The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Is there scientific evidence for 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Spud has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 576 times Debate No: 104356
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Title of the debate says it all. I will be taking the position that there is no scientific evidence for creationism. Pro will be taking the position that there is scientific evidence for creationism.

Rules are simple. Put forward your three best arguments for creationism which you think is backed by science and I'll assess your arguments. You are not allowed to post any more than 3 arguments for the opening segment as there is to be no gish galloping.


"Creationism" is a belief that the universe and life originated from "specific acts of divine creation", as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes.
"Scientific evidence" is the evidence that is empirical: obtained either from direct observation or from testing a hypothesis.

Argument #1: science is based on accepting of our ignorance. We don't know everything, we CAN'T know everything, and this is proved by science, this principle is at its core. We should deny nothing, but we should doubt everything(including hypothesis that God doesn't exist and that "there is no scientific evidence for creationism"). So saying that there is definitely no evidence for creationism is akin to the statement that all(!) scientific knowledge is totally understood by humans and can't be related to something divine. What's more, true science is always specific. And when one tried to rebut God, it always related not to the concept itself, but rather to people or organizations, that used that concept to their benefit.

Argument #2: according to the latest research, our Galaxy was created about 11 billion years ago by the process of collapsing matter into one super massive black whole. This process(especially considering the fact, that it could be occurring under the laws of physics different from those we have at our Aeon) can't be fully understood by science, but the presence of the Dark Hole is empirically confirmed by our telescopes. And it is considered that this entity is the reason for gravitation in the Milky Way and the reason for many things for us. Why can't the super massive black hole have some sort of divinity humans and for all life on the Earth?

Argument #3:
According to the latest scientific research, our Universe consists of infinite numbers of parallel worlds each of which has its own set of laws. Which in turn means, that all those parallel worlds are just simulation with a very high degree of probability.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
@Autistic_Spider You're kidding me, right? That mockumentary was an absolute farce. If you want to debate this, feel free to challenge me. As Christmas is over I have the time to engage in debates again.
Posted by Autistic_Spider 1 year ago
There is a famous atheist and science fanatic who once made a documentary titled "Expelled:No intelligence allowed" where he very convincingly demonstrated that there does often arise new evidence that suggests intelligent design but the 'elite' corporate masters of the scientific world go to great lengths to suppress the information and turn science into a dirty political sport rather than the pursuit of answers we think it to be.

As a pantheist, "intelligent design" and "natural selection" are not opposites to me; they are both saying the same thing because I view 'nature' as supremely intelligent and capable of intelligently and intentionally designing the biological world based on methodically selected traits for each species. Nature seems to have an answer for anything humans do and a consequence decided for evey ecological misstep and not just for humans either... Nature is almost personified by this view but in a massively collective (that we and all things are a part of) sense.

To a pantheist, the stars themselves are alive until their light is extinguished. They are higher beings than we are and there are many living communities on many scales even in our own galaxy, the galaxy itsef a living community at a scale so large we can barely comprehand and as a community it is also a member of another even bigger community of living beings... Perhaps if the universe were perceived as a single living specimen, let's say a human, the different galaxies might be its cells, solar systems the molecules and us? Well, we have no idea how small the scale goes, do we? Even our universe is a living member of another living community.

Natural selection synonymous with intelligent design is not at all far fetched from this perspective.
Posted by Spud 2 years ago
Sorry, had a fairly big headache and didn't feel up to debating. That is my fault. Apologies to Swarmie for forfeiting.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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