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

(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con)

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
coolkid699 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: 1/9/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,069 times Debate No: 98831
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (0)




(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con)

I will take the atheist evolution point of view, my opponent the Christian creationism side.

Common defintions are assumed unless otherwise argued and agreed upon. Definition of Creationism via wikipedia.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Creationism" can also refer to creation myths, or to a concept about the origin of the soul. Creation science refers to the pseudoscientific movement in the United States.[1]

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation,"[2][3] as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes.[4] The first use of the term "creationist" to describe a proponent of creationism is found in an 1856 letter of Charles Darwin describing those who objected on religious grounds to the emerging science of evolution.[5]

Creationists base their beliefs on a literal reading of religious texts, including the biblical Genesis creation myth and Islamic mythology from the Quran.[6][7][8] For young Earth creationists, this includes a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and the rejection of the scientific theory of evolution.[9] Literalist creationists believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth.[8] Pseudoscientific branches of creationism include creation science,[10] flood geology,[11] and intelligent design,[12][13] as well as subsets of pseudoarchaeology,[14][15] pseudohistory, and even pseudolinguistics.[16]"

Definition of God

"(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." [1]

R1 Acceptance & definitions
R2 Arguments, don't respond to opponent's argument yet.
R3 Rebuttals respond directly to opponent's round two.
R4 Defense respond directly to opponent's round three.

Burden of proof
Burden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am the instigator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof.

Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon.

Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person' argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case.

Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws.

Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round three in response to my opponents round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect.

Thank you in advance for accepting the debate.

My opponent must take a literal Christian approach to creationism. This is because, I don't want to have to hit a moving target between different versions of creationism, Islam, metaphorical Christian, Hindu, and deism.

Previous debate [2], feel free to use it for reference and to anticpate my argument.



I have to say that I believe in a god unlike you pathetic atheist s***. So just f***ing get rekt. Go to a hindu god and pray that you will not feel the wrath of god because atheism is the act of the devil.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent has not only broken the stucture but has resorted to an ad hominem attack. This is not only a poor debate tactic, but is against rules.

R2 Arguments

Evolution is scientific because it meets the following three criteria. Evolution can be falsified, tested, and observed.

""With respect to the fossil record, evolutionary hypotheses are routinely tested as new fossil data are collected and matching that data against hypotheses about evolutionary relationships." [3]

"But decades ago, theorists also proposed that a new species could evolve without any such changes, but instead simply as a result of large DNA strands' moving from one chromosome to another within a genome, a change known as a chromosomal rearrangement.While the theory sounded promising, since such rearrangements can be quite common, it eventually waned in popularity, in part because scientists had no way of testing it.Now in a slick feat of molecular maneuvering, a team of researchers has reorganized huge portions of one yeast species' chromosomes, rendering its chromosomal map identical to that of a closely related species, just as it was once, in the distant past. " [3]"

"evolution can be observed via natural selection. [4] Evolution can also be observed in the lab. The most notable is drug resistant pathogens becoming dominant via natural selection.[5] "

"Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory:

If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species. " [6]

Therefore, I have proven that the theory of evolution passes three test of being scientific, can be falsified, observed, and tested. The same cannot be said of Creationism. We cannot observe nor test Creationism.

"""20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money." [7]

"“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;” " [8]""

Jesus Christ cannot be God because he cannot be the source of all moral authority due to condoning slavery and beating of slaves. Therefore, I conclude that Christian Creationism is disproved. Thank you for your time and energy reading this debate.

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
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
You should attend this debate:
Atheism- A lost reality! A hopeless, helpless cause!
Posted by canis 1 year ago
What is evolving right now:
Creationism has no REAL answer to anything...A dream..A fantacy
Posted by canis 1 year ago
New species have been created in the lab for years.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
I implied nothing of the kind. Please don't put your thoughts in place of mine. I'm stating outright that there IS no proof that evolution exist, this is DEMONSTRATED in the fact that not a single living, breathing crawling, walking animal has been created by evolutionary experiments!

But if we look instead of what it DID prove instead of what it didn't prove, we see that it proved life could not have evolved through any known method. This at the very least should require man to continue the search, not simply toss up his hands and cry oh well, we'll just keep looking for some other way except creationism. Especially since (a) Creationism IS correct and (b) there is severe punishment assigned to everyone who willfully refuses, to seek the truth ..... end of story, check and mate.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
Was thinking abou canser. Evolution is just small changes/mutations in DNA..Many small changes/mutations over time will create new species. We do not have the time to watch this except in bacteria or maybe even insekts...Canser...It is not a virus..It is not a bacteria....IT IS YOU mutating into another YOU..."Evolution real time"...Well if the "mutated you" could survive, (probably as an ugly mass)...A new "species" had developped..
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
"Bacteria NEVER become insects, animals, people, fish or birds. Now NAME. The air breathing, walking, crawling, flying animal your evolutionary science experiments created to prove evolution?" FollowerofChrist

You indicate that absence of evidence is proof of absence. Well, let's apply that to God. Do prayers do anything? Nope, that's proof of absence that God doesn't exist.

How about angels, demons, Satan, Hell, Heaven? Nope no evidence of that. That's proof of absence.

"Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.

And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested."
Posted by canis 1 year ago
You can watch evolution in a petri dish... Even you will have to admit that... If you admit evolution exist..You can not say that it does not exist for any species...But stick around for 1-200.000.000 years.
Again how does creationism explain "the petri"..?
Posted by canis 1 year ago
Evolution is evolution. If it has a tale or not is irelevant...The petri dish.
Try to explain "the petri" via creationism ......
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
Just like your evolutionary scientist you steer everyone away from the actual question, by sidestepping, dodging, and misdirection.

Bacteria NEVER become insects, animals, people, fish or birds. Now NAME. The air breathing, walking, crawling, flying animal your evolutionary science experiments created to prove evolution?

If not, best you start asking God to save your skin toot sweet homeboy.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
Evolution is evolution. If it has a tale or not is irelevant...The petri dish.
Try to explain "the petri" via creationism ......
This debate has 4 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.