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


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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,174 times Debate No: 78975
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




Evolution was introduced in 1859 in the book called, "Origin of Species," by Charles Darwin. This is a known fact (1). My Question is when did Evolution start? Did Evolution start prior to 1859? Please show proof? Note: This would be in direct opposition to Darwin.

Evolution does not have any dates, because the theory of evolution states the earth is billions and billions of years old. Which is in direct contradiction with time as a whole. With the record of time kept by the Authors of the Bible we have an accurate description of the events of the earth and also the real age of the earth.

The Bible can be proven throughout history, and biblical prophecy, all within the record of time (2).




I accept and look forward to a great debate! :)
Debate Round No. 1


I look forward to it as well. God bless you brother!


Thanks for creating this debate, and good luck! :)

Sorry for all the confusion; I was under the false impression that Round 1 was acceptance only.

Now to the debate!

In my opponent's opening argument, he/she asks when evolution started. Of course, in order to determine when evolution started, we must first determine what evolution is.

Biological evolution, according to (Source 1), is defined as change through time as species become modified and diverge to produce multiple descendant species. Evolution has been in action ever since the first life appeared on Earth around 3.85 billion years ago (Source 2), when microscopic, bacterial prokaryotes began to form as a result of abiogenesis (Source 3). The first recorded physical evidence of evolution comes in the form of 3.5 billion-year-old fossilized stromatolites, or natural colonies formed by photosynthetic bacteria called cyanobacteria, found in sedimentary rocks around the coast of Shark Bay, Australia (Source 4; Source 5). As some of the stromatolites found within Shark Bay are still living and contain living cyanobacteria with only minor biological differences to those found in the 3.5 billion-year-old fossils, scientists have concluded that the modern-day cyanobacteria have evolved from those found in the 3.5 billion-year-old stromatolites.

Of course, though the oldest known example of evolution in action has already been accounted for, there are countless more examples of how evolution has made an impact upon our biological world. For example, a recent study completed at Emory University finds that chimpanzees share 96% of their DNA with human beings, suggesting a strong evolutionary relationship between the two species (Source 6). Human evolution from other primates can further be attested to due to the widespread presence of fossil evidence for many ancient primate species with similar biological characteristics and features to humans, such as Australopithecus afarensis, Paranthropus boisei, Homo erectus, and Homo neanderthalensis (Source 7). The presence of fossil evidence connecting these species biologically to humans is a testament for evolution, and is one of millions of demonstrations of how, in fact, species of organisms can become modified and diverge to produce multiple descendant species as the millennia go by.

In my opponent's argument, he/she asks if evolution started "prior to 1859," when Charles Darwin wrote "Origin of Species." I fail to understand why my opponent keeps asserting that evolution only began when "Origin of Species" was written, as well as why he/she states that the premise that "the theory of evolution states the earth is billions and billions of years old" is "in direct contradiction with time as a whole." While my opponent has put forth the argument that the Earth is only 6,000 years old due to statements found in the Bible, he/she is yet to provide evidence that this age estimate is more accurate than that proposed by science (my opponent's second source merely discusses Biblical events, but fails to provide evidence for their truth). Meanwhile, I am able to provide evidence that the Earth is older than 6,000 years old, as per (Source 8).

Overall, I believe that I have successfully demonstrated how the theory of evolution is valid, and how it began before the year 1859. I have also pointed out how my opponent has failed to provide evidence that the Earth is too young for evolution to be true, and has failed to provide evidence that the Bible's account of biological history is more accurate than that of evolution.

Thanks, and good luck!


Debate Round No. 2


I am truly glad you have accepted my offer to debate. And I pray that God opens all our eyes today through the truth of the scriptures.
Here are a few terms I want to define before I begin:
the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
a point of time as measured in hours and minutes past midnight or noon.

the study of past events, particularly in human affairs.

the action or process of observing something or someone carefully or in order to gain information.
a remark, statement, or comment based on something one has seen, heard, or noticed.
a thing constituting a piece of evidence about the past, especially an account of an act or occurrence kept in writing or some other permanent form.
a number of related items of information that are handled as a unit.
the sum of the past achievements or actions of a person or organization; a person or thing's previous conduct or performance.

My argument today is based on the concept of time. Time is a record of past, present and future events. This record is used for study, and observation of events that occurred, and for events that did not occur. We both agree that time is used because we both exist in it. We have our birth days recorded, and we also, have our future deaths recorded. We as humans agree with time. As every day passes we are to count, and record the days according to the scriptures. Psalms 90:12 says, "So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom." On the 6th day God created Mankind!(5) There are also days recorded in the Bible that needs to be shared to understand our origins:
1st Day: Sunday~(See Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 23:56; 24:1; John 20:1;Genesis 8:13)

2nd Day: Monday~(See Genesis 1:8; Exodus 2:13; Numbers 7:18; Joshua 6:14; Joshua 10:32; Judges 20:24; Nehemiah 8:13; Esther 7:2; Jeremiah 41:4; Ezekiel 44:22; 1 Samuel 20:34; 2 Chronicles 3:2)

3rd Day: Tuesday~(See Genesis 1:13; Genesis 22:4; Genesis 31:22; Genesis 34:25; Genesis 40:20; Genesis 42:18; Exodus 19:11; Exodus 19:15-16; Leviticus 7:17-18; Leviticus 19:6; Numbers 7:24; Numbers 19:12, 19; Numbers 31:19; Joshua 9:17; Judges 20:30; 1 Samuel 20:12; 1 Samuel 30:1; 2 Samuel 1:2; 1 Kings 3:18; 1 Kings 12:12; 2 Kings 20:5; Ezra 6:15; Esther 5:1)

4th Day: Wednesday~(See Genesis 1:19; Numbers 7:30; Numbers 29:23; Judges 19:5; 2 Chronicles 20:26; Ezra 8:33; Nehemiah 9:1; Zechariah 7:1)

5th Day: Thursday~(See Genesis 1:23; Numbers 7:26; Numbers 29:26; Judges 19:8; Ezekiel 1:1-2; Ezekiel 8:1; Ezekiel 33:21)
6th Day: Friday~(See Genesis 1:31; Exodus 16:5, 22, 29; Numbers 29:29).
7th Day: Saturday~(See Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 20:8-11)
Clearly you have seen that the Bible agrees with our time frame because, it teaches a literal 7-day creation. The Bible illustrates this through days, and years. (6) Also, it gives an account of and keeps track of historical births, deaths, and geneologies! (7)
-Biblical History gives us a background of what events occurred in the past to understand how the human race came into being. (7) We have it recorded whether it be minor or major events. (8) Biblical History can also, be proven through biblical archaeology, dates, and many other sources. (9) History agrees with the Bible and the human race agrees with Biblical History!
According to the U.S. Naval Observatory they agree with the concept of time and history. And they claim that there is no change in Time and History. "There has been no change in our calendar in past centuries that has affected in any way the cycle of the week.""James Robertson, Director American Ephemeris, Navy Department, U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, D.C., March 12, 1932.
-Let us deal with Observation! It can only be used in two ways. In the present, and in the future. We have capabilities to observe these two time frames because, in the present age we live in, we can observe what is happening. Whether it be the cause of hurricanes and its effects, or the cause and effects of earthquakes we can understand why they occur. We do this by comparing and contrasting these events through encyclopedias, statistical data, books, and articles. We (The Human Race) are also, capable of looking up info through modern technology like the internet. So, it is evident that we can observe in the present what is occurring. And, our offspring (Children) will be able to observe what has already happened during our age and the use that information in their time period. I would like to add also that observation cannot be done through the past because, we live in the present age, and do not live in the past, lest we assume that we can observe the past.
-Finally the records! There are 40 authors of the Bible who kept records. (10) The Bible records History. (11) Also sources revolving around the Bible can be confirmed through multiple witnesses. Without a record no one can understand the past, without dates no one can understand ancient times. The Bible declares that God reveals the past, present and the future! (12)
Now let"s discuss my opponents argument:
He/She has mentioned 4 items, here they are:
1.Radiometric Dating (13)
2.Radiocarbon Dating (14)
3.Human Evolution (15)
4.Biological Evolution (16)
-Let us deal with radiometric dating first! It is a known fact that Radiometric dating was first introduced in 1907 by Bertram Boltwood. (13) This invention was used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, "usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates." (13) Radiometric dating did not begin during the beginning of time, but in 1907 by Bertram Boltwood. If there is any historical evidence, dates, or records that shows radiometric dating was invented prior to 1907, or in the beginning of time, then and only then can the earth be proven to be 3.5 billion or million years old. The rule here is anything that was invented within time to show the age of the earth, after the fact, is not history, nor historical evidence, but, assumptions and educated guesses made by scientists. Therefore, from the beginning of time up until 1907 there was no such thing as radiometric dating. Let us move on"
-Radiocarbon Dating is defined, "when cosmic rays strike our atmosphere and bombard atoms, thus releasing neutrons." (14) It is a known fact, that the method of Radiocarbon Dating was invented by Willard Libby in the late 1940"s. Libby received a nobel prize for his work in the 1960"s. (14) Once again my argument is: Was there an invention of radiocarbon dating prior to the late 1940"s? The answer is no, it came from Willard Libby in the late 1940"s. This means that from the beginning up until the time of the late 1940"s, there was no method called radiocarbon dating! Therefore, radiocarbon dating is another assumption made by a scientist. This simply does not meet the requirements of time, nor does it meet the requirements of record keeping.
-The idea of Human Evolution was proposed by Charles Darwin in his book called, "The Origin of Species, in 1859. (15) This idea showed that humans came from apes but there is no evidence for this. My opponent mentions 4 items:
"Australopithecus afarensis
"Paranthropus boisei
"Homo erectus
"Homo neanderthalensis
In these 2 items, I will ask two strong questions for my opponent:
1.How could man evolve from Australopithecus afarensis, if man was already here one million years before them?
2.Neanderthal man has a brain 13% larger than humans, how do scientists reconcile this information?
Basically, the ideas of Darwin and these other individuals cannot be found, nor proven because it contradicts, and overlaps in years, and in size. If the idea of human evolution existed prior to 1859 then it is plausible to say that evolution is real. But, this is not the case! Therefore Evolution was a product of Darwin"s imagination. Also, they (evolutionists) will have to explain the idea of pregnancy from evolutionary terms. But the basis for human evolution started in 1859, and was not around for millions and billions of years. (15) The starting point was and always will be 1859! This is an historical fact. (15)
Finally, Biological Evolution does not give any dates nor does an individual invent this. This was an assumption of how the events occurred made by scientists. There is no historical evidence pertaining to this, nor can this theory be proven. The only evidence shown in this theory is Charles Darwin"s interpretation of events that occurred from 1859, and on.(16)


Extra sources my opponent can look for him/her self before next round:



My argument will always be in these items mentioned above if evolution is true please show that it appeared from the beginning of time? Not through man"s ideas but, a record of historical evidence, throughout time. There should be a continual amount of information from the beginning of time not ideas made up by man within time. Thank You! And may God bless us indeed as we may prepare for Jesus Christs" Second Coming!


Hi! :) Thanks again for creating this debate.

Now that I've already presented my initial argument in favor of evolution (Round 2), I'll address my opponent's arguments and try to conclude the debate.

The definitions that my opponent has provided seem pretty on point; I thank him for providing them.

As per Con's own words, my opponent's argument is "based off of the concept of time." My opponent is correct in saying that "time is a record of past, present and future events," and that "this record is used for study, and observation of events that occurred, and for events that did not occur."

However, I find my opponent's citing of multiple Bible sources regarding time fairly inappropriate, as he/she has not been able to provide any evidence whatsoever for said claims. Though I do appreciate my opponent's very liberal use of sources regarding what the Bible says regarding history and time (including a rather interesting 795-page Biblical analysis), I find Con's failure to include sources regarding how the claims he/she has made are valid rather disconcerting.

Of course, if one wishes to espouse claims as such, one must also provide evidence in favor of these claims' validity, not just an analysis of said claims. I could just as easily produce an equally in-depth analysis of the Islamic view of history and time, though this analysis would be without merit unless evidence can be provided in favor of its truth.

While my opponent is correct in stating that the Bible "teaches a literal 7-day creation" and "illustrates this through days, and years," he is once more unable to provide evidence that said claims are true. Con does, in fact, state that "Biblical History can also, be proven through biblical archaeology, dates, and many other sources" and provides (Source 1) in favor of said claim, this source does not in any way address the alleged creation of the universe in seven days, nor does it assert that the universe is only around 6,000 years old.

Instead, the script provided merely summarizes a variety of mid-eastern civilizations mentioned within the Bible between 1300-1100 B.C.E. (I encourage voters to review this source for additional validation if they so choose). Clearly, this source does not advance my opponent's claim that the universe was created in seven days 6,000 years ago, as the topics it discusses are irrelevant to the creation of the universe.

My opponent's next argument revolves around the claim that "[observation] can only be used in two ways... in the present, and in the future." While my opponent is correct in stating that the human species can, in fact, observe events taking place in the present (I find his assertion that we can observe the future dubious, but that is irrelevant), I find his later assertion that "observation cannot be done through the past because, we live in the present age, and do not live in the past, lest we assume that we can observe the past" inherently flawed.

While we, of course, cannot physically see past events unless they have been recorded using photography or videography, this is not to say that we cannot show past events to be true using evidence. Clearly, this is the case with evolution, as though we (obviously) cannot see evolution actually happening right in front of us, evidence for such is extremely widespread and easily accessible (see my Round 2 argument for more information) (Source 2).

Con next claims that "there are 40 authors of the Bible who kept records," saying that "the Bible records history" and that "sources revolving around the Bible can be confirmed through multiple witnesses." As usual, he/she is able to produce many sources, though, after looking through each of them, I have found that none actually provide any evidence that these claims are true (once more, I encourage voters to read through my opponent's sources if they so choose in order to validate that they are, in fact, irrelevant to providing evidence for the validity of the Bible). The sources provided in this section of my opponent's argument, as well as virtually all of the others, simply analyze Biblical claims instead of providing scientific or historical outside evidence that they are true.

My opponent next, of course, addresses my claims.

First, Con argues that radiometric dating somehow can't be valid, as "radiometric dating did not begin during the beginning of time, but in 1907 by Bertram Boltwood." I find that my opponent uses claims along these lines often throughout his argument, though I fail to understand how they are relevant. It appears that my opponent is unable to understand the concept of being able to know about past events using modern-day evidence-collecting techniques. Con appears to be arguing that historical events cannot be shown to be true unless you actually witness them yourself (this allegation is further emphasized in his earlier argument regarding observation).

Of course, this allegation is overwhelmingly absurd, as nobody would be able to do much of anything unless we would be able to use modern tools to collect past evidence. For example, using my opponent's logic, modern-day detectives would be unable to show that a culprit is responsible for a crime based off of fingerprints, DNA evidence, etc., as the detectives weren't actually there to physically see the crime take place. The evidence for evolution is just as compelling as that at a crime scene (fingerprints=fossils; DNA evidence=DNA evidence, etc.), and it is just as absurd to assume that detectives are unable to find someone guilty of a crime based off of said evidence as it is to assume that evolution is impossible to validate due to us not actually being there to see it.

My opponent's argument regarding radiocarbon dating is essentially the same, as he argues that it is impossible for radiocarbon dating to validate any past events because radiocarbon dating, like radiometric dating and forensic technologies, rely on evidence from the past in order to validate claims from the present.

My opponent brings up two counterarguments regarding evolution. They are as follows:

1. "How could man evolve from Australopithecus afarensis, if man was already here one million years before them?"

This claim just isn't... true. According to (Source 3) and (Source 4), Australopithecus afarensis lived "between 3.85 and 2.95 million years ago", while modern day humans cropped up "nearly 200,000 years ago." (Source 5) further validates the actual evidence I have provided.

2. "Neanderthal man has a brain 13% larger than humans, how do scientists reconcile this information?"

While this may be true, (Source 6) and (Source 7) explain that the Neanderthals needed to use much more brain space than we do to accomplish simple tasks that we are able to accomplish easily, such as sight and hearing. Meanwhile, anatomically-modern humans are able to use much more of their brains for relatively complex cognitive functions.

Overall, I believe that I have won this debate, as I have successfully provided numerous valid arguments in favor of evolution's truth (see Round 2), successfully rebutted the counterarguments made by Con, and successfully rebuked each of Con's claims regarding the validity of historical Biblical accounts. Before I hand this debate to the voters, I must stress that while my opponent has provided a fairly large number of sources, none of them actually provide evidence in favor of the validity of the Bible's historical claims, instead merely analyzing civilizations mentioned in the Bible and quoting a variety of Biblical stories/passages. Meanwhile, it seems that my sources have, in fact, been able to provide actual evidence in favor of a pro-evolution argument, through fossil evidence, DNA evidence, and other forms.

Thank you, and good luck! :)

Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wsurin7 3 years ago
Posted by maxwell.lane 3 years ago
is continuing this debate in the comments section still up for grabs?
Posted by wsurin7 3 years ago

In my life I have proven that my family did not evolve from apes. Each sibling of my family did not originate from finches. There is no proof to suggest this. Neither is there any record attributing to this.

All dating methods used by scientists are methods that were not used for observation in the past, but observation only for the present. Using these data methods that did not have their origins from the beginning of time proves that evolution is just an assumption.

My opponent fails to address the aspects of death, in a detailed account, nor is there evidence in evolution that shows a record of death. Death does not exist in evolution, but in reality death affects everyone on earth, including Darwin! Evolution does not measure up with reality, time and truth. The Bible is the preserved word of God.

Thank you for your time to read this post. I look forward to more debates in the future. I believe that Jesus Christ is coming soon and all men and women, rich, poor, free and bond have the opportunity to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. For there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved. If we do this, our sins can be forgiven and we can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost in our lives. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believe in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.""(Acts 2:38, 39, John 3:16 God bless you all.

Posted by wsurin7 3 years ago
do not originate from ancestor as I have proven, that throughout history there was a large trace of culture and ethnicity in American history and biblical history. Humans never evolved from animals. There is no steady and continual flow of information, nor records to prove this. All of the sources my opponent offers is assumptions after Darwin"s theory in 1859. There is no evidence prior to 1859 that shows that life forms originated from one ancestor.

Special Creations:

God spoke living organisms into existence a few thousand years ago.

God created basic life forms which He called "kinds."

Changes limited by the boundaries defined by God. Taken from " (The Genesis Conflict; Walter J. Veith; page 61)

Finally, I conclude that:

The inventions made by scientists within time does not means that it has been around for millions and billions of years.

If a discovery is made by a scientist, there is no date attached to the item discovered. There is no record recovered from fossils. Scientists must now then assume that rocks, fossils, bones, etc. existed for millions and billions of years.

Evolution does not agree with time, history, observation, and records. Rather, it is a new creation of events with its own personal theory.

The Bible has been around longer than evolution, approximately 7,000 years longer.

My opponent failed to show a continual and steady flow of information from the beginning of time to 1859 to prove evolution.
Posted by wsurin7 3 years ago
Hence, through Historical evidence we can clearly see that the Bible kept historical accounts of rulers, governments and leaders. Evolutionists must admit the reality of the Bible. They must also admit that they can trust 44 authors with a continual and steady flow of information rather, than one author and his historical account of events. Truth is the 44 authors were around for the events of the Bible some relied on historical data. If we agree with the Bible then we must agree with History. Evolution disagrees, with the Bible and History because we are not in the million year period but we are in the thousands according to our calendars, time etc. Evolution s unrealistic because it defies the logic of time. This is not the reality.
The oldest the earth can be is 8000 years maximum, minimum the earth would be 6000 years. This is because of an constant flow of information that started from the beginning of time. Darwin age of the earth started in 1859. If it started from the beginning of time you would have to prove it! Which my opponent has not proven. Only assumptions made after Darwin"s theory. We live in the year 2015 not 20,000,015. There is no continual and steady flow of information involving evolution from the beginning of time.
Lastly, Here is the difference between Darwin"s info and the Bible"s info:

-Life originated from non living material under primitive atmospheric conditions in a chemically rich ocean millions of years ago.
-All life forms originate from a common ancestor.
-Organisms change because of mutations, thus giving rise to new species.

My Response to evolution:

The claim once again that life was created by non-living material is and always will be an assumption. There is no proof that life began from bacteria. Neither is there a steady and continual flow of information from the beginning of time to suggest that evolution is true. In American history and biblical history, evolution is not present in historical data.
Posted by wsurin7 3 years ago
for centuries and centuries. Because Evolution does not explain these events therefore evolutuion is a false theory. Birth as well as death if we man evolved from apes please show evidence for this assertion. Here is some better evidence to show that evolution does not show enough details from the beginning of time.
A.The BIble gives a better account man"s creation, Genseis 2:7 says, "7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
My Explanation: God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed in to the nostrils of man and man became a living soul. Dust of the ground+ breath of life= A ling soul.
B.Woman"s creation is in Genesis 2:21-24 which says, "21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

My Explanation: Woman was formed from man, by God, from the rib of man.

C.Let us deal with death what happens when a man dies? According to the scriptures God declared before the flood, that His Spirit will not always strive with man before the flood, because of man"s wickedness. Man"s lifespan will be 120 years tops. (11) This was a continual winding down of years after sin. This proves that in our day we are limited to 120 years. Now, if this is the case, how can man be around for millions and billions of years because the bones are much older than they are? Darwin"s claims doesn"t agree with time but, the Bible assertions does. Also when man dies the reverse happens from what we discussed above. Here is the source. (12)
Posted by wsurin7 3 years ago
things as race and it doesn"t exist. But, we have information to see that we all are universal as far as the Bible is concerned. (5) We have proof there are different races on the earth. Russian, Mexican, African American, Caucasian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japenese etc"
These were races that existed from the line of Shem, Ham and Japheth. (6) Darwn once again is proven wrong with historical data.The bones that Darwin claims for evolution states that these bones were much older then they are now. But how could a discovery made by scientist prove the existence of the ape man theory? Here are a few examples of the bones and the dates of their discovery and who discovered them:
A.Lucy was discovered in 1974 by the Hadar in the Awash Valley of the Afar Traingle in Ethopia (7)
B.Mary Leakey on July 17, 1959, discovered Paranthropus boisei, at Olduvai Gorge, in Tanzania.(8)
C."Homo erectus," was first discovered in 1891; by Eugene Dubois. His team discovered this human fossil in Indonesia. (9)
D.Neanderthal skulls were first discovered in Engis Caves (fr), in what is now Belgium (1829) by Philippe-Charles Schmerling and in Forbes' Quarry, Gibraltar, dubbed Gibraltar 1 (1848) (10)
The reality is all these discoveries were given dates, but that does not mean that they are much older than they are. These are assumptions made by a variety of scientists. Who continually place dates on these items. Some of these dates overlap. And these millions of years can only be assumed because it does not agree with our current time "frame. We have calendars to prove this. Human Beings exist today whether if we may be from different cultures. We exist and there is no steady and continual information from the beginning of time that suppirts Darwin"s theory of Evolution.
The second issue I want to address o evolutionistst is death. If man evolved for millions and billions of years than why do humans die? Evolutionists have not given us enough information to suggest why humans die fo
Posted by wsurin7 3 years ago
The dates are there and the sources are there. (2) The reality is, is that Moses had the historical evidence of how the earth came into being and how humans and animals were created. I challenge the average evolutionist to look up the data that I presented in the prior debate. Also, I challenge the average evolutionist to look up the data revolvolving around Moses birth and compare and contrast between Darwin"s Account. (3) Moses accurate description of the earth and how humans came to being is more of reliable source than that of Darwin"s. Moses was not there for the creation of the world but relied on different sources that helped him to conclude that the earth was created in 7 Literal days. (4)
Seecondly, I would like to address the ape to man theory versus the literal account of one human race. Each human on earth has a background on where they come from through a family tree line. We have the capabilities to go back and look up historical data, as was available to Moses. We can also, prove the reliability of races within their own cultures and how they live through archaeology. For example, I am of haian descent , my mom and dad are of hatian descent, and I was born in America. My grandma was of hatian descent and my grandpa was of hatian descent. My great grandma was of Caucasian descent and my and her Father was of hatian descent. My point is we have this historical data to observe who was on my mom"s side and my dad"s side. This is known as historical evidence. Darwin"s theory proposes that we all come from animals, such as finches, and apes an somehow mutated into human life forms. This is another assumption made by Darwin. Was he there to observe these events or did he visit an island to observe these islands? Clearly he was not which make the theory of evolution false. Neither does the theory of evolution agree with race because all are from one ancestry. Animals, humans, sharks and even plants we come from. So according to Darwin there will be no such
Posted by wsurin7 3 years ago
Here is what I wanted to present for the final debate. And what I wanted all voters to consider and pay attention to:
1.Darwins" unrealistic proposals, and Moses" reliability on Historical Data.
2.The Human Race versus the Ape to Man theory.
3.The Steady, Strong, and Continual Flow of information from the Bible throughout time.
4.Differences between Darwin"s information, and the Bible"s information of events.
In my first argument, Iwant to address Charles Darwin unrealistic proposals. He proposed that the earth and humanity came into existence a different way than that from the Biblical Account. If this is true then, he must have been there from the beginning of time to observe these events of evolution. But according to the facts, he was not there. So how would he suggest that the earth and humanity is much older if he was not thee to observe these events? It is a known fact that Darwin was born in February 12, 1809 and died April 19, 1882. (1) So basically Darwin made an assumption and lied to all scientists and eveolutionists across the whole world. According, to the data I gave my opponent, the biblical patriarch Moses of the Bible wrote down the facts of the Creation account. (2) Both (Earth and Human Beings) were written in much detail. Not only that Moses was an earlier source then that of Darwin"s account. I put forth the reality that Darwin did not exist till the 1800"s. So how can he observe those events?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ax123man 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 not my position as voter to pass judgement on Con's position that we can't see history, but fortunately I think Pro countered that well with the detectives/crime scene analogy. That was really the crux of the whole debate, other than a couple points Con brought up on evolution, which Pro handled in the last round.