The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Theistic evolution is a better way to explain humans and animals then regular creationalism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 1/31/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 953 times Debate No: 44999
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




first round is for acceptance. good luck.

just in case you don't know, theistic evolution is believing in evolution and in god


Hello and thank you for sending me this challenge.
I do (obviously) accept the challenge and look forward to learning your stance as well as implementing my stance.
My apologies in advance, to my opponent and audience for my (possible) non-elaborations to this debate.
I will, nonetheless, do my best.

Thanks again Pro!
Debate Round No. 1


Case 1:First, I would like to prove how evolution is real. In a shocking discovery, we share 98.6% of our DNA with an ape. (1) if you click into link, you can barely tell the ape and human chromosome apart! Yet, when you compare it to a mouse's chromosomes, you can clearly see the difference. This proves that the ape and humans are greatly related. This proves evolution. Still not satisfied? Well, we should prove evolution using man's best friend. It is proven we share 5% of our genome sequence with dogs and mouse. (2) this again proves evolution. Even dogs and mice have a scientific similarity! I think I have proven evolution true. However, I will now prove it is not possible without the existence of god.

Case 2:Let's start out with the classic question. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? While regular atheist evolutionist have a lot of trouble answering the question, people who believe in theistic evolution do not. The atheist think life was not created, but knows that you need a male and female sex cell to produce offspring in animals who sexually reproduce. While, people who believe in theistic evolution have not problem answering this. God created the chicken or his ancestor. So they then say that god created the chicken, or god created the ancestor of the chicken, and it evolved into a chicken.

My next case is that everything would have to evolve at the same time for an our Eco-system to be the way it is now. Think of the flower bee relationship. Flowers are less complex than bees, and would take a shorter time to evolve. This would mean that all the non self pollinating flowers would die off because the bees did not evolve in time. Atheist also have problems giving a explanation for this. While people who believe in theistic evolution can easily explain it. God created the bees and flowers ancestor, so they were able to survive and evolve.I think these are sound arguments that proves that theistic evolution is a way to explain animals and humans today. Thank you for reading my argument.




Case 1:

I did view the links as suggested, certainly we may be "alike", but that, however; does not indicate that we are in fact from evolutionary stances. As of the dog, sure, I will also say, that yes, we could again be "alike", but that still does not mean we are from evolutionary origin. It just implies that we are somewhat alike, no big deal.

Case 2:

How does something "evolve" into being though? You might as well say that there is no God if you are going to imply of evolvementation. Either God created the chicken or He did not? Or Evolution is correct. It simply cannot be both.

My opponent suggests that, "I think these are sound arguments that proves that theistic evolution is a way to explain animals and humans today.", but in reality it does not add up. This is saying, God does not have part at all in anything that happens on the nature of earthly things/situations. Rather just the evolvement, instead?
Debate Round No. 2


Despite her best effort, he could not refute this to her best ability. Skulls show the evolution process. (1) as you can see from the link, you can easily see evolution of the human skull. Again, huge similarities. I have provided DNA proof of evolution. He also do not know what god planned. We deal with mutations every day. Mutations is how evolution started. For example, an increased number of people are being born with two sets of DNA. This may be the next step in human evolution! (2) see how you something as simple as this can alter humans this much. This shows how easy evolution can start. Now, just like regular evolution, it may take a lot of years for all humans to be like this. This proves evolution again. Simple mutations an trigger evolution. As you can see, the evolution of the human skull keeps changing until it looks like the skulls we have today.

"How does something "evolve" into being though?"

Mutations of the DNA and selective breeding.

"You might as well say that there is no God if you are going to imply of evolvementation."

How so? God would have to make the universe, elements, and cells.

" Either God created the chicken or He did not? Or Evolution is correct. It simply cannot be both"

God created the chicken's ancestor. Then it evolved into the chicken.

Case 3:

For creationism to be correct would mean we would all have to be related. In the bible, the two humans are Adam and Eve. If they were the only humans, then we are all related. The bible also says that you should not go date your relative. This is a conflict of interest!




Thank you for the next round and your reply. Let’s see now.

My opponent suggests that I do not know what God has planned, but if we take a look into Genesis 1; we can see that God was the from the Beginning creating everything by just the Word from His mouth. He spoke and it came to being. And then when we look into Genesis 2, we learn that God created Adam and Eve and put them in the midst of the Garden of Eden. Furthermore, because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God, they were forced to leave Eden and had their family outside of it. When we read the following of their firstborn son; Cain killing the younger brother Abel and then God excommunicated him from his family.

Long story short, Cain was able to marry, so my questions to my opponent is, if Adam and Eve were the only ones created, who did Cain marry? There was no sister at that point for him. And if God created everything by Words from His own mouth, how do you explain the contrast to your claim of evolution being true even if the rays of pictures you showed are exceptionally good, how does that justify to evolution being true and the Bible being true? Just does not coincide together.

Debate Round No. 3


I don't take the bible as a factual source for this debate. Even in the bible, it never says that god made any other human beings. The bible implodes itself there.

I am not saying the bible is true. You should think the same after all of the evidence i showed you. God isnt the bible. God can be true, but not the bible.

Fun fact: the catholic church, dispite believing in the bible, has accepted theistic evolution as posible.

I have proved:
Evolution to be true
You need god for it to be possible

Thank you.


I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate because as I mentioned above, I have never known someone to believe in God and evolution. Thank you for the education as well as the invite to debate this topic.

In my conclusion, evolution and God cannot work together because evolution has been known just to be a theory and God is a Being which is self-existent. My opponent has given mere things to clarify how unrealistic this concept of God and evolution working together. God and evolution can become relative (absolute) and postmodern truth. It either is one or the other. Animals may or may not look with DNA stances alike to humans, but that does not in any way imply that they are from evolutional matters and evolved to become humans. God is the more logical stance because He created all things by His own mouth. My opinion still stands.

Best wishes to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
Genesis is not a literal book though I thought.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro and Con made equally good arguments against each other. But Con's arguments do not cover creationism in its entirety. Con's arguments and sources are based off of Christianity only. Creationism covers other ideas/religions/theories as well, such as Judaism, Muslim, the Intelligent Design. Pro gets points deducted because he/she spelled creationism wrong in the title.