The Instigator
DanielChristopherBlowes
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Believing Evolution theory is to call Christ a liar.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,299 times Debate No: 27504
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

DanielChristopherBlowes

Pro

Evolution theory (here the broadest possible definition; that over millions/billions of years all life evolved from a single cell amoeba) is incompatible with Biblical theology in general and with Christian doctrine; specifically with the words of Christ:

Referring to divorce, Jesus said " But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female'. " (Mark 10:6)

Round one is for acceptance/definitions etc.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I accept, and I wish my opponent luck.
Debate Round No. 1
DanielChristopherBlowes

Pro

1) A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ.

2) Jesus Christ believed in the literal beginning of creation shown in Genesis, revealed in Mark 10:6 (above)

3) To believe otherwise, for example evolution theory, is to call Christ a liar.

My opponent must either;

A) show Christ did not believe in a literal Genesis creation.

B) show Genesis does not teach a literal 6 day creation.

C) Show Mark 10:6 does not mean Christ believed in the Genesis account.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I'm not sure if there's any reasonable way to prove A, although I do think that Christ did not believe in a literal Genesis creation, so I'll stick to B and C.

Arguments:

Contention One: Genesis does not teach a literal six day creation

Interpreting Genesis completely literally is actually a fairly recent innovation. Throughout the years, many great theologians, such as Origen and St. Augustine of Hippo, have deemed Genesis to not be a literal account of events, but rather an allegory. Note the improbability of it being six literal days:

'(4) These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth:

(5) And every plant of the field before it spring up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.' - Genesis 2:4-5

According to this, God made the heaven and the earth and every plant of the field and every herb of the ground on the same day, as it says 'in the day [Singular] that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: And every plant of the field...' (Emphasis and [] mine).

'(1) He that liveth for ever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king for ever.' - Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 18:1

Speaks for itself. Everything wasn't created together if it was created seperately.

St. Thomas Aquinas harmonized these verses as follows:

'On the day on which God created the heaven and the earth, He created also every plant of the field, not, indeed, actually, but "before it sprung up in the earth," that is, potentially' [1]

I find this a wonderful way to describe creation. God created everything, but that hardly means that he created it all in six literal days.

Additionally, if one merely reads Genesis 1, taking it literally, and then reads Genesis 2, taking it literally as well, the order of everything becomes hopelessly muddled. Observe:

'(21) And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.' - Genesis 1:21

'(27) And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.' - Genesis 1:27

'(19) And the Lord God formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name.' - Genesis 2:19

Man first, or animals? This is one of several reasons why an allegorical reading of Genesis is preferable.

Contention Two: Mark 10:6 does not mean Christ believed in a literal six day creation

Mark 10:6 reads:

'(6) But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.'

Especially in context, this hardly reads as a ringing endorsement of creationism. As it stands, from the beginning of creation, God did make them male and female. It's not like humans just popped up and God was like 'Cool! I never saw this coming!'. He knew how He intended his creation to work out from the beginning, male and female.

Conclusion:

I believe I have shown both that a six day literal creation is improbable and that Mark 10:6 is not an endorsement of a literal six day creation.
Thank you.

Sources:
1. http://www.sacred-texts.com...
Debate Round No. 2
DanielChristopherBlowes

Pro

ROUND 2 REBUTTAL.

1) My opponents confusion over Genesis chapter 2 is readily explained; it takes only a literal reading of the text to do so:

As seen in Genesis chapter 1 God created everything in 6 literal days and rested on the 7th day.

Chapter 2 goes back to the 6th day to give us an in depth view of the creation of man: God places Adam in a garden (a controlled environment) and had a BRAND NEW MINI CREATION just for Adams benefit. Hence Adam was accountable to God and Eve was not.

This explanation refutes all of my opponents Genesis verses.

2) My opponents contention that Christ (when referring to God 'making them male and female in the beginning' Mark 10:6) is not referring to humanity but to animals, is exposed as false only when we view the text within the context of the preceding and following verses:

Mark 10:2-9

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6 "But at the beginning of creation God "made them male and female."[a] 7 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will become one flesh."[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

The context here is obviously humanity, not animals.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

Rebuttals:

Contention One

As I wrote before, Genesis 2:4-5 and Sirach 18:1 disagree with a six day creation.

'(1) He that liveth for ever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king for ever.' - Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 18:1

'(4) These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth:

(5) And every plant of the field before it spring up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.' - Genesis 2:4-5

In the day (singular) that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: and every plant...'

He made heaven, earth, and every plant in the same day according to this. Yet, the literal six day creation according to Genesis chapter 1 says 'In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.' (1:1) and '(12) And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. (13) And the evening and the morning were the third day.' (1:12-13). The first day and the third day, if they are literal days, cannot be the same day, yet it is said that every plant and the heavens and the earth were all made on the same day according to Genesis 2:4-5. Therefore, you must either concede that the six day creation is not literal, or you must provide some other way to harmonize these.

Contention Two

I was saying that God made humans male and female potentially from the beginning of creation. Before they had actually come to exist, He made things such that they would become male and female.

Conclusion

I do not think my first contention has been adequately addressed.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
DanielChristopherBlowes

Pro

ROUND 3 REBUTTAL.

My opponent has not addressed my rebuttal concerning Genesis 2:

A genuine response could have begun; Genesis 2 could not show another new creation because..

The book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible only has 12 chapters and so the verse above is extra Biblical and not relevant to this debate.

My opponents response concerning Jesus' meaning concerning 'God created them male and female' to be a potential male and female does not agree with a plain reading of the text.

CONCLUSION.

My opponent has provided no evidence to show that Jesus or the Bible teaches anything but a literal 6 day creation, or responded to my rebuttals.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

Arguments:

Genesis 2 could not have referred to a new creation because:
'(4) These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth:

(5) And every plant of the field before it spring up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.

(19) And the Lord God formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name.' - Genesis 2:4-5 and Genesis 2:19

Every plant of the field, every herb of the ground, all the beasts of the earth, all the fowls of the air. This is clearly not some small-scale personal party.

My opponent never specified a Biblical canon, so I feel fully justified in using the Wisdom of Yeshua ben Sirach, which is in the Catholic canon as affirmed by the holy Synods of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome. My verse from Sirach has never been treated with, accordingly the argument from it ought to be extended.

Conclusion:

While it is true that my response does not agree with a literal reading of the text, it would still be sufficient to negate the resolution, given that it should be my opponent's burden to show that I am very likely wrong (thus implicitly calling Christ a liar). Sirach and Genesis having been considered, I do not think that potential creation can be ruled out, and I have not seen tremendous affirmation of a literal six day creation.

I thank my opponent for this debate, and the readers for reading it, however I explicitly exclude the two people who have posted in the comments section so far from my thanks.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by DanielChristopherBlowes 4 years ago
DanielChristopherBlowes
Congratulations:D
Posted by MaxAM 4 years ago
MaxAM
@rmak: All wicked people suffer the second death in the lake of fire. So Christ didn't lie. His promise just still needs time to come true.
Above would at least be my arument if I were a believer.
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
christ promised the end of all wicked people that didnt come true so he must be a liar
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
Why did Pro shift the BOP onto Con, stupid theist.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
*Facepalm*
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
DanielChristopherBlowesAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never reconciles the conflicting passages of a literal 6 day creation, dismissing them instead. Given that Con actually explains the reasoning behind each quote whereas Pro simply calls them self-explanatory, and given that the passages do appear to conflict on their face, arguments flow toward Con.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
DanielChristopherBlowesAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Con for genesis quotes, arguments to Con for logical reasoning in Round 3 to prove that the days were not literal.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
DanielChristopherBlowesAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con. Here's why. First of all, the most glaring thing is Pro's dismissal of the passage from Sirach. Second of all, Pro's verse(s) were terribly unconvincing, as Con showed... Pro's only response to this was that a "plain reading of the text" revealed differently, but Pro explained how taking Genesis [what Jesus was referring to] literally leads to all sorts of Scriptural issues. Third of all, to expand upon this, Con's arguments against a *literal* six day Creation, especially from Thomas Aquinas's "potentiality" explanation, were far superior to Pro's arguments for it, who just argued that we should take it literally because that's what you get from a "plain reading" -- a circular argument for taking six day Creation literally.