The Instigator
florodude
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Dan4reason
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Dan4reason
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 809 times Debate No: 49063
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

florodude

Con

Hello everybody. I'm very tired of people posting things like, "I can't wait until enough evidence for evolution is present for religion to be destroyed." I hear things like this all the time from friends and from users on this site, so I am here so say otherwise.


This is the claim I would like to make for tonight's debate:

Christianity and Evolution are NOT mutually exclusive.

Definitions:


Christianity: the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Christianity

Evolution: Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by
such processes asmutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.


http://dictionary.reference.com...


Rules for tonight's debate:
-There will be 4 rounds.
1.)Acceptance
2.)Arguments
3.)Rebuttal
4.)Closing Arguments
-The time to argue is 60 minutes. This debate will unfold before you all tonight.
-The debate will be kept friendly and professional. At any time if my opponent starts using profanity, trolling, or otherwise being incredibly disrespectful, I will drop out of tonight's debate. I ask that my opponent holds me to the same standard.


Clarification: The Evolution I am speaking of is the Theory of Evolution, not Micro evolution. Thanks!
Dan4reason

Pro

I accept this debate. I look forward to hearing my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
florodude

Con

As I mentioned before, the topic of tonight's debate is "Christianity and Evolution are NOT mutually exclusive." This does not mean that I necessarily believe in one or the other, my point is just that it is possible to have a scenario in which both exist.

For the rest of my argument, I am going to assume that both Christianity (and therefore everything in the bible) and evolution are both true to prove my reasoning. So, let's begin.

I am going to begin with one of the largest arguments about Creationism and Evolution.

1.) In the Bible it says that everything in the Earth was created in 7 days. (Technically 6, with the seventh for rest)

My source for this is Genesis 1, since it's a fairly long passage, I'm not going to post it all, but feel free to look at it for yourselves.
http://www.esvbible.org...

Some of you may be confused. I just said that I believe that Christianity and Evolution can both be true, so why did I just use that verse to prove my point? Well, it's a verse many Creationists use to prove their point, and a verse that Evolutionists use to say that Creationism is false. However, the bible also says:

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." 2 Peter 3:8 NIV version.

My point that I am attempting to make is that nowhere in the Bible does it specify that God did all of these things using "Universe Time." Christians believe that God lives outside of time. (As that verse states) Therefore, God could not mean 7 literal days. For all we know, he could be using the time of some other area, perhaps heaven. The point is, the Bible never says.

"But it says and there was Evening, and there was morning the (nth) day!"
Also very true, but it doesn't ever say, "And the next day was the (nth + 1) day." For all we know, even if God created parts of the Earth in Seven literal days, who is to say that those days are consecutive.


Thanks for taking time to read, and I'm super excited to see my opponents arguments.
Dan4reason

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. I would like to observe that Genesis does refer to 24 hour days.

Genesis 1
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning"the first day.

In each of these days it talks about how God made the birds, mammals, etc. So it is clear that the creation of all species and phenomena were within single days. For example, we see God making seed bearing plants, fruit plants, and trees within one day. According to evolution, this took millions of years.

In the 4th day, God made the sun and the moon at the same time. According to our current stellar evolution theories, the sun was formed far before the moon was and definitely before the earth.

In the 5th day, God makes the fish and the birds in one day. He then makes land animals like livestock on the 6th day. According to evolution, these came about over millions of years, not in the space of one day each. Also, evolution says birds came after land animals, not the other way around.

The bible also gives a genealogy from Adam to Noah, to Abraham. So it is clear that this story is literal not allegorical.

Noah's Flood
-------------------

Evolution discounts global flood and yet it is in the bible.

Genesis 6
11 Now the earth was corrupt in God"s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

It is very clear that God was going to flood the entire earth. Since there is a geneology from Noah it is unlikely that he was a metaphical character.

These events are spoken of as actual events, and there is no hint of metaphore. Why would God confuse people by making them metaphore? If these events are metaphore, what else isn't.

Making entire parts of the bible metaphore is a cheap way of discounting parts that you don't agree with.

Adam and Eve
--------------------------

Adam and Eve conflict with evolution because evolution claims that the human population evolved from more ape-like populations. There were never just two humans. We see a progression from humans to apes.

The origin of sin and the atonement come from Adam and Eve.

The Creation event is referred elsewhere:

Exodus 20:
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 31:
17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.""
Debate Round No. 2
florodude

Con

Thank you for my opponent for replying. First of all, I would like some credible sources on some claims you made before I even attempt to rebuttal them.

"Evolution discounts global flood and yet it is in the bible."

"Also, evolution says birds came after land animals, not the other way around."

"According to our current stellar evolution theories, the sun was formed far before the moon was and definitely before the earth."

"evolution claims that the human population evolved from more ape-like populations. There were never just two humans. We see a progression from humans to apes."

Alright, let's move on. You said, " These events are spoken of as actual events, and there is no hint of metaphore. Why would God confuse people by making them metaphore? If these events are metaphore, what else isn't.

Making entire parts of the bible metaphore is a cheap way of discounting parts that you don't agree with."

I completely agree wih you! Noah and the Ark is indeed a literal event, according to the bible. I never said anything in the Bible was metaphorical. I believe you misunderstood my argument.

You also referred to a couple other verses.

"The Creation event is referred elsewhere:

Exodus 20:
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 31:
17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.""

In both of these instances, it just states that the Earth was created in six days, however, it never says that the days were consecutive. In case you misunderstood this part of my argumnet, let me present you with a hypothetical.

Let's say I build a house. I had a really big team and it only took my six days. However, I am a busy man. Building this house is not the top of my priorities, and I can only build the house on mondays. So, over a span of 6 weeks, I build the house, working only on mondays. After 6 weeks, I brag to people saying that I only worked on the house for 6 days.

Am I lying? Certainly not! In reality, I am only working on the house in 6 days. That doesn't mean that I started on a Monday of a certain week and ended on Saturday night of that week. This is the point I'm trying to make, that the days weren't necessarily consecutive, allowing for time for species to "evolve."

Moving on, you state that " I would like to observe that Genesis does refer to 24 hour days." However, the source you use to make that claim is Genesis 1, which just says there was Evening and there was Morning on the first day. It never says how long the days are in terms of hours. Couldn't the Omnipotent God of the Bible slow down or even stop the sun? Or in another Scenario, couldn't he be looking on Earth from another location in the universe and be referring to the Evening and Morning at that place?
I'm not saying that either of those scenarios are probable, but as you know, probably =/= truth.
Dan4reason

Pro

Bird Evolution

Birds came from land animals. More specifically they evolved from dinosaurs. In the fossil records we can see the step by step evolution of the bird wing from dinosaur arms (1).

The Flood and Evolution

Evolution does discount the flood. There is a genealogy from Abraham to Jesus that is over only a few thousands years (2). So the global flood happened a few thousand years ago. So where are the fossils for this? Why don't we find evidence of a mass extinction event in the highest strata? How did Penguins get into the ark from Antarctica and go all the way back? Why do we have solid ice records going back hundreds of thousands of years ago, if the flood would have broken them up in a global flood, and the flood was very recent?

Planets and Stars

According to stellar evolution planets formed from the dust circling the sun through the process of accretion (3).

Human Evolution

I don't know why doubt is cast on the idea that human population evolved from ape populations. This is a central idea of Darwinism. We have a fossil records of ape-like populations becoming more human-like (4).

Six Consecutive Days?

Exodus 20:
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 31:
17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.""

Lets say I asked you to make me a boat in six days. The meaning is clear in this language as in all. When you say in six days, you mean in six consecutive days. If I actually mean six days scattered over a month, and do not specifically point that out, I are purposely trying to confuse people. It is highly unlikely, that the verse actually doesn't mean consecutive days since no reference is made to them not being consecutive.

If the days are not consecutive:

The bible clearly states that God made all land animal species including cattle in one day. Cattle took millions of years to evolve. He said the same thing about trees, seed bearing planets, and fruit trees. He said they where created in the space of one day when evolution says millions of years.

1: http://www.pbs.org...
2: http://www.ldolphin.org...
3: http://www.universetoday.com...
4: http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
florodude

Con

Thank you for providing Sources, however I don't believe one is credible. Here is my problems with it.

3.) The article is written by writer Tega Jessa. Jessa is not a scientist, and provides no sources other than "NASA". Jessa does not provide a specific link or source other than saying "NASA." Since there are no credible articles linked, I think it is safe to disregard this source.

Anyway, moving on. I have read through all of your (incredibly dense) websites, and I didn't seem to find anywhere that proved any of your claims. While it may be probable, we don't have enough proof to say that air animals come from land animals.

You CANNOT disprove the flood with Evidence of Absence!
Your argument that there is no evidence for the flood does not prove that the flood never happened. Keep in mind, this debate is not to prove that Christianity and Evolution are both real. Today's debate is just to prove that they are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, I don't have to prove that the Flood was real, I simply need to not disprove it. Following basic laws of logic, Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.


I really like theoretical situations, so let me try another one:

Let's say a baker bakes pies every morning and puts them on his windowsill. One day there is no pie on his windowsill. Does this mean that there were absolutely no pies that day?

The point I'm making is that just because there was no evidence for the pie that day, it doesn't mean that there was no pie.


You said:

"Lets say I asked you to make me a boat in six days. The meaning is clear in this language as in all. When you say in six days, you mean in six consecutive days. If I actually mean six days scattered over a month, and do not specifically point that out, I are purposely trying to confuse people. It is highly unlikely, that the verse actually doesn't mean consecutive days since no reference is made to them not being consecutive."

Again, I state that today's debate is not to prove that Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. As I stated in my previous argument, probability =/= truth. Many things in history happened that were unlikely. Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible, and for it to be mutually exclusive, there has to be no situations in which both can occur.



Final Conclusion:

In this debate, my opponent has failed to disprove that Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive. Most of his major points point to "probability." Probability implies that there are some scenarios in which both can occur, and if there is even one scenario in which both can occur, it is not mutually exclusive.

At this current point, my opponent has not supplied enough evidence to disprove anything in the bible absolutely. I would challenge potential voters to read through his sources and not to take his claims as fact.

Thank you to my opponent for this debate tonight.


Tega Jessa - https://www.elance.com...;
Dan4reason

Pro

Stellar Formation is an accepted part of Modern Cosmology. If you do a basic google search, you can find thousands of scientific sources about it. Here is just one from NASA (1).

What my sources show is that we have a fossil record from dinosaurs to birds. One transitional is archyeopteryx. Another source for laypeople is linked here (2). It shows fossils such as Archy that have transitional traits between birds and dinosaurs such as wings with claws, and teeth. The bird dinosaur evolution is accepted by the scientific community and is only doubted by creationists. Since birds came before land animals according to evolution but land animals were created on a later day than birds, there is a real contradiction.

Wikipedia provides a list of human evolution fossils from traditional species such has homo habilis, homo erectus, and Neanderthals (3). Human evolution is not doubted by evolutionists, but it is by creationists. Humans evolved from apes according to evolution. We were not created from dirt by God according to Darwin.

Absence of Evidence and the Food

If there was a global flood, we should see a lot of fossils in the newest layers in amounts not seen elsewhere. That is a prediction of a recent global flood. And that prediction fails. Also, as I pointed out, a global flood would have broken up the ice caps, so we should not have current ice records going back hundreds of thousands of years. Yet we find them (4). So yes, there is evidence against a recent global flood. Also, the question of how penguins migrated from Antarctica to the ark was never addressed.

Consecutive Days

The bible claims that God made the plants in one day. Land animals such as cattle were created in one day. Even if these days were not sequential, within each day, the bible claims that a lot of creation happened. Evolution is clear that cattle evolved over millions of years just like plants, birds, and fish. They were not created in disjoint single day segments.

1:http://solarsystem.nasa.gov...
2: http://people.eku.edu...
3: http://en.wikipedia.org...
4: http://www.csa.com...
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Actually I agree with the first poster.
Nearly all the Christians I've been associated with ignore the Old Testament completely even the Ten Commandments and consider them as part of Judaic tradition and not part of Jesus's teachings.
When Jesus stated to observe some of the tenets of the Old Tradition, he did not specifically refer to any passages in the old testament specifically, but just the general adherence to respect for the Judaic Megalomaniac.
So in their Christianity, Con's position would be correct, as some of these Christians are Scientists who work in Biological streams and are avid evolutionists.
They can see no conflict and no mutual exclusiveness.
They can believe strongly in both at the same instant.
Had Con pushed this side, instead of joining in with the attempt ( almost humanly impossible) to support creationist analogies, then my votes would likely swing the other way.
But supporting Genesis, rationally in a debate is almost impossible, which Pro likely already knew, so it was a little stacked in Pro's favor.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Though I thought this was started off by Con as about Christianity and Evolution and it ended up about Judaism (Genesis 1) and Evolution, since Genesis really has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
It was more about the Hallucinations of Moses (Mosheh).

My Christian Scientist friends have no issue with Evolution, they work in Evolution and accept it completely.
They believe that Evolution is God's way of creating life.

Besides, if one Genesis day was a thousand years and according to Genesis, trees were made the day before God introduced the Sun and Moon.
So if all seed bearing plants and trees had to wait 1000 years for the Sun to be produced, they would all have died off by then.
Lengthening the days don't make sense, especially when in Genesis 1:5 he defines what Day, Morning and Evening is as a single day's cycle of light and darkness. Though the irrational thing about this part of Genesis is that God still hasn't created the source of this light for night and day, namely the Sun and Moon( 1:14) , which God doesn't create until after it creates all the plants. (1:11), and
Thus Genesis is extremely Stupid and naive in it's conception.
Night and day without the sun, plants which need sun for survival is created before the Sun is formed.
Genesis makes a mockery of human intelligence, it also makes the Evolution account far more sensible, such as photosynthesis developing through plankton and eventually this process for gaining energy from the sun is transferred to plants, which is more logical than having photosynthesis developed before the sun existed.
Genesis is such a dumb book!
Posted by Dan4reason 3 years ago
Dan4reason
The argument by the poster was that since many Christians interpret the bible a certain way, then that interpretation has validity. I provided a counterexample. I was not commenting on the debate, but on the argument in the post.
Posted by florodude 3 years ago
florodude
Dan,that literally has nothing to do with the debate, please discuss the debate on this page, and feel free to start another debate about that.
Posted by Dan4reason 3 years ago
Dan4reason
Many Christians also believe that women have a right to speak in churches yet the bible says:

1 Corinthians 14:34
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

Some Christians like to ignore the bits of the bible that they don't agree with.
Posted by florodude 3 years ago
florodude
Feel free to place a vote then!
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Um, it's pretty much a fact that they are not, since many Christian accept evolution and many Christians also reject that the Bible ought to be taken literally all the time.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
florodudeDan4reasonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: The debate I originally thought was about Christianity (teachings of Jesus) which would make the Con side Correct, instead it became about Judaism (Genesis Creation Myth) where had Con stuck to the Christianity only case, Con would be taking the points, but it digressed into another Creationism pitfall, which Pro demonstrated clearly that Creationism (Genesis 1) and Evolution are Mutually Exclusive, regardless of how you read Genesis, literally or metaphorically.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
florodudeDan4reasonTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to vote con because the core of con's argument (as I interpreted it) was backed by solid logic that pro could not overcome. Con's argument relies on religious texts being metaphorical and non-literal. The pro failed to find of way of showing that religious texts should be taken literally.