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

creation or evolution?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,340 times Debate No: 26612
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)




Did the universe and life evolve, or was it specially created about 6000 years ago? This is a debate of two different world views. As i will explain in a second.

Round 1: Acceptance and greetings only
Round 2: Opening essay (no rebuttal)
Round 3: Second essay (rebuttal and/or new material)
Round 4: Final essay (rebuttal, summary, etc.)

I am for creation. My opponent will be for evolution.

The following is not for rebuttal. It is only stating our worldviews and our different starting points and assumptions for interpreting evidence.

A very different starting point
The following is a excerpt from “Skeptics vs Creationists” A formal debate.

“The idea that science is just a bunch of facts that speak for themselves is not taken seriously anymore by modern philosophers of science. Facts always have to be interpreted within a framework (paradigm),[1] which is built upon starting assumptions (unprovable beliefs). Because the past is not accessible to direct observation or experiment, historical science (e.g. paleontology) is severely limited compared to operational (experimental) science,[2] which has given science its deserved reputation for public benefit in e.g. transport, communication, health, etc. Both creationists and evolutionists have the same facts (though unfortunately it is always possible for inconvenient ones to be ignored), but different assumptions.

Today’s dominant paradigm is built upon the unstated assumption that any action by the miracle-working Creator God of the Bible must be excluded from even the definition of science, regardless of how the facts might fit[3] (that would have been news to the creationist founders of modern science, like Newton). Modern historical geology was built on philosophical assumptions[4] which excluded the biblical notion of a recent global watery catastrophe – by definition, rather than observation.

Aware of the impossibility of knowing the past with certainty without an eyewitness historical account (which is what the Bible claims to be), Bible-believing scientists start with an alternative set of beliefs. They would argue that, if you start from the assumption that our Creator really has spoken through His prophets (Hebrews 1:1; 2 Timothy 3:16), then what we see around us ought to fit with what the Bible says about how it all got here. And it does."







I accept your challenge and your rules. I would like, therefore, to point out that neither the excerpt from another debate nor your cited sources can be accepted as any case for Creationism until the second round, unless you wish to forfeit the Conduct point, for your challenge clearly states that Round 1 is dedicated to acceptance and greetings only.

With the bulk of acceptance and the clarifications therein out of the way, good greetings to my opponent and audience, I look forward to the unfolding of this debate, which promises great interest and potential! Regardless of who is to win or lose, I hope that both parties shall perform admirably, and have a good time.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for the warm welcome. No, the excerpt from that debate was not in anyway supporting my case. It was just to inform you and others that you start with your own presuppositional beliefs. Of which is a framework that you interpret your evidence. Good luck to you friend. To me, this isn't about winning a debate. It's about winning people over to Christ. As i hope people will see the compelling evidence towards our Creator, the God of the Bible.

Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth

For my opening essay I am going to explain four evidences from science (out of many) that confirm a young earth.

  • Very little sediment on the seafloor

Evolutionists will say that sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years. If that were the case the seafloor should basically be suffocating with sediments miles and miles deep.

Every year water and wind erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock debris from the continents and deposit them on the seafloor. Most of this material accumulates as loose sediments near the continents. Yet the average thickness of all these sediments globally over the whole seafloor is not even 1,300 feet (400 m).

Some sediments appear to be removed as tectonic plates slide slowly (an inch or two per year) beneath continents. An estimated 1 billion tons of sediments are removed this way each year. The net gain is thus 19 billion tons per year. At this rate, 1,300 feet of sediment would accumulate in less than 12 million years, not billions of years.

This evidence makes sense within the context of the Genesis Flood cataclysm, not the idea of slow and gradual geologic evolution. In the latter stages of the year-long global Flood, water swiftly drained off the emerging land, dumping its sediment-chocked loads offshore. Thus most seafloor sediments accumulated rapidly about 4,300 years ago.

After three billion years we should expect to see 250x more sediment than we see today! See, and for the Biblical model of deep seafloor sedimentation

  • Soft tissue in fossils

When you ask any everyday evolutionist how they know the earth is millions of years old, they’ll more than likely end up mentioning dinosuars. However a recent discovery by scientist,
Dr. Mary Schweitzer, has given reason for all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption.

“Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.”

“An obvious question arises from Schweitzer’s work: is it even remotely plausible that blood vessels, cells, and protein fragments can exist largely intact over 68 million years? While many consider such long-term preservation of tissue and cells to be very unlikely, the problem is that no human or animal remains are known with certainty to be 68 million years old. But if creationists are right, dinosaurs died off only 3,000–4,000 years ago. So would we expect the preservation of vessels, cells, and complex molecules of the type that Schweitzer reports for biological tissues historically known to be 3,000–4,000 years old?

The answer is yes. Many studies of Egyptian mummies and other humans of this old age (confirmed by historical evidence) show all the sorts of detail Schweitzer reported in her T. rex. In addition to Egyptian mummies, the Tyrolean iceman, found in the Alps in 1991 and believed to be about 5,000 years old, shows such incredible preservation of DNA and other microscopic detail.

We conclude that the preservation of vessels, cells, and complex molecules in dinosaurs is entirely consistent with a young-earth creationist perspective but is highly implausible with the evolutionist’s perspective about dinosaurs that died off millions of years ago.” See, and
  • Short lived comets

What is the maximum period that a comet may have? The gravitational forces of nearby stars impose an upper limit to the size that an orbit may have. If the aphelion (the point of maximum distance from the Sun) is a significant fraction of the distance to the nearest stars, the comet has a large probability of being removed from the Sun's grip. Let us adopt a liberal aphelion distance of 100,000 AU, which is more than one-third the distance to the nearest star. The semi-major axis would be 50,000 AU. The semi-major axis and orbital period are related by Kepler's third law of planetary motion:-

a3 = p2

where a is the semi-major axis in AU, and

p is the period in years.

A 50,000 AU semi-major axis results in a period of 1.12 x 107 years. If a comet has followed this orbit for 4.6 Ga, it would have experienced more than 400 trips around the Sun. After that many perihelion passages it is doubtful that there would be any volatile material left in the nucleus. Note that 50,000 AU figure was a very liberal upper limit, and so most comets would have orbited far more times. A more realistic estimate of the upper limit at 25,000 AU for a semi-major axis for a stable orbit yields a period of 3.95 x 106 years, with a result of almost 1,200 returns in 4.6 Ga.

While most creationists’ writings have focussed on evaporation of volatile materials from the nuclei as the loss mechanism for comets, at least two other loss mechanisms are known. One of these is the ejection from the Solar System by close planetary interactions, and the other is collisions with planets. While direct collisions are considered to be relatively rare fates for comets, some recent studies have suggested that ejection may play a more important role than disintegration. It appears that if comets are primordial there should not be any left. See, and

Taking Back Astronomy: The Heavens Declare Creation

by Dr.Jason Lisle astrophysicist (book)
  • Very little salt in the sea

    The known and conjectured processes which deliver and remove dissolved sodium (Na+) to and from the ocean are inventoried. Only 27% of the present Na+ delivered to the ocean can be accounted for by known removal processes. This indicates that the Na+ concentration of the ocean is not today in “steady state” as supposed by evolutionists, but is increasing with time. The present rate of increase (about 3 × 1011 kg/yr) cannot be accommodated into evolutionary models assuming cyclic or episodic removal of input Na+ and a 3-billion-year-old ocean. The enormous imbalance shows that the sea should contain much more salt than it does today if the evolutionary model were true. A differential equation containing minimum input rates and maximum output rates allows a maximum age of the ocean of 62 million years to be calculated. The data can be accommodated well into a creationist model. See, and “Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past (pdf)

In conclusion, the absence of sediment on the seafloor, soft-tissue in fossils, short-lived comets, and the missing salt in the sea all fit very well with the biblical creation model. Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.



You raise your points in an interesting manner. However, I would point out that every single one of them is copied from 'Answers in Genesis' (I know this because the last person with whom I had an evolution vs. creation debate brought up the same points, and used the same website for 'source material' [1]). If you hope to win a debate by copying and pasting half of your case, you'll have a bad time.

I would also like to point out that your arguments about Earth's age are contentions mainly against the evolution of the universe and the contents therein, not the Theory of Evolution, a biological principle. Of course, they are related, but not highly closely.

Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor
I contest that 'evolutionists' are the ones who will say that 'sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years.' Evolutionists are either biologists, or supporters of modern biology [2]. Sediment on the seafloor is a matter for geologists [3]. Geology and biology are, I'm sure you realize, drastically different. Your argument about sediment, is, however, based on erroneous assumptions and ignorance about geology (at least, it would seem so). I shall give you a brief lesson about what happens to sediment:
There are three types of rock: sedimentary [4], igneous [5], and metamorphic [6]. Each class of rocks has different properties, and forms in different ways. When sediment is deposited, usually in a liquid, it accumulates, and, with pressure and withdrawal of moisture, forms sedimentary rock. Metamorphic rock is formed when sedimentary rock is put under intense heat and pressure. Igneous rock is produced by molten material from the inner part of the crust, which is heated by the mantle. Igneous rock is often released from volcanoes as pyroclastic material [7] and lava. The sediment that forms sedimentary rock is produced by the eroding of igneous and metamorphic rock. This cycle is a well documented facet of geology.
Now, I believe this adequately explains why there would not be excessively large sediment deposits on the ocean floor. If not, I shall make further explanation, by adding in subduction zones:
Subduction is the process by which one tectonic plate is forced beneath another, and melted by the pressure of tectonic stress, and by the heat of the mantle. Subduction occurs at the boundaries of several major plates, forming areas of high tectonic activity. Rock and sediment on the ocean floor is melted along with the crust, in underwater subduction zones. [8]

Soft Tissue in Fossils
If I'm understanding your argument for creationism by the preservation of soft tissue, you're saying that because you're uncomfortable with the idea of soft tissue being preserved by fossilization, it must not be plausible, thus creationism is correct? You say that you have concluded that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaurs is consistent with creationism, yet you have not actually explained why. Even if you had, you still have an enormous issue to circumnavigate: carbon dating. The use of measurement of radioactive isotopes to identify age is known to be accurate [9]. How then, if an accurate means of measuring the age of something shows it to be millions of years old, can you conclude that said thing must be only a few thousand years old?

Short Lived Comets
When you refer to volatile material in the nucleus of a comet, please explain how that is related to the longevity of a comet. A comet is a type of rogue asteroid, similar to a plutino or cubewano, made mostly of ice, that orbits mostly in the Oort Cloud, and occasionally makes passes inward toward the sun. Comets traditionally have very elliptical orbits. Now, if you could please explain what you mean, in your own words, rather than the words of Dr. Jason Lisle.

Very Little Salt in the Sea
While you make brief mention of a potentially intriguing issue to learn about, you leave your opponent and audience up to wild guesswork as to how marine salt deposits (by the way, salt sinks, forming deposits on the seafloor, answering your query about why the oceans are not supersaturated) are related to the proof or disproof of the Theory of Evolution.

Now, since there are an ample two rounds left, I shall ask my opponent, since the burden of proof is on him, to explain the following concepts, from the creationist perspective.

Microevolution is a biological process by which allele frequencies alter, as a result of mutation, selection, gene flow, and genetic drift. It can be actively observed, both in prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms.

I make the following syllogism, to illustrate how microevolution is profound evidence for macroevolution (the feature of the theory of evolution that seems to be most contested):

P1: Microevolution, the process by which allele frequency changes at a small scale, occurs.
P2: Macroevolution is the extended process of microevolution, by which large-scale changes in an organism's genome occur over long periods of time.
P3: Enough small changes may be made to constitute a large change (eg. telephone).
C: Long enough periods of time that facilitate microevolution eventually lead to macroevolution.

Fossil Record
The fossil record, as I am sure you are aware, contains evidence of over eight million distinct organisms. If the world is only 6000 years old, as Young-Earth Creationism would suggest, this implies that these eight million organisms have to have all existed simultaneously, at one time. This idea is sorely misplaced by the fossil record, modern evidence of the results of overpopulation, and sheer logic.

Biblical Implausibility and Similarity
Volumes could probably be written on the implausibilities found within the Bible. However, since I do not have volumes, I shall question three main points.

Six-day Creation:
The Bible states that there were six days (six days of what, I might add) taken by God to create Earth and everything on it. The first day is devoted to the creation of Earth itself, as the only thing in the universe, as a desolate wasteland, yet somehow with enough heat to maintain liquid water, as the Bible explicitly states that the 'Spirit of God' moved across the waters. God then created light, yet without the sun, which was created, apparently, after the light was. The second day is devoted to conjuring up some land amidst the waters of Earth. Where this land came from is unclear. On the third day, God allegedly created plants. Next, on the fourth day, God finally decided that it was time that light actually came from something, so he created the sun and moon, so as to specify whether it was day or night. He also, at this point, created stars. It is unspecified as to how the planets orbiting those stars formed. He then went on to the fifth day, on which he created fish and birds. They didn't have anything to eat yet except plants, but that's okay. Then, on the sixth day, God decided it was time for everything that lived on land to spring up, including humans. I don't know about my opponent and the audience, but this story seems slightly implausible to me.

Story of Noah
The second implausibility I shall raise is the story of Noah, which is about a man that takes at least two of every organism with him in a boat of only about 1.5 million cubic feet, to avoid a planetwide flood. The first nonsense, of fitting at least sixteen million organisms, and food for all of them, in a boat smaller than the QE2, shall be dismissed in favor of the second, that even if every molecule of water on Earth, including the polar ice caps and groundwater, were to evaporate, then precipitate, it would not even increase the water level by 200 meters.

Biblical similarity will be discussed in the next round.

Debate Round No. 2


I gave appropiate citations and quotations to the articles that I used. Therefore, since there was no rule against 'copying and pasting' I shall continue. I assume the readers of the debate would rather have the wordings of the scientists vs mine. Although if there is something that is hard to understand I will reword it in a simplistic fashion.

My friend, not only are they related, they are highly related. As you should know the Theory of Evolution requires the millions and billions of years for such biological changes to occur. That being said, evidence against the millions and billions of years, is evidence against the Theory of Evolution and evidence for creation, logically.

Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor
Considering your very informative sentence stating that evolutionists are required to be biologists. I can assume that according to your logic you have no one to support your case in the means of Historical science. So any claims you make about geology, paleontology, etc. cannot be trusted. However, since I know you're wrong we'll just throw your statement aside and not mention it again.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe I need a lesson of something that you’re taught about in elementary school. It also adequately explains nothing about why there would not be excessively large sediment deposits.

Subduction: I actually addressed this concept in my opening essay. Only 1 billion tons of sediment is removed this way each year. A common rescuing device for old-earthers are that the sediments accumulated at a slower rate in the past, however that statement just doesn't stack up. -- as the evidence proves they were deposited much faster than today’s rates, see here -- (

Soft Tissue in Fossils
No, evolutionists are uncomfortable with the findings of soft tissue in supposed "65 million year old fossils." I actually did explain why this supports a young earth. Please, reread the argument and of course, the source.

CARBON DATING - No, not so accurate. There is actually hundreds of dating methods you could use to date fossils and the earth, and most of them give a much younger date than carbon dating does. Anyways, Carbon dating -

"In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment something dies. Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example. The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 ± 40 years. This is the ‘half-life’. So, in two halflives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old." For a in depth evalutaion of this dating method and many others see this book by, Dr Don Batten (contributing editor), Dr David Catchpoole, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Carl Wieland

Also, on carbon dating:
These scientists --

  • Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science
  • Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics
  • Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics
  • John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
  • Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics
  • Steven Austin, PhD Geology
  • Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
  • Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies
Did a eight year project on the age of the earth. Their findings, are absolutely phenominal. It was called the RATE project. (Radio isotopes and the age of the earth) Carbon-14 dating is a friend of Christians, and it supports a young earth. To anyone interested I highly suggest their book, btw. Evolutionists have censored results that show inconsistent with old ages. Their assumptions have been revisited, and shown faulty. And strongly support a young earth.

Short Lived Comets
If the earth was billions of years old, comets would have orbited around the sun 1,200 times. Comets, as you know have a tail of debris following them. And everytime they past the sun, more of the comet deteriates. In reality, it's been shown that comets last only about 10,000 years, roughly. Yet, there are still comets! We shouldn't have anymore comets if the universe is billions of years old, but we do.

Very Little Salt in the Sea
Sorry, again, but you didn't answer anything? Calculations have shown that the seas cannot be older than 62 million years. This is a maximum age, not a actual age. This means it's consistent with any age up to 62 million years, and the biblical creation account of 6,000 years. Here is a better report on salt in the sea,;

How could mutations -- accidental copying mistakes -- create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?

overwhelmingly cause a loss of information, not a net gain, as evolution requires.

Mutations, when properly understood, are an excellent example of science confirming the Bible. When one sees the devastating effects of mutations, one can’t help but be reminded of the curse in Genesis 3. The accumulation of mutations from generation to generation is due to man’s sin. But those who have placed their faith in Christ, our Creator, look forward to a new heaven and earth where there will be no more pain, death, or disease.

Natural selection doesn’t drive molecules-to-man evolution; you are giving natural selection a power that it does not have, one that can supposedly add new information to the genome, as molecules-to-man evolution requires. But natural selection simply can’t do that because it works with information that already exists.

Natural Selection CanNatural Selection Cannot
1. Decrease genetic information. 1. Increase or provide new genetic information.
2. Allow organisms to survive better in a given environment. 2. Allow organisms to evolve from molecules to man.
3. Act as a “selector.” 3. Act as an “originator.”
4. Support creation’s “orchard” of life. 4. Support evolutionary “tree” of life.

The creationist view of natural selection is supported biblically and scientifically. Natural selection is a God-ordained process that allows organisms to survive in a post-Fall, post-Flood world. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds.

Simply put, the changes that are observed today show variation within the created kind—a horizontal change. For a molecules-to-man evolutionary model, there must be a change from one kind into another—a vertical change. This is simply not observed. (


‘micro’ changes (i.e. observed genetic variation) are not capable of accumulating into macro ones, anyway. Changes often labelled ‘microevolution’ cannot be the same process as the hypothetical ‘goo-to-you’ belief. They are all information-losing processes, which thus depend on there being a store of information to begin with. 'Long enough periods of time' dont make evolution.

I will thouroughly explain the fossil record in the next round, please state your entire argument on 'six day creation/noah/similarities and what not. And I will respond to that in the next round as well.



My dear fellow, every single one of your citations is to one of three highly slanted sources! You have yet to list a source recognized by/as mainstream science. You might as well cite the National Enquirer. I am not asking you to reword things in a more simplistic manner. Your command of English and the information you are attempting to convey would appear straining enough.

You do have an excellent point, about the Theory of Evolution and the age of the Universe. I give you that, it is well said!

My claims about geology, paleontology, etc. are cited to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which, I'm sure you know, is typically considered a reliable and trustworthy source. Saying that you know I'm wrong is saying that you know one of the most verified and accepted sources in the world is wrong, and is supplanted in reliability by Creation Science Websites.

Actually, explanation of the different types of rock formation explains the lack of sediment on the ocean floor very thoroughly: sediment, when compacted over time, becomes sedimentary rock. Large sediment deposits become sedimentary rock, they do not stay sediment. Here is a syllogism, to help you understand:

P1: Under adequate pressure, deposits of sediment condense into sedimentary rock.
P2: There are large deposits of sediment on the ocean floor.
C: The large deposits of sediment on the ocean floor become sedimentary rock.

Soft Tissue in Fossils
I have reread your argument, and I am afraid you are still making very little sense. Allow me to condense it into a point chain:

-Evolutionists believe in dinosaurs.
-Dr. Mary Schweitzer discovered soft tissue preserved in the fossilized femur of a T. rex.
-Long-term preservation of tissue and cells seems unlikely.
-Creationists believe dinosaurs died off about 3000 years ago.
-Creationists believe Schweitzer's discovery agrees with them.
-Mummies are also preserved.
Conclusion: This proves that Creationist beliefs must be correct, even though carbon-14 dating disagrees with them.

I don't know about my opponent and the audience, but I find this logic slightly skewed. Another problem with his assumption is that the fossils are what is being dated. However, to determine the age of fossils, the age of the rock in which they are found is dated, not the fossils themselves, due exactly to your point, that carbon in organic matter is not reliable for dating. Ah, carbon dating is a friend of Christians? I am glad that you have a friend.

Short Lived Comets
Your assumption has the in-built flaw that comets are small, and that they do not reform, and that they never break orbit.
A. Comets can accumulate new matter, which replaces that caused by disintegration.
B. Comets have extremely elliptical orbits, and sometimes are flung from orbit, and captured by other systems.
C. Comets can be extremely large, and release only small amounts of their mass.

Very Little Salt in the Sea
As I have said, you raise an intriguing mystery, but you do not disprove evolution by saying the sea is not as salty as it should be. As I said, when a solvent becomes saturated to the point that, without temperature change, it cannot hold any more solute, the solute will simply accumulate at the bottom.
If my opponent is using salt content as a judge for Earth's age, perhaps he could explain the Dead Sea?

Is my opponent suggesting that such mutations as polydactylism, melanism, gigantism, etc. are examples of lost information? Surely these are just changed information? Furthermore, such things as blond hair are also examples of mutation. I have serious trouble taking seriously anyone who wants to tell me that blond hair is a result of sinfulness. While it is admirable that you have such vehement faith in 'Jesus,' and have dedicated your life to the idea that you will live forever, that is not evidence of Creation, that is your personal belief. I ask that you treat that opinion like a penis, and not whip it out and wave it around in public, and especially not use it for evidence that you're right (we learn not to do that in kindergarten).

Natural Selection
Your list of what natural selection can and cannot do simply conveys a misunderstanding of how evolution works. It is not a chain of solid links, jumps between one point and another, and it does not have a set direction. Everything evolves, and the direction it takes is unchecked. The most successful traits are the ones that survive (surely you have heard of 'survival of the fittest'). Natural selection is not a force that adds information, it is one that weeds out the evolutions that do not work.

Micro vs. Macro
Because I have limited space, I shall use only limited words. Because I have already put forth a highly logical syllogism, which you have dismissed out of hand, with no foundation, I shall make an analogy:

P1: Modelling clay may be changed.
P2: Small changes may be made on modelling clay.
P3: Enough small changes may constitute a large change.
C: A large change in modelling clay may be reached by a large series of small changes.

Actually, my opponent is very highly mistaken when he says that changes observed in microevolution represent a loss of information only. Mutation is a process that can add or subtract information. You may have heard of MRSA, a strain of staphylococcus. MRSA is one of several microorganisms that is often considered the stuff of horror stories, because it can adapt, and take on new genetic material by mutation, so rapidly that attempts at curing and eradicating it most often result in nothing more than a more dangerous strain.

The Creationist View, Supported by the Bible
I have already addressed the ludicrous story of Noah, which shows what else the Bible supports. Biblical support cannot possibly be accepted as legitimate evidence for Creation Science, any more than the Epic of Gilgamesh can be used as evidence of the doctrine therein, or Spiderman Comics can be used as evidence of Spiderman.

Third Point: Biblical Similarity
My third point is the issue of similarity in Biblical tall tales to other works of epic literature from contemporary and preceding time periods. Notable sources are The Epic of Gilgamesh, Egyptian mythology (the god Horus is remarkably similar to the god Jesus, only from an earlier period), and Sumerian and Babylonian mythology. Much of Hebrew and Arab mythology can be tracked back to sources in older cultures. The Epic of Gilgamesh, for instance, one of the oldest pieces of literature known to exist, was written about 3000 B.C. The book of Genesis, on the other hand, was written about 1400 B.C., about 2000 years later. The book itself tells the story of creation, of a perfect garden, the ancient king Gilgamesh, who had to leave because a serpent stole the flower of immortality. King Gilgamesh also had to build an ark, to escape a seven day divine flood. In fact, much of Genesis is like an exaggerated form of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Here are several points which I would like my opponent to consider, and possibly explain, relative to Creationism.
-Cosmic background radiation
-The origin of the elements
-Stem cells
-The human genome is 97% identical to that of the chimpanzee
-The fossil record, with regard to evolution
-The fossil record, with regard to age
-The fossil record, with regard to population volume
-The fossil record contains extinct organisms, but very few modern organisms
-Miracles stopped occurring when non-religious figures started recording history
-Particle physics

All of the above points raise important issues that, to my knowledge, is ill-explicable by Creationism. I leave the explanation to my opponent.

Life: The Science of Biology, Fifth Edition
The Holy Bible: King James Version
Debate Round No. 3


Torvald, I don't believe I'll be able to post a argument. Mainly due to a tight schedule, and also because if you want to talk about Sumerian texts, like the story of a global flood, it should be done in a different debate with a different topic. As i am willing to do. So you may challenge me to a debate topic of your choice (e.g. similarities, "impossibilities" of the historical accounts of the Bible). And i will make sure i have adequate time for a debate. The effects of hurricane sandy in my area was underestimated, so i thought I'd be able to do this debate but weather, delivering help, and electricity prevented that. If you want this debate to be continued it simply will need to be done at another time. Thank you for understanding my situation. I want everyone to know though that there was an answer for everything you claimed, I've thoroughly researched all you brought up. So please challenge me to a debate at anytime :) tomorrow even.


I understand both the tight schedule and the storm damage. It was, perhaps, both off-topic and unfair of me to bring up such things as global flood and ancient texts, since they aren't directly related to the issue of Creationism vs. Evolutionism. If you so desire such a debate, I would be happy to participate, at your leisure.

I too shall make no argument, since it is the last round, and since you have not made yours. I sincerely hope you've suffered no major losses to the storm. If I believed emotions were more than just bioelectrical patterns, I'd say my feelings went out to you. I ask that the voters take into consideration the severe disruption imposed upon my opponent in this debate by hurricane Sandy. Please do not treat his final statement as some form of forfeiture. I do not know where he lives, and would not do much inquiry to ascertain such information. But I hope it was not in Queens, Manhattan, Long Island, the Barrier Islands, or Atlantic City, or the surrounding area. My deepest sympathies if you've suffered from this ordeal. It has been a pleasure debating you, and you raise excellent points, however firmly I may disagree with them. I hope to do it again sometime.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nidhogg 3 years ago
Methinks Jonah and the Whale was a metaphor, akin to being swallowed by one's self-doubt. Damn I hate it when people take the bible so literaly they prove themselves wrong.
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
Right, I wasn't meaning to attribute the whales-are-not-fish argument to you.
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
I can nearly agree with you about bats and birds. However, in the whales and fish thing, I was not disputing the Bible's inability to recognize the difference, I was stating that at the time period, there were not whales, and there were not fish, that were large enough to swallow and regurgitate a living human and survive, living in the Mediterranean Sea. Doesn't matter if they're apples or oranges, they don't grow in this orchard.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
Torvald wrote:
: bats are not birds,

I'm on your side, but I don't think you should use this argument. It seem to me to be of stay-off-my-side quality.

I assume that the word that we translate as "bird" referred to airborne flappy things. So, according to the usage of the time, bats were birds. Then Linnaeus came along and suggested we change the meaning of the word "bird" so that it no longer included bats. That doesn't make people wrong for using the prior agreed-upon meaning.

The whales-are-not-fish argument is equally embarrassing. The bible is shot thru with falsehoods, which is obvious. So we aren't doing ourselves any favors when we field dubious lines of support for what should be an easily irrefutable claim.
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
And you as well.
Posted by Vip 3 years ago
I'll respond to this when i can, as everything you've said has been answered over and over. Have a good Halloween night
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
Actually, my dear fellow, while I do hate a bad game of ping pong, to which this is starting to bear marked similarities, I feel obligated to answer you to the contrary! I have read the Bible, multiple times, and multiple translations, and parts of Broadman's Bible Commentary, not to mention parts of the Apocrypha.
The Bible is not 100% accurate. Let's list a few examples of the scientific aspect... Stars release light, light does not produce stars (Genesis 1), bats are not birds, it is not possible to spontaneously stop Earth's rotation, the sun and moon do not orbit Earth, there is not enough water on Earth to cover the entire world in a flood, it is not possible to fit two of every organism that ever lived into a boat smaller than the QE2, never at any time that Homo sapiens existed has there been a species of either fish or whales native to the Mediterranean Sea capable of swallowing a human, or spitting it out again, days later, alive, Earth is not flat, Earth is not fixed (it moves), it is not physically possible for an offspring to be produced without fertilization, need I go on? Now, there are instances in the Bible that inaccurately describe certain events, or make them up altogether. It's more comprehensive to just say that it isn't an accurate source of accurate history.

It's funny that you should say you don't think I know much about evolution... I was raised by a microbiologist, I started reading 2000 page biology textbooks at age 8, I frequently corrected my Biology teacher in high school, and I'm now studying to become a doctor. I was thinking the same thing, that you don't know much about evolution.

I could say the same about your arguments as well. Especially since you're making filibusters now. But that's okay, I won't hold any of that against you. It's an informal, civil debate, not a war. Make your arguments as you see fit, and I shall do the same, and we shall be as merry as could be!
Posted by Vip 3 years ago
Lol. You're greatly mistaken Torvald. :) Before making such faulty claims, research it? There's not one great historian I know of that discredits the bible in such a way you are. In fact, the bible is actually 100% scientifically accurate, considering it's a book by our Creator, you'd expect that right? Every . Isupposed 'contradiction' has long since been refuted. You're talking about a inerrant book you've never even read. It evem seems you don't know too much about evolution. Or have even barely looked into the other side. Your arguments arent true in your previous argument, but thats okay ;)
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
The Bible is not a document, it is an anthology of poetry and epic literature, central to Hebrew mythology and several world religions. It is historically and scientifically invalid. As for it being the only support for a supreme being, no, it is neither support, nor the only purport. Nearly every culture has some form of literature inscribing their central mythology and spirituality. It has been a cultural trend to try to create the ultimate deity. Few cultures have not tried to do so, and most of them are highly different. The doctrine of Creationism described by the Bible is neither original, nor a monopoly.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 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: Plagiarism. Initially, I just voted conduct for this. But I'm adding persuasion points too. The entire argument is plagiarized. Pro never made an argument of his own. He didn't show up for this debate.
Vote Placed by Muted 3 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I will give the conduct to Pro because Con conducted a very long Gish Gallop in the second to last round. The arguments go to Con because Pro ripped them off for a debate. A debate is meant to show one's persuasiveness.