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

Science provides indisputable proof that God formed all Life on Earth, failing to prove otherwise

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,534 times Debate No: 91685
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (139)
Votes (2)





To date the entire Scientific community has been unsuccessful in resolving HOW life was formed or created upon the Earth. Despite billions of dollars in costs, combined efforts of the top scientific minds through the ages multiple experiments some lasting generations ".. and have been unable to show results or proofs of other than the supernatural at work.

It is reasonable to presume that after so many years of unsuccessful attempts, failed experimentation's, inabilities to produce a single living breathing biologic with which to provide before film or photograph mediums, beyond drawings, it is time that mankind come to the understanding that a genius far greater than our own is very much involved here.

To date there is no proof whatever that the Biblical interpretation of Life"s emergence is inaccurate, based upon any scientific study, in fact In Sciences attempts to explain the various possibilities of how life might have formed, there constant failures has only bolstered the reality of Gods intervention with each failed experiment. And science? Nope not a single success to parade before film or photography " not a single piece of visual evidence showing an actual living creature that WAS PRODUCED (emphasis) under any experimental processes.

What is Life? For the purpose of this Debate it is defined as
1.the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. "the origins of life"
2. the existence of an individual human being or animal.

Rule #1: REPORTS
Disallowed except as follows: Any reports must also be accompanied by video or photographic evidence, which shows claimed process in action, culminating in living biological creature. (Video and photographic restrictions apply).

Rule#1a. Opinions without submission of proofs as defined by debate standards are disallowed! You shall not mention, refer to or point out Reports which have not met the rigorous standards of all Debate rules provided.

Must be in Real photographs, live action, not animated or drawn. Must show progression from inception to a living biologic creature of the nature of, mammals, insects, birds or plant life. May be stop action, or time-lapsed as needed.

Rule #3. Microscopic organisms may only be used if the end result can be followed from microscopic to birth of full biologic formation (restrictions apply).

Microscopic inorganic, bacteria and or virus will not be accepted as they do not follow patterns consistent with known biologic life. Example given ". Microscopic cells do not decay, and as such are not consistent with all known life. Second example ". Do not demonstrate any form of decomposition traits such as producing decomposers of bacteria or fungi, larger scavengers such as maggots, ants, vermin, insects which naturally feast upon the once living creature. These traits are not shown in the microscopic world. As they remain visible under fluid, do not vanish into nothing via putrefaction or other decomposition regimen consistent with the living.

Rule #4 No off topic subjects admitted, or allowed. Off topic subjects will be identified but will not be addressed or considered in voting except as a violation of protocol and rule.

Rule#5 As God is shown to have been the creator of all things by scientific facts available in film, and real world photography, which constitutes valid facts, that meets requirements of rules of debate. God may be discussed freely at any time as He is sovereign.

Premise#1 Formation of Life must have been by supernatural formation as defined in scripture:
a.because reproduction requires formation of egg in animals, mammals, insects, fish, crustaceans, amphibians.
b. Requires ADULT fertilization by male of species to reproduce viable offspring in animals, mammals, amphibians, insects, Birds etc"
c.Requires adult to produce an egg in species that reproduce asexually, as in some lizards and frogs.
c.Requires seeds to produce plants of all kinds, but requires adult plant to PRODUCE (emphasis) the seed.

Premise #2 There is no scientific way shown for life to have formed through any natural construct, by accident or otherwise. ie ... Plants MUST start as seed, BUT must have ADULT PLANT to produce seed!

Premise#3 There is no scientific data of photographic evidence in the entirety of scientific literature to provide realistic or possible paradigm for the formation of ADULT, plants, animals, birds, insects, amphibians, crustaceans or mammals that were needed to begin the reproductive process!

Genesis account: Chapter 1 day 3
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.

Day 5
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky." 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."
Day 6
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Proof of occurrence:
Plants , animals, insects, birds amphibians, crustaceans, and Humans were CREATED ADULT, providing availability to PRODUCE (emphasis), seed, egg, fertilization, pollination etc... Thus was LIFE BEGUN!

external scientific proofs:
Human reproduction requirement of egg/fertilization to reproduce:

requirement for fly egg laying to reproduce:

Requirement for Fish and birds to reproduce:

Requirements for amphibians to produce:

Requirement for insect reproduction:


I'd like to thank FollowerofChrist1955 (henceforth FoC) for creating this debate. I'm sure it will be both enlightening and intriguing.

In an attempt to follow the rules, I will not be providing any evidence that is not photographic and/or video. However, I will occasionally make arguments based purely in logic. I assume that is ok, considering the opponent has made a logical argument in their opening argument. (This can be found in his list of premises that he is upholding for this round.)

Statement of Position

I would like to state for the record that I am taking the Con side and the opponent is taking the Pro side. This coincides with the fact that the opponent is making an objective claim about the world we live in. As such, the burden of proof currently rests with the opponent in upholding his claim. It is my job in this debate to insure that the opponent fails to objectively demonstrate the veracity of his claim.

I'll note that the rules presented by the opponent cannot be considered as working "only one way", in that he is restricted to visual proofs and logical arguments alone, just as I am.

I am personally not making any claims, except that the opponent cannot uphold his own, and the claims that help support that idea. This is acceptable in any debate in which one side makes a positive claim regarding the existence of some object, entity or fact.

Response To Opponent's Argument

The opponent has made many claims in his opening argument. I will only address those which are either a) logical arguments or b) physical proofs. I am disregarding the others as they are a clear violation of the rules.

We see that the opponent has provided a multitude of physical proofs concerning the life cycle of many types of animals, specifically as it pertains to reproduction. I accept these as true.

The opponent then claims that these biological facts imply that "God formed all life on Earth". Unforunately, the argument is not yet solid enough to be considered valid. Based upon the physical proofs provided we know that life certainly exists and we know how it reproduces. Unfortunately, the knowledge of this gives no clear indication of how the life started in the first place.

While both sides could speculate as to the cause in question, without physical evidence that it outside of the realms of this debate. I ask that the opponent provide physical evidence that life was created by God. This can be in the form of photographic evidence -- such as a picture of God creating life or a video evidence, such as that of God forming the animals or humans.

The difficulty in obtaining evidence of this nature is not my problem, as I did not go into a debate and choose to limit which evidence I can use. I trust that my opponent accepts that he has to provide physical evidence to proof his objective claim.

A Brief Note on Debate Theory

I'd like to crystalize for the opponent exactly what my position in this debate is. While most people assume that debates involve two parties, each arguing clashing and objective claims, this is not always the case. In many debates, there is only one side making objective claims and the other side exists purely to show that the opponent's objective claim is not sound.

Since the opponent did not explicitly state that Con needed to uphold and defend an objective claim, I have assumed the role of the latter type of debater mentioned above. Ie, I will be attempting to demonstrate that the opponent's objective claim is not adequately defended to be considered true, though I myself will not be making a positive claim. (A positive claim is claiming that something is the case. This can be in the form of "X exists...", "Y implies this..." or "Z is the case such that..." [The opponent is making a positive claim, which can be seen by "Science provides indisputable evidence..." in the resolution.]

In summary, I am not making a positive claim in this debate. I am not arguing that "physical proof exists that shows how life originated". I am arguing that the opponent's argument that "physical proof exists showing God created all life" is not valid.

If this is not what the opponent expected, I can only apologize. My position is well understood within the confines of argumentation theory and is a critical analysis tool in determining the validity of someone's claims.


As it stands, the opponent has not provided "indisputable scientific proof that God created life". He has demonstrated that life exists and that it reproduces, but no physical evidence has been presented that proves that God is responsible for the creation of this life.

I have clarified my position in this debate as being one that attempts to prove the opponent cannot affirm his position. I have also confirmed for the voters that I will not be making any positive claims of existence in this debate.

I look forward to the opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1


I welcome your enthusiastic acceptance of this debate and am quite confident that it will be an enlightening experience. First we must address some misinterpretations on your part. Your acceptance of debate constitutes an agreement to abide by all rules set forth unless discussions occur where participants come to reasonable deviations as defined by mutual consent!

So your preening shall be ignored as you have no legitimate position with which to accept or refuse to participate in the manner prescribed by guidelines. No discussions were entered into so ". You don"t get to say or define, squat! You made no request for exceptions, so none shall be granted!

First: Your Statement of Position: invalid and unnecessary you are Con, that is clearly one who is against!

Second: Objective Claim? You accepted based upon debates parameters- This may reasonably infer, imply, or allude to acceptance in its entirety.

Thus you are in violation of rule 4-Off-Topic and your statement must be ignored and excluded from vote requirements. I have no need to converse with you beyond proofs and minor opinions, which help to clarify a statement, and then only on the grounds that such statement is necessary to assist you in an interpretive fashion. You are welcome to address anyone you wish in comments section, but in Debate, you address just me! If I need clarification you can trust I will ask you in comments section otherwise keep your opinions off the main debate page as much as possible. (to prevent lengthy and frequent violations of Rules.)

*note* You are allowed opinion, but not assertions or claims, which require proof in keeping with standards. *

It is my hopes for an eye opening debate from you. For this cause the rules are as they are. We shall employ the KISS method ". Keep It Simple Stupid.

Your Response to opponents Argument: You accepted debate based on rules, and guidelines. You will answer questions and proofs given you that are within guidelines, The option for you to not do so must coincide with debate parameters, or you will be removed from debate for violation of rules! You do not get to choose what you will or will not answer unless it is in clear violation of Rules or guideline, this is MY Debate! You accepted. Abide by the agreed upon rules.

Example of not in keeping with guidelines and or rules expanded as provided by Your Statement of position.
1.Made Claim against Pro statement:
a.Off topic- topic is proofs of lack of scientific physical evidence against Biblical text.(rule 4)
b.You claim does not lend itself to debate subject, but veers off to Pro? (rule 4)
c.Opinionated Claim, but was impossible to provide required proofs for a claim, Con should thus have avoided this statement altogether which lent itself to required necessity of evidence.

Item#2 You accepted debate based on Premises not headings, it was your responsibility to presume nothing but to ask any questions prior to acceptance if you failed to do this that is your problem not mine. I will of course allow you to remove yourself from debate at any time out of common courtesy. I do not believe you wish to remove yourself and as such will proceed accordingly. Please advise me in comments section or personal message should I be mistaken!

****The debate parameters are going to make it extremely difficult not to violate rules should either of us get into lengthy discussions. I realize that you will feel the need to defend your case before the masses. If you chose this route, that is entirely your choice, but I will be keeping track of violations and promptly request your removal for continuous acts of breech of Rule or Guidelines!****

Now we shall dispense with other shall we say, Ohhhh, Ohhhh, Ahhhhhhah unnecessary shenanigans And begin debate;

Premise#1: Formation of Life must have been by supernatural formation as defined in scripture:
All animal, mammal, Human, Insect, Bird and Plant life, form only in one way: Egg or Seed

Premise #2 There is no scientific way shown for life to have formed through any natural construct, by accident or otherwise. ie ... Plants MUST start as seed, BUT must have ADULT PLANT to produce seed!

Premise#3 There is no scientific data of photographic evidence in the entirety of scientific literature to provide realistic or possible paradigm for the formation of ADULT, plants, animals, birds, insects, amphibians, crustaceans or mammals that were needed to begin the reproductive process!

Evidence: Report-

Evidence: Report- Fly"s

Requirement for Fish and birds to reproduce:

Requirements for amphibians to produce:

Requirement for insect reproduction:


Basic animal reproduction:

This substance of this debate is not one of casual increase of knowledge but is being specifically directed to induce an earnest desire on your part to contemplate a very real fact as shown in countless videos readily available on internet, dvd"s etc" That Life should not exist at all, in fact could not exist at all based on the requirements of all known reproductive paradigms? Bold statement to be sure ". However, upon investigation, readily available upon the internet, as defined by all available media life cycles form seed to plant ->to seed etc. egg to human, ->or mammal, ->or insect, ->or amphibian-> or crustacean depending on which species egg it is.

Impossible because to get an egg or seed, required an adult specimen to provide the egg, or adult plant to provide the seed. The videos above attest to the fact of this is the paradigm in all life forms. Egg->infant->adult. Seed-> germination-> plant there are no exceptions. Then life should not exist, but does. How can this be explained by any known construct save one " the supernatural.
Impossible occurrence as life existing where it should not lies squarely in the Biblical Text. Like or not it is the only feasible, logical, rational, plausible in relation to all other known theories it is the only one that accurately reflects the necessary requirements which adequately answers all questions within the context of existence.

Or is it feasible, rational, logical or plausible, that "..that what? We are here but should not be by any natural means known to mankind!

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

We do have the biblical text which explains our creation ".. it readily states the created including man as adult specimens ". This answers availability of adult specimens for egg productions? This answers availability of Plants for seed production? Or do we just continue to ignore facts.


I'd like to thank FoC for his quick response. As per his request, I will attempt to emply the "KISS" method and keep everything as clean and simple as possible. I'll demarkate all relevant areas of discussion by bold titles.

The Rules

I was to make two things clear. First, I will follow all rules that were set forth in the first round. If these rules were ambiguous, I will make my own assumptinos regarding their applicability.

Second, I will not be following any rules brought up since then or any "I really meant this:" statements from the opponent. The moment I accepted this debate it became as much my debate as his, as who wins and loses will be reflected in both of our debate records. The opponent may have instigated this debate, but that does not give him the authority to create new rules or attempt to clarify old ones in a restrictive manner not aligned with common sense.

My Position in this Debate

This portion of my opening statement was to provide clarity on my position to the voter's and opponent. As such, it is relevant to this debate and not "off topic".

To briefly summarize the point I made: The opponent did not prescribe the specific role that Con was to be taking in this debate. In debates, Con generally plays one of two roles. Either:

1. He presents a positive claim that clashes with the opponent's claim, or,

2. He does not present a positive claim, instead showing the opponent's argument to be itself flawed or inconsistent.

As it was not chosen for me in the guidelines, I have accepted the second of these two possible roles. I will not accept that my role was "implied" as the rules were so complete and verbose that it was not reasonable to expect that the accepting party would need to make any assumptions regarding the rules.

If the opponent does not like the role I have chosen -- tough luck. Next time he can clarify exactly what he wants Con to argue, but the time for that in this debate has long passed.

To be clear, my position is not in violation of any explicitly stated debate parameters set in Round 1 by the opponent.


I am furthermore reiterating my assumption that logic is an acceptable form of argumentation. I warn the opponent not to disagree with this, as a debate can't be had without logic. The evidence presented itself isn't even relevant if we are not allowed to make logical conclusions regarding the implications of said evidence.

Without logic, nothing can ultimately be proven and this debate is meaningless. In fact, it is very difficult for human beings to even construct a sentence without using some type of explicit or implied logic. I assume this isn't an issue, but the opponent is free to correct me and live with the consequences if he so wishes.

Opponent's Premises

The opponent states that "[I] accepted the debate based on Premises, not headings..." which I assume is making one of two points. I'll address both.

One, it's possible that the opponent means that I was supposed to accept his stated premises as true before accepting this debate. This was not clearly stated, nor is it even logically implied. The very use of the word "premise" implies the introduction of an argument to which the conclusion will later be reached.

Two, it's possible that the opponent means that the resolution he provided is not what was to be discussed, which itself is a nonsensical statement. Obviously the resolution is what is to be discussed. It was not stated anywhere that we wouldn't be discussing the stated resolution, nor is that a logical implication.

Opponent's Case

Premise 1: Formation of Life must have been by supernatural formation as define by scripture.

This is more of a conclusion then a premise. If we are to consider it a premise, then I'll point out that the opponent has provided no photographic or videographic evidence supporting this claim.

Premise 2: There is no scientific way shown for life to have formed through any natural construct.

Again, if we treat this as a premise then the opponent has not proven it. Rather, he is making an unfounded assumption. We know this because the opponent has not provided any photographic or videographic evidence documenting this as a fact.

Premise 3: There is no scientific data of photographic evidence...providing realistic or possible paradigms for the formation of adult [beings].

I'll assume the opponent means the "natural formation" of adult beings.

I can accept this premise as valid. However, this does not lend itself to the conclusion that "science provides scientific proof that God formed all life on Earth," which is the opponent's resolutional burden. A "lack of evidence" literally refers to the non-existence of evidence. The resolution calls for existent evidence to be presented to prove the opponent's claim.

Until such time as the opponent provides photographic or videographic evidence documenting God creating life, he has failed to fulfull the evidential burden that he placed on himself in the opening round. Remember how important it is that both debaters stay within the parameters set in Round 1, so the opponent cannot be allowed an exception or deviation.

The Logical Response

The following is a logical construction. The opponent can choose to ignore this section in its entirety if he feels it invalid or irrelevant. I have already demonstrated that FoC has not provided physical evidence of his claim, so I do not technically need to do anything else. This logical construction is being presented purely to increase the quality of the debate.

The opponent's logical argument can be expressed as this:

There is not evidence of not Y, therefore Y.

This can be deconstructed to more easily see the fallacy this argument commits:

P1: If Y has (conclusive) evidence, Y exists.[premise]
P2: If Y does not have evidence, Y does not exist. [apply contrapositive]
C: There is not evidence of not Y, therefore Y exists. [conclusion]

The error is found in Premise 2, where the contrapositive of Premise 1 is incorrectly applied. When performing a contraposition conversion one must both negate both sides of the argument and switch them. Here, the sides are negated, but not switched.

The correct contraposition of P1 is:

If Y does not exist, Y does not have evidence.

Realizing this logical error, one can see that the conclusion has not been met. Let's now actually "fill in" the opponent's argument so we have an even clearer picture:

P1. If there is evidence life formed naturally, then life formed naturally.
P2. If there is not evidence life formed naturally, then life did not form naturally.
C. There is not evidence life formed naturally, therefore life did not form naturally.

The opponent's logical error of incorrect contraposition occurs in P2, invalidating his conclusion. The lack of evidence for something existing is itself not proof that the "something" in question does not exist. Our inability to physically provide (photographic/videographic) evidence regarding how an animals reproductive habits can coexist with the natural formation of life is not itself proof that there is not a naturalistic explanation.

The opponent and voters would do well to remember an important rule: In occasions where the number of possible explanations is unknown, a lack of proof is never itself considered proof.


I've demonstrated that the opponent has failed to uphold his resolutional burden by not providing physical evidence that God formed life. I've thrown in a "bonus track" explaining why the opponent's implicated logical argument is invalid due to incorrect contraposition.

I look forward to FoC's response.

[And as a note to him, you cannot simply "exit" or "withdraw" from a debate in any official capacity. Moderators will not a remove a debate simply because it is not going the way you wanted/expected. Once you're in it -- you better be in it to win it.]
Debate Round No. 2


In accordance with prescribed rules, Request made to terminate you from Debate secondary to multiple infringement of protocol and Multiple failures to submit required evidence, The entirety of your response is in violation of all agreed upon rules!

I will annotate your name and pursue further actions against you! This is my last response to you! Consider debate Closed.


It is unfortunate that Pro found himself unwiling to continue debating.

Closing Statements

The argument points should clearly go to me, as Pro dropped his argument in this most recent round and further expressed his unwillingness to continue debating.

The spelling and grammar points should likely remain "tied". I didn't notice any major mistakes by any side that affected the debate in a negative way, in terms of spelling and grammar.

The conduct point should go to me. I have not broken any of the opponent's rules. I will reiterate them here, for the convenience of the voters.

1. No "reports" as evidence unless accompanied by photographic/videographic evidence that shows the process of [living creatures] culminating into living beings.

[I did not provide any reports whatsoever, so I have no violated this rule.]

2. Opinions without submission of proofs defined by debate standard are disallowed. Do not refer to or point out reports which have not met these standards.

[Again, I did not provide any reports. I furthermore did not state any opinions that were not backed by logic. As the opponent led with a logical argument in his opening speech, it was assumable to me that logic was a valid form of support. Furthermore, it is literally impossible to communicate without using logic (valid or invalid).]

3. Evidence must be videographic or photographic.

[I did not provide any evidence or reference any evidence, so this rule is not broken.]

4. Microscopic organisms may only be used if...

[I did not provide any evidence or reference any evidence, so this rule is not broken.]

5. No off topic subjects admitted.

[All things mentioned by me were relevant to the debate, in my opinion. It is ultimately left to the voters to determine whether my arguments were "on topic" and relevant to the debate.]

6. Photographic and videographic evidence confirm the existence of God and he can be discussed freely at any time.

[I did not even question this assumption. I accepted that we are to assume God exists. I did, however, question the lack of photographic and videographic evidence of him creating life -- which concerns the resolution.]

We can see that I did not break any rules presented by the opponent. His unwillingness to debate this issue further is no doubt because I expressed my negating position in a way that he did not expect. While this is unfortunate for him, it is not a violation of the rules set forth by FoC.

A New Argument

As I previously mentioned, the moment I accepted this debate it became as much "my debate" as it is "his debate". I expect high quality argumentation in my debates and though I cannot force the opponent to continue debating, I can continue to provide constructive analysis on my own. I refuse to simply "stop debating" in Round 3 or a five round debate.

In this following argument, I will be presenting a Kritik. A Kritik is an argument that concerns the way the opponent is attempting to meet his resolutional burden and/or one that concerns any fundementally "bad" assumptions made.

The Kritik

I will be presenting a case arguing that the opponent's fundemental assumptions are detrimental to the debate process and do not result in any of the positive outcomes argumentation is supposed to produce.

Point 1: Overly restrictive rules and regulations.

Man is fairly bad at moderating himself in many cases. This is especially prevalent in "competitive play", where two or more opposing sides are vieing for a victory that cannot be mutually obtained. As such, there are rules and regulations that are set into place. These rules are meant to foster fairness and sportsmanlike conduct, while preserving the integrity and purpose of the activity at hand.

Rules begin to damage the activity in question whenever they are so restrictive that they no longer promote fairness and integrity. In instances where this occurs, it is necessary to acknowledge and correct the draconian regulations so that the activity retains the value it had prior to these increased restrictions.

It is my contention that the opponent has presented as requirements these "toxic regulations" to the degree that it negatively impacted the quality and educational usefulness of this debate in a significant way. If we, as a community of debaters, wish to continue to value quality and educational debates, it is our obligation to acknowledge and address these negative restrictions introduced by FoC.

As any voter can see, the way in which FoC limited Con's abiity to present information made it nearly impossible to provide adequate clash. I only managed to do it by taking a negative position that the opponent is not familiar with. Restrictions like these only promote hostility and negativity, which can be clearly illustrated by the frustration present in the comment section of this very debate.

I urge voters to recognize and correct this degradation of quality argumentation by insuring the offender loses this debate. While that may not change his attitude, it may change his future behavior and the behavior of others who read this debate. Voters shoud exercise their power to the fullest extent to insure that violations like this do not become commonplace on

The opponent's unwillingness to debate.

The opponent is doing what I call "throwing a fit" because the debate veered in a direction that he had not prepared for. This is sad for him, but it is a reflection of real life. Often times we believe that we fundementally understand a situation and are fully prepared for it, only to have something unexpected happen anyway.

When faced with unexpected adversity, we must remember to carry on. The human race would not be were it is now if we encouraged simply lying down in the mud when difficult situations arose. It behooves us, as a species, to value attempts to overcome adversity and difficulty. Likewise, it is beneficial to us to attempt to reprimand those who choose to simply "give up".

Again, in this situation, the voters likely do not have the power to change the attitude of my opponent. They do, however, have the ability to demonstrate with their vote that giving up (in this debate or in life) is an unnacceptable behavior. Rewarding obstinance is no different than encouraging it.

Kritik Conclusion

The way in which the opponent set up the round and the way in which he is behaving now are both detrimental to the debate community. It is the duty of the voters to insure that negative behavior like this is not rewarded. Instead, we must hedge against it using all of the authority we have, which in this case is something as simple as a vote.

Voting for the opponent is condoning poor argumentation and negative behaviors. Voting for me is the natural way of attempting to correct the apparent error in FoC's ways.


The opponent has simply given up, which is tantamount to forfeit. Beyond that, I've demonstrated that (up until I presented my Kritik) I did not violate any of the rules provided. In this alone, I have won.

I've additionally demonstrated that the opponent's attitude is itself a cancerous force that, if encouraged, will only have negative consequences in this community.

Whichever way you look at it, I have clearly won this debate. I hope the readers got something out of this (maybe they learned what contrapositives are?) and I hope the voters band together to teach FoC that this thing that happened above is not acceptable in this community and is not acceptable in general.

Thanks for reading and vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3


dtien400, thank you for your comment: let debate continue.

Premise for supernatural intervention stated two separate occasions. I submit that it is neither naturally or accidentally possible for life to come into existence as reproductive processes across the entirety of the Earth demonstrate uniformly and demonstrate mandatorily there must be embryonic growth by the means of egg development among all living mammals, insects, amphibians and crustaceans. Seed germination for plant life etc...

Evidence in keeping with standards of rules as follows:
external scientific proofs:
Human reproduction requirement of egg/fertilization to reproduce:

equirement for fly egg laying to reproduce:

Requirement for Fish and birds to reproduce:

Requirements for amphibians to produce:

Requirement for insect reproduction:

Factual physical evidence. The harsh requirements are meant to exclude these fictional reports to keep you from going crazy reading reports which at its end result in no existing physical evidence, merely conjectures. The time for truth is now. We can no longer afford the fanciful. If our existence hinged solely upon a superior being as reproduction clearly indicates in the most impossible of scenarios, mankind must come to grips with this and Him.

Which came first the chicken or the egg takes on a whole new meaning when in full reflection one comes to the very real conclusion that it could not possibly have been either one by any natural constructs!
Hard science has already proven long ago that to obtain an adult it must grow from egg or seed for plants. Yet for a seed or an egg to be available you need an adult creature to provide it! Biology allows for no other way and scientist the world over have never been able to create so much as the tiniest of insect life from any known method. Postulate? Sure but physical living proof of it. Does not exist!

For science to claim the ability to produce a living specimen without the need of egg or seed to develop into a living plant or animal, must require physical proof for such preposterous claims.


I'd like to thank the opponent for electing to continue this debate as well as dtien, for being the voice of reason that convinced FoC to continue.

The opponent case boils down to a few simple arguments. I'll address these, reiterating some points along the way, then close.

Regarding the Kritik, I will drop it for now, so long as the opponent finishes the debate. If he fails to do so, I will haven no choice but to resubmit the Kritik as an a priori voting issue.


1. Chicken vs. Egg

The opponent's first argument truly boils down to the infamous "chicken or egg" argument. When considering which came first, the chicken or the egg, it is easy to find oneself in a sort of logical conundrum. The opponent sumbits that there is ony one escape from this paradox, that being Creationism.

I submit that there is an alternative explanation that solves this paradox, that being evolution.

Before I begin talking about that, though -- I would like to agree with the opponent that there is a definitive lack of absolute proof regarding evolution. However, the opponent's Creationism claim is equally (or moreso) unsubstantiated. His basic argument is that "evolution can't be proven, ergo Creationism" when one could just as easily say "Creationism can't be proven, ergo evolution."

As I detailed in my Round 2 logical proof, if some claim Y has a lack of supporting evidence, this does not imply that not Y is true. Most every scientific concept we believe to be true was at one point unsubstantiated. Despite this, they were as true then as they are now.

Similarly, evolution can not be ruled out as true simply because there does not exist absolute evidence confirming its existence. By the same logic, neither can creationism. However, we have established that the Burden of Proof rests on the opponent's shoulders and not mine. As such, it is his obligation to show that Creationism is scientifically supported (or supported in some other way), whereas I do not share a similar obligation with regards to evolution.

A Brief Discussion of Evolution

Again, I'd like to clarify I do not have evidence supporting evolution that meets the rigorous standards of the opponent. However, I am presenting this concept as an alternative, thus showing that Creationism is not the only reasonable origin of life theory.

Basically, there existed a point in which complex non-living matter met the requirements of being considered extremely simply living matter. Over time, this living matter became more complex, often times diverging along distinct paths. These paths continued to diverge. What we now call "species" are living matter that are on distinct paths.

As it relates to the "chicken vs. egg" argument, the egg came first. Natural selection works as a product of mutation. Mutation occurs in the formation of a living being, meaning at some point a not-chicken (with great similarities to are-chickens) had a mutated child that was born into what we would classify as chickens.

The Burden of Proof

This point is simply to reiterate that the burden of proof rests upon the opponent. This means that the opponent has an obligation to prove that "scientific evidence supports Creationism". I do not have any inherent burden of proof, since it is not my obligation to actually hold a positive position.

As such, it is my hope that the opponent presents some evidence concerning origin of life in the next round. Currently, it is well evidenced how various animal reproduce. This does not shed any light on the origin of these living creatures, however. The opponent's assumption that Creationism is the only explanation for origin of life is de facto incorrect, as evolution is undoubtedly an explanation. Whether this explanation is actually correct is neither here nor there. It's mere existence confirms that the opponent indeed has a burden to prove his claim.


This has been short, but I hope clear. I've demonstrated that the opponent's logical argument does not hold. I've demonstrated that the opponent has a clear burden of proof, since Creationism is not the only origin of life explanation. I have not demonstrated evolution to be absolutley true, as this was never the point I was trying to make. Rather, the mere existence of alternative theories means that proof must be provided before it is believed correct.

I look forward to the opponent's final round.
Debate Round No. 4


1. Chicken vs egg is an unfortunate fact not a concept! Because of this only factual alternatives can seriously be considered.
Chicken vs egg though simplistic presents a factual riddle that provides the truth to the universe. Once solved if offers the decoder a visual view of the infinite. It both sets into motion and sets free the mind to seek the realities of the world around them enabling a soul to one day set their minds and perceptive abilities beyond ones own surrounding, ones own thoughts.

Creationism: the concept that life was created by a being of infinite power,wisdom and capability. That this being placed or created all life upon earth type and kind allowing the reproductive processes to perpetuate each species by reproduction.
This answers the conundrum of needed adults to provide egg and seed.

That each type and kind was created by the use of his personal creative mechanism the DNA strand, which enabled him to create all species with a simple adjustment to band placements, which though minimal in this superior intellects thoughts created differing species of every type gender and kind.
And it is this reason why all living organisms type and keep possess DNA strands so close to each other yet so vastly different in species. i.e., dog, mouse, cow, ape etc... All possess the same DNA Patterns as humans differing only in bands and codes and not because your cousin to oak trees, mice dog, tree etc. you like they were created by similar DNA.

This concept alone remains plausible, logical and intellectually sound despite the want to accept or not. It alone answers the impossible questions of life's origin with the least flaws. When you eliminate the impossible, what remains no matter how improbable must be the truth!

Completely unsubstantiated drivel. No physical evidence of the creation of a single animal,mammal, fish, insect or amphibian. Which is why no physical evidence can be provided.
And if no physical evidence can be provided evolution not only cannot be considered an alternate method, but must be excluded from any genuine consideration.

To refuse the only plausible explanation for the origins of the earth based solely upon ones personal unwillingness to accept it for no other reason than discomfort or distaste is many things but scientific is not one of them.
To lie around hoping that someday at some future time it may pan out and worse to allow the younger less experienced to continue in disbelief of the only logical, plausible solution because you refuse to accept it is unconscionable.

Fact are facts eggs are required for offspring reproduction. This is undesputed fact: Seed are required for plant life. This does not lend itself to speculation every soul reading this is already aware of these facts. It would be my hopes that all debate members always want to know the truth..... Actual facts that forever lay to rest the absurd, the unsubstantiated the absence of physical proof.

Like it or not we are here people and we should not be! Not according to science! There is no way possible by scientific standards or physical evidence that has nor can circumvent the requirement of egg and or seed to produce offspring. There is also no scientific physical evidence whatsoever that science has ever been able to produce an adult specimen from inorganic matter which would have allowed for reproduction.

The creation account is after all these years STILL the only plausible, reasonable, logical intelligent answer with the LEAST flaws. And there can be no denying that as everything else continues to remain impossible.


I'll be hitting the opponent's response as provided, using "quote-response" structure. I believe such a structure will provide final round clarity and still be below the character limit.

Chicken vs egg is an unfortunate ... Because of this only factual alternaties can be seriously considered.

If we accept this to be true, then neither my opponent's "explanation" or mine can be considered as explanations. As I stated, I would not be attempting to prove evolution to be true, meaning I do not have an evidenced claim. Likewise, the opponent presents a claim without evidence (the reproduction evidence is only tangentially related to his main claim, that God created life. As such, it is not evidence of God creating life.)

If the opponent truly wishes to continue claiming that only well-evidenced facts can be admitted, then his argument utterly fails as he has not evidenced it sufficiently. At this point, we are left with the opponent's assertion that God created life. While I have absolutely no doubt that his believes this to be fundementally true and non-needing of evidence -- this is a debate and evidence is required when making a positive claim. This is even more true when you claim in the resolution that you can use science to demonstrate your claim.

"[stuff about Creationism]"

I agree that Creationism is a possible explanation for the origin of life. The problem is that the opponent has failed to prove this or even provide enough evidence such that it is implied.

"...this is the reason why all living organisms tyupe and keep possess DNA strands so close to each other yet so vastly different in species. ... All possess the same DNA patterns as humans differing only in bands and codes..."

It is true that many animals share similar DNA structures.

The theory of evolution, in which a single species first existed, with minor mutations over time leading to different species, adequately explains this. One could just as easily argue that DNA similarities actually imply evolution, since it harkens to the idea that we all share a common ancestor. As such, the nature of DNA no more implies God then it does evolution.

"[Creationism] remains plausible, logical and intellectually sound..."

Agreed, to some extent. However, FoC needs to not only prove that creationism is a sound idea, but also that it is true.

"Evolution: ... No physical evidence of creation in a single animal, mammal, ... If no physical evidence can be provided evolution not only cannot be considered and alternate method, but must be excluded from any genuine consideration."

This is a fantastic point, except there is plenty of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Does any of it live up to Pro's evidential expectations? No. Does anything Pro has provided attempting to prove God created life live up to his own evidential expectations? No.

If we are to disqualify an idea from consideration because it does not meet the specific requirements offered by the opponent, then "God created life" should also be disqualified. After all, the only thing the opponent proved is that animals exist and that they reproduce. This hardly implicates that God is the creator of this life.

Regarding evidence that meets scientific standards, there is a plethora of it supporting the idea of evolution. We know natural selection (uber short term evolution) occurs and we've found plenty of examples of remains that fit the description of "transition species". We furthermore know that life existed on Earth at a time when it could not have supported humans, implying that they didn't exist at the time.

"to refuse the only plausible explanation... [is bad]"

Agreed. However, I have demonstrated that evolution is a plausible alternative explanation. If we limit plausible explanations to that of photographs and videos, then there does not exist an explanation at all, since no evidence has been found at this level showing that God created life. As I warned the opponent earlier, putting the opponent in a "box" so that they cannot provide existing evidence of evolution also puts himself in a box, since there does not exist evidence for God's creation (at this level of evidence.)

"...eggs are required for offspring..."

Like I mentioned last round, evolution provides a "solution" to the chicken/egg paradox just as Creationism does. In Creationism, the adult animals appeared at God's will. In Evolution, new species arise from different, but exceedingly similar, species of animals due to mutations during formation in the egg/seed/womb.

A Note on Scientific Standards

I want to make it absolutely clear to the voters and the opponent that the opponent's "standard of evidence" is much more limiting that what is considered the scientific standard of evidence.

Scientific rigor has been used long before the age of photography. The proofs science uses can range from experiments to math to repeated observations of naturally occurring events. Most of these are documented in "reports" that the opponent has such disdain for. Scientists understand that proof goes well beyond photography and that photography itself is not proof.

Based upon current standards of scientific rigor, evolution is considered a well-evidenced, but unproven theory. Any person in the field of science understands that what the opponent is asking for is not "scientific evidence" but rather "pretty pictures". I'd ask that FoC studies a bit on what "evidence" is and the multiple forms it can take.

The proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is ridiculously long, incredibly complicated, and utterly unintelligible to the average person. Despite this, it is considered an absolute proof because it meets a certain standard of proof.

Complicated ideas like evolution are not easy to fully grasp and understand, but that doesn't mean you can simply say "give me something easier, like pictures" and completely deny these theories if said images don't surface. The more intellectually honest course of action is read rather than deny.


I have demonstrated that the opponent has not met his burden of proof, since he has failed to provide any photographic/videographic evidence of god creating life. I have demonstrated that his single quasi-logical "chicken/egg" argument does not prove that God created life. I finally dispelled his false claim that "Creationism is the only realistic explanation" by providing an alternative explanation that is well-evidenced.

Given that this is the case, the opponent has clearly lost the debate. I wish him good luck on his future ventures and I'd like to thank everyone for reading!

Debate Round No. 5
139 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Chaosism// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD for arguments in Comments. S/G is imperfect on both sides, but not significantly: tie. Conduct to Con because Pro demonstrates poor "debatesmanship" and effectively forfeited R3. Pro uses (and repeats) the only few sources, but since they don't support the resolution, Reliable Sources remains a tie.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter very clearly and extensively explains both point allocations.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Ragnar/ Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments... In short, BoP.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter very clearly and extensively explains both point allocations.
Posted by TUF 2 years ago
Thanks for voting Ragnar!
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Voting on behalf of the Voter Union... FYI my votes give a lot of commentary from my thoughts as I read your arguments, and general advice. That I call out certain obvious fallacies, doesn't mean I've dismissed the points, merely that I am literate enough to understand them.

---RFD (1 of 3)---
S&G: In future please disable smart quotes and other auto symbols from your document editor (they all turn into " in DDO).
CONDUCT: In the debate it was requested by con, given pro's behavior (complaining that con disagreed with him, which was in violation of unpublished rules... skipping a round in protest to his own lack of evidence being held against him... need I go on?) it's a pretty clear case.
ARGUMENTS: Constantly moving the goalpost in outrage over your own failure to follow your rules, does not equal victory. Con made a case for proof required, which pro did not even try to meet.
SOURCES: Pro's case hinged on failing to provide any evidence to advance his side, what sources he did provide con wisely caught for being natural. Neither one can really get this point. (also please don't repeat the same already defeated sources without new support)


Bit of a lengthy setup, but it was good that it included definitions. The rules could be a double-edged sword, particularly #1 and #2. Quoting the bible with "must also be accompanied by video or photographic evidence, which shows claimed process in action" sounds very difficult.

Hard resolution. As elaborated by pro "[scientists] have been unable to show results or proofs of other than the supernatural at work," which he went on to strongly imply they were able to find and test supernatural proofs. This should be an interesting read, and look forward to the evidence pro intends on providing.

BoP: Con asserts that BoP indeed rests with the one making the claim. He made sure voters understand the rules as laid out by pro. Pro complained that voters were discussed at all...
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
---RFD (2 of 3)---
God Did It: Pro's arguments call upon a report without the required evidence he demands of reports, and con called him out on it. Con accepts that we know how reproduction works today, but states "Unfortunately, the knowledge of this gives no clear indication of how the life started in the first place." Pro went on to confirm the requirement "require proof in keeping with standards." In response pro repeated himself, on the argument that was already confirmed to not begin to bridge to leap of faith required.

Con don't get to say squat: This was an interesting premise pro launched, that con does not get say anything in a debate, and by discussing the debate itself he was off topic and his arguments should be dismissed... Con wisely pointed out the absurdity of trying to add such new rules in to the later rounds.

Logic (not weighting toward or against resolution, just discussing the side discussion they had): I am actually mildly embarrassed if this is valid argumentation came up in any debate. Call it discussion if you like which does not advance evidence in itself, but for pro and con to do anything more meaningful than bark at each other (or talk like the Doge Meme), there must be some logical form (pro himself used this both when he called con out for using logic, and when he launched a classic Argument From Ignorance (for those who have never heard of this common knowledge argument type:
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
---RFD (3 of 3)---
Pro quitting the debate in protest: Speaks for itself.

The Kritik: Nice review, but not significant to the resolution itself (as much as the toxic rules were, but that was already clear with pro's inability to provide the evidence he demanded he provide...).

Chicken vs. Egg: Easily countered inverting the inference from it, to show the logic used applies both ways, making it a meaningless argument.

Evolution and Creationism: By the rules of the debate these arguments cannot be considered, due to lack of photographic or video evidence showing them happen.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Chaosism// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD for arguments in Comments. S/G is imperfect on both sides, but not significantly: tie. Conduct to Con because Pro demonstrates poor "debatesmanship" and effectively forfeited R3. Pro uses (and repeats) the only few sources, but since they don't support the resolution, Reliable Sources remains a tie.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently explains both point allocations, referencing specific arguments made by both sides. Merely blocking someone on the site does not prevent them from voting on your debates, though debaters are allowed to exclude certain voters in the rules if they wish.
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
=+= RFD: Arguments, Part 2 =+=

Pro's positive case:
In R1, Pro asserts that since science hasn't proven an explanation for the origin of life to be true and that the biblical interpretation (creationism) has not been proven false, then creationism is true. Pro offers this again in the form of a logical syllogism which, as pointed out by Con, is erroneously constructed (for instance, P1 is a conclusion rather than a premise). Pro then provides a claim regarding common *modern* forms of life portraying a "chicken or the egg" dilemma.

In R2, Con highlights the fact that Pro's forwarded video evidence is not supportive of the claim that God created life, just that life currently exists and is capable of the demonstrated forms of reproduction. Con argues for the position that there is no sufficient evidence to accept the truth of either claim, which would prevent the resolution from being negated. As of this point in the debate, Pro has not provided evidence that is satisfactory to the requirements initially set forth, but just restates his case (assertion). Con follows with a response to this syllogism, illuminating it"s fallacious structure (an Argument from Ignorance).

Pro's R3 contains no legitimate rebuttals to Con's arguments, nor additional support for Pro's positive case. Instead, Pro expresses displeasure with the direction of the debate and forfeits R3. Pro reengages in R4, but does nothing but briefly restate his initial argument a third time. Con elaborates his objections.

In R5, Pro adds a new argument regarding DNA in which he concludes that Creationism is *plausible* which, as Con states, is not sufficient enough to establish that it's true. Pro also argues that since evolution has not been shown to be true, then it's false. This is fallacious reasoning: Argument from Ignorance. Pro's rebuttals highlights that Pro has not demonstrated that Creationism is true, and as such, has not affirmed the resolution. Arguments to Con.
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
=+= RFD: Arguments, Part 1 =+=

The instigator of the debate (Pro) presents an incredibly strict and specific set of rules which appear to me to be extremely self-serving and founded in ignorance. However, this is indeed Pro's prerogative and these rules are applicable since the debate was accepted, so my opinion has no place in the judgment of this debate. Pro has taken the assertive position in the debate regarding the resolution and, as such, possesses the Burden of Proof. To clarify (for his sake), this means that Pro must provide arguments and evidence that support the claim in order to affirm the resolution and win the debate, while Con has no necessary responsibility aside from refuting Pro's positive case(s). In the end, if Pro has no standing arguments supporting the resolution, then Con will win the arguments in the debate. The above is adequately explained by Con in R2.

Con and violating the rules:
In R3, Pro accuses Con of violating the debate rules in R1 and cites examples. In careful review of the rules, it's clear that Con did not clearly violate any of the rules throughout the debate. Rule #1 dealt with reports and Con submitted or referenced none. Rules #2 and #3 were similarly irrelevant. Rule #4 pertained to off-topic subjects; Con's logical analysis of the resolution and debate structure is relevant to the debate as it appears. If this violates Pro's *intentions* for the debate, then Pro did not adequately or concisely express this.

Rule #5 is not so much a rule as a statement with a truth assignment attached to it, which is clear in the wording which resembles a logical implication statement. The antecedent, "As God is shown to have been the creator of all things..." is assertive and subject to legitimate challenge. Con does so, and Pro does not provide any support for this claim, thus, rendering it invalid.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 2 years ago
Hebrews 5:11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God"s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

It is for this cause you fail God in your actions. God states emphatically he who does not deny himself take his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. Have no pride child, you bring disgrace upon yourself. Tell me how many nonbelievers must be cast into hell because you preach only a Sunday school Jesus, whom pats on the head and turns the other cheek. Read Ezekiel 3: 18 before its to late for you!

Matthew 23:13Woe to you scribes,Pharisees hypocrites, you shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. 15 Woe to you,teachers of the law and Pharisees you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert and when you succeed, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are. 27 Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs,which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 25woe to you,teachers of the law and Pharisees,you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish,but inside they are full of greed and self indulgence. 33 You snakes you brood of vipers how will you escape being condemned to hell.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: RFD in comments... In short, BoP.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: RFD for arguments in Comments. S/G is imperfect on both sides, but not significantly: tie. Conduct to Con because Pro demonstrates poor "debatesmanship" and effectively forfeited R3. Pro uses (and repeats) the only few sources, but since they don't support the resolution, Reliable Sources remains a tie.