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

Creation v.s. Evolution

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
The_Dank_Gamer has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 429 times Debate No: 114786
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




To begin, I wasn't 100% sure what to name this "Topic" nor the "Category". I'm new to; found this as I was looking to read on debates concerning mostly religion (so I guess I chose the correct category haha).

To begin: I was brought up Jewish, believing in the Creationist POV, and as of now, that's where I stand. I've read on and been told by several people what the Atheistic approach is and what the basic principal of Evolution is. But I feel like I'm lacking in information. I'm a seeker of knowledge, even if it collides with my current beliefs. I understand that science is the main tool that Atheists use to provide date/evidence for their POV. I love science and have always been fascinated with the subject, but more often than not, talking to Theists about science usually results and stems toward their "belief" as the main where, when, why and how. So you can see how I get nowhere. I don't make friends easily either, which seems to be in direct correlation to my doubts about the universe.

To get with it, I know, or at least I think I know, that the most common idea of Evolution stems from the Big Bang Theory. That the universe blew up into existence from nothing? That the universe is millions if not billions of years old. So to get to my first point, how? How can something randomly happen from nothing and then over the course of years, and years, slowly evolve by "random chance" and Natural Selection into what we see today? That in itself is hard to comprehend when compared to a Theist's POV that a Creator made everything. Now to be fair, comprehending a being that's omnipotent who always existed and created everything with nothing but His words, is no easier to comprehend. But I guess because of my upbringing, to me it's more rational. But that's my opinion. I'm not saying Atheists are irrational, it's just differences in beliefs. Is there anyone who wishes to enlighten me on this?

Please, I'd prefer detailed in depth enlightenment over kindergarten stuff as I've been told by some. I'll present my points as we go on so as to learn what the opposing argument is. I feel to make a debate worth discussion, one has to understand what his/her "opponent" stands on.


P.S. I apologize if my thoughts are not quite reformed. It's been years since I've debated with anyone, and I miss it.


I was brought up Christian but became an atheist so I have read a lot of the Bible and I have also read up on this stuff

The big bang is the theory that in the beginning, a huge explosion caused the universe to be created. Yes, we believe the universe is billions of years old. it's a common misassumption that natural selection is an accident, however, what we believe is hard to explain. Let's make an example, you have the letuv, a fake animal, it is in a hot climate with plenty of food, it mainly lives in trees. Slowly, the climate starts to get colder, as the letuv reproduces, slight changes are made, those who don't change die, those who do change, go on to change more. This goes on until the letuv is a completely new species.
Debate Round No. 1


Who/where did the Big Bang Theory originate? I know it's a "theory" because per the Scientific Method, a hypothesis is made first, then experimentation. What experimentation was done to, for lack of a better term, come up with that conclusion? Despite the differences in beliefs, is it valid to say there seems to be a coincidence with the "Big Bang" and "In the beginning"? I'm not going to say the commonly used analogy of "let there be light" because that's incorrect in comparison to say the least.

As for the "letuv" you're saying slight climate changes (over time) caused slight changes in each proceeding generation of offspring. Evolution/evolving requires mutation correct? Doesn't the body of said creature or their DNA have to be exposed to sufficient radiation? Correct me if I'm wrong but microevolution are slight changes to adapt to your environment, which would correlate with said climate change. But what about macroevolution? That's evolution on a large scale, i.e. fish forming limbs, and then skin instead of scales, etc. I don't see how climate change causes a drastic change like that.

Also, plenty of food? If all matter was created, how is it possible for molecules to randomly form into a food source that can sustain a living being?

Natural Selection isn't random. How does that correlate with a seemingly random universe that exploded out of nothing? If Natural Selection isn't random, then what rules or should I say dictates what happens to whom? I'm familiar with "survival of the fittest", but I feel this question is in conjunction with what decides if a certain species evolves or not.

Furthermore, we all know matter cannot be created nor destroyed, yet where did all this matter come from? With that said, how can life, something we cannot create in a lab come from non-life? Life is a mystery, I'm sure we can agree on that. But it seems the term "life" is more than physical. Take reproduction for instance. We can't create it, yet somehow, life is given or should I say emerges in a fetus. Heart beat, brain activity, kicking; all this from an egg we deem to "not be alive".

I know I may appear ignorant of these things and are asking a lot of questions about things that seem vague to me.



I couldn't find who came up with the theory
The earliest and most direct observational evidence of the validity of the theory is the expansion of the universe according to Hubble's law (as indicated by the redshifts of galaxies), discovery and measurement of the cosmic microwave background and the relative abundances of light elements produced by Big Bang nucleosynthesis. More recent evidence includes observations of galaxy formation and evolution and the distribution of large-scale cosmic structures, These are sometimes called the "four pillars" of the Big Bang theory.
Precise modern models of the Big Bang appeal to various exotic physical phenomena that have not been observed in terrestrial laboratory experiments or incorporated into the Standard Model of particle physics. Of these features, dark matter is currently subjected to the most active laboratory investigations. Remaining issues include the cuspy halo problem and the dwarf galaxy problem of cold dark matter. Dark energy is also an area of intense interest for scientists, but it is not clear whether direct detection of dark energy will be possible. Inflation and baryogenesis remain more speculative features of current Big Bang models. Viable, quantitative explanations for such phenomena are still being sought. These are currently unsolved problems in physics. (stole that from Wikipedia)
it would indeed be valid to say that there is a coincidence between "the big bang" and "in the beginning". thanks for not using the analogy.
for high scale mutations(like the fallout series) they would have to be exposed to enough radiation to alter your DNA, but not high enough to kill you(deathclaws are highly unlikely), for small scale, like with the "letuv" it is (simply put) just slight variations(think skin color in humans) continuing. Macroevolution(I may be wrong) is just microevolution, but continued so far, that a new species is made, for instance, if humans were to interfere with the letuv's habitat(slightly at first, but continuing), they would have to allow for some different areas, but in order to survive, adaptation needs to happen, so instead having talons to survive in trees, they start developing something similar to legs. Also, by plenty of food, I meant that they had a high food source(bugs or something).
natural selection is (sorry) "survival of the fittest" at it's finest. because of the name, it may sound like nature selects things to live and die, but that's not the case, I'm going to bring in something that happened a long time ago. So almost all moths are white now, we can agree on that. and this helped a lot because birch trees made it to where predators could barely see the white ones, however, the black ones died a lot(the dominant was white while the recessive was black, due to this, we will never not have black moths), but as the industrial revolution rolled in, smoke was released into the air, making the birch trees black, this made the white moths die more, while the black moths survived(they blended in). this caused a switch(it reverted again later)
if you are referring to the big bang, are most likely theory is that all matter was everywhere, it just hadn't formed yet, but then BOOM, the big bang happens and all of the matter began to form(over millions of years). with the reproductive topic, sperm is alive, and the egg is like an incubation chamber, it provides food, heat, water, and all the other essentials, while the sperm becomes a baby.
You don't appear ignorant, because you want to learn, if you were ignorant you would have no need to learn because you wouldn't want to, questions are the only way to do that. If anything, I respect you more now.

thanks for taking the time to read this
Debate Round No. 2


I've heard of dark matter and how it's one of the most mysterious aspects of space. It's not something we can prove physically, but with certain calculations and mathematics if I'm correct. I can't disagree with the whole "space is expanding". Space is afterall like a fabric, constantly stretching and expanding, so in essence, the Big Bang may have correlation with that. I don't want to pretend I know much about space although it fascinates and scares me all at the same time.

So are you saying space or more correctly matter always existed? An analogy I've always used with the Big Bang, and why I'm skeptic is: All that matter is like gasoline with a lot potential energy. The Big Bang is like a spark dropped into that gasoline and ignited the beginning of what we know/see. Are scientists still trying to figure out where that "spark" came from or is there a theory for that one too?

I looked into the study of DNA slightly, but I am by no means that knowledgeable in it. As far as I know, every species, with their sub families have a DNA code that dictates what one looks like, sounds, etc. More often than not, that DNA code cannot be changed. I'm not really sure where this thought was going, but I'll leave it in here in case one of us solves that problem haha.

To be defined "alive" there have to be a list of criteria met (I believe there are 7):
1) Have DNA (I'm positive this is one of them but correct me if I'm wrong)
2) Reproduce
3) Respond to changes in its surroundings
4) Have metabolism and breathe
5) Made of cells
6) Maintain homeostasis
7) Pass traits into offspring

I was going to add growth/change but I feel that may fall under DNA somehow.

We can all say, without a doubt, that rocks aren't alive. Life couldn't have possibly existed during the explosion of the universe, so where did it come from? As a Theist, I would say G-d created life in 2 days. He gave them the "Breath of LIfe". As a result, I would say life came from G-d, and is therefore not necessarily only a "physical" thing. What would be an Atheist's take on life?

My above life criteria was created in response to your sperm statement. By following those criteria I would not say sperm are alive.
1) DNA - Sperm do contain a large portion, if not all, the DNA required to create life within a womb. But I don't think that DNA is used by the sperm but more like stored by the sperm for the egg. DNA are helix strands, and if I'm correct, sperm is basically intertwined DNA helix'.
2) Reproduce - Sperm do not reproduce, they fuse with the egg.
3) Respond to changes in its surroundings - Sperm don't follow a specific pattern or path when released into the uterus. They will move/wriggle until they happen to find the egg, in which case the process starts. So I don't think we can say it necessarily responds to its surroundings. The average lifespan of a sperm is 3 days, but max can be 5 or lowest can be a mere few hours, depending on the condition of the uterus (fertile cervical fluid).
4) Metabolism and breathe - Sperm do not have a metabolism to process energy and no way to obtain said energy, hence why their lifespan is incredibly short.
5) Made of cells - I'm not 100% sure on this one.
6) Maintain homeostasis - Sperm cannot do this because they have to be in the perfect temperature range or they will die.
7) Pass traits to offspring - Indirectly it does, yes. Sperm can't make offspring, but they do contribute to the creation of a fetus.

Why do you see sperm as being alive?
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by The_Dank_Gamer 3 years ago
sorry, I didn't have my computer for a while.
If you want, I could create a new debate for us to continue this on.
Posted by The_Dank_Gamer 3 years ago
sorry, I didn't have my computer for a while.
If you want, I could create a new debate for us to continue this on.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
You need information.. Then creation is a no go..You just end up with a dream..Evolution ?..You can track it..
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.