The Instigator
senorsavas
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
zakkuchan
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

Can you believe in evolution and the bible?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,107 times Debate No: 1311
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (14)
Votes (13)

 

senorsavas

Con

The bible states that god created man. Evolution theory states we evolved from apes. I don't see how a person can seriously believe in the bible and also respect the science of evolution. In my opinion you either believe the bible 100% or you believe science 100%. Some folks who cheery pick things to believe from the bible do not have 100% faith in the book and therefore are admitting flaws in there religious bible and showing cracks in their faith. I also don't see how one can believe in evolution and also believe in god, adam and eve, and countless other biblical stories. My point is that people should pick a side and be true to who they are and what they believe. If they don't they are avoiding the issue and are living a lie.

btw - the same argument holds true for dinosaurs. Either you believe they roamed the earth 100 million years ago or you believe they were around 6000 years ago. Either you believe the science or you believe the bible. Pick a side.
zakkuchan

Pro

There are plenty of people out there who consider the Bible to be the infallible word of God, yet admit that there are parts of the Bible that should only be viewed in a purely allegorical sense. Mike Huckabee, at one of the Republican debates, for example, stated that while he believes fully in the truth of the Bible, he does not think the Bible is absolutely 100% stating facts in stories such as Jonah and the Whale. This view, furthermore, is not contradictory at all. Perhaps God is trying, through these sections of the Bible, to lead people toward more fundamental and important truths, through these fantastical stories. Just because science proves that these stories are not actually the way things happened does not mean that the Bible is necessarily "wrong" in its handling of the stories, because these stories can easily be considered allegorically and as intending to shed light on deeper truths.

Consider also the argument put forth by Spencer Tracy's character in the 1960 movie "Inherit the Wind", about the Scopes trial (regarding teaching evolution in school): The story of creation in the Bible talks about "days", yet the sun was not created in the Biblical story until the 4th "day". How do you measure "days" without the sun? Doesn't it logically follow that these "days" could be any ammount of time, even up to millions of years in length? If that's so, then there's no direct conflict between what the Bible says and what evolutionists say, because if you look at the Biblical story of creation in an allegorical sense, and consider that the first few "days" could be any length of time, then it's not at all contradictory with the Bible to think that God may have used evolution as a means of developing life on the planet.
Debate Round No. 1
senorsavas

Con

Please try to address the issue we're debating. You quoted a politician running for office (they'll say anything) and a storyline from a 1960's movie...not a documentary but a movie made for entertainment. Also, please try to use facts in your debate. Your concept interpreting days is a major stretch, laughable, and contains no factual statements whatsoever. All civilizations going as far back as we have any historical record all share a concrete understanding of a day. Sun up...sun down. Rinse repeat. That's a day. They had different interpretations of when a year started...some started in spring...but they all knew what a day was. Again, please use some facts for your part of the debate.

As I see it you have two choices...either god created man via Adam and Eve or we evolved from apes. I really don't see anything allegorical in the bible connecting the two very different ideas. 99.9999% of th scientific community believes we evolved from apes. The few exceptions are viewed as wackos by their peers because they are ignoring the hard facts and millions of years of fossil evidence.

The leaders of the Christian church...pope, cardinals, bishops, priests...they believe and teach that god created man...so either you fall in-line behind them or you're on the other side of the fence. I don't see how individuals can choose to believe only certain parts of the bible and / or creatively interpret their own version of the biblical stories.

The bible says the earth is around 6,000 years old. It doesn't say...6,000 years old,..up for interpretation by future generations....your mileage may vary...it says 6,000. The authors were trying to be accurate or they would have said something like....a long time ago in a land far far away....or....many moons ago...but instead they choose a descriptive number. So again, either we evolved over millions of years from the apes and the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago...or god created man 6,000 years ago and the dinosaurs were around to share the spotlight. Funny how none of the biblical stories mention dinosaurs....I would think they would be hard to miss and would spice up the dinner conversations and the historical writings of the day.
zakkuchan

Pro

I would like to start off by saying that you really failed to address my points. You simply dismissed them as coming from a politician and a movie. You didn't really address the claims that I made. You offered no counter point whatsoever on viewing parts of the Bible as allegorical in nature, instead choosing to attack me in an almost personal way on what you perceieve as a lack of facts in my case. Well here's a fact for you: most of the early leaders of Christianity, including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine of Hippo, and Eusebius (early church fathers), believed that there were parts of the Bible, namely Genesis, that were meant for allegorical interpretation rather than interpretation as a literal, blow-by-blow account of events. Considering that many of the very FIRST interpreters of the Bible thought Genesis was allegorical, how can you really say that it's a stretch to do so?

Maybe God didn't want to overwhelm early believers, or did not yet want them to understand the more complex biological processes involved in the "creation" of man (i.e. evolution through natural selection), so instead he imparted a much more simplified story to Moses to be put into Genesis. And if that's the case, or if that's the way someone sees it to be, then it's not a stretch to imagine someone who logically believes in both the Bible and evolution.

At the end of your Round 2 statement, you claim that "The bible says the earth is around 6,000 years old". In fact, the calculation cited most often for the claim that the earth is around 6,000 years old is not from the Bible, or any early church writings, but from James Ussher, an Irish archbishop who calculated said timeframe in around 1650 A.D. So the idea that you HAVE to believe in the young earth theory in order to believe in the Bible is clearly flawed.

As a final note, I would really encourage anyone who votes on this not to vote based upon your own personal beliefs, but rather upon the validity and clarity of the points that have been addressed in this debate, and how well each of us has attacked the other's case and defended our own.
Debate Round No. 2
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dthmstr254 9 years ago
dthmstr254
again messing up. I vote for the pro. and I need to go to bed. If you can't figure out what I was saying. message me.
Posted by dthmstr254 9 years ago
dthmstr254
I said that wrong. I meant I voted for the con. Let's see if I can post any weirder when lacking sleep. Dang, Too many red lines!!!!
Posted by dthmstr254 9 years ago
dthmstr254
While I agree with the pro's position, I do not believe he gave the opponent's argument the credence it deserved, and for that, I vote for the con on this one, despite my own belief in the matter.
Posted by rockstarman11 9 years ago
rockstarman11
No u cannot believe in both if u think u do u r with the devil
Posted by Lucretius 9 years ago
Lucretius
I have to agree with the 'pro' here (and I'm an atheist).

An allegorical interpretation of Genesis fits just fine with evolutionary theory. I mean, I think the Bible is totally wrong regardless but — you can still make anything fit with reality, just re-interpret it over and over again until it fits.
Posted by SPQR 9 years ago
SPQR
The theory of evolution does not say we evolved from apes but that we share a common ancestor with them. Just thought I'd clear that up.
Posted by senorsavas 9 years ago
senorsavas
I accidentally misquoted your statement about Ussher. I stand corrected. Sorry.
Posted by zakkuchan 9 years ago
zakkuchan
both creationism and evolution***
Posted by zakkuchan 9 years ago
zakkuchan
I feel sorry for you for your apparent inability to cope with perfectly coherent arguments for something you disagree with.

For the record, I don't believe in creationism, or the Bible. But at the same time, I don't see any contradiction in believing in both, provided you consider Genesis to be allegorical in nature.

I didn't say Ussher believed the world was 350 years old...I said he came up with the idea that it was 6,000 years old...350 years ago. This just highlights the fact that you're not even really paying attention to the argument, assuming that it's more "swiss cheese".
Posted by senorsavas 9 years ago
senorsavas
It's amazing and funny at the creative things someone can come up with when they know their religion has more holes than swiss cheese. Maybe God didn't to overwhelm early believers? That's pretty funny. And James Ussher says the world is 350 years old? Are you serious? I give up. You're faith is blinding you. I feel so sorry for you.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Avalonjohn44 9 years ago
Avalonjohn44
senorsavaszakkuchanTied
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 
Vote Placed by DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
senorsavaszakkuchanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Thoreau 9 years ago
Thoreau
senorsavaszakkuchanTied
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 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
senorsavaszakkuchanTied
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 
Vote Placed by oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
senorsavaszakkuchanTied
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 
Vote Placed by spinaltap 9 years ago
spinaltap
senorsavaszakkuchanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by andrewbary 9 years ago
andrewbary
senorsavaszakkuchanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Lucretius 9 years ago
Lucretius
senorsavaszakkuchanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kindred 9 years ago
Kindred
senorsavaszakkuchanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by senorsavas 9 years ago
senorsavas
senorsavaszakkuchanTied
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:30