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

Evolution vs Creation

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: 5/13/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,142 times Debate No: 54653
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I believe in the theory of evolution and would like to debate creationismisright on this subject.


alright you begin
Debate Round No. 1


Let's talk about the flood of noah. Out of all the creationist discrepancies, this has to the all out worst.

1. Why are plants still around after a flood that covers the entire world. They would be killed
2. How could so many species fit on the ark, it's physically impossible.
3. Creationist say that only a few species were on the ark, but these species evolved into the ones we see today. That makes no sense, how can you possibly explain the biodiversity of the world with only 4000 years of evolution?
4.Let's take the example of the platypus. The Platypus is found only in Australia, though a larger form of platypus has been found in fossil form in south america. Assuming the ark lands in the mountains of Arrat in Turkey, per the bible, how and why did all the small platypuses travel all the way from turkey to australia. And why did the large platypuses go to south america, this is still assuming they could travel from turkey to America. Same goes with monkeys, new world monkeys are very different from old world monkeys. They couldn't have evolved in 4000 years
5. We can trace civilizations father back then 2000bc
6.Sediment layers provide a major problem for creationism. Why are no species from one layer in another layer. They all lived in the same time span right?
7. Vestigal organs are also problematic. Why do we have organs or bones we can't use. Why do WHALES have LEG bones. Because whales once had legs. Why would god give whales these leg bones?
8. Hominids like Neanderthals are to human to be ape but aren't quite human. They don't show up in Genesis.


alright first off those plants would be grown after the flood second the bible said Noah took two of each KIND of animal not every SPECIES of animals so that would only be 16,000

third those creationists are not real creationists real creationists completely deny evolution the (evolution you are talking about) if these animals bred together it would be much shorter than "evolving".

fourth the platypus and monkey the kangaroo and the koala had a lot of predators. they would rather run then fight so as the water rises and lowers they find themselves stuck on Australia or wherever with no predators

fifth the bible agrees with that so I don't no why you brought that up

sixth the layers are scientifically wrong

also look at this picture of the geologic column

notice the stuff that can not so easily climb is at the bottom. then the decent climbers and so on and so forth. so what I am saying is as layers of mud come through other animals are buried also your wrong that no 2 animals are in the same column

so you are wrong on that

seventh there are no such thing as vestigial organs

and question #8 makes no sense
Debate Round No. 2


What do you mean vestigel organs don't exist! What value does the whale possibly gain from his legbones. What does the snake gain from his legbones? What does the human gain from his appendix. As for the platypus, did they swim all the way to australia? That makes no sense. Even if they some how did, why did all of them go, and why don't we find the fossils of the ones that dies on the journey in other places. Why did all of the larger platypuses split away and head to south america? As for sediment layers, how can they not exist. Creationist will say that mammels have been found on the same level as dinosaurs. Why is this shocking. Mammels lived with dinosaurs, science has known that forever. You can explain fossil layers to say that they are sorted by ability to escape the flood and that's why clams and such are at the bottom. That's not true, if it were, then how is the lazy sloth higher in the fossil record then faster dinosaurs and some aquatic animals. If all the fish survived the flood, then why are there so many aquatic fossils. Dinosaurs that lived in the sea should have survived the flood by your logic so why are they extinct and at a lower level then sloths. This means that prehistoric fish could not swim as well as a sloth.


first off the leg bones are for mating purposes. second there was probably a piece of land for the animals (cough cough the platypus) to cross on.

also the sloth is not lazy you should do your research and find they save their energy for emergency because of their predators and other things also they live in trees so they are already high up I do not know how well that argument was thought out

also the flood waters were not the fastest so the sloth would have plenty of time to climb so thus the sloth has an advantage also the waters were so rough that how could those fish survive if there is a huge major landslide would humans survive that even though we live on land. No of course not! even though we live on land we would die in such a big landslide.also fish are below the sea level sloths are above the sea level so how can you use that argument! and also the platypus' just traveled different ways is that to hard to believe? If you want to know my theory for any of you who are not familiar with this subject read genesis 1-8. I believe in the bible because it is true.

back to you pro
Debate Round No. 3


You have claimed vestigial organs to be nonexistent. You simply say leg bones are for mating. What about the appendix, which is crucial for rodents but worthless to humans? If you take away a persons tailbone, it doesn't affect them at all. Tonsils have no real. Wisdom teeth have no use., they are to far back in the mouth. The little toe has no use, only apes benefit from it. Body hair is next to worthless, there's not enough to be effective. Ear muscles too, have no purpose. Male nipples are clearly useless, why would god give men nipples? Some people are even born with 13 rib bones like apes, which means the trait has been preserved since we were primates. As for biblical aging, what do you make of ice cores dated to hundreds of thousands of years ago. What about every carbon dating test on the earth? What about trees 5,000 years old dated with tree rings. The flood should have killed the tree. The Chinese civilization can be dated back up to 7,000 years ago, that's impossible according to genesis. As for all the civilizations older then 4,000 years, shouldn't the flood have destroyed them? About those sloths, you're source said nothing about sloths moving fast. In fact, it said they were the SLOWEST mammal. Then you claimed that the prehistoric fish were buried in a landslide. As a general rule of thumb, landslides tend to occur on land and assuming the land slide goes into the sea, it couldn't kill a whole population. Even if it did kill all the prehistoric fish, why are no modern fish found at that level, wouldn't the landslide kill the modern fish too? About animals evolving after the ark, creationist do say this. All that stuff about the "kinds" that change into the species of today? That's evolution for you. Ken Ham say that their was one canine kind on the ark that adapted into all the species of wolves and other canines. That can't happen in just 4,000 years. How can all species of wolf evolve in 4,000 years. If you deny this that means Noah take every single species on the ark, which is impossible.

You claim genesis is your scientific account of creation. Genesis was never meant to be read like a science text book. Creationist say that everyone use to believe in Genesis until the evils of evolution came in and screwed up the world. Well in saying this creationist have pretty much made themselves the worst disgrace to Christianity since the Spanish Inquisition. Young earth creationism only really gained strength in the 20th century. Even the layer against evolution at the scopes trail, William Jennings Bryan, was an old earth creationist, not a young earth creationist. The jewish philosopher philo and the the christian saint Augustin said the creation account was merely allegorical.


you are wrong the appendix actually is useful

also male nipples are useful but I will not get into it for the sake of viewers. also the coccyx has muscles attached around it without which we could not do a lot of valuable things. again for the sake of the viewers I will not get into it.

also tonsils are useful

so are wisdom teeth

same with body hair you can ask all the questions you want but I will make sure to answer them all. there is another reason why something you call useless is useful

also ear muscles help with your eardrum without them you could not hear. And just because monkeys or apes have 13 ribs and some humans do whatever how does that prove evolution?

also carbon dating is wrong there is another there is a whole lot of your questions wrong. and according to the bible the earth may be up to 10,000 years old so how is the Chinese civilization thing wrong also the sloths may have been in redwood trees for all we know so if they were buried they would be at the top.well that is wrong also the bible says there were two of the kinds of the animals on the ark and ken ham said there was 2 of every kind on the ark if you are going to full-on attack creationists please get your facts straight for proof of what ken ham said watch is video seminars about the ark also notice in genesis it does not say species but KINDS so there would not be very many KINDS of animals on the ark 2 KINDS of dogs 2 KINDS of cats. so on and so forth. and also so what a couple of so-called-Christians say that creationism is false and the creationists did not exactly say "everyone used to believe in Genesis until the evils of evolution came in and screwed up the world." quote on quote minus spelling mistakes. and the Spanish Inquisition god does not order others to kill others because of racist attitudes so I wonder whether or not they were truly Christians. If you can find one bible verse hat says to kill others because of racist attitudes I would like to see it because I have read the whole book and I think I would ave noticed something. and if you want to go down the Christians are bad because here is a quote from a mass murderer on evolution

If a person doesn"t think there is a God to be accountable to, then"then what"s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That"s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing""

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994

and from Hitler

so please do not go down that route because I have much more examples back to you pro
Debate Round No. 4


You say the redwood was buried by the flood. If that happened it couldn't live. Just like plants and fish couldn't survive the flood. Plant seeds can't live more then 100 days in water. As for fish the sediment would kill them and the saltwater would kill fresh water fish. Even if the plants did survive, they couldn't grow because the flood would have mixed salt in with the soil. Even if all this happened then most special would go extinct. The population was so low and plants non existent. Even with plants, how could so many kinds live with only 2 or 7 members. The carnivores would die. Creationist say carnivores ate plants but show me an example of a carnivore eating a plant. Even starving carnivores won't eat plants. Let's assume earth did repopulate from 10 people. 2000 years later the earth had 10 million people. For this to happen the birth rate would have to be extremely high with virtually no one dying early deaths. Even crazier is that their where enough people 100 years later to build the tower of babel. The tower reached the heavens and would require a huge amount of people. On chinese civilization, even if the world was 10,000 years old, this civilization would have been destroyed by the flood. Also, at the tower of babel, all people existed around the tower and had one language. We know that there were several civilizations around in this time so it's impossible. As for carbon dating it's been tested in labs for many years. And what about those ice cores dated back 100,000 years.

Regarding kinds. You continue to say that creationist don't believe in micro evolution. In his debate with Bill Nye, Ken Ham said, "All these birds had one common ancestor, but their was only one finch ancestor." He also said, "instead of a evolution tree we have a creationist garden branching from several kinds," and "all dogs had one canine ancestor," and he referred to evolution as "molecules-to-man evolution" to distinguish it against creationist micro evolution. So according to him, their were two monkeys making one monkey "kind." Through micro evolution these two monkeys became all the monkey species in only 4000 years. Even less then that because some monkeys had to cross land bridges to get to america. It's impossible for species to evolve that fast.

You continue to come up with barely feasible explanations for vesicle organs. Some of these have minor functions but that means they aren't preforming the original function. Like wisdom teeth might be slightly helpful but they don't even develop in some people and almost no food is eaten that far back in the mouth. For apes it's completly neccesary however. Just like body hair keeps your head a little warm, that's because body hair was not neccessary to survive and thus the trait wasn't passed down as much. If god wanted us warm he would have given us a full coat. By the way I didn't even much hair standing up but you talked about it. I was talking about hair in general and why it's only on our head. Our other hair can't warm us. As for why ribs is evidence for evolution it's because apes have 13 pairs but it wasn't helpful for humans so the gene was always passed down.It did get passed down by some people though so the gene still exist in humans, just not the majority of the population. If god intendid us to walk on two legs, he would have given us two toes like horses. Two toes gives the most stable support which is why horses have it. Five toes is very helpful for living in trees so that's why we have them.

On the fossil record, if it was by survival you would find that sick animals from a species are on lower levels and very strong ones on higher levels. You would see exceptions to the general trend. The fossil record shows ALL of one species on the same level. Creationist have cited mammals found with dinosaurs, but you will notice these mammals are only found on the dinosaur level. That was just when they lived. We also have many transitional fossils for horses and whales, as well as feathered reptilians with wings and and fish with legs. These show evolution in actions. The platypus is another example, early mammals laid eggs but the platypus is a evolutionary relic from when mammals where a offshoot of reptiles. As for genesis being allegorical, it says night and day and light and darkness where created before the sun and moon and stars. The ancients knew that the sun was a light source so they wouldn't create a myth like this to be taken literally because if you do so it makes no logical sense.


creationismisright forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by renoneshawn 6 years ago
Con, your arguments make no sense.

You cannot rationally tell anyone that a platypus pair somehow traveled THOUSANDS of miles over ocean and land to the middle east.

I would love an ACTUAL answer to that question if you do not mind.
Posted by Mrlowe 7 years ago
Go reason and logic!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: 1) Pro backed his arguments better. 2) Con extensively made redundant sourcing.

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