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

Resolved: Evolution is more consistent with the evidence than is young earth creationism.

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: 11/16/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 853 times Debate No: 65276
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




Before we begin, let's give some definitions.

Evolution- the scientific theory that states modern organisms descended from ancient ones through a process of gradual modification over billions of years and share a common ancestry.

Young Earth Creationism- the belief that distinct kinds of organisms, along with the Earth, were created less than ten thousand years ago

The burden of proof is SHARED. This will establish an even playing field for both sides of the debate. The first round is for acceptance only. No new evidence may be presented in the final round.

Good luck!


I am a member of a religion ware we believe in creationism. we believe the earth was created in 7 days. but that sounds very illogical, my theory that on day for god is a million years for man-kind, with a theory like that it can be possible for that to match up to science. but evolution is more illogical, I would never believe that my ancestors where once fish or monkeys. but ware did the water come from? how did plants get their? the theory of evolution is completely illogical.
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly, the resolution clearly states that we are dealing with young earth creationism (YEC), which I have specifically defined as the creation of Earth less than 10000 years ago. By claiming the creation happened over seven million years, con ignored the definition. Therefore, his arguments are off topic.

Con asks "ware (sic) did the water come from?" This is also off topic.

Con then asks "how did plants get their (sic)?" It's simple: evolution.

Ok, it's not actually simple. Now, I must first explain the process of evolution and then the overwhelming evidence for it.

Imagine a population of identical lions hunting in the African Savannah. Statistically, as they are all identical, they would do about equally on average. Now, let's say, through the well documented process of mutation, one lion gains a 5% speed advantage over his (or her) competitors. He would be more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on the better genes to his offspring. Eventually, as organisms are in competition for finite resources (food, in this case), the fast gene would dominate the population. Over time, after many fast mutations, the lion could dramatically increase his speed over time.

It is clear that natural selection provides an excellent means of improving one species of animals in a quantitative ability, such as speed. The next question is how new species are created. Allow me to illustrate an example from a lab. A population of flies was split into to halves. One half was fed maltose based food and the other starch based food. After just a few generations, there was enough of a species gap that the two groups didn't interbreed, resulting in speciation. [1] This example demonstrates the process of speciation. By millions on billions of speciation events, we have acquired the amazing biodiversity of Earth.

I have given a brief explanation of how evolution works. Now, I will provide scientific evidence of it. Evolution is currently the only theory that explains the fossil record. According to young earth creationists, all "kinds" of animals would have perished in a global flood, but this would imply a random scattering of fossils. [2] Evolution not only predicts an ordering of fossils but also predicts the correct ordering of fossils every time. [3]. In addition, radiometric dating proves the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. [4]

Good luck to con in the coming rounds.



akstubben forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I will give con another chance to respond to my arguments. I hope he does.


I am a she. Both are logical, my personal beliefs include creationism. Sorry I couldn't reply soon enuf, I'm really busy. I don't have a lot of free time.
Debate Round No. 3


Con has failed to produce evidence and has essentially conceded. Vote pro.


akstubben forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by akstubben 1 year ago
sorry I forgot that first round was acceptance only!
Posted by Raistlin 1 year ago
I certainly hope someone will accept my challenge. Too many of us take advantage of all the benefits modern science provides yet reject it when it comes to evolution. I worded the resolution and opening argument very carefully to avoid any semantics, but I'm afraid unambiguity is not exactly the creationist's friend. With people like Kent Hovind defining evolution as anything from change within a species to the Big Bang, creationists love playing word games and muddying definitions. Who know? Someone might still accept the challenge.
Posted by thisnameasused 1 year ago
It would be very interesting to watch this debate pan out so I hope someone accepts your invitation Pro. I doubt anyone is going to take this debate up though sadly. I think with these parameters, you are either going to get someone who is ignorant to the theory of evolution, natural selection, etc, and resorts to the use of exhausting angles like intelligent design, as well as misquoting Darwin and likely mentioning Aquinas, or you're going to get someone who regurgitates the words of Mister Ham. In any case, I don't think luck comes into this from an atheist point of view so knock em dead mate.

I encourage you to look into the following point as ammo for your cause - "The Sumerians invented glue 7000 years ago"... ;)
Posted by Vox_Veritas 1 year ago
The Universe can be as old as you want. The Bible only mentions the Age of the Earth. Or at least, how long Earth has had life on it.
Posted by Alpacthulhu 1 year ago
Oh, it happens. 'You can't prove god doesn't exist!'
Posted by BoggyDag 1 year ago
I'd find it hard to think that calling something "beyond reasoning" was some sort of support, but I now do understand where the misunderstanding came from.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Posted by Alpacthulhu 1 year ago
I wasn't aware of the fact that I was copying your point. The way you typed it made it sound as though you were saying that Young Earth Creationism was right and can't be proven wrong.

But I see now that you were going for the point with which I countered what I believed yours to be.

Oh, and I realise that the FSM came before this, but I figured that, if you were a Young Earth Creationist, that you would have never even heard of the FSM because most Young Earth Creationists pretend any counterpoints to their idiotic logic don't exist. Because of this, I decided to essentially lay out the FSM idea, but seeing as my name is Alpacthulhu, I couldn't resist.
Posted by BoggyDag 1 year ago
What exactly are you trying to achieve by simply copying my point?
Something that cannot be falsified cannot be part of any reasonable scientific debate. Exactly because anybody can claim anything. And where you went the Spaghetti Monster came WAAAY before you.
Posted by Alpacthulhu 1 year ago
'This doesn't make any sense. Young Earth creationism depends on the omnipotence of God as a PREMISE. Which means that God may have forged all evidence as they saw fit. This is beyond reasoning or debate.'

I am Alpacthulhu, and I created the Earth 7 years ago, and I made the universe look like it was billions of years old and also manipulated the memories of my creations to make the ones of them who are supposedly older than 7 believe that they are actually older by implanting fake memories.

The Earth is now 7 years old and it cannot be proven otherwise.

Checkmate, Atheists!

P.s., I can't wait to see all of you non-believers burning in the fiery pits of Alpacabaddon!
Posted by Mike_10-4 1 year ago
Evolution started at the Big-Bang and continues today.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: As a YEC I completely disagree with Pro but Con did not make good arguments at all. Con also needs to work on their spelling/grammar and use sources.