the same thing over and over, I'm pretty sure anyone who's gonna read your argument is going to find your argument is repeating the same point, and going off the topic. For the last time, Evolution doesn't explain how the Big band happen, or how the Earth happened, how energy is created, or how universe came from nothing[2], or how the life originated (although I already gave the modern scientific aspect of that in my previous arguments). And for the second time, Evolution isn't a random event, calling it random means you don't understand what evolution is.

By reading your passage about Bible, I think you don't understand what bible is. Bible is a collection of written accounts. It's a collection of gospels. Gospels writers never met Jesus or anyone in the bible, they are at least decades away from the reporting events. And there are many gospels left out of the bible too. In other words It's just a collection of books, and some events contradict other events, which is fine because it was written by people, normal people. They like to make things up, because that's what most writers do, they do fiction all the time. Even in the courts this happen, Some people even lie on the courtroom and still they pass as testimonies. Some events maybe correct, some may not. But it's just pure ignorance to think all the events actually happened, like the events noah's ark, which is laughable in 21st century. I doubt those numbers you are pulling because you have not mentioned any resource.

No, I didn't knew that many christians are killed annually, is that some proof of creationism, if not why bother to mention here at all. I do have the same question in mind, why did Jesus is the only one to be famous, while other persian gods, like Mithra, Horus and even Krishna has the same story of Jesus, born to a virgin, crucified, resurrected on the third day, and saviour of the mankind[3]. Those religions did died out.

No, I cannot disprove god, tooth fairies, bigfoot, flying spaghetti monster, Thor, Zeus and infinite number of imaginary things. You are the one claimed the existence of anything so the burden of proof is on you. But to some degree I can prove god doesn't exist because I have alternative theories supported by evidence. Yes, I can prove my own existence, even after my death by evidence of me, my physical body, well documented records and photographic evidence. Yes, I can prove my existence with science. Because science is based on observations and you can simply observe me.

I believe this is the last round of this debate, I apologise for going off the topic, I only did that because I tried to explain something you went off the topic. Opinions are opinions, But it is important that we teach our younger generations fact, not fiction. It is time to let those bronze age myths go. I don't know about you, but I like to live in the present, where there's plenty of evidence to the past. It's funny how we both are convinced about what we know is the correct version of the reality, It seems like you and me have different opinions but both cannot be true. Only one is right. Let it be then. My closing question would be, 'Do you want to believe? Or do you want to know?'

Thank you, may flying spaghetti monster bless you.

[1] Visible evolution
[2] Theres a book about 'A Universe from nothing by a physicist
[3] Similarity of jesus's story with others


I am repeating key points. First, you ask for me to state why I believe in creationism, then you say "You can't use the Bible" well I wasn't aware of the fact that you decide how someone should think, or what points they are allowed to cover. I wasn't always a Christian. I became a Christian in adulthood because it offers me hope and love. I never found this anywhere else and it means a great deal to me. Why does it enrage you so much that some people choose to believe in a creator? I don't understand this concept. You have not offered me any substantial proof, that could even remotely make me believe in the evolution conspiracy.

I asked you if you could prove your existence without testimony, using science and science alone. You cannot even prove you exist. In the end what does it matter? One of us is right, either it came to be from nothing, that created something, which created everything by chance, or it came to be by intelligent design, something far beyond our capability of knowledge. You dismiss every ounce of data that exists proving that a creation theory is highly plausible and significantly probable. Atheists tend to be just as shallow thinking and narrow minded as many Christians.

I can understand if you were well studied in other subjects outside of science, but that doesn't appear to be the case. You say you would believe if enough evidence was presented. I find it rather lazy on your part that you do not study outside the box you have put yourself in. You dismiss everything and expect that a person could present literally thousands of pages worth of data proving the existence of a creator on a 5 session debate forum. Does that sound logical?

I would suggest that you study outside of science, perhaps you will find an exciting new world of history and geography. I find that many atheists just puppet what other atheist say, the vast majority do not think for themselves. I find this to be a rather sad life. I find that many are knowlegable when it comes to science, but most know very little outside of that, or shall I say outside of what they have absorbed from other big name atheists like Dawkins.
Debate Round No. 5
91 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Scouters 2 weeks ago
To Jaserelijah. This has given my lots of information and thank you for being part of this debate. I really like how you said that science and religion can go hand in hand and don"t have to contradict themselves. I personally am a Mormon and I belive in a mix of evolution and divine creation. Like I said before I am a Mormon and not everyone in my religion belive the same thing as I do. I think that God had a hand in creating man. I think that God simply sped up the process of evolution. Most noticeable changes in animals take hundreds of years. But I belive than God made the process of man evolving from apes much much shorter than normal evolution. I hope to hear back from you!
Posted by Scouters 2 weeks ago
*that is being debated
Posted by Scouters 3 weeks ago
To sagey. I think it so funny how you think the people debating are not intelligent or "non-intellectuals" I would like to see you do better then they did. All you did is insult the people who are debating. You barely mentioned the topic at all. So if you really think you are more "intellect" or more intelligent then the people debating then maybe you should actually mention the topic then is being debated. Just wanted to let you know you maybe you can stop insulting people who are much more knowledgeable in this topic. Thank you!
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
I'm not rude at all!
I am simply making a logical rational observation regarding all your posts.
None of them have even a tiny hint of Rational Thought.
Junk like blank statements "Satan has many names", that can be read off the cover of any Christian pamphlet actually are entirely Irrational when used in an argument.
It doesn't explain how a snake can talk when it's Jaw and throat structure renders such talking Impossible.
It's obvious that it can only be metaphorical, not factual.
I prefer to argue with intelligent somewhat rational Intellectuals.
Which is something you certainly will never be.
My 10 year old daughter could do better than you at both rational thinking and knowledge.
I get much more benefit from our many discussions on everything from religion, science, etc...
I get bored with non-intellectuals like yourself.
Those like yourself are a dime a dozen and most have very poor knowledge of anything.
Making it very hard to find anything they know enough about to even have a discussion.
It's even sadder when they know very little about what they profess to know, such as yourself and the Bible.
From your posts, it is absolutely obvious to everybody here, especially my ex-theologian colleague who is currently looking over my shoulder, that you really haven't any real knowledge of the Bible.
We feel sorry for your poor education and severe lack of any real knowledge.
Posted by Jaserelijah 4 years ago
Actually Sagey, although you have been very rude to me on a personal level and you have attacked my Religion, my intelligence and my rationale. I do not have any ill feeling towards you. Do not mistake my kindness for a weakness but rather take it at face value. I have grown rather fond of you, not because I like what you have said, not because I believe your a very nice person, but because I believe you are just a human, just a sinner like myself. I want to end my discussion with you by saying, I wish you joy in life and most of all I hope that you come to the knowledge that Christ is indeed your savior, yes yours as well as mine. You can hate me all that you want, you can laugh at me and mock my beliefs all you want, I hope that one day you have a sincere change of heart. I will pray for you, and not in some blatant form with no meaning, but I will truly pray for you. You may say that you will never believe in God, and you might be correct. Perhaps you will never believe that Christ did indeed die and rise again for your sins but then again you never know what position you may find yourself in, where you may desire a relationship and the hope that can be found in knowing that you were created with great love, and that there is hope in Jesus Christ. Anyway, Goodnight to you Sagey and I wish you happiness.
Posted by Jaserelijah 4 years ago
Lol, Sagey now that is funny stuff. Well, at least to a 4th grader that is funny stuff. Hey did I say "I know you are but what am I" yet in this conversation? Darn....Well, I'm glad that I don't fit the rapture category because I don't believe in any of that. The whole left behind series is not scriptural and it actually contradicts it immensely. So looks like I get to keep my brain, yippee ;) I do agree that this debate has got old. It isn't fun when people bring up silly arguments and attacks like you do. I am a big girl though and this is not the first time I have been attacked by an atheist and it most definitely won't be my last.
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
BTW: B4 I go, since I've lost interest in posting on this debate, which is an Irrational debate anyway.
People that believe strongly in "The Rapture" are also extremely low Rationally.
They join Superstitious/Religious Fundamentalists as having as a group, the lowest average Intelligence that it is possible for humans to have and still retain a Brain.
They are truly, practically Brain-Dead.
There is surmountable rational evidence for this statement.
Arguing with such people of low intellect is absolutely BORING!
They never can understand the ramifications of their own stupid statements!
Just as Jaserelijah never will, unless she starts school all over again, in a good, rational education institution, (Christian Universities wouldn't count) and actually listens to her Lecturers.
Gr8-Bye! :-D
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
Low RQ people should never be allowed to become Leaders.
We should have rationality testing for all future leaders.
If this had been in place decades ago, the likes of George Bush, Mitt Romney and Ayatollah Khomeini would never had been allowed to stand for leadership and the world would also be better off, with less mistakes made by leaders.
So far in this discussion board: Jaserelijah's comments have all been extremely low RQ, poorly researched and completely Irrational.
Proving that she lacks any form of rational education, real knowledge of the Bible and has completely delusional (uneducated) concepts of life and Christianity.
Putting her RQ on an almost non-existent par with Khomeini's.
Such low intelligent ( Irrational) people are indeed amusing but should never be allowed to be leaders, because they would make extremely bad decisions to the detriment of their own group and beliefs.
History has indeed proven this many times!
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
Though I should specify that Superstition/Religion based Fundamentalists are now considered as having the lowest Intelligence of all people on Earth.
Their concepts, teachings and actions are often Irrational and even completely idiotic.
Ayatollah Khomeini was proof of this, yet there are so many others, including statements from previous Pope's and church ministers in the media that also proves this fact.
Ken Ham and Ray Comfort are also proof of this.
Rational Fundamentalists are often on the other side of the coin, like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, who come close to the most intelligent people on Earth.
They are highly educated and highly Rational.
Their RQs are close to 100% in that they make all their comments and decisions on Rational grounds which enhances their IQ levels.
One of the most intelligent men on the planet, has his own science show which is well known around the world, (Dr Karl Kruszelnicki), yet he admits that he only has an average IQ of 110 (lower than Khomeini's and Bush's), yet he is 100% RQ (completely rational), an extremely, Intelligent human being.
Anybody can improve their RQ by having a great education, and rationality training.
IQ cannot be altered, because it is genetic and we are born with a set IQ level.
Cheers! |':-D8
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
Yes Jaserelijah: A strong belief in superstition does mean a lower intelligence.
Intelligence is not IQ, of which I have more than most anyway.
Intelligence is really not how we can solve complex problems IQ, but how we rationalize the world around us.
Modern employment tests no longer use IQ as a measure, because people with very high IQs still make very stupid decisions and logical blunders if they don't have a good education or Rational approach to everything in life.
Employers are now testing RQ or Rational Quotient for choosing employees, because it has been proven that people with a high RQ make less mistakes in their logic, reasoning and life in general.
For instance George Bush supposedly had above average IQ (120) still nowhere near my own, but he made horrific blunders that the US is still trying to resolve. Because he made decisions based on Irrational grounds like Superstition/religion.
Ayatollah Khomeini was a man with a high IQ, but he was technically Insane, because he made no decisions on rational grounds, all were based on superstition/Islam, thus he made Iran appear to be a mob if irrational idiots and turned the Western world against Islam. He was bad for his Nation and his Faith.
From your posts, you are similar to Ayatollah Khomeini and worse than Bush, your comments are all based on Irrational logic, Bible is entirely Irrational.
Therefore, on those grounds alone, you are far less intelligent than the average person.
Your RQ, is almost at the Unemployable level.
Fundamentalists like Ayatollah Khomeini are the least intelligent humans on Earth.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 4 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This went from promising to "oh, God, why?" by the end. My opinion was not swayed by this. Conduct would have gone to Con (Pro did do a lot of sniping) if it weren't for Con's final paragraph which not only committed a generalization fallacy but was completely useless and insulting. Spelling and grammar was fine. Arguments go to Pro, easily. He used clearer, more precise reasoning while Con made straw men, moved the goalposts, and deviated completely from the topic. Pro only deviated to continue striking down Con's contentions and fallacies. Sources also go to Pro because he was the only one to use them. I want to say good debate, and I'm sure many-an-atheist saw it as such. But for me, I think it was rather tedious.
Vote Placed by johnnyvbassist 4 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 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: Though Con took way to long to start addressing her thesis, she a good job at about the 4th round of Pro's reliance on something he admitted wasn't fooling credible for his thesis. While Pro, dominated the debate the first three rounds, Con eventually proved the points of her thesis. Pro's reasoning is much more complex to follow while Con's was to the point and relevant to the topic. Conduct needs improvement from both ends. Both made this issue way too personal and less philosophical. Overall Con explained the simple creationism message while Pro talked about proofs that he said aren't really proves. "It is the absolute truth, closest to the reality." Then it is not absolute truth. Pro debating himself out of his argument.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Evolution is a theory about how species originate. Discussion of the origins of life are not relevant to that theory, nor are discussions of the origins of the universe. Support for any theory comes from evidence, and while Pro was weak in his use of the vast evidence supporting evolution, he referenced enough good evidence to win the debate. Con made many assertions, but had almost no references to back them up. Pro lost conduct for insulting Con personally with charges of ignorance and lack of education. Debate is supposed to be strictly about the arguments made, and the opponent should not be characterized. More in comments.
Vote Placed by brant.merrell 4 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: Either I'm crazy or both participants missed some pretty fundamental principles of the Big Bang (see my comment). If a physicist were here though, he'd say the same thing to me, so I'll rule equally for that portion. I didn't take the time to find spelling and grammar mistakes. Ruling even. As my comment showed, I thought Pro's video had a "take me on faith" message, which given its tone I'd consider a mistake in conduct, argument and source. As I didn't mention though, saying "I have studied science for many years . . . so your accusations are invalid" elevates yourself above the process of making mistakes, making the exact same mistakes. These are anecdotal examples, I consistently found Pro's arguments more convincing, but mostly because I already agreed with them, and I won't rule on spelling or grammar. So the only vote I feel qualified to cast is in reference to sources. Congratulations Pro, I think you won this one.
Vote Placed by Mikal 4 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:52 
Reasons for voting decision: rfd in comments