The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sami1309
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Could the theory of evolution possibly be biblical if it were absolutely true?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 548 times Debate No: 28012
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

The common belief that evolution rejects the existence of God is not true. Evolution is the gradual development of something from a simple to a more complex form. Logically, evolution doesn't explain the exact origin of life, it simply describes the progress of it. In no way does it reject the presence of a spirit at work. If God created the universe, he would have also created evolution.
Sami1309

Con

To verify the legitimacy of such an argument, the identification providing means to personify this deity must be established.

Your argument relies on the resultant impossibility to disprove the existence of a god congruent to one described within biblical terms, which adhere immediately to the descriptions resident within the book itself. These descriptions exist within the identification of a god composing an earth held within the centrality of the dominion of man, a dominion referring to a creationist cause, in which evolutionary means of further alteration are demolished following an immediate creation. These, however, do not refer to a creation imposing the existence of organisms held within current scientific belief as absent from sentient existence. This indicates, that within terms adherent directly to biblical descriptions, cannot support evolution.

Yet, of course, an alternative may present itself within acceptance of biblical inaccuracy, such which only respect the moment of creation as instigation eventually imposing evolutionary means of organic adaptation. While such may immediately reside impervious to verification of credible doubt, current acceptance of a deity manifesting humanoid like intellectual abilities and physical traits as accepted within terms verifying a deity, this would either require the acceptance of the deities manipulation of the created organisms' evolution, or the acceptance of the minute probabilistic occurrence allowing similarity within the traits of the deity and the arising organisms. The first possibility eliminates the deities previous requirement to create evolutionary means which regardless of manipulation would foster change towards alternative intelligence, and eliminate the purpose of the previous universal creation which allowed billions of years of galactic variation until life bearing means could be created. Therefore, a deity would not create means to evolve solely to eliminate the organisms' evolutionary independence following. Alternatively, the acceptance of life's ability to bring the manifestation of organisms exhibiting traits nearly congruent to the deity which imposed their creation would require the acceptance of nearly impossible means of probability, probability which never could be accepted even within mathematical terms over a period of time extensive as life's' evolutionary progression.

Yet, this deity may, as alternatively argued, simply exhibit biblical accepted traits when desired, and have the ability to manifest itself to any form of intelligent life as similar in physical terms to the organisms itself. Yet, this allows an alternate absurdity to arise. Biblical descriptions refer to such a deity's absolute means of asserting his creation of the organisms, such which would only impose the deities conveyance of a mistrustful assertion only proliferating this false claim. In addition, this deity only exhibits preference to racially unique organisms inhabiting a desert like area within locations described within the bible. These behaviors only arise the assertion of deity based claims similar to those created by ones existent within the locations where this "god" manifested. So to retain rationality within this claim, the biblical means of asserting the existence of a deity must be abolished.

What remains is only assertion of a deity's existence only as instigator of universal of evolutionary progress, one who would not provide manipulation of these organisms, and one who does not share traits of the eventually arising species who seems to assert claims of his existence. This deity possessing supernatural means of creation, ignores suffering of the organisms who inhabit this mere dot within the cosmotic universal expanse, and serves a no adherent to the god which arises within biblical terms, and only exists independent of the falsely asserted man like god found within the old and new testaments. This deity, creating a universe which brings rise to matter allowing all means of existence, exhibits traits of composition independent of observed elements composing the universe itself. This god possesses no traits of gender, elemental composition, earth like thought, organic composition, or any, sue to probability, similar to humankind, or kind similar to the universe which may arise following his own created "big bang". While this god's existence is provided no means asserting its accuracy (which I while prove in a following round) Biblical terms describing a god dependently referring to the similar means of thought resident within both the god and the humans, and how observation solely on a speck of dust within terms of universal relativity, the possibility of our determination providing accuracy within asserting claims for his existence cannot be wholly accurate, and we must not refer to a consciousness as fashion for our universal creation.
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

The bible is not a science book, so the language is not going to be up to date with what is currently scientific. The writers had to use their languages the best they could to describe what they saw. If you compare the chronology of The creation with the scientific viewpoint, its essentially the same. No, evolution may not be stated explicitly, but based on the usage of words like "Kind", it refers to the species. In science, there is a certain concept to a new species, but in the bible, its not the same. Its not new, simply a derivation from an original copy which God created.

I was expecting an argument within the setting of the bible because anything outside of it is prone to misconceptions.
Sami1309

Con

Sami1309 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
Sami1309

Con

Sami1309 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
Sami1309

Con

Sami1309 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
Sami1309

Con

Sami1309 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
I really hope pro wins. this is very strong belief of mine.
No votes have been placed for this debate.