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

Creation vs. Evolutionism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,014 times Debate No: 41543
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I have heard many times this phrase "Creation is a religion and Evolution[ism] is based on fact." I beg to differ. First of all Evolutionism is a religion. Creation is no more religious then Evolutionism. There has never been any facts supporting Evolutionism, and many Evolutionist scientists know this. Though they know, they still hold on to there precious beliefs in Evolutionism against all facts and evidence that may slap them in the face. The reason evolutionists believe what they believe is because it is the exact opposite of Creation. An Evolutionist can not believe in a God because if God were real to them (which some do know) then there would be consequences for there actions which are sinful or immoral. So they block there minds of it. Now once in the "Evolutionism" club they are hard pressed to leave or else they would be admitting "defeat," as one minor Evolutionist scientist said.

Now to the facts. I wish to start astronomically. First of the shape of the galaxy. Our galaxy is speculated to be a spiral. We have also seen many other spiral galaxies. Now according to observations that all sides agree with, gravity is weakening throughout the universe (side fact; "uni" means one; "verse" is a spoken sentence; we live in a single spoken sentence). When a spiral galaxy looses gravity (which takes less than 20,000 years according to current observations) it becomes an elliptical galaxy, then that to an irregular galaxy. Question. If the universe is billions of years old, why do we have spiral galaxies? Mmmm, could be that the universe isn't millions of years old. (Moment of silence in shock)

According to the Big Bang Theory this is how the universe was created. In the beginning (sound familiar) there was nothing. Then all of the matter in the universe compacted together and became so dense and turned so fast that it exploded. Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. It says that nothing exploded? That contradicts science's most sacred law the Law of the Conservation of Matter. Now if Evolutionism is based on scientific "fact," then why in the first sentence does it contradict a proven law?

Now if it exploded then everything that came from it should turn the same way that the single mass was turning. Question. Why are there moons, planets, stars, and galaxies spinning backwards?

I believe this is substantial evidence to get you thinking. I await eagerly for you reply so I may then add much...much more. It is your stage.



'First of all Evolutionism is a religion' to disagree with you. A religion is associated with a superhuman power, a supreme being, be it creator or overlord. Evolution is not associated with any of these.

'An Evolutionist can not believe in a God because if God were real to them (which some do know) then there would be consequences for there actions which are sinful or immoral.'

You're making quite a sweeping generalisation on the back of no evidence other than bigotry. There are evolutionists that believe in deities, and there are creationists that do not. Also, atheists are perfectly moral people. The countries with the lowest belief in God tend to be thriving social democracies like France, Japan, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway and Sweden. Cologne and Stockholm are hardly Sodom and Gomorrah, and the countries actually have lower crime rates than more religious societies like Iran, the USA and Nigeria. For atheists, actions have consequences too. If I was to have unprotected sex with fifty people over the course of the next year, I would most likely get an STI. If I was to drink a bottle of whisky a day for the rest of my life, I would live to about forty with a ruined liver. If I was to go on a killing spree, I would either be killed by the police, or I would spend the rest of my life in an institution. Morality does not source from a magic man in the sky, it sources from our own sense of civic duty and responsibility to ourselves and others.

'When a spiral galaxy looses gravity (which takes less than 20,000 years according to current observations)'

Like a true creationist, you are providing absolutely no evidence for the claim, and are instead asserting something and expecting it to be taken as fact, rather like Kent Hovind. Density Wave Theory soundly explains why spiral galaxies' arms stay in existence. Essentially, they are like traffic jams, with stars entering and leaving all the time, replenishing the arms. This also applies to Saturn's rings, another subject of a popular fallacious creationist argument.

'According to the Big Bang Theory this is how the universe was created'

Again, you are under a critical misapprehension. The Big Bang Theory is not a theory as to how the universe was created, but how it developed over time. Instead, the Big Bang was a long process of rapid expansion of a very hot, dense universe into a cooler, more sparse universe. An analogy for this is a loaf of bread baking, with raisins being matter and the bread being a vacuum. When it is just dough, the raisins are compacted together, but as it bakes, it expands and the raisins are further apart. It does not contradict the Law of the Conservation of Matter, since it pushed all the matter further apart, leaving space of nothingness, the vacuum, in between. This is why there space is a vacuum and the universe is still expanding, though I assume you disagree with that. The Big Bang Theory is not about the start of the universe itself, but refers to how it came to embody its present form. Also, the term exploded is frowned upon; expanded is the more appropriate term for it.

'Why are there moons, planets, stars, and galaxies spinning backwards?'

The direction they are rotating in is irrelevant. The only real problem with the theory would be if they orbited in opposite directions.

Before you put forward any more nonsensical claims, you might want to check this first:


I notice you provide no evidence for creationism, which is in itself a hypothesis (not a theory) completely devoid of merit. This is only natural, given the fact that the only evidence for it is a piece of bronze-age pulp fiction. Young-Earth Creationism is even more ridiculous than this, and seems to be unaccountable to population changes and holds that according to the Biblical timeline, the Pyramids of Egypt and the city of Mohenjo-daro in Pakistan were built a hundred years after God committed genocide against all but eight people. The timeline does not make sense in the slightest.

Evidence for an Old Earth

Radiometric Dating

The oldest rocks found according to radiometric dating are at least 4.28 billion years old, and have been found on an island near Quebec.

The Greenland Samples are another set of rocks that have been analysed and have been found to be between 3.55 and 3.7 billion years old, depending on the element used.

If you are sceptical of radiometric dating, this article explains it rather well.

Plate Tectonics

Plate Tectonics is evidence for an Old Earth because it show that the continents have drifted over millions of years from Pangaea to the current world. There are mountains of evidence for it, including the following:

  • Detection of motion - The plates move centimetres every century, and laser technology has allowed scientists to measure the small movements that have been made during the last few decades, and it has been quite substantial
  • Aging of the sea floor - The new rock that has formed around the boundaries of the plates is younger than the rock that is further away. This is because when the plates move further apart, magma is forced up by the pressure and is cooled by the sea.
  • Oceanic ridges - Along the major plate boundaries, there are mountains under the sea made of relatively new rock from pressurised magma being forced upwards.
  • Volcanic and seismic activity - Volcanoes and earthquakes are far more common along plate boundaries than elsewhere because of the shifts in plates occuring all the time. This is why East Asia and Oceania have an abundance of volcanic and seismic activity.
  • Tesselation of landmasses - This is most blatant in the almost perfect tesselation of Brazil with the Nigerian Basin, but can be seen in India with South-East Africa and with Alaska and Kamchatka. This is also shown in very similar fossils and plant life found in both Africa and South America, such as the Mesosaurus and Lystrosaurus, and the Glossopteris plant, all of which have been found in the southern hemisphere.


The most distant starlight found from Earth is from 13.1 billion years old, and is from the z8_GND_5296 galaxy. It also has the most redshift of any galaxy found, 7.51, which beats the closest competitor by 0.30.

There are many more points, but I’ll save them for later.

Evidence for Evolution

Fossil Record

The fossil record clearly shows evolution of species as well as the passing of time. The layers of rock, as well as the fossils found in them, offers clear evidence as to the evolution of species.


The existence of dinosaurs is pretty undeniable, given the overwhelming evidence for them. Transitional dinosaur-bird and dinosaur-mammal fossils have been found, which indicates that the Cainozoic is a direct continuation of the Mesozoic period. These species have been found in layers of rock above dinosaurs, indicating that species that came after dinosaurs were transitional species between the familiar species of today and the species of the previous period.

Human-Ape Transitional Species

Many different transitional species from Apes to humans have been found, and these point to a common lineage.

In fact, upon examining these skulls, creationists are in disagreement as to which ones belong to humans and which ones belong to apes.

I’ve provided three pieces of evidence for an old earth and three for evolution, and I await your evaluation.

Debate Round No. 1


jrrjacques forfeited this round.


I'm going to wait for my opponent to post his second argument.
Debate Round No. 2


Evolutionism will be (EV) and Evolutionist(s) will be (ES) this is due to the word limit
religion n. An objective pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.----The American Heritage Dictionary: Second College Edition 1985
religion n. A belief upheld or pursued with zeal and devotion.----The Concise American Heritage Dictionary 1987The definition of religion does not only include monotheistic and polytheistic beliefs (Example Buddhism, Humanism (Because the basic belief is that man is god and man decides what is right), and Atheism (Atheism because you have to believe that there is no god or a beginning in some cases and pursue it with zeal and devotion)). (EV) is pursued by a group of scientists who believe it with all of there being and refuse to believe that anything can disprove it. Now why don"t you admit that (EV) is a religion. I admit Christianity is a religion. Now, when we both agree that we both are part of a religion; I now ask, why does your religion get federal money to be preached in schools?
I am at fault for I did not clarify myself, do to time constraints. Allow me to rephrase the sentence about (ES), "An (ES) will not in God because if God were real to them (which some do know) then there be eternal consequences for their scoffing of him (if they do not repent and see that God does exist), and their actions and/or beliefs are usually sinful, immoral, and/or out of ignorance. Now I am afraid you are the one "making quite a sweeping generalisation." By the way what are the kind of people that make these countries less culturally thriving? It is people who have been indoctrinated with (EV). (EV) says they came from animals, that there is no point to living for it will all be gone, and that if you something wrong the worst that can happen is that you get put in jail or killed (which is just as good because when you die you blink out of existence). Evolution encourages "If it feels good, do it because there is no one with any real power to stop you." It is from (EV) that Marxism, Communism, Nazism, and Socialism have been based on. Hitler was an advent believer in (EV). The two kids that did the Columbine shooting were strong believers in (EV), and did the shooting on Hitler"s birthday on purpose. They shot Isaiah Shultz because he was an African American. (EV) encourages that there is a superior race of human (just look to see how far Hitler took that). Take you for example, you believe in murdering unborn innocent children, but you don"t believe in executing criminals for murdering people out of enjoyment, or executing criminals who have killed whole families just to prove a point. That is a hypocrite belief. Here is something I bet you didn"t know. Did you know Mexico is one of the biggest drug markets in the world? When Christian missionaries entered Mexico they began converting people by the hundreds. In about 10 years the drug market dropped by nearly half. People in Mexico were not buying drugs like they use to. The drug lords found out it was because of the Christian missionaries. For the past two years those drug lords have been slaughtering those families; men, women, and 8 month old babies. The USA was founded by Christian believers. Now USA has moved far away from Christianity and look at the result, the government is in chaos and the people are going wild because they believe they came from senseless animals. Nigeria and Iran are Muslim countries. It says in the Muslim bible that they must kill nonbelievers that won"t convert in order to get to their heaven. How can you compare Christianity to that. It is (EV) that is ruining my country not Christianity. Now I never said that there are no moral atheists (but first we have to define morality and that is a completely different debate that I will not address nor you), in fact I have met quite a few good character atheists. I am fine with atheists, it is (EV) I am picking a bone with. I never said anything about Cologne and Stockholm being Sodom and Gomorrah, where did you even get that idea? (About Japan, did you know they have the world"s highest teen suicide rate of any two countries combined? Some thriving democracy.) (EV) came into the public view in 1957. Do you know what happened in that year? One word Sputnik. Before it launched Creation was being taught in text books and (ES) did not like. So they started screaming at the U. S. public and government (who were at the time frantic over the Communists beating the Capitalists into space), "The reason why they [Communists] beat us [Capitalists] up there is because they are teaching Evolution in their schools and we are not!" What does (EV) have to do with making a rocket that can go into space? The government in its chaotic state listened to the call. Within they next ten years of (EV) entering public schools teen pregnancies, crime, teen suicide, and adultery skyrocketed like the Apollo missions.
To briefly start with is Dr. Hovind. Now if Dr. Hovind is so dumb and fallacious, why did he win all of his debates with (ES) (which numbers above 40 total with no losses). If all he said could be proven incorrect, why didn"t his opponents say so. Why did they begin to refuse to debate with him in person? Was it because they could never win? As for the Density Wave Theory, where do all of these stars come from? Other galaxies? Are galaxies swapping stars in underhand deals? It"s a long way to another galaxy. Or is it that there are rogue stars between galaxies being attracted to galaxies? Or is it something like the Ort Cloud, something that no one has ever seen or can possibly exist but it is an (ES) only explanation for something they have no answer to. And if so, how did we see it? Also this still doesn"t answer the question of gravity weakening. Since gravity is weakening how does adding more stars help with keeping the central gravity of a galaxy constant?
Forgive me thinking you are a traditional (ES) that believed that the Big Bang Theory created everything. Instead you are of the other kind that has no explanation for the making of the universe and believe that the Big Bang is part of a long cycle. Again you have assumed something that is irrelevant. You wrote ""the universe is still expanding, though I assume you disagree with that." I happen to support that the universe is expanding, for it says three times in the King James V Bible that "God stretched out the heavens." I agree with you that space is a vacuum and not matter. The traditional (ES) Big Bang Theory does contradict the law I mentioned.
Allow me to demonstrate why planets and galaxies should all rotate and revolve the same way if The Big Bang Theory were true. You take some kids in fourth grade to a merry-go-round. You place them on it and then bring out the high school football (or handball I believe it"s called in England) team to spin the merry-go-round. We start off in Phase 1; the players begin to spin it clockwise and the kids are yelling, "Go faster, faster!" As they approach 30 miles an hour (sorry I don"t know how to convert that into metric) the kids enter Phase 2; they become quiet and silently concentrate on holding on for dear life. Their speed is now about 60 mph as the players spin them faster and the kids enter Phase 3; they begin to yell again, but this time it is, "Slow down!. Please slow down!" Then comes Phase 4, the last one. They have now reached about 100 mph, and the kids begin to fly off the merry-go-round, and continue flying until they encounter resistance (like a street lamp or a tree). You will notice that as they fly off the contraption that is rotating clockwise that they themselves are also rotating clockwise. This is called the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum. In a frictionless environment (which is what the Big Bang was in) the pieces of the original object must rotate and revolve the same direction as the swirling dot of which it came. So this means that "the direction they are rotating in is irrelevant" is an irrelevant statement in itself for it denies a proven physics law.
Radiometric dating, I suppose you know, is the measurement of the half life of Carbon-14. Now before (ES) be date the bones, they first look to see what the bones belonged to, and where it appears on the Geologic Column. They then make some faulty assumptions. 1. They assume that they animal was breathing the exact air we are breathing today. (dinosaurs lived in a very different atmosphere before the Creation flood) 2. They assume the decay has been constant (in order for this to be true, they need to know how much was in it when it died). When trying to date something this way it is like this analogy. You walk into room and see a candle burning. I ask you when was it lit? You take some measurements on its height and find it is 10 centimeters tall. I ask you again, when was it lit? You still don"t know and you take more measurements. You find that it is burning 1 centimeter an hour. I ask again, when was the candle lit? In order to know you need to make the assumptions on how tall it was before it was lit, and has the rate of burning been constant. You don"t know so you guess. Here are a few examples on its unreliability in chronological order.
1949-The lower leg of a mammoth was 15,000 years old and the skin 21,000.
1963-A living mollusk was dated to be 2,300 years old.
1970-An article was published telling how dates were selected, "If the date supports our theory we put it in the main text. If it is not entirely contradictant, it is put as a foot-note. If it doesn"t support our theory at all it is dropped and we test again."
1971-A freshly killed seal was dated at 1,300 years old.
1984-The shells from living snails were dated at 27,000 years old.
1985-11 human skeletons that were suppose to be the earliest remains of North American humans that were thought to be about a quarter of a million years old were dated at 5,000 years old or less.
This is all I could fit there is much mor


henryajevans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


jrrjacques forfeited this round.


henryajevans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


jrrjacques forfeited this round.


henryajevans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by MysticEgg 5 years ago
I love Hovites debating. Delicious.
Posted by jrrjacques 5 years ago
I am sorry I could not post my reply before this round ended for I could not get to the computer on time. My reply to you Mr. henryajavens is 25,000 characters long (or 4,500 words); so, I will have to stretch it out over the next three rounds. Also I will only have this week to debate with you before I go on a break. I will not return until the 4th of January. I spent my entire weekend typing out my reply to you and have lost much sleep in its comprising. It is also had to cut down on my argument greatly or else I would not be able to fit it all in this debate. I repeat it is a summary! I have left out a lot of evidence, facts, and explanations. Please be patient Mr. henryajavens. I will soon give you for what it's worth.
Posted by jrrjacques 5 years ago
To Mr. henryajavens,

My only computer time is on a school computer (I only have 30 minutes on a computer on school days(I type 10 words a minute)), and as you know school gets off on weekends and Christmas Break. Your reasons need a lot of explanation, facts, circumstances, and time. I have the first three but not the last item. Please do not take this as an excuse to get out on an argument for I would enjoy speaking more to you on this subject but I have neither time nor typing skill to give lengthy, time consuming reply. I will try over the weekend to formulate my reply (but I will be busy with family affairs) and type it Monday 9 that is if the timer does not run out on me. But be assured that I do have an argument to greatly challenge you, it is just a matter of computer time.

Thank you for your wait and your debate,
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 5 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: Pro's concession. Neither evolutionism, nor creationism are religions- thanks to Con's logic.