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

(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Doxy234 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 389 times Debate No: 98067
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con)

Atheist evolution vs Christian Creationism. I will take the atheist evolution point of view, my opponent the Christian creationism side.

Definition of Creationism via wikipedia.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Creationism" can also refer to creation myths, or to a concept about the origin of the soul. Creation science refers to the pseudoscientific movement in the United States.[1]

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation,"[2][3] as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes.[4] The first use of the term "creationist" to describe a proponent of creationism is found in an 1856 letter of Charles Darwin describing those who objected on religious grounds to the emerging science of evolution.[5]

Creationists base their beliefs on a literal reading of religious texts, including the biblical Genesis creation myth and Islamic mythology from the Quran.[6][7][8] For young Earth creationists, this includes a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and the rejection of the scientific theory of evolution.[9] Literalist creationists believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth.[8] Pseudoscientific branches of creationism include creation science,[10] flood geology,[11] and intelligent design,[12][13] as well as subsets of pseudoarchaeology,[14][15] pseudohistory, and even pseudolinguistics.[16]"

R1 Acceptance & definitions
R2 Arguments
R3 Rebuttals
R4 Defense

Burden of proof
Burden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am the instigator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof.

Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon.

Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person' argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case.

Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws.

Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round three in response to my opponents round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect.

Thank you in advance for accepting the debate.

This debate is almost identical to a previous debate I lost. [1] I think the main flaw with my debate last time, is I left Creationism too open. My opponent won at this juncture, which I didn't expect my opponent to take this turn.

"The main problem with that sort of argument is simple: The Bible does not have to be correct for creationism to exist. It is perfectly possible that perhaps the entire Bible, or at least the majority of it, is mistaken, and that it has no place in the field, of science, as my opponent appears to believe." Kescarte_DeJudica

That by allowing my opponent to take a deism approach to creationism, most of my argument fell flat. Since, creationism could still be correct according to another religion or no religion at at all.

That being said my opponent must take a literal Christian approach to creationism.



All I have to debate you is my faith. Sorry Bro neither evolution or creationism can be proven.
Debate Round No. 1


R2 Arguments

On one side we have the rational atheistic evolution. Which promotes via empirical evidence how we came to be through a series of natural processes. Our universe came from another universe, the multi-verse theory, then a big bang occurred, the big bang theory, the Earth gradually formed via rotations, the theory of gravity.

Next, the first lifeforms emerged abiogenesis, theory of abiogenesis. Which then evolved into more and more complex lifeforms eventually evolving homo sapiens. This is Darwin's theory of evolution. This is all rational and backed up by empirical evidence, although we cannot replicate such events like the big bang, we can use computer models. Finally, a scientific hypothesis is considered true, until proven false.

All these above theories are therefore considered true, until proven false. This is the nature of science.

On the other side, we have Christian creationism, a faith based approach which relies solely upon Christian religious doctrine. Doctrine that claims God is good, geocentric, flat, young Earth. Filled with many unrepeatable and unobservable events like a man walking on water, turning water into wine, rising from the dead, Jonah surviving three days and nights within the belly of a great fish, Noah surviving a year with a very large boat built by amateurs with lots of animals on board.

Not only that, but a character who claims to be the one and only benevolent God who breaks his own rules and performs many immoral deeds. The worst in my opinion is eternal damnation, punishing finite crimes with infinite punishment. There is many others including promoting slavery.

""20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money." [0]

"“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;” " [1]"

The genocides of the Old Testament. [2] This includes the drowning of almost every human and animal on the Earth. The incest within the Bible. [3][4]

If this wasn't enough the Bible has plenty of contradictions and translations. [5][6]

How can we trust this source that has been translated so many times and contains so many contradictions? That promotes immoral behavior and impossible events. A character who breaks his own rules. That promotes ideas that are scientifically garbage, pseudoscience. The answer is we can't.

I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that literal Christian creationism is false. That the Earth cannot be flat, because it is spherical in shape. The theory of gravity wouldn't allow for a flat Earth. The rotations would smooth out the Earth into a sphere. That's why all the other planets are spherical in shape. There are many photographs of Earth. [7]

The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. We can tell this due to radioactive decay dating techniques. [8]

"Age of moon rocks 4.5 billion19
Age of meteorites 4.5 billion24
Accumulation of space dust on the moon (at the measured rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter per year) 4.5 billion25
Age of earth rocks 4.2 billion17
Relaxation times of star clusters 4 billion26
Erosion on Mercury Mars, and Moon 4 billion27
Length of days of coral fossils 370 million28" [8]

There are galaxies far away that require 13.3 billions of light years to travel. The universe must be at least 13.3 billion years old. [9]

Then, there is the enormous amount of fossil evidence. [10]

In sharp contrast my opponent stands by a series of books that claims that God sent two female bears to kill 42 children. That is both bizarre and immoral.

"Elisha Mocked
23Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!" 24When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25He went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.…"

I look foward to your response, thank you for debating.



Believe what you want just don't go telling people they are wrong for what they believe.
Debate Round No. 2


R3 Rebuttals

"Believe what you want just don't go telling people they are wrong for what they believe." Doxy234

My opponent has trolled the debate. Voters please give me all points due to my opponent's trolling.

" As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."
In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
[DO19-25]" [12]

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. "Richard Dawkins [13]

Religion is not harmless. I have the right to tell you that.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
There is no god..So what is creationism ?
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
If god is perfect, does god need to create. A perfect being has no needs or wants.
To believe God created this world is to go against the character of an immutable God, because that means he changed his mind from being the sole being of existence to many beings of existence.
If god is immutable, he never changes, then how can he change his mind and create.
Posted by fred70 1 year ago
Stupidape went through the trouble of typing all them letters for: I have to debate you is my faith. Sorry Bro neither evolution or creationism can be proven.
Why the f*** you accept debate you schmuck?
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.