The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
5 Points

Evolution vs Christianity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: 5/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,433 times Debate No: 54816
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (43)
Votes (1)




First round I will let my opponent prove evolution is the true way to go.


Currently, I'm working on another debate proving evolution vs. creationism. The evolution vs. creationism debate is a good one, but evolution vs Christianity? I hope you realize that evolution is a scientific theory and Christianity is a whole religion. I don't get how you want me to argue. I am assuming you want to argue evolution vs. creationism. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this assumption. So, let me begin.

Creationism Shouldn't Be on the Same Level as Evolution

How do you even compare these two explanations as equal? One is backed up by tons of scientific evidence, and one comes straight out of a book that also says that the earth is flat. There is no evidence for creationism. None. I really don't get how Creationism has survived this long. Why is Creationism not on the same level as the flat earth or the geocentric model? They all come out of the same book. Why discard one and throw away another? Please tell me if you agree that the Earth is flat or the geocentric model.

Evolution HAS Evidence Behind it

Excuse me for copying and pasting from one of my previous debates on this issue, but I explained this issue better in this response.

There is lots of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. I it useless to deny it. If you don't believe me, just look around you. Do your own research.
  • Evidence from Geographic Distribution

Data about the presence or absence of species on various continents and island.

  • Fossil Record

It is possible to find out how a particular group of organisms evolved by arranging its fossil records in a chronological sequence.

  • Evidence from Comparative Anatomy

Comparative study of the anatomy of groups of animals or plants reveals that certain structural features are basically similar.

  • Evidence from Observed Natural Selection

Examples for the evidence for evolution often stem from direct observation of natural selection in the field and the laboratory.

  • Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration

Computer science allows the iteration of self-changing complex systems to be studied, allowing a mathematical understanding of the nature of the processes behind evolution

  • ...and many more.

I don't have time to go into detail, but you can read more about these evidences and others here:

Debate Round No. 1


First want to state that I meant to put evolution vs creationism. Sorry I just copied something from your other debate, but
*Can you snap your fingers to make a rose? If you believe that there is no overall being that created everything, then a single rose must have come from somewhere. If you believe that, then you should be able to whip one up right quick. Oh, what's that? You can't? Well then how did the first rose come to being? There must have been something there to make it. That something is God.
-And second of all the person who came up with the idea of continental drift was a christian named Alfred Wegener. And if evolution did happen why haven't we found the missing link? Ohhh whats that it doesn't exist!!!
-Also we do have evidence that creationism did happen its called the Bible, and we have also found Jesus's death blanket
-Sources the Great Flood happened: National Geographic Society explorer Robert Ballard, inspired by Ryan and Pitman's hypothesis, has discovered supporting physical evidence, including an underwater river valley and ancient shoreline as well as Stone Age structures and tools beneath the Black Sea. His team has also unearthed fossils of now-extinct freshwater species dating back some 7,460 to 15,500 years. Source-


"Can you snap your fingers to make a rose? If you believe that there is no overall being that created everything, then a single rose must have come from somewhere. If you believe that, then you should be able to whip one up right quick. Oh, what's that? You can't? Well then how did the first rose come to being? There must have been something there to make it. That something is God."

When your friend said this, I didn't know what he was talking about. Now you say it and I still don't understand it. Please explain this 'point'.

"...if evolution did happen why haven't we found the missing link? Ohhh whats that it doesn't exist!!!"

Just because we have not found it yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

"Also we do have evidence that creationism did happen its called the Bible"

The Bible is not proof. The Bible is only a book. Real world observations are proof. We have no real world observations that provide proof of Creationism. Therefore we have no proof.

"...we have also found Jesus's death blanket"

What does this have to do with anything? And just so you know the blanket thing is a fake.

"Sources the Great Flood happened: National Geographic Society explorer Robert Ballard, inspired by Ryan and Pitman's hypothesis, has discovered supporting physical evidence"

I'm not even going to argue this. We are talking about Evolution vs. Creationism here.
Debate Round No. 2


Well actually telling about the great flood was great evidence because it lets people know that there must have been a creator that caused that. Which leads to creationism. Oh and not finding the missing link is good evidence. Because it shows that it is impossible for evolution to happen. And I've heard many christian scientists say they believe natural selection happened, but evolution and the change from a cell to a monkey to a human.


"Well actually telling about the great flood was great evidence because it lets people know that there must have been a creator that caused that. Which leads to creationism."

Fine, I'll talk about it. Noah's flood is impossible. There is not enough water on Earth to cover all land masses. If that's not enough proof, how did two of every animal fit on one ship? How did Noah maintain all of these animals? How did the kangaroos get there? Did they swim?

There are many more flaws with this story then I care to mention.

"Oh and not finding the missing link is good evidence. Because it shows that it is impossible for evolution to happen."

It doesn't show that evolution is impossible, it only shows that we haven't found the missing link yet.

"And I've heard many Christian scientists say they believe natural selection happened, but evolution and the change from a cell to a monkey to a human."

If you find natural selection to be possible, there is no reason for you to find evolution impossible. Evolution is just Natural Selection over millions of years. Little changes over a long period of time can result in massive changes.

Debate Round No. 3


I would like to end this debate with why creationism is real and evolution is false. First I want to read some Bible verses to help.

Genesis 6: 11-22: Now the earth was corrupt in God"s sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. So make yourself an ark of cypress[c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.[d] Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit[e] high all around.[f] Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark"you and your sons and your wife and your sons" wives with you. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

Noah did everything just as God commanded him.

-Genesis 7: 1-4: The Lord then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

And also as you have stated earlier about continental drift. We have reasons to believe that it was a giant Pangea once and that is how all the animals got to Noah

Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.

Let us suppose that, as evolutionists suggest, there actually was some way for organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form. This fact alone destroys evolution. Evolutionists have been wrestling with this dilemma since it was first recognized, and there is no solution in sight. All these many varieties would compete with one another, and a great variety of other organic molecules, including aldehydes, ketones, acids, amines, lipids, carbohydrates, etc. would exist. If evolutionists really claim to simulate plausible primitive Earth conditions, why don't they place their reactants in a big mess like this and irradiate it with ultraviolet light, shock it with electric discharges, or heat it, and see what results? They don't do that because they know there wouldn't be the remotest possibility that anything useful for their evolutionary scenario would result. Rather, they carefully select just the starting materials they want to produce amino acids or sugars or purines or whatever, and, furthermore, they employ implausible experimental conditions that would not exist on a primitive Earth. They then claim in textbooks and journal articles that such and such biological molecules would have been produced in abundant quantities on the early earth.

DNA, as is true of messenger-RNA, transfer-RNA, and ribosomal-RNA, is destroyed by a variety of agents, including ultraviolet light, reactive oxygen species, alkylting agents, and water. A recent article reported that there are 130 known human DNA repair genes and that more will be found. The authors stated that "Genome |DNA| instability caused by the great variety of DNA-damaging agents would be an overwhelming problem for cells and organisms if it were not for DNA repair emphasis mine)."6 Note that even water is one of the agents that damages DNA! If DNA somehow evolved on the earth it would be dissolved in water. Thus water and many chemical agents dissolved in it, along with ultraviolet light would destroy DNA much faster than it could be produced by the wildest imaginary process. If it were not for DNA repair genes, the article effectively states, DNA could not survive even in the protective environment of a cell! How then could DNA survive when subjected to brutal attack by all the chemical and other DNA-damaging agents that would exist on the hypothetical primitive Earth of the evolutionists?

What are the cellular agents that are necessary for DNA repair and survival? DNA genes! Thus, DNA is necessary for the survival of DNA! But it would have been impossible for DNA repair genes to evolve before ordinary DNA evolved and it would have been impossible for ordinary DNA to evolve before DNA repair genes had evolved. Here we see another impossible barrier for evolution. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to imagine that DNA repair genes could have evolved even if a cell existed. DNA genes encode the sequences of the hundreds of amino acids that constitute the proteins that are the actual agents that are involved in DNA repair. The code in the DNA is translated into a messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA must then move to and be incorporated into a ribosome (which is made up of three different ribosomal RNAs and 55 different protein molecules). Each amino acid must be coupled to a transfer RNA specific for that amino acid, and the coupling requires a protein enzyme specific for that amino acid and transfer-RNA. Responding to the code on the messenger RNA and utilizing the codes on transfer RNA's, the appropriate amino acids, attached to the transfer RNAs, are attached to the growing protein chain in the order prescribed by the code of the messenger RNA. Many enzymes are required along with appropriate energy. This is only a brief introduction to the incredible complexity of life that is found even in a bacterium.

Mutations do not produce new purposeful genetic information.

Evolution of a new species as a result of new genetic code arising has never been observed.

Abiogenesis has never been observed and all experiments to initiate it have failed.

Some of the oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fully developed advanced animals such as trilobites, with no evidence of evolutionary ancestors.

Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.

The rate of mutation of DNA currently observed suggests that DNA must be less than 100,000 years old, which is not enough time for supposed evolution.

If that is not enough evidence. I'm sorry for you, but I'm just going to say he is going to sit there for hours trying to find evidence that evolution happened. He can;t prove everything. Because he hasn't been here for over 1,000,000 nether has the scientists so they can't prove Jack Diddley Squat. But there are over 5 billion people who believe in religions that state creationism why is the other 2 billion disagree with creationism if religion was the first thing we believed in.


FrankTheBob forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 31 through 40 records.
Posted by Mrlowe 7 years ago

It doesn't matter, you plagiarized. You can't do that. And I am an atheist, and proud of that fact. Well, more agnostic really, but I definitely identify more with atheism than religion.
Posted by BEASTxKNIGHTx12 7 years ago
First of all I didn't have time to out links and tell I copied and pasted so sorry. You atheist!
Posted by billysquirrel1 7 years ago
I know it's easy to think they have a common ancestor, because all species are capable of small changes. And they can sometimes be very similar in some ways. Maybe there being a lot of similarities doesn't mean a common ancestor, but maybe a common creator. Without finding the missing link, evolution will never be fully proven. Evolutionists will always believe in evolution on the blind hope that there's a missing link waiting to be found.
Posted by billysquirrel1 7 years ago
When you say that every species evolves throughout time, you are 100% correct. Every species changes little things over time to adjust, it's only natural. But where evolution is flawed is when it says that animals can change to a completely different species. I know it's popular to believe that the missing link is still out there, but that's creating evidence for evolution out of nothing. There's nothing holding evolution up if it's not found, so the evidence of a missing link is required. But since we can't find one, evolution is a forced theory. Scientists want it to be true, so they're telling us that there is one, but it's not found yet. It seems like a lot of evolution is based on what ifs. I know that Creation also requires some leaps of faith, but I can't think of anything based on made up theories that are needed to keep Creation possible.

There are plenty of things in science though that we can prove 100% correct. The examples you provided, as you stated yourself, are theories. You are correct that theories aren't always true, but there are lots of laws, and other proven facts of science that are completely true.

Moving on to your questions. Several years before radiometric dating was even thought of, scientists still saw the world as billions of years old. They needed radiometric dating to make their theory look good. They needed to find something that would make the world look billions of years old. Since the dating technique is flawed, scientists often need to test something several times to get the numbers that they want. While carbon dating is useful for seeing the age of something a couple of hundred or thousand years old, there has never been any test that solidly proves anything to be a billion years old.

I'm not sure how there being billions of stars really proves anything for either side.
Posted by Mrlowe 7 years ago

Kid copied and pasted his arguments from this website. I wondered why they were so much more well written than his other things. This is blatant plagiarism, but I'll cut him some slack since he's only 13.
Posted by Mrlowe 7 years ago
Yeah, it was definitely mostly an insult. But if it turned out he actually WAS 12, I would've cut him some more slack, so it was at least a little bit of a legit question. By my meaning of real science, nothing anyone does here would count I suppose. Well written and substantiated arguments aren't science, they're well substantiated arguments.

And no, real science is not something we "physically prove". First off, there is no 100% proof in science. Every theory, even ones like germ theory and the theory of gravity aren't 100%, they're just the best observations and hypotheses we've made with the current amount of information we have. Science is just the study of the natural world through observation and experiment. Let me ask you a question: obviously we can't take a time machine to go back millions of years to see if what we say is true, but if what we say isn't true, then why do all known forms of radiometric dating say the earth is billions of years old? Why can we see so many stars that are ten to hundreds of millions of lightyears away? Why does a vast majority of evidence point to animals evolving throughout time? If we can't prove something just because we weren't physically there to see it, then why do we convict criminals of crimes? We can still be reasonably sure of something with enough evidence to support it even if we weren't physically.

The theory of Evolution is real science. It is an accepted hypothesis by the vast majority of the scientific community and has a century of research to back it up. Creationism is... pretty much the exact opposite that. It is an unaccepted and not very supported hypothesis that a majority of scientists think is blatantly wrong. A lot of Creationist arguments aren't even really arguments for creationism, they're arguments against evolution, which I'm fine with because evolution is a widely accepted belief and I'm sure creationists will inadvertently find flaws in smaller aspects of it without disproving the whole t
Posted by billysquirrel1 7 years ago
I understand that you didn't read the latest part of the argument when you posted that, but never-the-less, it's still something I thought you needed to read. And the 12 year old comment was definitely not intended to respectfully ask about his age, but by that being your opening point, it looked like an insult. But let's not make that a point of discussion anymore. By real science, we are talking about things we can physically prove, when sometimes, there might be something that we, as humans, aren't quite capable of physically proving. Humans aren't perfect now are they? And if we aren't perfect, then what's so difficult about maybe not letting our definition of science hender our beliefs. Because if we are flawed, then what you, me, and everyone else's depiction of science may be different than what it should be.

I apologize for confusing you by mentioning the flood. That was meant as a broad discussion point meant for everybody to read. But, since we're on that topic, I would like to discuss that further with you. Nobody can prove a common ancestor for all species, but for several species, there is a species they are branches of. I'm not suggesting that all animals are linked to one species, but that the original species were capable of passing on genes that would differentiate the organism into something of a different variation. Noah could've easily taken only 1,000 animals onto the ark as far as we can possibly know. And what Bill Nye stated is only plausible. Without knowing the exact number of animals on the ark, we can't know for sure the micro-evolution required to get our current variations of animals today. If you think about how quickly we can breed dogs to get something else, then take 5,000 years of that breeding, but with every animal. Who knows what variation of species you could get.
Posted by Mrlowe 7 years ago
First off, I didn't call him 12 out of the blue, I was looking at his username and asking him a legitimate question. Secondly, I wrote that comment hours before that last round and he substantially improved his argument. In the first 2 rounds, he really didn't have any information to back him up. I'll be interested to see what FrankTheBob puts up as a response to the final round though.

By "half the stuff is stuff like this", well, as I said, at the time I wrote that comment, BEASTxKNIGHT wasn't exactly providing a quality argument. I was just pointing out an observation that half of the debates look like they're written by kids who don't know how to debate. Clearly I was wrong to group this debate into that pile, but the pile is still there.

And by real science, I mean REAL SCIENCE. Young Earth Creationism is, by definition, not science. It is not accepted as a viable theory by 99% of scientists, it is not widely studied, it has little evidence to support it and most of that evidence is shady at best, and it's best arguments aren't even arguments for it, they're arguments against evolution. And most of the time, the arguments are scientific facts taken out of context or blatantly misunderstood.

Also, I... don't think I said anything about the flood. Either way, it's entirely unrealistic and probably impossible to think that every distinct subspecies of every species of every different type of living creature evolved in 6,000 years. In the Bill Nye/Ken Ham Creation debate, Nye mentioned that for the great flood to be accurate, we'd need to see at least 11,000 new species of animals per year to account for the incredibly rapid evolution.
Posted by billysquirrel1 7 years ago
@Mrlowe, when you said, "half the debates on this website are very intelligent, thought provoking, and altogether very good, and the other half is stuff like this." I suppose you meant things that you had no real answer to, and all you could do was call a debater a 12 year old. Good on you. And your statement about creation not being real science, look at BeastKnight's latest argument. If you wanted 'real' science, there you go. And God didn't put every single animal on the ark. Like a Golden retriever, black lab, chihuahua, and a great dane. Instead he would've put two dogs. He put two of every kind of animal on the ark, not every specific branch of a species.
Posted by Mrlowe 7 years ago
Most scientific arguments have nothing to do with evolution, they're just among actual scientists. And creationism isn't actually science, it's pseudo science at best. There is no debate among the scientific or even global community about creation vs evolution, it's just evolution.

And I don't want to just argue, I came here to learn just as much as I came here to debate and discuss. I don't have any arguments to make, but I'm sure others do.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 7 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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was more practical and Rational, Con's argument was all subjective and essentially arguing from ignorance. Con's flood source did not back up any Global (Noachian) Flood, only local floods, so the Global Flood is still a myth. Con scored the conduct vote as Pro Forfeited without a final argument/rebuttal. Con's final argument was nothing but Assertions without evidence to support them, though all assertions were from Ignorance.

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