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

Creationism is a viable explanation for the existence of the universe

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
frogger 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: 2/2/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 549 times Debate No: 107450
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I would like to thank whoever agrees to debate with me, it is a privilege to have a good friendly debate once in a while.

I will be arguing the position that creationism is NOT a viable explanation for the existence of the earth and life, and that the earth is much much older than six thousand years. I will be arguing instead that evolution is the best model we have so far for explaining the process of how we came about.


I too would like to keep this friendly, and as this is my first debate on here, and I am very young and would like to use this to prepare myself for any arguments I may face in my life.

On this I will be arguing on the side that creationism is a viable explanation for the existence of the universe. I would also like to point out that creationism does not require the restrictive thought that there are only thousands of years in existence. In fact, evolution can very well be included into the view of creationism. I would like to encourage everyone who reads these arguments to vote after reading all of them, and then if you have changed your perspective to my side to talk to me if you have any questions, I may not be able to answer them all, but I will try. I will attempt to make arguments for all of creationism, however, many of my arguments will be based on Christian beliefs and scripture.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent has made the claim that evolution and creationism can both be true.

Given that these two things are polar opposites, I would like to ask him to explain his claim. I would also ask that he states why he believes in creationism.


My opponent has challenged my claim that creationism and evolution can exist together and has claimed them to be polar opposites. This is very common misunderstanding which is not aided by pure creationists or pure evolutionists trying to ignore the other side. Due to this major problem that needs to be overcome, I will have to switch off of my other arguments to explain why evolution and creationism do not have to conflict, but have to and can easily support each other. "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind" (Albert Einstein). For this argument I will have to use scripture from the Bible as my evidence.

Many people take scripture too literally and this is what causes many of the problems between the two sides. It is very important to recognize that the Bible is full of metaphors and figurative meanings, and this can be seen through the teachings of Jesus. In Genesis we see the world created in six days and many people take this literally and this is what causes the translation of the earth only being thousands of years old. However, as Jesus and God are one in the same as seen many times throughout scripture, it comes as no surprise that the six days may not be as literal as some people take it. "But do not forget this on thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8). This verse is explaining how time is all relative to God and this means the six days mentioned in Genesis could be millions or billions of years each. An all powerful God is not restricted by human standards and would be able to create the universe in whatever way they please, whether this be through the big bang and evolution or a literal six day process. This God could also form a human with or without evolution, and Christians disagree on this, yet they all still hold to their faith. "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7). Some take this as meaning that humans were made though a quick process, whereas others can see as meaning over time, through evolution that God controlled, humans were evolved from much smaller organisms, seen as dust. However, it is agreed that the breath of life, or a soul, is what separates humans out from other species, but I will be talking about this idea in a later round.

Also, I would like to examine how science supports and requires religion to explain the universe. In a National Geographic composition by Stefan Lovgren it is found that many scientists still hold their beliefs in a God even with their research into fields that people might think conflict with religion. World-renowned physicist Brian Greene, while himself non-religious, admits that science is unable to rule out the existence of God. He also states that, "Science is very good at answering the 'how' questions. How did the universe evolve to the form that we see? But it is woefully inadequate in addressing the 'why' questions. Why is there a universe at all? These are the meaning questions, which many people think religion is particularly good at dealing with." (Greene).

For my first major argument that science supports and needs creationism. I would like to examine the uniqueness of Earth. As current research finds, Earth is the only known planet sustaining life. There are over 200 parameters that are necessary to be met in order for a planet to sustain life, and if any of these are the slightest bit off, life will not exist. To visualize this, think of a math equation showing the probability that life will exist on at least one planet. The numerator contains about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets and this seems like a massive amount, but when compared to the denominator it is nothing. The denominator contains factors like the size of the planet, concentration of the elements in its atmosphere, the amount of light it receives, distance to other masses, and many other crucial factors multiplied by each other. This massive number of different possibilities, on its own, makes life almost impossible on at least one planet. However, these factors matter not only for that specific planet, but for other planets, stars, and other masses. Any small difference on any one of these masses could result in life not be able to exist do to the affect that it will have on the planet that could have possibly sustained life. This is like adding an exponent on a probability that was already too small to begin with. Other factors that makes life almost impossible are the four fundamental forces of gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong and weak nuclear forces that were decided immediately following the Big Bang. If anyone of these is changed slightly certain aspects of the universe, like stars, could not exist. Based on these factors, the chance that Earth would sustain life is near impossible without a divine creator creating and maintaining the balance needed for life.

I will continue to observe other reasons that science supports the need for a divine creator in rounds 3 and 4, as I would like to be able to write as much on each topic as possible. For now I will let my opponent formulate arguments of his own or ask any further questions if he so desires.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
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
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by frogger 2 years ago
Sorry mate, my Internet was down and I could not get my argument up in time. Please continue with the debate as usual. sorry for the inconvenience.
Posted by habebate 2 years ago
New miracle ! Intelligent robot created itself or by chance !
A . Have you heard about the new miracle? .. Intelligent robot created itself or by chance ?!
B . How did that happen?
A . That occurred when pieces of material started to combine by themselves and formed components of the robot .. the components accumulated and formed the parts of the robot .. then the parts assembled themselves to form the complete robot which started to move, talk and act! ..
B . Where did that happen !?
A . In the minds of the atheists !
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.