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

Evolution V. Creationism

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: 6/19/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 641 times Debate No: 92896
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




You said that you would defend your position, so let's have this debate. I am of the opinion that evolution is the only viable explanation for life on earth. You say that creation is the only viable option and is the only option supported by observable evidence. How so? We have observed evidence of evolution already, such as the peppered moth changing from a very light color to a very dark one after the industrial revolution to have better camoflauge, the Italian wall lizards that were introduced to the island of Pod Mrcaru shifting diets, and the of course (You knew I would say it)Darwin's finches. What evidence do you have?


We must first define our terms in order to have a reasonable debate. I will provide a definition for both biological evolution and the biblical creation model which I subscribe to as it relates to living organisms. You can challenge or accept my definitions in the next round.

Biological Evolution - The process by which organisms transform over eons of time through slight variations primarily brought about by natural selection acting upon genetic mutations which have led to the vast array of phenotypes displayed by all living and extinct organisms from a single common ancestor which existed approximately 3.5 billion years ago.

Biblical Creation - A model based on direct revelation from God which describes a six day creation event in which all things were created less than 10,000 years ago. All living organisms were created as groups referred to as "kinds" from which all modern creatures have speciated from while remaining within their biological kind. The same processes involved in evolution have changed creatures over time, however, mutations are not seen to be able to allow organisms to leave their kind's genetic boundaries (i.e. novel genetic information is unable to give rise to the type of change required for evolution).

I will support the biblical creation model of biological origins with three simple scientific lines of argumentation from genetics. I will respond to any of your challenges or claims in the next round.


I posit that it can be demonstrated that genomes contain a type of universal information which only ever originates from an intelligent mind. If such can be vindicated, this would mean that genomes must have been created by an intelligent Creator(s) consistent with the biblical model of creation. While this would not disprove evolution per se, it is strikingly supportive of my case.


With the discovery of the function of what was before referred to as "junk DNA" by many, we now understand genomes to contain an unusually high amount of redundancy of its informational content which is interpreted in both directions simultaneously. Not only does this redundancy demonstrate a supremely intelligent design, it ensures that creatures remain within a certain gene pool domain. If it can be shown that organisms are unable to deviate from these genetic constraints, my case will be supported and the evolution model will be refuted.


While the power of mutations are seriously brought into question by modern population genetics, what is certain is that the time frame required for the evolution model is genetically infeasible. That is to say, given the nature of mutations, organisms could not have been around anywhere near as long as the evolution model requires. If it can be shown that mutations lead toward an extinction event via a net gain of detrimental mutations within a time frame much less than the purported 3.5Gy organisms are to have existed, the creation model will be amazingly supported while the evolution model will be refuted.

I ask that you respond to the following question before addressing my claims: do you agree that if the above three points could be shown to be true, that the creation model would be supported and the evolution model refuted? If not, why so?

Thank you for your time!
Debate Round No. 1


Your beginning is fair enough, and I agree wholly with your definitions. They both appear to be correct to me. In response to your question that you asked to be answered before my refutation of your other three points, I do agree that they could be proven true. However, I do not agree that they would support the creation model, for reasons that I will address individually. Firstly, your first point about DNA containing a sort of "Universal information" is just as much evidence that we all had a common ancestor. In fact, I fail to see how all creatures containing DNA that is similar or even the same as all the others points to an intelligent creator at all.Why wouldn't an omnipotent creator make every animal unique? Second, your point about "Junk DNA", seems a little backwards to me. If there was an intelligent creator, why would they make junk DNA? It seems far more logical to me that an intelligent creator would have no "Junk DNA". Why would anyone waste time making extra,useless parts? Thirdly and finally, why could life not have existed for the ~3.5 billion years suggested by evolution? Also, the thing about evolution is that creatures with detrimental mutations usually do not survive long enough to reproduce. To my knowledge, actually, the only species in which creatures with such mutations consistently survive long enough to reproduce is humanity. That is a result of our knowledge of medicine.


Unfortunately it seems you fail to understand the arguments as presented. Universal information (UI) is that which can be understood and demonstrated as only propagating from an intelligent mind (e.g. braille, binary code, etc). UI does not describe commonality alone; every animal does contain unique genetic information. Concerning genetic redundancy, I placed "junk DNA" in quotations because no such junk exists. Evolutionists once claimed non-coding DNA were useless vestiges of evolution, however we are now understanding the essential function of this mostly redundant information. My argument from genetic entropy, if vindicated, would demonstrate the relative youth of living organisms and the infeasibility of deep-time (i.e. millions of years). Maybe in defending my case you will better understand the arguments.


The cells of all organic life forms contain information in the form of genetic code. The chain of genetic code known as DNA harbors the amino acids which themselves contain no semantic meaning, but when placed in a linguistic sequence, can be readily utilized in forming every phenotype known to biology.

The living cell demonstrates a system of communication, particularly between DNA and proteins. DNA codes for proteins which go on to form every part of a creature, including the very DNA from which it was coded. DNA is a macro-molecule in the shape of a double-helix with a sugar-phosphate backbone.

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences, or even the way 1's and 0's appear in a certain order to form binary computer code.

DNA bases pair up with each other, A with T and C with G, to form units called base pairs. Each base is also attached to a sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule. Together, a base, sugar, and phosphate are called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are arranged in two long strands that form a spiral called a double helix. The structure of the double helix is somewhat like a ladder, with the base pairs forming the ladder"s rungs and the sugar and phosphate molecules forming the vertical sidepieces of the ladder.

An important property of DNA is that it can replicate, or make copies of itself. Each strand of DNA in the double helix can serve as a pattern for duplicating the sequence of bases. This is critical when cells divide because each new cell needs to have an exact copy of the DNA present in the old cell.

DNA serves as the blueprint for every creature's phenotype. Since DNA is a language system in which communication occurs between a sender and receiver, it can rightfully be said to contain true information.

"To fully characterise the concept of information, five aspects must be considered: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Information is represented (that is, formulated, transmitted, stored) as a language. From a stipulated alphabet, the individual symbols are assembled into words (code). From these words (each word having been assigned a meaning), sentences are formed according to the firmly defined rules of grammar (syntax). These sentences are the bearers of semantic information. Furthermore, the action intended/carried out (pragmatics) and the desired/achieved goal (apobetics) belong of necessity to the concept of information. . . an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose. We term any entity meeting the requirements of this definition as 'universal information' (UI). "

In the function of the genome within living cells we find statistics in the form of four letters which are syntactically organized to give the semantic meaning for transcription and translation. The semantic meaning encoded in the genome is pragmatically utilized in the formation of proteins and thus integral to the process of replication which is a part of the apobetic, or intended goal of the digital code.

In the reference I provided, one will notice Dr. Werner Gitt's four scientific laws of information (SLI). I will assume for the moment that Con agrees with the first two laws, if not he can explain why. The contention certainly arises with the 3rd and 4th laws.

A material entity cannot generate a non-material entity.

Universal information is a non-material fundamental entity.

Universal information cannot be created by statistical processes.

Universal information can only be produced by an intelligent sender.

In order to refute SLI-3, one would need to demonstrate even one example of statistical processes producing UI which meets the criteria of the five levels of information. The primary reason such an example is infeasible is that statistical processes can never produce information containing semantic meaning, let alone pragmatic, purposeful code.

SLI-4 is substantiated by Gitt's SLI-4a-d:

Every code is based upon a mutual agreement between sender and receiver.

There is no new universal information without an intelligent sender.

Every information transmission chain can be traced back to an intelligent sender.

Attributing meaning to a set of symbols is an intellectual process requiring intelligence.


Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it, therefore the information seen in living cells testifies to having been originally created by an intelligent Creator. Note that this argument is not based upon the inability for naturalistic/statistical processes alone to account for the formation of genetic information, but rather my case is built upon what we DO know about genetic code and function. Therefore this is not a god-of-the-gaps argument, as the claim is based on observation. Note also that this is not an argument from complexity but from specified universal information. To refute my case is actually quite a simple task; one must only need demonstrate a single case where universal information, of the type seen in genetic code, is derived entirely from purely material sources.


Quite simply genomes of living organisms contain a small percentage of coding DNA, the vast majority of it is what are known as redundant genes. These genes are unrelated to coding genes and are therefore not duplications of these genes, however they contribute to the robustness and preservation of phenotypes. More interestingly is that natural selection is unable to act upon these redundant genes due to the scale-free nature of genetic networks which allows many small errors to occur without detrimentaly affecting the organism itself. These redundant genes are able to substitute for damaged coding genes thus preserving the information.

"Extended networks composed of hundreds of interconnected proteins ensure that if one network becomes inactivated by a mutation, essential pathways will then not be shut down immediately. A network of cooperating proteins that can substitute for or bypass each other's functions makes a biological system robust."

This genetic redundancy ensures that, while natural selection may act upon the existing information giving rise to the great variation displayed amongst living organisms, they will yet remain within the genetically redundant constraints of their created kind. This explains why huge variations in Darwin's finches for example always remain genetically recognizable finches and not some new bird kind.

I will provide a defense of GE in the next round.

Debate Round No. 2


WJKosacs forfeited this round.


Oh boy... Well, my arguments stand. I await your response.
Debate Round No. 3


WJKosacs forfeited this round.


Concerning Genetic Entropy, "Recent reports on the human genome provide powerful support for the biblical history of Creation and Fall. We are unable to reproduce ourselves without making multiple genome copying errors every generation. As a result our genomes are decaying towards extinction from copy errors alone. However, they make up only 0.1% of the total mutation burden, so 99.9% of that burden must have come from other causes. When decay in copy fidelity is projected backwards in time it reaches perfection around 4,000"BC, and when projected forwards, extinction from copy errors alone occurs in thousands, not millions, of years. Naturalistic models of copy fidelity decay cannot explain the data because they rapidly collapse into "error catastrophe" (mutation meltdown). Only an Intelligent Design (ID) model with perfect original copy fidelity, plus ongoing maintenance and repair, can persist for thousands of years to fit the data. The ID model produced no copy errors at all for the early human generations, few until the time of Abraham, and a total today of only ~4,000 compared with our total burden of ~3 million. Darwinian scenarios requiring an extremely remote origin of life with a low primordial copy fidelity are absolutely excluded by this data! (

I wish I could have defended my claims against thoughtful rebuttals, oh well. To any prospective reader, thank you for your time and consideration of my arguments. :)
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by WJKosacs 2 years ago
I am terribly sorry, I suffer from memory loss. If I had remembered the debate, I would have replied to it. As it is, I only remembered because I found an email about it while searching through my emails. Again, very sorry.
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
Don't forfeit. I don't want to win like that. :0
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
FollowerofChrist1955 - You seem to not understand the evolutionary model of biology. Since natural selection is described as a transformative mechanism, virtually any animal would suffice as evidence for evolution. However, natural selection as described in the evolution model is far less capable of bringing about phenotypic changes required for evolution than what is actually observed.

Natural selection is better described as a culling process in which nature selects from already existing genetic information to enable adaptive changes among living organisms. Never can natural selection provide something genetically new. To produce novel genotypes requires the "magic" of mutations (copying mistakes in DNA translation) forming new and functional genetic information, something which has never been observed (and for good reason too).
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 2 years ago
And again, you would in fact be wrong. You claim adaptability as evolution, not the same thing. To make this quicker and easier, instead of protracted debate. Science has had decades to prove evolution, whether true or a lie.

Post 1 picture of an animal created by evolutionary Scientist claimed methods, on this debate Board, just 1 animal that lives, breaths walks eats ..... If Evolution is correct they WILL have created an animal by now and if not ....(and they have not), Then evolution IS A LIE!

You see Scientist have only managed to Prove that Life SHOULD NOT exist on this planet. Because it could NOT have formed naturally.

Life on this planet is born of ovum (egg), and fertilized by male of each species .... that has always been the way of reproduction, there is no other way, even asexual reproduction begins with 1 ovum that requires no male to fertilize, but that is in very few species.

So you see all science managed to create in all those years is microbes, and those microbes REMAIN microbes today!, Nothing has climbed out of the primordial petri dish. That very much implies, infers, and demonstrates that life on THIS planet was placed here by a force greater than our own. It was placed here as adult species, plants and grass was placed here also the same way and THAT IS the only way Life came to be on Earth AND why procreation was possible. That lines up precisely with the creation story..... God exists and IS watching and holding ALL accountable for their sin, and Hell? It is the price to pay, unless and until you come to the Cross .... End of Story!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Grandzam 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had great points and they were mostly unrefuted. FF