The Instigator
ilovejesus2000
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Masons_State
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

Christianity vs. Evoulition

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 7 votes the winner is...
Masons_State
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/15/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 684 times Debate No: 56639
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (7)

 

ilovejesus2000

Pro

Ill start off by how can you think that we came from a monkey or an explosion? COME ON!
I mean really how can you explain the world coming to being without GOD the CREATOR!!! DUDE!!! you guys are whack. so go ahead let the debate begin.
Masons_State

Con

First off, let me explain what the pro-evolution and pro-big bang theory position actually is.

The idea that humans came from monkeys is one of the most annoying misconceptions about what evolution says! What evolution actually says is that humans and other modern apes evolved from a common ancestor. In other words, there was an ape-like creature in the past, which is now extinct, and multiple species developed from it. Depending on the environment, some of the offspring, after many many generations, became more human-like, and some became more like modern apes.

The reason this would happen is that all animals are born with slight differences between them. Think of other people for an example. Some people have different traits. The reason people from near the equator tend to have darker skin is because those areas are more sunny. If you have dark skin it is more difficult to get sunburn and thus skin cancer. So people with dark skin are healthier in sunnier climates. This advantage means that they will live longer, healthier lives on average, and generally thrive. On the other hand, people in less sunny parts of the world (think maybe Northern Europe) tend to have more pale skin. This is because that color of skin is more suited to the amount of sunlight that those parts of the world get.

This idea that some individuals, of any species, are more suited to some climates than others is Natural Selection. The life forms that are more suited to that environment will tend to do better, be healthier, and have more kids. I'm sure you know that your kids will/do have similar traits to you. Kids generally look like their parents. So the individual members of any species who have better traits for that environment will have more kids. Eventually, all of the animals there will have those traits. Over a long long time, some groups can become so different from each other that they become different species.

Humans developed more intelligence, while modern apes developed more strength. We are related, but distantly, and through many thousands of years. It is like we have some relative in common from 10,000 years ago. If you found out that you were related to somebody you know because they came from your family centuries ago, you probably would notice that they do not look much like you any more.

This is what evolutionary theory really says.

As for the Big Bang, it is the theory that all energy in the universe was once packed very tightly together and then exploded outwards. This resulted in clumps of dust, gas and other matter that eventually stuck together to form asteroids, stars, suns, planets etc.

Scientists have a huge consensus in favor of evolution. These are people who have studied this stuff for years, decades in many cases. They have researched this themselves, and read tons of material on it. They have discussed with each other and come to largely the same conclusion: Evolution is real. Even if you don't take my word for it because I'm just some guy on the Internet, maybe you should lend some thought to the experts on the issue.

http://ncse.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ilovejesus2000

Pro

You never argued that the Big Bang / evolution is more possible than crishtianity
Masons_State

Con

I intentionally spent the last round defining terms in order to frame the debate and correct a common misconception.

There also seems to be some confusion as to what is being debated here. You asked "how can you explain the world coming to being without GOD the CREATOR!!! [sic]". In order to answer this, I explained what evolutionary theory is. I would address more of what the Creationist view is, but you have not actually described it aside from essentially saying that God made everything and that the Big Bang and Evolution are not true.

You are also presenting a false dichotomy between "Christianity and Evolution" in the title of this debate. In Round 1 what you really set up was a debate between Creationism and Evolution. There are certainly Christians who believe in Young Earth Creationism (YEC); however, there are also many who believe that the earth is much older and that evolution is true.

Here are examples of Christians who believe in evolution: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

And here is an article explaining that it is not impossible to be a Christian in addition to believing in Evolution: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com...
"Evolution does not contradict the Bible unless you force an unreasonable interpretation on that ancient book."

I think I did give evidence last time as to why Evolution/Big Bang is likely to be true. When I explained what Evolutionary theory is and how it works, I showed that it is a coherent theory with a full and viable explanation for how things came into being. I gave examples, including ones that you can see around you with ease (other people), and even provided a link to show that 97% of relevant scientists agree with the evolutionary view. I continue to point out that these people have experience and education in the field. They have looked at the facts, and they have come down on the side of evolution.

As for the validity of the Creationist/Biblical Literalism point of view:

I pointed out before that Christianity and Evolution are not inherently opposed, but you seem to be taking the view that Creationism is true and that Evolution must be false.

If you are going to assert that Creationism is true, then you need to provide evidence. There is a burden of proof on you as well. So far you have an assertion with no evidence or commentary to back it up.

In the lack of any evidence I will just ask a question: Why should the audience/voters or I take your opinion seriously? I could assert a million different things off the top of my head, but without any evidence, why would you believe them?

For Example: If I said that Evolution is false because my sister actually created the Universe yesterday, you would ask me for evidence that what I am saying is true. The burden of providing evidence would fall on me to prove my claims, not on you to disprove something that I have not provided any evidence for.

In the lack of any evidence presented for your point, there is no reason to believe it!
Debate Round No. 2
ilovejesus2000

Pro

ilovejesus2000 forfeited this round.
Masons_State

Con

I am sorry for all of the people who came here expecting/hoping to see a good debate. I am disappointed myself, as I hoped my inaugural debate would be more interesting.

However, I do appreciate any feedback that you all could give.

If my opponent returns, I will resume, but for now I will simply point out what I am sure you already know - he never made an argument.
Debate Round No. 3
ilovejesus2000

Pro

ilovejesus2000 forfeited this round.
Masons_State

Con

It appears that my opponent has left the site. :(
Debate Round No. 4
ilovejesus2000

Pro

ilovejesus2000 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Most Christians are Evolutionists, so I don't see the controversy.
My scientist friend at our local research center, who is an ardent Evolutionist is also a protestant church minister.
He sees absolutely no conflict whatsoever,
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ilovejesus2000Masons_StateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
ilovejesus2000Masons_StateTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
ilovejesus2000Masons_StateTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by inaudita 2 years ago
inaudita
ilovejesus2000Masons_StateTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The con bested the pro in every way.
Vote Placed by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
ilovejesus2000Masons_StateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was defeated handily. Conduct points awarded because Pro bailed. Con had better spelling and sentence structure, Pro's was poor. Pro had no arguments, Con argued well. Con cited three good sources.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
ilovejesus2000Masons_StateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
ilovejesus2000Masons_StateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro flipped out and gave the debate, plus a conduct point to Con for forfeiting. Con's argument was evidently too good for Pro to rebut! Con's sources were Authoritative.