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

Intelligent design is how the universe originated

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 925 times Debate No: 70773
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)




Dear opponent: First of all, I would like to thank you for accepting this challenge. I believe that the bible, the word of god is the ultimate truth, and the accounts in Genesis explain how the earth and the universe came into existence. I believe that God created the earth in six, twenty-four hour days, about six- thousand years ago.
I expect that we will both not go into origin, or we will stay away from it as much as possible. My reasoning for this is that in order for a theory to become scientific law is must go through the scientific method, which states: A theory must be observed, (this is the second step in the scientific method.) Therefore, neither of us can debate origin. Nonetheless, the evidence that we find to support creation is, as you will see, abundant.
I will be presenting support for my belief as well as points, I would like to make clear evidence that includes: the evidence for a young earth and universe, and the logic of an intelligent designer. The categories I expect to debate in are: Geology, astronomy, genetics, and botany.
I would like to make clear that both sides of this debate requires faith, in order to believe in what each theory states. Since science cannot prove anything, all we can do is look at our world and the evidence within. Then each individual must decide for themselves weather or not he will believe the word of god or the theory of man.
Debate Round No. 1


On the second order of business I would like to debate Astronomy. here are some facts. If the earth"s was a mere million years old it"s magnetic field would be too strong for life to exist on earth.

Jupiter gives off twice the amount of energy that it receives from the sun, this means that it cannot be billions of years old because it would eventually run out of energy.

If you were on Uranus you would be able to see the aurora borealis. This is only possible because its magnetic field is so strong. It would not be so strong if it were millions of years old because it is decaying quickly. If Uranus"s magnetic field is generated by a magnetic dynamo, the magnetic field and the rotation of Uranus would have to be aligned, which they are not.

When Voyager 2 flew past Uranus and Neptune, it measured their magnetic fields and confirmed that the decay of the fields lines up with creation.

Comets can only last about 100,000 years; this is nowhere near enough time for evolution.
Although it is not noticeable, spiral galaxies wind themselves up. If these galaxies are billions of years old, they would not be recognizable as spiral galaxies.

If life evolved on earth, why did it not evolve on other planets?

I am going to spend most of my time in this round to address the distant-starlight "problem", so strap yourselves in.

Critics of biblical creation sometimes use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. The argument goes something like this: (1) there are galaxies that are so far away, it would take light from their stars billions of years to get from there to here; (2) we can see these galaxies, so their starlight has already arrived here; and (3) the universe must be at least billions of years old"much older than the 6,000 or so years indicated in the Bible.

Many big bang supporters consider this to be an excellent argument against the biblical timescale. But when we examine this argument carefully, we will see that it does not work. The universe is very big and contains galaxies that are very far away, but that does not mean that the universe must be billions of years old.

If God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument. Let me suggest that the answer to distant starlight lies in some of the unstated assumptions that secular astronomers make.

Any attempt to scientifically estimate the age of something will necessarily involve a number of assumptions. These can be assumptions about the starting conditions, constancy of rates, contamination of the system, and many others. If even one of these assumptions is wrong, so is the age estimate. Sometimes an incorrect worldview is to blame when people make faulty assumptions. The distant starlight argument involves several assumptions that are questionable"any one of which makes the argument unsound. Let"s examine a few of these assumptions.

1: Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But in fact, this assumption is false. There are a few different ways in which the non-rigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale.

Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by motion and by gravity. For example, when an object moves very fast, close to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. This is called "time-dilation." So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light, the clock would stop completely. This isn"t a problem with the clock; the effect would happen regardless of the clock"s particular construction because it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity.

It seems hard to believe that velocity or gravity would affect the passage of time since our everyday experience cannot detect this. After all, when we are traveling in a vehicle, time appears to flow at the same rate as when we are standing still. But that"s because we move so slowly compared to the speed of light, and the earth"s gravity is so weak that the effects of time-dilation are correspondingly tiny. However, the effects of time-dilation have been measured with atomic clocks.

Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below.

2: Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. So, it is a leap of "blind" faith on their part. However, if we make a different assumption instead, it leads to a very different conclusion. Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.

In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not "feel" any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller.)

3: Another way in which the relativity of time is important concerns the topic of synchronization: how clocks are set so that they read the same time at the same time. Relativity has shown that synchronization is not absolute. In other words, if one person measures two clocks to be synchronized, another person (moving at a different speed) would not necessarily measure those two clocks to be synchronized. As with time-dilation, this effect is counterintuitive because it is too small to measure in most of our everyday experience. Since there is no method by which two clocks (separated by a distance) can be synchronized in an absolute sense, such that all observers would agree regardless of motion, it follows that there is some flexibility in how we choose what constitutes synchronized clocks.

There is a cosmic equivalent to local and universal time. Light traveling toward earth is like the plane traveling west; it always remains at the same cosmic local time. Although most astronomers today primarily use cosmic universal time (in which it takes light 100 years to travel 100 light-years), historically cosmic local time has been the standard. And so it may be that the Bible also uses cosmic local time when reporting events.

Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day 4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time. Someone might object that the light itself would experience billions of years (as the passenger on the plane experiences the two hour trip). However, according to Einstein"s relativity, light does not experience the passage of time, so the trip would be instantaneous. Now, this idea may or may not be the reason that distant starlight is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale, but so far no one has been able to prove that the Bible does not use cosmic local time. So, it is an intriguing possibility.

4: Many big bang supporters use the above assumptions to argue that the biblical timescale cannot be correct because of the light travel-time issue. But such an argument is self-refuting. It is fatally flawed because the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. In the big bang model, light is required to travel a distance much greater than should be possible within the big bang"s own timeframe of about 14 billion years. This serious difficulty for the big bang is called the "horizon problem." The following are some short details since I am running out of words.

According to the big bang, stars must have formed from a fireball that must have begun with an uneven distributions of temperatures. However, scientists have found that the radiation coming toward us has a very uniform temperature (10 ppm.)
There are some areas in space that are 80 billion light years and have the same temperature. It is not possible for the radiation to completely distribute if the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

This is not a problem for creation to happen since I believe god created the whole universe at once.


Thanks for the reply Pro.

My arguments:
Assuming this is a debate weather creationism is more viable explanation than lets say evolution (although evolution is more of the development of life, however it appears to be that my opponent is arguing against evolution) and the big bang. I will propose that these two theories are more credible due to their massive amount of evidence and it is up to my opponent to fulfill his/her BOP. I will do rebuttals in the following round.

R.1 Evidences towards the Big bang
Accelerating expansion of the universe

The accelerating universe points out evidence towards a huge possibility of a singularity for the creation

of the universe. The evidences for the accelerating expansion include the red shift, and isotropic distribution of the objects in space. We can detect the expansion through redshift by their electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space. (1)

2. Cosmic microwave background radiation

In 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson serendipitously discovered the cosmic background radiation, an an omnidirectional signal in the microwave band. the radiation was found to be consistent with an almost perfect black body spectrum in all directions.This discovery showed radiations that were isotopic and further supported the big bang theory. (2)

3. Other evidences supporting the big bang include abundance of primordial elements, galactic evolution and distribution, and Primordial gas clouds. (2)

C.2 Evidences towards evolution

1. Ancient organism remains

Darwin found the bones of an extinct giant sloth, Megatherium. He realized that animals can become extinct and that life is not unchanging, and Darwin also saw many similarities between extinct and living animals. This provided evidence that the giant sloth, Megatherium was an ancestor of the tree sloth. This showed that the sloth evolved. (3)

2.Similarities among living organisms.

Many organisms share a similar body structure such as Horses', donkeys', and zebras'. This provide evidence that they shares a common ancestor until they branched off. This also includes for apes and humans, also showing similar DNA structure. (4)
Similarities among embryos

Fish embryos and human embryos both have gill slits. In fish they develop into gills, but in humans they disappear before birth. This shows that the animals are similar and that they develop similarly, implying that they are related, and they have common ancestors and that they started out the same, gradually evolving different traits. (5)
Debate Round No. 2


First of all I would like you to answer my previous argument. The argument about the accelerating expansion of the universe does not mean that you can accurately track it down to where the universe began because you were not there to witness it. Additionally, this points to what I believe because God made the "expanse of the universe" (Genesis 1:6-7).

Second, I want to touch on cosmic background radiation. According to the big bang, the universe began in a fireball from which all matter in the universe is ultimately derived. For galaxies to have any hope of forming at all during the expansion process, the fireball must have begun with an uneven distribution of temperatures. However, we see radiation coming from the cosmos, in all directions of the sky that has a very uniform temperature. This is the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation and its temperature has been measured to be uniform to one part in 100,000. If the regions started at uneven temperatures, and are now almost at the same temperature, then energy must have been transferred from hot regions to cooler ones. The fastest way that energy can be transferred is by radiation, at the speed of light. Consider, then, a region of space 10 billion light years (a light year is the distance light travels in a year) away from earth in the north sky, and the other 10 billion light years in the south. They are 20 billion light years apart. However, since the big bang was allegedly only 13.7 billion years ago, this is not enough time for light to have travelled from one region to the other. Yet the background temperature is almost identical. However, the problem for the big bang is even more severe than this. The CMB radiation is alleged to be the radiation that appeared when the temperature of the initial fireball cooled enough for it to become transparent to radiation. This is alleged to have happened about 300,000 years after the initial fireball appearance. Consequently, only those regions within about 300,000 light-years of each other could have become uniform in temperature during this time. Yet we have regions separated by at least 20 billion light-years that are at essentially the same temperature. This horizon problem gave rise to hypothetical fudge factors such as faster-than-light ‘inflation’ of space being added to the big bang— expanding by a factor of 1050 in 10-33 seconds.

Your third argument, excuse me, wikipedia's argument.... But wait, I'm not debating wikipedia though so this is not an issue that I have to debate.

That's great that Darwin found bones that are similar to each other but I have two problems with this. 1: If "Megatherium" was a sloth, then of course he would be an ancestor of a tree sloth. Let me ask you a question. Has anyone found organisms from different species to resemble each other completely, and even if they have this means that the organisms would be from the same species. 2: You cannot say, "this means that the sloth evolved" because you were not there to witness it.

Just because horses, donkeys, and zebras have the a similar body structure simply means that they are from the same kingdom and that god created them similar.

There are two general ways in which the DNA of an organism can be modified chemically. First, methyl groups can be added to DNA base molecules. Second, proteins called histones that integrate with the DNA can also be modified in different ways. Both of these types of DNA modification determine how accessible the DNA is to proteins that bind to the DNA and control and help regulate gene activity. Epigenetic DNA modification is highly controlled in the genome and plays a major role in the way that many different types of genes are expressed. In fact, a variety of human diseases are associated with epigenetic changes that are not part of a normal genomic profile.

Because chimpanzees are thought to be our closest living relatives, they have been compared genetically to modern humans in a variety of different types of studies. One segment of human-chimp genetic comparison research—comparisons of gene expression—has been particularly unfruitful for evolutionists. A number of research reports show how large differences in gene expression are commonly observed between humans and chimps for many genes that both species share, particularly in those associated with brain activity.1, 2

Because epigenetic modifications in the genome are related to gene expression, researchers have been using highly advanced technologies for comparing these differences in humans and chimps for regions of the genome that they both have in common.

Several recent studies show that dramatic differences exist between humans and chimps in regard to the methylation aspect of epigenetics. When considering this type of research, it is important to know that the epigenome is tissue-specific and the patterns vary between the types of cells that are studied.

In 2011, a study was performed on purified white blood cells (neutrophils) from living humans, chimps, and Orinoco's. The researchers selected neutrophils because they are nearly similar in their appearance and characteristics between humans and apes. Despite the fact that the most similar type of cell known between humans and apes was selected, scientists were surprised that they detected major methylation profile differences in over 1,500 different regions of the human genome when they were compared to chimp genomes. The orangutans also showed uniqueness from humans and chimps in their epigenome data clustering.

Another exciting discovery in this study was that these epigenetic differences between humans and chimps were not only present in adult white blood cells, but also in the Germaine (sperm and egg cells)—indicating that these were permanent heritable differences between humans and apes. The authors of the report wrote:

The mechanisms leading to the methylation differences between species are unknown. The separate clustering of humans and chimps is consistent with the stable inheritance of methylation states within the two species.3

An even more recent study in 2012 used a new, highly accurate method of studying methylation profiles of DNA surrounding genes in brain genes shared by both humans and chimps. The differences noted between humans and chimps were strikingly marked and extensive:

We also found extensive species-level divergence in patterns of DNA methylation and that hundreds of genes exhibit significantly lower levels of promoter methylation in the human brain than in the chimpanzee brain.4

This study reported that these types of brain genes could tolerate very little epigenetic modification outside the normal profile for the human brain. In fact, researchers found that abnormal human brain gene methylation patterns are associated with a wide variety of severe human neurological diseases. These findings show how methylation changes in brain genes are not well-tolerated, thus negating ideas of epigenetic evolution in primates. Obviously, brain gene methylation patterns are finely tuned and species specific. The authors made the following comment regarding this discovery:

Finally, we found that differentially methylated genes are strikingly enriched with loci associated with neurological disorders, psychological disorders, and cancers.4

This research further broke down the gene regions into different areas. One key area of interest was the promoter region—the area preceding a gene that controls its function like a genetic switch. The researchers also studied the main gene body, which is the region of a gene that includes the protein-coding segments. Finally, they also analyzed the ends of genes because they play key roles in genetic regulation. In this regard, they found that the largest differences between human and chimp brain gene methylation patterns were in the control regions that play a major role in regulation. The human gene promoters were much less methylated, a finding that corresponded well to the higher levels of human brain gene activity, compared to their gene counterparts in chimps. The other regions of the genes also exhibited differences between species but were less dramatic.

Overall, 1,055 genes showed significantly different methylation patterns between humans and chimps. Of these, the researchers found 468 different genes that were highly diverse in their methylation patterns. These were the types of genes that play key roles in controlling other genes and modifying the types of proteins in the cell that regulate processes at the top of the cell system hierarchy. In other words, the genes that showed these marked differences were the key controlling regions in the genome for brain cell activity.

These results derived from the field of epigenetics dramatically illustrate the profound genetic differences that exist between humans and apes. Once again, cutting-edge science fits closely with the biblical paradigm that God created all animals “after their kind” (Genesis 1:21) and humans uniquely in the “image of God” (Genesis 1:27).


  1. Khaitovich, P. Et al. 2005. Parallel patterns of evolution in the genomes and transcriptions of humans and chimpanzees. Science. 309 (5742): 1850-1854.
  2. Konopka, G. Et al. 2012. Human-Specific Transcriptional Networks in the Brain. Neuron. 75 (4): 601-617.
  3. Martin, D. I. K. Et al. 2011. Phyloepigenomic comparison of great apes reveals a correlation between somatic and Germaine methylation states. Genome Research. 21 (12): 2049-2057.
  4. Zeng, J, et al. 2012. Divergent Whole-Genome Methylation Maps of Human and Chimpanzee Brains Reveal Epigenetic Basis of Human Regulatory Evolution. American Journal of Human Genetics. 91 (3): 455-465.

* Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his PhD. In Genetics from Clemson University.

Cite this article: Tomkins, J. 2013. Epigenetics Proves Humans and Chimps Are Different. Acts & Facts. 42 (1): 11-12.



Commondebator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


DopeFreshSaaan forfeited this round.


Commondebator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


As far as I can see, this debate is over. I would like to thank my opponent, the commentators, and the judges. For the judges, I would like you all to vote unbiased and vote on who you think brought up better points, defended points better, and had better opening and closing statements. That is all I have to say, so have a good day, night, or whatever time it is you are reading this.


Sorry, if my opponent wishes he may rechallenge me
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DopeFreshSaaan 1 year ago
I don't think that we should discard it.
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Me too, i think we should just discard it? idk
Posted by DopeFreshSaaan 1 year ago
I am sorry that I also did not write an argument because I totally forgot about this debate for a while.
Posted by DopeFreshSaaan 1 year ago
No problemo.
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Thanks man and sorry about that
Posted by DopeFreshSaaan 1 year ago
Thanks for letting me know.
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Sorry, I cant post the argument for this round. Please extend your argument and ill post later
Posted by ThiemaLu 1 year ago
"And also the bible has been proven to be the most historically accurate document ever written." xD Yeah right. And your source is AIG?
Posted by ThiemaLu 1 year ago
"However, the problem for the big bang is even more severe than this" "This horizon problem gave rise to hypothetical fudge factors such as faster-than-light "inflation" of space being added to the big bang" You just answered your own argument. Or are you claiming to know better than the physicists who came up with that explanation? What are your credentials?

"Has anyone found organisms from different species to resemble each other completely, and even if they have this means that the organisms would be from the same species" Is this supposed to make any sense? Do you understand how evolution works? What we have found is fossils that show a gradual change over time, in different rock layers and different times in earths history. Add to that DNA, lab experiments and radiometric dating and Evolution is undeniable.

"You cannot say, "this means that the sloth evolved" because you were not there to witness it." By that logic we cannot say Pluto orbits the sun, because we have never seen it complete a full orbit.

"simply means that they are from the same kingdom and that god created them similar" "Several recent studies show that dramatic differences exist between humans and chimps" Which one is it?

Oh lol I just realized that you didnt even bother to understand or even write the text yourself you just copied it from ICR. Now you truly are a scientific authority. A quick google search proves that you are just copying from creationist websites instead of bringing your own arguments.

If only you sheep would bother reading the actual scientific papers. The authors and conclusions clearly support evolution.
The AIG article is even worse. It doesnt cite a single peer reviewed paper.
Why have neither of the authors ever released peer reviewed papers debunking evolution etc.?
If you want to have a scientific discussion try using scientific sources not creationist hogwash blogs. Cant believe I wasted an hour resear
Posted by ThiemaLu 1 year ago
"The scientific method actually does state that for something to become scientific law it must be observed" In science, observation can also involve the recording of data via the use of instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during the scientific activity.

Your article talks about Saturn not Jupiter and at no point claims that it couldn't be billions of years old.

"This is only possible because its magnetic field is so strong. It would not be so strong if it were millions of years old because it is decaying quickly" Can you provide a source for that claim?

"If Uranus"s magnetic field is generated by a magnetic dynamo, the magnetic field and the rotation of Uranus would have to be aligned" Source?

"the decay of the fields lines up with creation." Source?

"Comets can only last about 100,000 years" Source?

"If these galaxies are billions of years old, they would not be recognizable as spiral galaxies." Source?

"If life evolved on earth, why did it not evolve on other planets?" Who says it didn't? There is only one other planet in our solar system who might be in the habitable zone. Mars lost its atmosphere long ago but shows signs of liquid water.
The first explained was only discovered in 1988, our technology is not advanced enough to detect life outside our solar system.

"There are a few different ways in which the non-rigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale" No there are not. With the way we experience time today and the speed of light, the universe is 13,8 billion years old. Radiometric Dating dates the earth to 4,6 billion years. It doesnt matter how gravity on earth used to be, you cant change that fact. Those are not mere assumptions, they are basic physics. And dont tell me you think physicists didnt consider whatever you just wrote.

"According to the big bang, stars must have formed from a fireball" That is not what the Big Bang is
No votes have been placed for this debate.