Instigator / Pro

Creation vs. Evolution Part 1: The Origin of the Universe


All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
Sources points
Spelling and grammar points
Conduct points

With 3 votes and 9 points ahead, the winner is ...

More details
Publication date
Last update date
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
1.) Creationism

In general, Creationism is the speculative assertion that our reality was created by some personal entity. 

Creationism does not provide an explanation of the method or mechanism by which the universe was created, or sheds no light onto the underlying laws, processes or motivations to explain why the universe was created. Indeed, creationism does not seek to explain how the universe was created, why or even really when. 

It offers no predictions, nor any testable principles. It reveals no facts, or knowledge of physical laws we had not already known about prior, nor has it revealed any fundamental truths, or understanding. There are no practical applications, or use to creationism to aid or facilitate further discoveries. Worse, as an all powerful entity can do anything they want, follow any rules, and are not bound by rigorous mathematical laws, creationism is often presented as an unfalsifiable framework - one that can’t be proven wrong - even if it is.

As a result, it offers no real or useful explanation concerning the origins of the universe.

In fact, due to its reliance on happenstance and post hoc justifications that the universe is the way it is - just because: creationism itself is not an explanation or something that can be considered to advance knowledge: it’s rather the opposite. Creationism is the absence of any meaningful explanation, often asserted with the inherent goal of getting people to stop looking for one.

In this respect, Creationism is a failure at revealing any information or truth about the origins of the universe.

2.) Evolution / science.

Evolution is a theory pertaining to the changes to organisms over long periods of time and multiple generations - and none of its process are applicable outside of this.

However, it is often used as a catch-all process concerning a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe - and as such it will be assumed in this way.

The scientific origin for what we see around us is not some conjecture or hypothesis; but instead a broadly accepted theory, supported by evidence and which explains a wide variety of facts and observations.

To start with, it has been widely observed since Edwin Hubble’s famous star survey that all the objects in the universe are moving away from each other.[1]

This leads to the common sense conclusion that the universe in the past was much closer together than it was today. Given the relationship of expansion (that the speed of recession is proportional to distance)[2], there is an indication that space itself is expanding, rather than everything moving away from us. This is observation is consistent with everything moving apart from everything else.

Given the demonstrable behaviour of gravity[3] and the fact that all objects in the universe must necessarily have been much closer together than they are today, the theory was put forward that the matter would have all been in one place in the form of a singularity (for which the maths is already well known)[4]

So, the theory of the origin of the universe - that all the matter in the universe was packed into a single place then the space and matter in the universe began rapidly expanding at the start of the universe was posited.

In this scenario, two main predictions were made: that if the universe began super hot and cooled as it expanded - there would be a point where the atomic plasma absorbed all the light - and the when cooled enough became opaque. This would look like a burst of radiation in the radio band, that matched the emission spectra of hydrogen, red shifted consistent with being further away than any visible galaxy.

This background radiation predicted was famously discovered and has been well studied [5].

The second lesser well known prediction is the relative abundance of primary atoms in the universe. When the universe was super dense and hot, the amount of initial fusion that would occur can be calculated, and matched against the measured proportion of atoms in the universe.  This too is a match. [6]

So, this theory of origin is measured against primary observable evidence, and has made and been validated by multiple predictions.

In all these cases, this theory, regardless of its flaws and limitations is already far more successful, useful and relevant than creationism.




Round 2
1. Con sites the expansion of the universe as a new scientific discovery, however, the Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been "stretched out" or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God is stretching it out, causing it to expand.
It is fascinating that the Bible recorded the idea of an expanding universe thousands of years before secular science came to accept the idea.

2. Let us talk now about the problems with the Big Bang Theory, which Con is not mentioning by name, but is what He is describing. 
  • a. Missing Monopoles: Particle physicists claim that many magnetic monopoles should have been created in the high temperature conditions of the big bang. Since monopoles are stable, they should have lasted to this day. Yet, despite considerable search efforts, monopoles have not been found. Where are the monopoles? The fact that we don’t find any monopoles suggests that the universe never was that hot. This indicates that there never was a big bang, but it is perfectly consistent with the Bible’s account of creation, since the universe did not start infinitely hot.
  • b. The Flatness Problem: The expansion rate of the universe appears to be very finely balanced with the force of gravity; this condition is known as flat. If the universe were the accidental by-product of a big bang, it is difficult to imagine how such a fantastic coincidence could occur. Big-bang cosmology cannot explain why the matter density in the universe isn’t greater, causing it to collapse upon itself (closed universe), or less, causing the universe to rapidly fly apart (open universe). The problem is even more severe when we extrapolate into the past. Since any deviation from perfect flatness tends to increase as time moves forward, it logically follows that the universe must have been even more precisely balanced in the past than it is today. Thus, at the moment of the big bang, the universe would have been virtually flat to an extremely high precision. This must have been the case (assuming the big bang), despite the fact that the laws of physics allow for an infinite range of values. This is a coincidence that stretches credulity to the breaking point. Of course, in the creation model, “balance” is expected since the Lord has fine-tuned the universe for life.
  • c. Many secular astronomers have come up with an idea called “inflation” in an attempt to address the flatness and monopole problems (as well as other problems not addressed in detail here, such as the horizon problem). Inflation proposes that the universe temporarily went through a period of accelerated expansion. Amazingly, there is no real supporting evidence for inflation; it appears to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated conjecture—much like the big bang itself. Moreover, the inflation idea has difficulties of its own, such as what would start it and how it would stop smoothly. In addition, other problems with the big bang are not solved, even if inflation were true.
  • d. Antimatter: Consider the “baryon number problem.” Recall that the big bang supposes that matter (hydrogen and helium gas) was created from energy as the universe expanded. However, experimental physics tells us that whenever matter is created from energy, such a reaction also produces antimatter. Antimatter has similar properties to matter, except the charges of the particles are reversed. (So whereas a proton has a positive charge, an antiproton has a negative charge.) Any reaction where energy is transformed into matter produces an exactly equal amount of antimatter; there are no known exceptions. The big bang (which has no matter to begin with, only energy) should have produced exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and that should be what we see today. But we do not. The visible universe is comprised almost entirely of matter—with only trace amounts of antimatter anywhere. This devastating problem for the big bang is actually consistent with biblical creation; it is a design feature. God created the universe to be essentially matter only—and it’s a good thing He did. When matter and antimatter come together, they violently destroy each other. If the universe had equal amounts of matter and antimatter (as the big bang requires), life would not be possible.
  • e. No Population III Stars: The big-bang model by itself can only account for the existence of the three lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium). This leaves about 90 or so of the other naturally occurring elements to be explained. Since the conditions in the big bang are not right to form these heavier elements (as big-bang supporters readily concede), secular astronomers believe that stars have produced the remaining elements by nuclear fusion in the core. This is thought to occur in the final stages of a massive star as it explodes (a supernova). The explosion then distributes the heavier elements into space. Second- and third-generation stars are thus “contaminated” with small amounts of these heavier elements. If this story were true, then the first stars would have been comprised of only the three lightest elements (since these would have been the only elements in existence initially). Some such stars should still be around today since their potential life span is calculated to exceed the (big bang) age of the universe. Such stars would be called “Population III” stars. Amazingly (to those who believe in the big bang), Population III stars have not been found anywhere. All known stars have at least trace amounts of heavy elements in them. It is amazing to think that our galaxy alone is estimated to have over 100 billion stars in it, yet not one star has been discovered that is comprised of only the three lightest elements.
The big bang has many scientific problems.

There are also models that describe the universe with no Big Bang such as Wun-Yi Shu's model.

1.) Plagurism.

My opponent has lifted five quotes from a Ken Ham book[1]

This is disingenuous of my opponent to pass someone else’s argument off as his own. As well as largely disrespectful as my opponent expends almost no effort into making an argument.

2.) Dropped arguments

Before I address the specific claims, I will point out that pro drops my argument that Creationism isn’t an explanation, and doesn’t offer any testable predictions or increases our knowledge. As such it is a useless non-explanation.

Pro also drops the key arguments and observational evidence that supports the conclusion that the Big Bang occurred 

3.) Pros standard of evidence

Voters should note that pros argument does not extol the accuracy of creationism. Nor does he explain the knowledge that creationism has added via its explanation of mechanisms. Pro doesn’t vehemently justify how creationist mechanisms explain the observational data with causal process orientated examples.

Instead, Pros argument consists of him simply trying to list all the things wrong with the Big Bang theory, and strongly imply that if the Big Bang theory has areas that are as yet unknown or unvalidated - we must throw the whole theory away.

This strategy has two issues. 

Firstly, even if everything pro said was true (and it isn’t), it still doesn’t add one grain of validity to Creationism.

The second problem, is that if he holds his own theory of Creationism to this same standard - his own position fails catastrophically.

Creationism doesn’t explain why the universe is expanding, what Quasars are, why there are Galaxies, why some stars are low metalicty - why some have high levels of metal. 

It can’t explain the predicted observations of the CMWB radiation, inflation, black holes, observation of star and galaxy metallicity, and many others match that expected if the Big Bang was an accurate explanation. (These will be covered later)

It can’t explain why the universe appears to be 13.2bn years old. It can’t explain the proportion of primordial elements or why the universe appears to be flat, or what the apparent gravitational lensing of galaxies is caused by.

It proposes no mechanism or method, or testable narrative that conforms with reality. Finally neither God, nor anything being created from nothing has been directly or indirectly observed in any measurable way.

If pro is asking voters to judge the Big Bang theory on aspects it cannot explain, then Creationism should be judged on the same grounds - a standard it spectacularly fails to meet.

4.) Incompleteness of the Big Bang theory.

In the case of the Big Bang, the universe is expanding - this is observed. We know the universe was increasingly hot and dense at a point far in the past, and the theories predicted both the cosmic microwave background radiation based on this, and the abundance of primordial elements. (Covered in my opening round)

From this point, the evolution of stars, and galaxies and ultimately the formation of our sun and our solar system is just a matter of nuclear physics combined with general relativity. Both of which have been validated, including most recently by the existence of gravitational waves.[2][3]

Our understanding of the universe, and the theories that express it have been themselves evolving with observational evidence, and confirmed via predictions.

For this reason, we know the Big Bang occurred, and know much about the proceeding evolution of the cosmos. There are many areas of the Big Bang that are tentative, hypothetical and have not yet been validated - or are plain unknown.

However - that such unknowns exists does not invalidate the entire theory - especially as our understanding of the broad nature of the Big Bang itself is based on the solid evidence already presented.

The standard model - up to a few years ago had a big gap in understanding with the Higgs Boson - which now is shown to exist. Relativity can’t account for the very small. Quantum theory can’t account for the very massive.

The underlying parts of those theories are still entirely accurate - even though these holes exist.

Over time these theories will be updated, replaced, and modified to account for new information and data.

Importantly, right now the Big Bang theory constitutes our best explanation of the origins of the universe we can come up with - and this explanation is demonstrably more accurate and more valid than creationism.

5.) Pros uncited source:

Let’s move on to the specific issues pro raises.

5.A.) Magnetic Monopoles

The monopole problem is less an issue with the Big Bang, and much more of an issue with the mass associated with the particle theories on which it is based.[4] this could simply be akin to something like relativity not being able to match well in the quantum world.[5]

While monopoles may or may not exist (we may discover them tommorow, or in 10 years - like some of the examples below), we could simply find a mathematical improvement to the particle or field theory that eliminates the need for monopoles. Neither case appear to invalidate the Big Bang.

5.B) Flat universe.

This is an observation that is not explained by creationism either. By what mechanism or necessity should the universe be flat? Why is it not static?

In reality, the flatness of the universe is actually a boon for the Big Bang. If the universe has a total of 0 overall energy - the universe would be flat - this seems to imply a something-from-nothing paradigm.[6]

5.C) Inflation.

This highlights pros issues with relying on lack of evidence for scientific theories - 
There is now observational evidence inflationary theory is true[7][8].

This wasn’t the case when the original book pro quoted was written.

Given pros argument is that if this theory were true, we’d have evidence: the fact we now have evidence clearly lends credibility to the theory.

5.D) Matter/Antimatter baryon numbers.

This problem is interesting. When matted was created it should have been created in equal amounts matter and antimatter.

This is in part because of what is called Charge Parity Symmetry. This is basically that the laws of physics operate the same for both matter and antimatter accounting for the differences in charge.

The 1980 nobel prize in physics was awarded to Cronin and Fitch for discovering CP violations - basically violations of the symmetric nature of particles and their anti particles.[9]

While we don’t know exactly what is happening in the Big Bang, the existence of CP violations is a major indication that the laws of physics allow such disparity.

5.E) Population III stars

Pros source tacitly acknowledges that the progression of population I and II star types is well understood and matches the model of the origins and evolution of the universe.

Pro appears to be arguing that the very first stars created at the very beginning of the universe, that according to theory would have burnt out very quickly, should still exist 13bn years later

Importantly, pro neglects galaxy examples such as Galaxy Cosmos redshift 7 - which is a recently discovered galaxy and contains strong evidence of containing population III stars.[10]

Again - pro makes two major predictions that have failed, and the Big Bang theory has passed. This clearly indicates the weakness of his position, and strength of the Big Bang theory.


Pro copied his arguments from another source, and failed to attribute it to the source.

This source makes multiple key errors in, including relying on there not being observations that have subsequently been made.

Worse. Pros own standard clearly obliterates his own position when applied fairly. Thus showing the Big Bang theory is clearly a superior explanation on the origin of the universe.


Round 3
I Extend all arguments from my previous rounds.
Round 4
And I extend my arguments again.
Round 5
And extend. What a shame :(