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

Is creation more viable than the theory of evolution?

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: 8/7/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 782 times Debate No: 78475
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




Young earth creationists believe that the earth was created 6000 or fewer years ago. They believe that a God created the Earth, and the first two humans Adam and Eve. Evolution does not fit into their model of creation. They often push school boards to teach creation in school alongside evolution, or for the abolition of the teaching of evolution. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to support a creation model, and in fact there is a lot of evidence refuting the concept.


I accept if only you could prove:

1.Must prove Evolution is a scientific fact(I will prove Creation is scientific fact).

2. Define the term "evolution" since it has several meanings to it such as...

Cosmic evolution: the origin of time,space,and matter from nothing in the"
"big bang."

Stellar evolution: the origin of planets,stars,and galaxies formed from gas clouds.

Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter.

Chemical evolution:all the elements on the periodic table "evolved" "from hydrogen.

Macro-evolution:animals and plants change ""
from one type into another.

Microevolution: variations within the" kind"
like different varieties of dogs."

I believe that God created everything in six,literal days around 6,ooo years ago and evolution is stupid. I agreed
Debate Round No. 1


equilibriums forfeited this round.


The following does not support evolution because it's stupid and you have to believe it by faith!

1)Common traits in embryoes
This theory of Haeckel's postulates that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their pseudo-ancestors underwent. He theorized that during its development in its mother's womb, the human embryo first displayed the characteristics of a fish, and then those of a reptile, and finally those of a human.

It has since been proved that this theory is completely bogus. It is now known that the "gills" that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. That part of the embryo that was likened to the "egg yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant. The part that was identified as a "tail" by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.

The impression they [Haeckel's drawings] give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George's Hospital Medical School in London" So he and his colleagues did their own comparative study, reexamining and photographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with those Haeckel drew. Lo and behold, the embryos "often looked surprisingly different," Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology.323

Science explained that, in order to be able to show the embryos as similar, Haeckel deliberately removed some organs from his drawings or else added imaginary ones. Later in this same article, the following information was revealed:
Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. "It (Haeckel's drawings) looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology," Richardson concludes.324

2)The Fossil Record

Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not.

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them...." And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. (I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!)

Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, " one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."

All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart. Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been "discarded" and is considered a "phantom" and "illusion" because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can't be counted on being a horse then we've got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.

Concerning transitional fossils, world famous palaeontologist Colin Patterson admitted that "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Not one.

The fossil record exist only in the textbooks. We have petrified trees standing out of these layers which evolutionists claims to be millions of years old and would have been decayed already . Instead it was laid down very quickly. Now these layers were formed in the Flood of Noah . That's why you see layers around the world like The Grand Cannon and dinosaur's graveyards and it didn't take millions of years.

3)The Genetics Commonalities. There are similataries
Evolutionist claims that things which are living are becoming more complex as time progresses because the chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter known, it would be to assume that the ones with the least chromosomes evolved first and the ones with the most evolved happen at the end of the millions of years. So we start off as a penicillin then into fruit flies which as 2 then after millions of years we are at the human stage which has 46 but the possums,redwood trees,and kidney beans which has 22. Pick which one is your ancestors! Don't tell me this is consider a theory and not fairy tale. We may have identical chromosomes but it's pointing to a intelligent designer!!!

4) the Universal Genetic Code

Recently geneticists announced that they had successfully read the human DNA code. This truly marvelous achievement ranks as one of the most remarkable in history. Creationists rejoice over the news, confident that the more we learn, the more we'll recognize the signature of God in what He has done, and give Him glory.

Scientists haven't actually deciphered the code, but they have, as it were, identified the "letters" in the code. They only know a few "words" as of yet, and really don't know the "language," or where the punctuation goes. There are about three billion letters in the human DNA, and the whole thing is enormously complex"not at all what would be expected from random evolution.

Recently a molecular biologist working on identifying genetic controls for diseases was interviewed by George Caylor of The Ledger, Lynchburg, Virginia. His article entitled, "The Biologist," appeared on February 17, 2000. I received permission to reproduce parts of the interview here, as a conversation between "G" (the interviewer) and "J" (the molecular biologist). It began by discussing the complexity of human code.

J: "I'm a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britanica."

G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by 'genius beyond genius,' and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

J: "No. I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures"everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living."
Debate Round No. 2


equilibriums forfeited this round.


There are reasons why evolutionists are clinging to evolution which has no evidence for it:

Objective: Men do not want to be responsible to anyone for their actions.

"[Man] stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal, material process with unique understanding and potentialities. These he owes to no one but himself and it is to himself that he is responsible. He is not the creature of uncontrollable and undeterminable forces, but he is his own master. He can and must decide and make his own destiny."""*George G. Simpson, "The World into which Darwin Led Us," in Science, 131 (1980), p. 968.

Objective: Separation from God and identification with the brute.

"The real issue is whether man must think God"s thought after him in order to understand the world correctly or whether man"s mind is the ultimate assigner of meaning to brute and orderless facts . . Evolutionary thought is popular because it is a world view which facilitates man"s attempt to rid himself of all knowledge of the transcendent Creator and promises to secure man"s autonomy."""G.L. Bahnsen, "On Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator," in Journal of Christian Reconstruction, 1 (1974), p. 89.

Objective: Sexual freedom.

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."""*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19. [Grandson of evolutionist *Thomas Huxley and brother of evolutionist *Julian Huxley. *Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]

Objective: A way to hide from God.

"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any new form of life, there is no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution."""*Julian Huxley, "At Random, A Television Preview," in Evolution after Darwin (1960), p. 41.

GEarnest, conscientious scientists have something far different to say about evolutionary theory. These are men, highly competent in their respective fields, who can see the flaws in evolution far better than the man on the street. Here is what they would like to tell you.

After more than a century of research, no one has yet figured out how evolution could have occurred.

"The evolution of the animal and plant worlds is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed. But in spite of nearly a century of work and discussion there is still no unanimity in regard to the details of the means of evolution.""*Richard Goldschmidt, "Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist," in American Scientist, Vol. 409, January 1952, p. 84.

A leading scientist of our time has this to say:

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible.""*Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

Evolutionary theory is nothing more than a myth, and concerned scientists recognized it needs to be obliterated in order for science to progress. *Grasse is a leading French scientist:

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.""*Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

A growing number of scientists consider it the primary work of science to defend this foolish theory. For this reason it is ruining scientific research and conclusions in our modern world.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin"s pronouncements and predictions . . Let"s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back.""*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

Not one smallest particle of scientific evidence has been found in support of evolutionary theory.

" "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." [Tahmisian called it] a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling.""*Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting *T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

"The reader . . may be dumbfounded that so much work has settled so few questions.""*Science, January 22, 1965, p. 389.

The truth about the precarious position of the theory, and the falsity of the evidence in its behalf, is kept from science students"and even Ph.D. graduates. An evolutionist who teaches in a university speaks:

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions.""*Director of a large graduate biology department, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.

*Singer admits there is no evidence for such an incredible theory, but he is unwilling to consider any other possibility.

"Evolution is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that the appeal for its acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but that any other proposed interpretation of the data is wholly incredible.""*Charles Singer, A Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century, 1941.

Thinking scientists increasingly question such an obsolete theory.

"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.""*James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p. 88.

*Jastrow, a leading astronomer, admits that the evidence lies with Creation, not with evolution.

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.""*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by CreationGuy 2 years ago
I sent you a message. I will accept your friendship but not another debate.
Posted by equilibriums 2 years ago
I will give you more evidence in a structured debate. I challenged you and added you as a friend.
Posted by CreationGuy 2 years ago
Here's an sciencetist talking about Evolution:

It does not belong in the realm of science.

"A hypothesis is empirical and scientific only if it can be tested by experience . . A hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical observations and experiments does not belong to the realm of science.""*Francis J. Ayala, "Biological Evolution: Natural Selection or Random Walk?" American Scientist, Vol. 82, Nov.-Dec. 1974, p. 700.
Posted by CreationGuy 2 years ago
The reason you can't accept the challenge to prove that Evolution is a scientific fact because it is a religion. You have to believe it by faith. If you believe that your ancestor came from a rock 2 billion years ago,that's fine but don't call that science . Please give me solid evidence for evolution. I will be waiting for your response.
Posted by equilibriums 2 years ago
I would like to re-do this debate with the proper time settings.
I do not accept your challenge to prove evolution as a scientific fact. It is already a scientific theory, which is the highest level that an idea can achieve.
By evolution I mean the idea that all life evolved from a single ancestor.
Posted by CreationGuy 2 years ago
Whether win or lose, I was happy to do this debate with you . Creation Science and Evolution are both religions. Either one you have to believe by faith.
Posted by equilibriums 2 years ago
I messed up the time settings :/
Posted by Greg4586 2 years ago
Just a tip for resolutions. Make it a statement, not a question. What would have been better to do was make the resolution this.
Resolved: Creation is more viable than the theory of evolution.
Then take the con position.
Posted by Berend 2 years ago
This is a debate about, 1) The creation story, and 2) the diversity of species.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by Con.