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

Evolutionism Vs. Creationism

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,005 times Debate No: 55588
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




No forfeits allowed...first round is for Creationism con is for Evolutionism...each will give 1) reasons their theory is better 2) reasons why the other theory is wrong...we will not be debating about whether Cre. and Evo. are theories or not, we will simply be arguing the evidences of each theory.



I will gladly accept this debate concerning Evolution versus Creationism and I accept that we will be arguing evidences and why the other is wrong, not whether they are theories or not. I thank my opponent for challenging me and patiently await his first argument.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank-you for accepting. This round I will give reasons why Evolution is...

Almost everybody is familiar with the icons of evolution, particularly the one showing apes forming into man, and that is because it is shown in almost every science text-book, even in some history books too. But not many people know the flaws of the evolution process and that many times, scientists are assuming things JUST because it fits their theory (and their theory has some facts). Most people, having seen the icons SO MUCH, begin to believe that evolution MUST be true, since scientists have approved of it to be in science textbooks! Many are told automatically that, with no doubt, Creationism is false and not even a theory. And many believe that because Evolution is a well-substantial, fact led theory, and it's also most popular for scientists therefore there's no question about the conclusion. It's an easy to understand and also VERY easy to believe theory. It, to most, seems like Evolution has no competition when it actually is QUITE challenged--by Creationism. To end this statement, I will say that Evolution is a brain-washing concept and a trap that many people fall into.

The Theory of Evolution was started before Charles Darwin, actually in his time it was probably a hypothesis which the man hoped to be improved on. Upon his book 'On the Origin of Species' there have been many problems, contradictions, and myths found by modern scientists about Evolution, some have been answered...while some statements Darwin made have remained illogical and foolish (though taken seriously by some Evolutionists). Examples:

1). "On the Origin of Species" isn't scientific, in fact it was just a possibility; an explanation for how humans came to be OTHER THAN the idea of there being a super-natural God (who was believed in by many, at the time). It sprout into what is now called Evolution. How did a preposterous idea such as Darwin's turn into this highly-respected theory it is today? It is true that technology has advanced us tremendously through-out the centuries to find out more about the universe and Life, and some facts have made sense to go along with the Evolution theory, but in my opinion many things have been fabricated up to sound good and, again, fit the theory.

On the other hand, Creationism has remained the SAME for centuries, and, even more mystifying, the facts we have found through out the years have consistently pointed to things such as Intelligent Design and a young earth.

2). Fossils in the Evolutionist's workshop, while 90% of textbooks date many animals to be millions of years old, there are actually none PROVEN to be that old. Time and time again scientists have tried to test the fossils to prove their age but they all come out proving nothing except the Creation Theory. Missing Links are everywhere in Evolution's "Tree of Life." To believe that every specie on the planet evolved from ONE living cell, is ridiculous and illogical.

3). And lastly, to believe that the ONE living cell came from non-living matter is even more ridiculous. There is no evidence, out of all the tests and experiments they have done, that has proven life to form from non-life, much less something to form from NOTHING.

Evolution doesn't have a stable foundation even though many believe in the theory, and so it is debunked. It is easy to o because you do not try to find evidence against the theory but rather to use their evidence against itself.

A). The percentage difference between apes and humans is, not surprisingly, misunderstood by many. 2 percent difference, or less, sounds good, right? But what is not being told is the actual number which the percentage comes off of. By the way that number is 3 million. You won't find that number in ANY school textbook. This is because if people knew (when being taught evolution) the actual number, they would also figure out that humans and apes aren't as close as it seems.

B). The Immune System debunks Evolution all by itself. An animal's immune system is much STRONGER than a human's so changes in animals will be fought harder. Just go and research what's involved in organ transplants, and the immune system, and find out. Even though the change is within a whole species, the immune system will fight it unless the immune system suppressants are taken for the person's whole remaining life. Which brings up another question: what suppressed the immune system during the changes of Evolution?

C). Evolution has "always" been about life adapting to it's surroundings. But what about life making it's surroundings adapt to it's needs in order to survive? Plankton has the ability to make clouds when the sun gets too hot. Numerous questions arise, such as:

How does such an ability evolve?
How does such a lower life-form evolve this ability when it's generally still simple in design?
How long does such a process take to evolve?

The video on top is about an animal with abilities too complicated for the Evolution process to explain. The lady tries to explain the way they mapped the evolving, but she leaves a lot of information out. Example: she doesn't tell us how the mimic octopus is able to do things...

The outer skin and tissue have to evolve to do this. (How?)
The nervous system has to evolve to support this.
The brain has to evolve to control this.

D). They say evolution takes time, but there has been no evidence that says this amount of time passed. This is proven because there has been...

-T-Rex blood and tissue found inside bone. (Evidence for Young Earth).
-Oil takes "millions of years" to form, yet there are examples of oil and petroleum products being made in days, or in some cases, just hours.
-Ica stones with drawings of dinosaurs and humans and there have been recent finds of petrified dinosaur skins that match the designs.

There are other problems but I will start with these!


jamccartney forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


jamccartney forfeited, I hope, because he had more important things to work on besides an online debate, but if not that is sad because this is a rather important topic that I wish he would address properly (since, after all, his profile picture says science is the answer to everything).

I need answers!


jamccartney forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has two more chances to create a response. This is a failure for Con, especially since he committed to doing a debate WITH NO FORFEITS allowed! Shame.

I will only give more "evidence" if my opponent does.


jamccartney forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


My opponent's account is no longer active therefore this has been a complete waste of time.


jamccartney forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by jamccartney 7 years ago
I very much apologize for the forfeiture. I am on vacation in Hawaii. This debate simply transpired at the wrong time. I most likely will not be able to post for the next round either. Perhaps we can debate this topic another time.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by WilliamsP 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited, thus not making any arguments. He loses the conduct and arguments points for that. Reliable sources are tied; neither uses sources. Or, at least, if Pro used sources, he never cited them.
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff.

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