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

Life On Earth Was Created By God

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 624 times Debate No: 80625
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)




*You are Pro*
*I am Con*
*No round rules*

Life on earth was created by god.

Has the Burden of Proof and 4 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that life on earth was created by god and refute Con.

Has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to refute Pro.

*Definitions can be changed in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as Pro and Con both agree.


*Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument.

Definitions (from Google definitions)

life - the condition that distinguishes plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria from inorganic matter.

earth - the planet on which we live; the world.

created - brought something into existence.

god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.


I accept this debate.

I argue that some deity created the universe. This may or may not to Christ. Do you suppose that cells just *happened* to come together, and became dinosaurs? These cells couldn't have just *joined together* on their own. I am aware of how Earth formed, as I researched this: But as for life on Earth during this time... Firstly, (on the core accretion side), the core is made by many metallic and rock joining each other in a gravity field. Then the mantle forms, but it would be difficult to live here, as it is probably warm even then. Then comets crashed, making water, and then the crust. Where would life come from, let alone Tyrannosaurus, Ankylosaurus, and much other dinosaurs. What are your thoughts?

(PS My strategy for this debate will be refuting Con's arguments, as a deity is hard to prove without disproving science itself)
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks Pro for accepting the debate.

I reject that life on earth was created by god.
I reject that "some deity created the universe."

Life on earth most likely originated by way of abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is the fact that organic compounds can come from inorganic compounds.

Compounds covalently (sharing electrons) bonded to carbon are organic.
Compounds not covalently bonded to carbon are inorganic.

Inorganic = H N C O (cyanate)
Organic = C 2 H 5 N O 2 (glycine, an amino acid)

You can tell that the difference between inorganic and organic carbon compounds is rather insignificant.
One more carbon atom, four more hydrogen atoms, and one more oxygen atom...that's it.

The Miller-Urey experiment in the 50's demonstrated that with an atmosphere, water salinity, electricity, and inorganic compounds likely of an earlier earth, inorganic compounds will produce organic amino acid compounds.

Though people agreed that lightning occurs without life and in atmospheres on other planets, people still complained that the atmosphere of earlier earth had more oxygen than the Miller-Urey experiment accounted for.
The replicated experiments of the Miller-Urey took that into account, and used:

1. H2, CH4, NH3, H2O, H2S and electricity, and yielded the amino acids cysteine, cystine, and methionine
2. CH4, C2H6, NH3, H2S and UV rays, and yielded alanine, glycine, serine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and cystine
3. CH4, H2O, H2S, NH3, N2, and electricity, and yielded methionine

"When reduced gases, including CH4, H2S and NH3, are emitted from a volcano into a lightning-rich atmosphere, hydrogen cyanide, ethylene, and acetylene can be generated."

So we know that amino acids, organic compounds, can come from inorganic compounds.
But what about genetic replication?

Amino acid chains (polypeptides) can fold onto themselves and become biologically active.
According to the NIH:
"The sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active."

So we have biologically active amino do they replicate?
Well amino acids tend to speed up reactions; they're catalysts.
So before there was life, there were pre-biotic catalysts, amino acids.

"catalysis in a pre-biotic network initiated...the emergence of RNA as the dominant macromolecule due to its ability to both catalyze chemical reactions and to be copied in a template-directed manner."

So, from inorganic compounds of earlier earth, we got organic amino acids, which, when folded, become biologically active, and can catalyze reactions that lead to the emergence of RNA, which is necessary for genetic replication.

Any primitive organism would be replicating with RNA and metabolizing with amino acids, but what might they be consuming?

"Sixty years after the seminal Miller-Urey experiment that abiotically produced a mixture of racemized amino acids, we provide a definite proof that this primordial soup, when properly cooked, was edible for primitive organisms."

Given all of the evidence, abiogenesis is likely how life originated on earth, which really does not require a god or deity.

Pro may try to claim that "some deity" used abiogenesis to create life, but Pro would have to explain the mechanism "some deity" used to execute abiogenesis.

Furthermore, if Pro is to claim that "some deity" is god, per this debate, then Pro needs to explain the mechanism used by god that makes this god the creator of the universe; Pro can't just say that "some diety" used the big bang, rather Pro needs to mechanistically explain HOW god used the big bang.

For these reasons, life on earth was not created by a god.


I see how life can be naturally produced. Now we'll have to see if God exists or not.

What is the chance of all this happening, though? It's rather complicated, it seems. I would like to know the probability.

Also, the atmosphere keeps in the Carbon Dioxide needed for the plants to create Oxygen for the animals. If the atmosphere was created before life, this doesn't make much sense to me, as it composes of the gases required for both plant and animal life. So how did the atmosphere form?
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks for your response Pro.

In response to abiogenesis, Pro asks:
"What is the chance of all this happening, though? It's rather complicated, it seems. I would like to know the probability."

My response:
I'm not a mathematics guy...I'm a science guy, so the probability is somewhat out of my realm, and, I argue, irrelevant to this debate if we're trying to show plausibility of life's natural origins.
By showing that we don't need a god for life, we really don't need probability. What's the probability that there's a magical being that manipulates everything? How would one go about calculating that?

Pro has one contention with my long-winded abiogenesis explanation:
"If the atmosphere was created before life, this doesn't make much sense to me, as it composes of the gases required for both plant and animal life."

My response:
Do a quick google search for planets with atmospheres, and see what comes up.
Now do a search for planets with life, and see what comes up.

Notice that there are many planets with atmospheres, but only one planet, we know of, with life. So it would seem that atmospheres are way more common without life, from what we've observed.

So Pro asks:
"How did the atmosphere form?"

My response:
The pre-biotic atmosphere of earth was likely highly inorganic and tumultuous from volcanic activity and the cooling of the earth's crust.
How did any of the planets' atmospheres form?
When planets form, they emit lots of dust and gas, so I imagine from this emission, comes an atmosphere of some sort.

All-in-all, Pro seems to accept that earthly life arose naturally, which negates the need for a deity or god to have created life on earth.

I maintain my rejection of the resolution.


We may not need a god, but if the chances were slim, then we'd need the help of a god to place the planet in the correct area and bring the proper elements into our planet.

Con reveals a problem with his assertions. Yes, other planets have atmospheres, but we're the only ones with life. Why's this? If Con could at least make a guess on the probability that we'd be the only planet with water that could sustain life, that would be great.

Pro is unable to post a link for the creation of the atmosphere. I agree earth's atmosphere is quite complex. All I need is an estimated probability so we can see how slim the chances are.

Now for my theory on the creation of life:

God first gathers different components required to make the planets. With knowledge of abiogenesis (who said he didn't?), he brings the needed elements to create life after drawing rock near the location of earth. The Sun came before earth, though. Life needs good temperature to survive, and Earth just *happens* to be here, the perfect spot. What are the chances? Slim, I bet. God also let life onto Earth via abiogenesis, which created the atmosphere. Firstly some bacteria arose which only needed Carbon Dioxide to survive (which Earth had plenty of at the time). Then they slowly evolved into more complex beings. Eventually becoming the dinosaurs, and this is the course of life.

If Con can refute this using science (no just saying "I still refuse to believe God made the universe"), I may concede. But until then, my theory stands.

God didn't 'poof' life onto Earth, but rather played a key step in abiogenesis, and the creation of earth.
Debate Round No. 3


Thanks Pro.

Pro says:
"We may not need a god"

My response:
I agree.
If we may not need a god, then how can one be sure that god created earthly life?

Pro says:
"Yes, other planets have atmospheres."

My response:
Pro had originally said, "If the atmosphere was created before life, this doesn't make much sense to me."
Well all of the extraterrestrial planets with atmospheres don't have life, so having an atmosphere before life should make the most sense. That's nearly all we've found are atmospheres that have originated without life.

Pro mentioned my lack of a link for the creation of the atmosphere.
Yep, it's irrelevant to the debate, so I don't need to do that.

Near as I can figure, the earth's atmosphere became what it is today after the moon-forming impact.
According to the NCBI article called "Earth's Earliest Atmosphere,"

The "moon-forming impact...made Earth for a short time absolutely interesting consequence of the moon-forming impact is that the mantle is devolatized, so that the volatiles subsequently fell out in a kind of condensation sequence...[this] atmosphere generated by impact degassing would tend to have a composition reflective of the impacting bodies (rather than the mantle), and these are almost without exception strongly reducing and volatile-rich."

So there's proof that the atmosphere was generated pre-biotically; no life was needed for the atmosphere.

So Pro's claim that "God also let life onto Earth via abiogenesis, which created the atmosphere" is refuted by me using science, because science shows an earth's atmosphere UNINHABITABLE to life; this negates "life...which created the atmosphere."

Pro said "If Con can refute this using science...I may concede"

My response:
Well I did concedin' Pro?


Con has not given even a guess as to the chances of Earth inhabiting life. My estimate is 3/1927483 (yes, I did put random numbers as a fraction, but the chances are very slim still).

Here's my information supporting the fact that most of the elements in Earth's atmosphere were created by bacteria (Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen, which other creatures would then use the Oxygen to start a cycle [plants uses Carbon Dioxide itno Oxygen, which animals use into Carbon Dioxide])

Earth's Atmosphere #1 (Earth when just newly created): Earth"s original atmosphere was probably just hydrogen and helium, because these were the main gases in the dusty, gassy disk around the Sun from which the planets formed. The Earth and its atmosphere were very hot. Molecules of hydrogen and helium move really fast, especially when warm. Actually, they moved so fast they eventually all escaped Earth's gravity and drifted off into space.

Earth's Atmopshere #2 (Earth a few million years after it was born): Earth"s "second atmosphere" came from Earth itself. There were lots of volcanoes, many more than today, because Earth"s crust was still forming. The volcanoes released
a. steam (H2O, with two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom),
b. carbon dioxide (CO2, with one carbon atoms and two oxygen atoms),
c. ammonia (NH3, with one nitrogen atom and three hydrogen atoms).

Earth's Atmosphere #3 (How earth became to be): Much of the CO2 dissolved into the oceans. Eventually, a simple form of bacteria developed that could live on energy from the Sun and carbon dioxide in the water, producing oxygen as a waste product. Thus, oxygen began to build up in the atmosphere, while the carbon dioxide levels continued to drop. Meanwhile, the ammonia molecules in the atmosphere were broken apart by sunlight, leaving nitrogen and hydrogen. The hydrogen, being the lightest element, rose to the top of the atmosphere and much of it eventually drifted off into space.

As you can see, there were bacteria that fed off of the Carbon Dioxide that sank into the ocean, giving off Oxygen as a waste product, which later animals breathed the Oxygen (as well as bacteria that consume Oxygen).

Con states Atmosphere is irrelevant. We need the atmosphere. If the earth's atmosphere was uninhabitable, life as we know it wouldn't exist! Here are reasons why we can't survive without our precious atmosphere:

1. It contains the oxygen we need to breathe. No oxygen, and we'd suffocate.

2. The atmosphere protects us from the Sun's UV rays, and other harmful chemicals.

3. It traps heat so we can stay warmer than without the atmosphere, yet blocks some heat as to not overheat our planet.

If the atmosphere was irrelevant, then it wouldn't matter if it was made before or after the life. I still propose life created the atmosphere, which helps the life on earth live.

And no, because I have found these problems in your assertions, I still say God created life. I don't concede. My main stance is the chances of earth containing life is very slim. Even with science explaining an alternative answer to the creation of life, it doesn't say the chances of life being able to exist.

The factors of the perfect life on earth is:

A) The perfect distance from the Sun; not too far away, not too close. Just the right distance for preferable temperature.

B) The required elements for abiogenesis (C 2 H 5 N O 2)

C) Atmosphere that can support life

D) Enough comets striking earth to make the ocean (a lot!)

As long as Con doesn't explain that the chances are high, with proof, I will still claim that God created these perfect conditions for life on earth.

My motto is "Every argument has it's flaws. You just need the evidence and courage to find the flaws." Even if that 9,738 character argument looks intimidating, you can find some flaw in the opponent's logic, you just probably need to do some digging (ask your opponent questions and do research on the internet).

May the voters determine who wins.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KyronTheWise 1 year ago
The issue is, Pro, it is not enough to prove the probability slim. For your theory of outside interference by creator to be undeniably true, it must be impossible for the circumstances to have happened w/o interference. You proved them slim. That makes it still possible it happened without creator. Does not emphatically deny a creator, but since you are arguing an absolute claim, possibility destroys it.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
thanks for the vote chaosism.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
Yeah, but you're arguing probability post hoc.
What's the probability that the Patriots won last years super bowl?
If it's slim, I can prove that the Seahawks won it...
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
It's not a matter of "how God made life", or "what is a being", it's a matter of "what's the chance of the perfect living conditions for Earth being present?". As long as the chances are incredibly slim, I could win this.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
No, theories are not beings. They are constructs. While constructs may be contingent on beings, they need not be beings themselves. Energy I agree exists, but it's not a being, because "being" in the definitions implies creation ability; energy doesn't create it exists and adds work to matter. Regardless the debate was accepted along with my definitions, and if you want to debate me on existence, set it up!
Posted by zeromeansnothing 1 year ago
Is 'abiogenesis.' a 'being', MagicAintReal?
Is 'natural selection' a 'being', MagicAintReal?
Is 'life' a 'being', MagicAintReal?

Just wondering!

If any of them 'were beings' in your opinion, then which one would you consider to be the 'supreme being' of Life on Earth. Are they all of equal significance?
If these are not, in your opinion 'beings' then please explain what a 'being ' is so that we can all concur with your progression here.
Posted by zeromeansnothing 1 year ago
MagicAintReal states: Being means existence I guess, but who cares?

I do, and so also, would a person entering into your debate, care.

Is energy a being? Is it 'existence' ? Is violence a being? Is it 'existence'? Is love a being?..........

Where do you set the mark? MagicAintReal???
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
Confidence in what?
I don't need people to feel confident in me about the meaning of the word "being" in a google definition about something for which I don't have a burden of proof.

Being means existence I guess, but who cares?

I reject the claim of such a being, so why am I being burdened with semantics on a supreme being?
Posted by zeromeansnothing 1 year ago
MagicAintReal states: 'ask google what the definition of 'being' is.'

This does not inspire much confidence when you cannot even describe what a 'being' approximates to , never mind a supernatural being. Putting the blame on Google is as lame as it gets, don't you think?

Is energy a 'being' in your opinion?
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
You know I'm the skeptic right? Like I'm the one defending science here, so i obviously can't explain some supernatural being, because I don't even know what supernature or what supernatural is. I took the definition of god from google definitions...ask google what the definition of being is.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This is pretty straightforward. Pro has the burden of proof, he has to show that god created life on Earth. He never does so. He doesn't make any effort to prove the existence of a deity, nor does he try to prove that the likeliest option for the formation of life was that deity. Pro does eventually get down to really trying to pry apart Con's argument, but it comes in the final round where I can't regard it as anything more than too little too late. Con does more than enough to show that abiogenesis is the most likely option for the formation of life on Earth, particularly through the unchallenged Miller-Urey experiment and other pieces of evidence. Sources to Con as well for that reason - Pro's only source comes late and he does nothing to bolster his arguments in any similar manner to Con.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct & S/G was equal. Con used more credible/official sources (i.e. PNAS vs Pro's goal is to refute Con through probability, apparently. Pro doesn't put forth any positive argument until R3, which is speculative regarding how God created the world without factual support. In R4, Pro, in failing to extract a probability from Con, just makes up a number. Ultimately, probability is totally indiscernible given our current information, similar to our inability to calculate the odds of the universe coming into existence (we only have one instance to observe). Secondly, any current situation can be shown to be a mathematical impossibility if enough details are considered (i.e. the infinitesimally tiny odds the molecules that make up my pants would be contacting the exact molecules that make up my chair at this moment). This kind of argument could be reversed by asking, "what is the probability that a God exists"? Con does well justifying Abiogenesis, and is not refuted.