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

Does God Exist?

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  
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: 1/20/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,982 times Debate No: 99142
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)




God - a superior being responsible for the formation of our universe

1.) No trolling
2.) No K's
3.) No forfeits
4.) Keep it respectable and civil
5.) No new arguments in the last round
6.) Focus on the topic
Failure to follow these rules will result in the automatic loss of my opponent

R1 - Acceptance only
R2 - Each side presents their claims
R3 - Rebuttal
R4 - Closing Arguments

Pro will have to provide proof/evidence that God exists

I would like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting the debate and hopefully everyone reading/participating will keep an open mind.
Also, Pro, please use ACTUAL evidence, not "You just have to believe".



In compliance with the rules round one is strictly for acceptance only. I look forward to an intelligent and orderly debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Point 1 - No evidence that I am aware of.
Religious people often use the absence of evidence for something as evidence that there is a superior being responsible for the creation of this unknown object. This shows itself throughout history, one example is the ancient Greeks who used Gods to explain the nature of weather, oceans, harvest, etc. Many people view this as silly and foolish; however, the vast majority of these people are mirroring the behavior of the Greeks. One example is the creation of the universe. We, so far, do not have solid proof of what exactly caused the Big Bang. However, the absence of evidence for one thing is not evidence for another. Here's an analogy I like to use... Lets say there is the problem of a missing cookie from the cookie jar (represents the creation of the universe in this case) and I think my younger brother Matt took it (Matt represents God), however, one of my other 12 siblings could have taken the cookie (they represent scientific theories). It sounds incredibly stupid if I say "Well, while there's no evidence Matt took the cookie... there's no evidence the other 12 took it either (theories, such as String theory, do have evidence or fluent mathematics; however)... so Matt must've taken it". You would either have to directly prove Matt/God took the cookie, or show that the other 12 siblings didn't take the cookie. In other words, you would have to disprove every aspect of every single scientific theory that exists pertaining to the creation of the universe... which is impossible. So, essentially, the only way is to show directly that God created the universe... however this no evidence of that. Others use the Bible as evidence for God; however, one does not need to go very far into religion to realize how unreliable the Bible is. It imprudently states that the Earth is 6000 years old, that people live up to 900 years, etc. The Earth has been proved to be older than 6000 years old via radiometric dating [1] and it is simply medically impossible to live to 900 years, in fact, the limit has been shown to be 115 years [2] (there are a few exceptions, one woman lived to 122). People should not follow something so blindly that is so unreliable, the Bible, and other religious texts, is full of such lies and misleading statements as I have shown. A scientific textbook gets recalled for having a single error, while the Bible has an abundance of inaccurate information.

Point 2 - Numerous religions.
It has been estimated that there are currently roughly 4,200 religions [3] throughout the world. So, why so many? I believe that it is simple... because religions are created purely by humans. A "God" did not invent these religions personally, rather, an individual or a group of individuals had their own philosophy about life. Humans have selfishly throughout history depicted God as a human in paintings. There never was a God, humans simply invented him/her/it. The Catholic Church has been known for manipulating the public in the past by using religion in order to give themselves more wealth. Indulgences [4] (paying for your sins) are just one example. Most people here are most likely familiar with the Church's misdoings if they have had past an 8th grade education.

Point 3 - Numerous Imperfections
If the sole purpose of this planet is to make the human species survive... then why are there so many imperfections? Between 1994 and 2013, roughly 1.35 million people have died of natural disasters with roughly 218 million being affected [5]. Annually, roughly 6 million babies die almost immediately at birth [6]. 95% of the world's population have health problems, a third of them have more than 5 health problems [7]. Why do humans have goosebump, a tailbone, and an appendix if they are completely useless. That's just the tip of the iceberge. What about the universe? The universe is 96 BILLION light years in diameter [8], if the Earth is the only thing that matters in the universe, then why make it so large? The vast majority of the universe is impossible to explore because, due to the accelerating expansion of the universe, it is receding from us faster than the ultimate speed limit.. the speed of light. To give you a picture of how vast the universe is... imagine the entire solar system as a grain of sand... the Milky Way galaxy ALONE would be the size of the continental U.S. If we took the Milky Way and shrunk it down to the size of a mere dinner plate... the observable universe would be the size of the continental United States. There are around 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, each containing hundreds of billions of stars who each contain exoplanets/planets. Meaning, there are roughly 10^24 [9] or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the observable universe alone, you can not tell me that you expect to be special out of so vast a number. There are easily billions of planets just like our own Earth in just our own Milky Way galaxy. Even if the probability of a planet just like Earth arising was 0.000000000000001%, there would still be 10,000,000,000 Earth-Like planets in the observable universe. And that's only talking about the observable universe, the physical universe COULD contain an infinite amount of planets, meaning, an infinite number of Earth-like planets regardless of the probability (Infinity is not a number, Infinity times .0000000000000000000000000000000000000001 is still Infinity). Those are just the physical imperfections, what about the moral ones?
I can not believe in a god with so many mass genocides, slaughterings, etc.
God and the Holocaust can not coexist, where around 6.2 million people died [10]
God and the Native American genocide can not coexist, where roughly 90% of Native Americans died from disease [11]
God and the Soviet famine can not coexist, where around 7.5 million people starved [10]
God and the Cambodian genocide cannot exist, where 1.7-3million people died [10]
God and the Armenian genocide can not exist, where around 800,000-1.5million people died [10]
This is just the tip of the iceberg yet again, an abundance of inhumane atrocities have happened throughout the course of history, yet, they have never been stopped. That is simply because there is no God to stop them.



The case for there being a divine creator is much more vast than what you touched on.

Lets put it plain and simple, no one was there to witness the creation/combustion of the universe. If you believe in evolution, you believe matter was there and then combusted thus creating the Earth we live in today. If you believe in an intelligent designer (God). You believe that there was a supernatural being that existed and created the universe...... Either way something was there and none of us can prove that.

Theories are not reliable and are easily corruptible. Read this carefully it is easy to get lost in what I am about to say. Since no one was there to witness the creation of the universe we cannot know its age by formulas. Each number that exists is given value such as 2+2=4. We assigned the answer four because we humans made that the answer. We had to make the answer four because we knew the answer. Since no one was there when the universe was created scientists assume the Earth is billions of years old and try formulas that give them the answer they want because they believe it.
--Creationists alike have formulas showing the Earth is a maximum of 7,000 years old. Both formulas are unreliable because they assume they know the answer.

Now on to radiometric dating (my favorite). The Earth was created in full form in the Bible. Meaning if the tree would take approximately one million years old to reach it's size it was created that big already. Since the Earth was spoken into existence and created by a divine being, there was no need for the tree to wait one million years, because it was created that old. Even with fossils they take that number from a generic test yet they do not have 100 percent proof because we do not know what happens to the isotopes when they have been in the same conditions as the fossils. We can only say it takes this long for this isotope to reach this strength and then they apply it across the board.

The world was a different place in the antediluvian stage (pre-flood). The living conditions were different than they are now. Even the atmosphere was in a different state and people were more protected from the sun because it did not rain. Water would come up through the ground instead as seen in the Bible. These conditions allowed people to live far more years than we do now such as Methuselah who lived 969 years.

For the fossil layers, having a world flood makes better sense than evolutionists explanation. Fossils are formed by rapid covering of sediments over something that died. What better to make fossils than when rocks are smashing open with water out of the ground causing sediments to be everywhere quickly covering everything that is in the water. The layers make too much sense with a flood also because what is the first thing that gets covered, it would be the tiny ocean organisms that are already in the water. The next would be medium sized animals. Animals have instincts so the big animals are running to higher ground during all of this so what is the very last thing in our Earths layers, it is the larger animals. It would explain why many caves have a large variety of fossils in it because things got pushed into places like caves during the flood. Here is a picture for your convenience. You are going to see the order I just described.

The Bible is the most historically proved book and has hundreds of prophecies that have come true throughout history. The comment of misleading statements and unreliability just shows you have never studied the Bible. People should really study things before they debate it. 365 prophecies in the Bible have come true. Please reference this link for only some of them with the prophecies that exceeded over 1,000 to 2,000 years. The second one includes all of them.

Please give me some errors in the Bible I will be glad to show you how they're not wrong as I did in many other debates. The Bible is the historical book that has had statements be fulfilled thousands of years later.

Of course there are thousands of religions, story telling use to be a major thing. People would tell stories and that eventually left people to create things they want. Such as how the epic of Gilgamesh (Greek mythology) is based off of Noah's ark. It also is interesting that most religions have a great flood story. God sent his son in the flesh who was Jesus. He came in human form as a sacrifice for all mankind, even people like you who do not believe in Him. The catholic church is not to be used as evidence for God, they're liars. Man is imperfect and can corrupt what God really wanted. They even told people not to read the Bible because they could understand it. That just shows they knew they were wrong and did not want people seeing they were wrong. We cannot take the actions of people which are imperfect and make it an argument for why the Bible is wrong when the Bible nowhere supported what the catholic church did/does.
We are all born with morals. We know right from wrong. It is not just something that is made up because if it were really survival of the fittest, such as what evolutionists believe, we wouldn't think it was terrible if a baby died. We wouldn't care if the world had health problems, but that's not how we are. We have feelings and morals. We care for other humans. Isn't it survival of the fittest? Don't we just believe it is natural selection?

We live in a sin cursed Earth, it says so in the Bible. After the fall of man, sin entered the world. The Bible even says the devil is the king of the Earth until God comes back. Of course there is going to be suffering and death the devil is in charge of the Earth for now. When God comes back he will put the devil in hell.
Why is it a problem that the universe is so vast? When you do projects for school or work on something that takes a lot of effort, don't you make it as amazing as possible. Why can't God do that then? Did you ever think that God created this vast universe and made it so amazing because He created it and it is His work? The universe is beautiful and God created it for us. Just to show how big God is he created this massive universe that we are still not done discovering yet. Isn't that cool? That a God would create all this just to show us he loved us and how big he is.
This is the Corina nebula, look how beautiful it is.

Now look at this one the Whirlpool Galaxy, make sure you look at both in order.
This is what is in the center of that galaxy, yes you can verify it's existence.

There is a cross, the sign of Jesus who died as a criminal for the sins of the world, in the middle of a random galaxy. Talk about putting detail into everything you create. Those pictures show a Galaxy, what about here on earth. Look at these pictures.
This is called Laminin. It is holds our entire bodies together, including out organs. It is a foundational protein that also is in the same symbol and what God sent his son to do. Once again talk about putting you mark on everything. Whether you like it or not you are held together by the same sign Jesus died for your sins for.

There is something out there much bigger than we are. All I have described to you is just the literals tip of the iceberg to creation. There is a God out there who loves you and thinks your valuable, don't ever forget that.
Debate Round No. 2


As the reader can clearly see, Pro has a severe misunderstanding on how science functions.

One example is one of the very first of his/her statements, “If you believe in evolution, you believe matter was there and then combusted thus creating the Earth we live in today”. The definition of evolution is “[The] change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations” [], it has absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the universe. I assume you mean the Big Bang theory, which is one of the most solid theories in cosmology with an abundance of evidence to back it up, such as the cosmic microwave background (which occurred because once the iconic gas neutralized 300,000 years after the big bang, photons were able to move out of the electrically neutral ga due to the expansion of the universe, these electromagnetic waves were stretched into microwaves). Further, the Big Bang was not a localized combustion, in other words, it did not have a center of explosion, rather, it was the exponential expansion of the universe as predicted by the Inflation theory.

Leading to my next point, Pro says that in science, the scientists know the answer before they construct the theory, however, this is LARGELY incorrect. Many theories, including the Big Bang theory and Inflation theory, predict numerous things. For example, the Big Bang theory predicted a cosmic radiation background, which was discovered afterward. Neutrinos were predicted to exist before they were discovered. The Period Table of Elements predicts elements that don't exist yet. Pro also states that theories are largely “corruptible” yet doesn’t show a single example, theories are explanations that have an abundance of evidence to back them up. I am not saying every single theory is absolutely perfect; however, our MODERN theories seem to be the best and generally correct explanations. And since most of these theories are relatively old, they have passed all test with flying colors for decades. Regardless, unlike the Biblical stories, theories have actual evidence to support them while all the proof Pro has is the word of the creator of the Bible, which cannot be trusted. I can not use the book ‘1984’ as proof that an oppressive government existed for it is just a story. Also, I would like to see Pro’s “formulas” of the Earth being at most 7,000 years old, for there are trees old than that.

Pro then says that this fact is irrelevant for God “created things at an age”. What? You’re telling me “God” replicated every single detail of a then 2,000 year old tree, passing experiments that weren’t even invented at that time period? Yet again, Pro proves absolutely no evidence nor links simply because there is none. Since Pro has failed to back up their statements with evidence, they should not be trusted and regarded as lies until pro can prove sufficient information. This further shows Pro does not understand for if they did, they would have put evidence backing up their claims. Instead they simply state things without presenting evidence.
I will now show why the Bible clearly can’t be used as evidence in a scientific debate. Here is an abundance self-contradictions on a google doc because I didn't have enough space to list them here. Keep in mind that the ones I listed are a couple hundred out of tens of thousands

I could keep on going pretty much forever in the google doc, but the reader gets the point by now. One website alone lists around 8,000-10,000 statements that are self-contradictions [], injustices, cruelty, scientifically impossible, etc. If just ONE of these statements is true, then the Bible is already unreliable. Modern scientific textbooks are recalled for having a single error. Obviously, the Bible has more than one error if a single website can list 8,000-10,000 lies. I would keep listing them, however, it is evident that the Bible is littered with lies, meaning, it can not be trusted. This essentially puts Pro’s whole argument as unreliable since their only piece of evidence was the Bible… oops. Nevertheless, I will continue to reply to Pro’s argument, presenting even further evidence for why they are undeniably wrong.

Pro states that “Fossils are formed by rapid covering of sediments over something that died”.According to [] “most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind. Over time sediment builds over the top and hardens into rock.” Fossils are not formed instantly, in fact, the process ALONE takes 10,000 years! [] Which is already older than the “7,000 year old Earth”.

Further, scientists such as Bill Nye have already slammed ‘Noah’s Ark’

“My scientific colleagues go to places like Greenland, the Arctic, they go to Antarctica and they drill into the ice with hollow drill bits; it's not that extraordinary, and many have probably done it yourselves, like with hole saws to put locks in doors, for example. And we pull out long cylinders of ice, long ice rods. And these are made of snow and ice. It's called snow ice. Snow ice forms over the winter, and snow flakes fall, and are crushed down by subsequent layers. They’re crushed together, and are entrapping little bubbles. The bubbles must needs be [from] ancient atmospheres; there's nobody running around with a hypodermic needle squirting ancient atmosphere into the bubbles. And we find certain of the cylinders to have 680,000 layers. 680,000 snow winter/summer cycles. How could it be that just 4000 years ago, all of this ice formed? We can just run some numbers. Let's see we have 680,000 layers of snow ice, and 4000 years since the great flood, that means we need 170 winter/summer cycles every year. For the last 4000 years. Wouldn't someone have noticed that? Wouldn't someone have notice there's been winter/summer, winter/summer for 170 times in one year? If we go to California, we find the enormous stands of Bristlecone pines. Some of them are over 6000 years old. 6800 years old. There is a famous tree in Sweden is 9550 years old. How could these trees be there if there was an enormous flood just 4000 years ago?” [;]

Also, I really don’t see the point of your chart? All those organisms lived at different points throughout time, so of course the earliest organisms will be at the bottom because they are the ones that died first. And since the earliest organisms are the least complex, naturally, they will be smaller than the more complex organisms. You learn that in 6th grade science, I would expect that you would know something as fundamental and simple as that.

Pro stating that "the Bible is the most historically proved book" is just utter blasphemy, for already I have presented thousands of statements showing that it lies. Also, survival of the fittest does not apply to humanity anymore for we are not really faced with the threat of survival. What I mean is that in nature, organisms with the best traits live long enough to produce offspring and pass on their traits, however, this does not exist in humanity because pretty much everyone reproduces regardless of their "fitness".

The universe being so vast so that "it is beautiful" makes no sense for until the last century, we haven't even been able to see our own solar system in detail. Even with modern technology, it's nearly impossible to take pictures of galaxies. The galaxies you showed and the majority of the pictures out there have false-color, they don't actually look like that.

I have so much more to say, but I am out of space, so i will save some of Pro's mistakes for the last round.


Wow I am really debating with a blubbering fool.

First of all some corrections to your foolish comments, which are quite hilarious.
Evolutionists believe in the big bang theory as do creationists believe in an intelligent designer. When talking about evolution and using that as a means of describing how they believe the universe was created, it was common sense, yet for con I see he has none.

Second of all theories and formulas are different. I guess con had one too many drinks before he typed his last response. Even a second grader could tell you that. When I said you need to know the answer in order to know a formula is correct, I am not saying theories. At this point though anyone reading this debate will see your not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Third of all you Google doc pages are all answerable, as I stated in my first response it is people like you who do not know the Bible yet take clips and pretend you know. Thank you for the good laugh though, you had me crying of laughter by the time I reached the fifth one because the answers are so elementary.

Fourth yes God created it in full form, every detail. I simplified my explanation of the big bang theory talking about combustion. Since you at least have some knowledge about it that makes both of our lives that much easier. As you have seemed to miss, I believe in a divine creator and you believe in matter. We will get to that though, don't you worry.

Here is something for you it spears to be at your knowledge level, I truly hope you can understand it.
It gives you how a fossil is formed in an easy to follow process. Sediments, once again must cover the fossil. Is it possible silt and mud form fossils, yes in fact they do. But it is most commonly sediments that form the fossils. Which is why sedimentary rocks contain the most fossils.

"Fossils take 10,000 years alone" are you kidding me? Buddy really this is painful to talk to you. Take fresh sediment and put a leaf under it. You will get a fossilized leaf in under 100 years. But I know why you believe this. Since most of the fossils today are believed to be 10,000 years old, fossils are considered to take 10,000 years to form. Yes look it up, or twist it like you have been. Either way it does not deny the truth. Anyone reading this can simply do a Google search and see it.

Here is an easy to read article about how plants survived in the flood. To save space so I can touch on more of these hilarious claims you are making.

You say they lived at all different time periods based on formulas and what you've been taught about the Earths layers. I say they were buried in layers as it would when the flood occurred.

I see you did not read the thousand year old prophecies in the Bible nor did you read the other historical articles that fact checked the Bible. The Bible is the most historically proved book... Which maybe for someone like you the whole concept goes right over your head, but it is true.

So now you're changing the meaning of survival of the fittest? Well just about everyone knows what survival of the fittest and natural selection is. I guess were just going to throw that out because you say so. I guess we just all one day changed and magically grew morals. Con your statements are getting more ridiculous by the paragraph.

Who cares if we couldn't see the universe until last century? God eventually knew we would. That's too far out there for you though, most things that require thinking rationally you do not understand. Now on to the Big Bang Theory, so we do not get confused.

According to your "science" when the universe came to be the universe was in a state of chaos. The link is provided directly below so you will hopefully actually read this one, unlike the others.
Order cannot come from chaos as the second law of thermos dynamics states. You may have to really read into this one to understand it though. Here's a link to help you start at a reference point.

Now on to weather. The Bible accurately stated back in Genesis 2:5,6 about the cycle of water. This was a time when there was no technology nor was there anyway to know how the cycle of water works in the atmosphere. That's another Little fun fact.

Now according to you beliefs evolution is a slow mutation over time. Broad-scale evolution holds that a single-cell organism can eventually develop into a human through natural processes. Unique genetic features called transposons have been introduced as knock-down evidence that this progression actually occurred in humans, but a closer look at new data shows that they strongly argue against evolution.
Genome Expansion through Transposon Activity
Transposons include several classes of DNA that appear to have been copied, spliced, and reinserted into the genome. Sometimes referred to as jumping genes, these are found in all plants and animals. While some transposons are inactive, many are functional. They have an affinity for transposition into certain areas of the genome.
Scientists have observed transposons copying and splicing rapidly, which contradicts evolution's traditional scenario of slow and gradual change.1 Rapid transposon activity appears to be controlled by specific cellular programs and thus is not a product of mutation plus selection, nor is it part of evolution as it has been described.
In a short time--corresponding to fewer than a dozen or so generations--transposons can add more DNA to a population, inflating the total volume of DNA without adding new genes. Some species appear to have large volumes of DNA that were assembled this way. About 44 percent of human DNA consists of repetitive elements, much of which came from transposons.
These vast sequences are repeated blocks of identical DNA. Many evolutionists believed them to be random sequences, conveniently useful for evolutionary processes to tinker with and develop into new genetic features. However, they are now known to be quite useful. Therefore, if evolution were to mutate them randomly, rather than leading to genetic improvements, it could actually kill the host.(1)
It is ironic that evolutionists teach that man is a chance product of evolutionary struggle and death, yet they decry crimes like murder, rape, and theft. According to their worldview, why would those acts be crimes? After all, mankind is supposedly just an advanced animal, and we don"t imprison cheetahs for killing gazelles or bring raccoons to court for stealing chicken eggs. Why shouldn't"t we act according to our chemical impulses to fulfill our evolutionary end of the survival of the fittest? In fact, if the evolutionary view were true, we must act according to those chemical impulses; therefore, no one should be held accountable for his actions.(2)
The problem for the big bang hypothesis is that these galaxies are "big for their age." Astronomers have concluded that the images we are seeing are from 12 billion years ago, shortly (relatively speaking) after the big bang occurred (according to the big bang model). Since these galaxies are supposedly "young," then how did they develop in so little time? "[T]his process was supposed to take billions of years," ScienceNOW"s Phil Berardelli reports.
These new galaxies show there is something wrong with the big bang model.
Berardelli is quickly joined by study coauthor Giovanni Fazio, an astronomer at the Harvard"Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "We have no idea why these galaxies grew so large so soon [...] I think we still have a lot new to learn about what"s happening in the early universe."(3) Just because they can't explain it their response is we need to learn more. The same with how the appendix was useless. Then they found out it served a purpose. Links in comments.
Debate Round No. 3


Before I begin, Pro has already broken several of the rules that they promised to follow. Numerous times throughout their 3rd round they have immaturely insulted me, most likely to hide their own insecurity about their intelligence. Regardless, they have consequently broken the “keep it civil rule”. However, I understand as many ignorant individuals respond with anger when their ignorance is questioned. Further, Pro was expected to respond to my Claims instead of doing a rebuttal on my rebuttal, breaking the structure of this debate. Nevertheless, I will not stop this debate; however, I expect that Pro will be marked down in the “conduct” section by the voters/judges.

I would also like to add that it is expected that Pro uses reliable websites. The website “answers in genesis” is written completely by creationists and is consequently heavily bias towards creationism. The name alone creates suspicions from me and hopefully the reader. Many of the “ground-breaking” claims listed by Pro and that website do not show up at all when I search them up. For something that “disproves” something as huge as the Big Bang theory, I would expect to find it elsewhere as well. I trust that website even less than I trust Pro’s word ( I will provide arguments for early galaxy formation and transposons in the comments since I don't have space). Further, these links that Pro provided are written by practically random people, they do not specialize in what they are talking about. Nevertheless, on to my final argument.

Yet again, Pro fails to realize the definition of an ‘evolutionist’. While evolutionists might generally believe the Big bang theory, the two words have absolutely no correlation with each other, showing the reader just how inadequate Pro’s understanding is. I will give you the definition one more time, according to, an evolutionist is a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology. []. Pro has failed to provide a different official definition backed up by as a valid source, so, as a result, my definition is superior as the reader can tell.

I admit I misunderstood what you were saying about formulas and theories, although what you said still isn’t true. (Although it’s not important to this debate, I would like to point out that you should at least use proper grammar when you’re calling someone an idiot), there are formulas in theories that yet again predict things that weren’t discovered at that time for theories use formulas to predict certain things. Also, I still don’t quite see what your point is, we calculate 22 * 22 not because we memorized it, but because we have an official proved process of calculating multiplication. Then Pro states “Third of all you Google doc pages are all answerable, as I stated in my first response it is people like you who do not know the Bible yet take clips and pretend you know.”. Ah yes, they are all answerable, yet Pro fails to answer a single one of these “clips”. I find it hilarious that Pro dismisses tens of thousands of contradiction, scientific inaccuracies, etc. and simply says “they are all answerable”.

Pro states that God created everything in perfect accuracy with age. Just another example of the numerous times Pro has failed to provide evidence backing up their statements. What evidence is there that is present in trees that God created them? Otherwise, dendrochronology (counting a tree’s rings) shows that the rings in a tree can only exist through seasonal changes. Further, dendrochronology backs up the results that radiometric dating obtains [].

Pro then tries to immaturely point that a kids website is at my “knowledge level”. Again, showing the reader Pro’s insecurity about their own intelligence since they clearly have to make themselves look smarter. Although, their elementary arguments make that hard to do. However, I won’t go down to Pro’s level for they’ll beat me with experience down there.

Yet again, Pro fails to provide evidence for why fossils take less than 10,000 years to form since the very definition of a fossil is an organism that died more than 10,000 years ago. Under extreme and unique conditions fossils can form in less than 10,000 years. However, there are easily fossils that took even longer and that majority of fossils took around 10,000 years to form. Nevertheless, there are fossils out there that are 3.5 BILLION years old, that is 500,000 times older than your so called “7000 year Earth”. There are easily millions of fossils that are older than 7000 years. Before Pro reveals their own brainwashing about how “radiometric dating is wrong”, I will list just some of the other dating methods. Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), Uranium series, Thermoluminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, and Electron spin resonance, Paleomagnetism, Biochronology, Molecular clock. [ Read about it at]

Pro will, of course, dismiss this as a flaw in our dating methods. Yet again, though, Pro will fail to provide specific evidence of how it is flawed and what proved alternative methods there are.

I read the unreliable link you provided me, their argument was

The Bible states there was a worldwide Flood.

We see plants today.

Therefore plants survived the Flood.”

That is copy and pasted from the website, the reader surely must see the ridiculousness of that statement. The link provides absolutely no rational ideas on how plants could’ve survived under water for that long. The website says that Noah’s Ark could’ve brought plants onto the boat as food; however, there are 250,000-350,000 species of plants currently [], there is no way Noah could’ve managed to keep all those plants alive on his boat. Further, the individual who wrote that article is a random guy who does not specialize in botany, he is not justified in writing that article since he clearly does not know how plant life operates. This is true with the other articles from the same website.

I like how Pro criticizes me for not thinking rationally, yet is currently trying to convince the reader than rain came out of the ground (so many problems with this, it goes against gravity, water doesn’t behave this way, IF water was behaving this way, then, people, along with the majority of all object on Earth, would go crashing into the outer regions of the atmosphere, also here is how rain works

), that people lived for over 900 years (medically impossible, Pro does not understand how aging works. It doesn’t matter how sterile the environment is, you will not reach 900), that the Earth is 6000 years old (despite there being trees older than that and despite numerous dating methods showing that the Earth is clearly older than that), that a superior being, who Pro has failed to provide evidence for, is responsible for the impossible formation of every single object in the universe, that the Bible is the “most historically correct book” (despite me literally listing hundreds of contradictions with you not even answering a single one, despite a single website listing thousands upon thousands of inaccuracies), etc.

Nearly every statement that Pro has typed is just outrageous, and as I have said time and time again, pro has provided absolutely no evidence backing him/her up. Pro is the result of decades of perpetual brainwashing until proven facts by science are looked to as lies to Pro. Quite sad.

In conclusion, Pro has failed to do their part in this debate for they have not offered solid evidence pertaining to the existence of God. They have also outright insulted me and broken the structure of this debate.



Unfortunately between homework and classes I forgot to respond. This response is going to be very short because I am heading into my next class, but did not want to leave the debate without a response. I appreciate con for all of his views. God is a topic that scholars have been debating about for over a century. Two men on a debate forum are not going to solve that issue. Everyone has the chance to choose God or choose sin. That is something called free will. God created us to choose what we want for ourselves, he does not force us to do anything. God sent His son, Jesus, to die for the sins of the world. The Bible is back up by unsurpassable prophecies that were scientifically proven to be written thousands of years apart. The Bible is also historically proven. Manuscripts from ancient civilization verify facts in the Bible. They were even written in the opposing viewpoint bashing Jesus. The facts were still in those texts just from a different point of view. Science and the Bible go hand in hand. There are many organizations with astrophysicists and expert scientists who study and believe creationism. Creationism has it's own scientific community. It is time to get to class now, but anyone reading this debate should go research this topic for yourself and do not let your bias get in the way. Take all the facts from both sides and make a decision for yourself. Once again I do apologize, I am getting back into the swing of school after having my winter break. God bless.

Here is a starting place for those of you who want to see the best creationist resources.
You can Find everything..... everything you need on this website for anything to do with God or Creation.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 2 years ago
I don't mean to spam the comments section, but, the more I read Danjos' debate, the more callow he seems. I don't even need to explain why these comments are uncalled for and completely disrespectful:
"First of all some corrections to your foolish comments, which are quite hilarious."
" was common sense, yet for con I see he has none."
"I guess con had one too many drinks before he typed his last response. Even a second grader could tell you that."
"... your not the sharpest tool in the shed."
"Here is something for you it spears to be at your knowledge level, I truly hope you can understand it."
"Which maybe for someone like you the whole concept goes right over your head, but it is true."

For a man who claims to have debated about God for "decades," you clearly have not had the time to realize that these comments are unneeded, and make you seem no less than petty. Regardless of this, I would like to compete against you "decades of experience," on the validity of the Bible.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 2 years ago
Additionally, it is uncalled for and immature for you to call EggsAndSam a "blubbering fool."
Posted by CosmoJarvis 2 years ago
Danjos fails to provide a burden of proof, bringing in baseless statements like "Creationists alike have formulas showing the Earth is a maximum of 7,000 years old. Both formulas are unreliable because they assume they know the answer," without providing even the slightest bit of evidence of any scientists that have presented such an argument. Additionally, this superstition in the world being around 7,000 years old can easily be smited by bringing in geological evidence, radioactive decay, or by introducing the Old Tjikko, an over 9000-year-old tree.
Posted by Capitalistslave 2 years ago
Conduct: Con gets this one because, as they pointed out, pro violated the rules of the debate by insulting con numerous times in round 3, the opening sentences are clearly insults. In addition, they broke the rules for how the debate should go by offering rebuttals against rebuttals, when they should have rebutted con's original arguments.
Convincing Arguments: Con gets this one as well, primarily because pro never rebutted con's arguments, and just continued to go on with their arguments without explaining how con's arguments are faulty. Con's main arguments: 1) No evidence of a god, 2) Many religions and 3) Many imperfections in the world were convincing. Con explained the issues with pro's arguments well, such as pointing out flaws in pro's arguments regarding the Bible being the most perfect book. Con pointed to numerous contradictions in the Bible, which pro dismissed without at least addressing a few of them(I agree it would be unfair to expect them to address all of them, but a few randomly selected ones would have sufficed for a good argument). Pro focused many of his arguments, such as refuting the earth to be old, and claiming fossils can be younger, on things disproving science, but disproving science doesn't even prove that there is a god, thus it doesn't suffice as burden of proof for his side.
Sources: Con gets sources because several of theirs were reliant on science, which is reliable and the basic foundation we have for determining the truth of anything. Pro used sources from creationists, and sources that are there with a set outcome: where they set out to prove that the universe was created by a god. Science, generally, doesn't take that route and just seeks to find the truth. So, since pro's sources had the goal of proving god, rather than finding the truth, there is inherent bias in those sources which would likely lead to those sources accepting some evidence and rejecting other evidence it doesn't like, making them unreliable.
Posted by EggsAndSam 2 years ago
While there are creationist scientists, they are not the top of their fields.
93% of modern elite scientists are atheist, that means only 7% are religious. Far less are creationist.
Regardless, I was saying how the articles you linked were written by "pastors" or "speakers" who do not specialize in what they are talking about. This is evident because the "facts" they use are false as I have shown by linking studies done by actual scientists pertaining to the subject. Yet, you still trust them more than actual scientists simply because they hold the same view and you fear to lose hold of your ignorance.
Posted by EggsAndSam 2 years ago
I am fairly open-minded, and honestly, I have seen no "major proof" on creationism from you or anyone else. Trust me, if someone presents some, I will admit it that it's a good point... but that hasn't happened once so far. A creationist's best argument is "Well, the universe is so complex it must be God" but that is a mere assumption backed up by no evidence. In science, you directly prove something to be true through experiments and observations. That is what I want, a direct proof of God, I am not going to put in all my trust into a single book written thousands of years ago, in a time where the Earth was not well understood. You said there are thousands of prophecies that came true and that it is the most historically proved book, yet the only thing you give me is the water cycle? Public schools teach what is backed up by evidence, evolution is backed up by fossils, genetics, etc. The Big bang theory is backed up the cosmic background radiation, the red-shift of receding galaxies, the abundance of helium and hydrogen, etc. Yet what evidence does creationism have? I have asked time and time and time again for evidence and not a a single person has given me that evidence.

Also, you fail to realize that, unlike religion, science is fluid and subject to change. If they are faced with alternative facts going again their theories, they will change them or present new theories. There is no reason for them not to. Religion, on the other hand, never changes its facts, they are still the same from minds thousands of years ago. And yet, you trust them more than you do the far more educated individuals of this time period
Posted by Danjos162 2 years ago
I don't know where the Earth is flat and the devil put fossils in the Earth came from. It is not a prove fact the Earth is billions of years old. Scientists use formulas they assumes answers to and came to that conclusions. The same way creationists came up with formulas to prove the Earth is only thousands of years old. Everyone has the right to choose, it's called free will. Science does come first when it comes to the Bible they go hand in hand. Even down to passages written predicting specific events thousands of years later by acid testing the paper, they go hand in hand. The institute for creation have qualified, certified scientists. They have degrees at the tops of their fields. Just because they're not secular scientists doesn't mean they're just pastors or researchers. They are qualified scientists, astrophysicists and biologists studying about how creation and science go hand in hand. It is just a totally different philosophy than evolutionists. See for me its sad when kids are brainwashed with evolution and liberalism in public schools. They should be given both sides of the picture. I am not saying to eradicate all evolutionary teachings, but to show both sides because the there are a lot of things prove in creation science. I grew up in New York where both of those are religion is no where to be found. There were moments when I was like why do I believe what I believe and what else is there. I researched tons and came to the realization on my own that there was something a lot bigger than what we are taught in school. There are serious facts that prove creationism. The truth is though, no one was there. This has been a debate for ages and no two people will certainly solve it in a forum.
Posted by EggsAndSam 2 years ago
I don't necessarily think they're complete garbage, but you have to understand the majority of those articles are not written by qualified individuals. I looked at several of the writers, all that comes up for some of them is "pastor" or "speaker". While my websites might seem like garbage to you since they go against your beliefs, they are written by actual researchers who have spent years learning about and researching what they are writing, I linked several studies as my sources which are solely based on fact and not opinion.

I'm not against religion, I don't care what people believe honestly.
What I do care about it when churches and religious parents brainwash kids, who don't know better, until the Bible and religion are permanently encrypted into their brain. it's not right, kids have not formed the fundamental attribute of judgment at that early age, they should be able to decide for themselves.
My main concern is when it gets to the point when facts are being denied. It's no longer an opinion how old the Earth is, it's a proven fact. You can not choose to believe facts, facts are facts. We can not live in a society where individuals pick and choose what facts to believe. If it has been proven, then you have no choice. You don't realize how ridiculous it is of course, but it saddens me to see people say the Earth is flat, that fossils were put by the devil, that the Earth is 6000 years old, etc. because all of these things have been proven wrong by observation and science.

Again, I don't mind you following a religion, I agree with many of the morals, but science should come first when it comes to facts.
Posted by Danjos162 2 years ago
No thats not an insult in your opinion. Everyone now a days is so afraid to speak their mind. God has allowed the devil to basically run the Earth for now until the second coming of Christ. God gave his Son the first time out of love. He did not have to. When God comes back that is exactly what he is coming to do. Everyone will confess he his God and then it is judgement day. Everyone who chose sin over God will go to hell. It was their choice though God allows free will. It is all in the Bible you can look it up. I just don't sugar coat what the Bible says while some people do. I say its garbage because I have a many creationists like that say and show facts than what yours do. In my opinion my websites are good but to you their garbage. In your opinion you think your websites are good but to me their garbage. It is all based on your view and the facts you choose to believe.
Don't be afraid to speak your mind though if I say something that you think is dumb say it's dumb. I am all about free speach and speaking your mind.
Posted by EggsAndSam 2 years ago
I also like how you call my website garbage when
A.) I listed a variety of different websites, not just one
B.) The majority of them are studies conducted by indidividuals who SPECIALIZE in what they are talking about. Not some shmo creationist who decided to type up false information at 3 a.m.
C.) The Websites have sources to their information so you can check it
D.) You don't even say how it is garbage
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I figured I would be a good, fairly unbiased voter since I am an agnostic, and this was a debate between an atheist and a theist.