Whether creationism or evolution is true, natural selection is a fact.

Key: Q = Question asked by Con A = Answer given by Pro C = Contention by Con R = Rebuttal by Pro Q: So what made God or the "animals" that are our "Ancestors"? A: God may not even exist and so doesn't have to have been made. What made the animals is either God, via Creationism, or random events that led to biological matter arising from the Earth. C: Science proves that the earth could make itself. R: No it doesn't; the Earth did not ever make anything, its an inanimate rock with an atmosphere. Q: Why would it (the Earth) make it self? A: I don't know, you tell me. Q: f single celled animals formed in the primordial soup and they were asexual (not have either male or female characteristics, but reproducing by themselves, how would they advance to a hermaphroditic state (having both male and female sexual organs) and then to the higher orders of animals which almost always have distinct male and female reproductive organs? A: By random mutation meaning that one happened to be a two-celled organism and found a huge and being this and sexually dominated all of its one-celled rivals by reproducing itself several times by many times. The fact is that if any nutrients entered one side of the other cell, the other would reap the benefits, so accessibility to surrounding nutrients has been optimally maximized. Thus, if one of them happened to mutate to a 3-celled organism (by not splitting properly in the reproduction then this would destroy all competition and take up more room. This is, indeed, possible because zygotic twins (and triplets) have been born. Now, the way that cells work is they band together to make tissues and eventually form organisms. Whether this was done via creationism or evolution is not my concern since whichever it was, natural selection holds true as the most adapted to their environment will be the ones to go on and reproduce and survive. In fact, cells have no sexuality at all. It is natural selection that advanced hermaphrodites to bi-gender species, not the other way around. The in-between states are not sterile because species didn't exist in the beginning of the world. Species came later on. At the beginning, everything reproduced asexually. C: Evolution can only explain asexual or self-fertilizing hermaphroditic reproduction. Yet we have tens of thousands of the higher orders of species with perfectly matched sexually sets of males and females R: Whether Creationism or evolution is true, natural selection is still a fact within the living entities in a given environment. Q: Why? How could evolutionary processes possibly explain what we see all around us today? A: I am not sure of this, which is why Creationism may be true. Whichever one is true is irrelevant to my side of the debate. C: In short, the theory of evolution states that lower life evolved over eons into higher life forms. Many lower life forms (generally single cells or plants) are asexual, which is what one would expect if the theory of evolution had any validity. If the evolutionary process was to continue however, we would expect the continuation of asexual characteristics or possibly hermaphroditic characteristics (i.e. having both sets of sexual reproductive organs). Moreover, an evolving hermaphroditic creature should be able to self-fertilize itself. Without asexual characteristics or self-fertilizing hermaphroditic characteristics, how possibly could a mutant entity reproduce? The chance of such a mutant finding an exact complementary mate within its lifespan would be extremely remote given the infrequency of mutations, and especially fertile mutations. R: Again, whether evolution or Creationism is true is irrelevant to this debate. C: Yet scientific observation reveals that of all the hermaphroditic creatures, only the flatworm is self-fertilizing. Moreover, there are no (or a statistically insignificant number of) creatures that we might suppose or rationalize as evolving. Given the eons of time for evolution to take place,we should expect to see many creatures at all stages of the evolutionary process. But we don't see any missing links to speak of, or creatures in transition. (Once in a while some "scientist" will speculate and publish some "finding" which is generally discarded later). R: That is great to know, Creationism also has no evidence and whichever one may be true is irrelevant to my side of the debate. C: When we find a mutant in the higher level creatures, it is nearly always sterile. Furthermore, the offspring of cross specie types are always sterile (such as the mule, an offspring of a horse and donkey or the offspring of one type of dolphin mating with another type of dolphin.). R: The fact that the mutant dies off without producing offspring is proof of natural selection in action. The mutant is not well-adapted to its environment and shall submit to its better-adapted rivals or die trying. Q: How can possibly sterile creatures reproduce and continue the evolutionary process? A: Evolution being true or Creationism being true is not a concern of the Pro side of this debate. The fact that they fail to reproduce is evidence that being more adapted to their surroundings would have directly increased their chances of producing offspring. C: The answer to the male-female problem is pretty obvious. Genesis 5:2 states: "He (God) created them male and female and blessed them." R: Creationism being true doesn't disprove the resolution.