The Instigator
Cooldudebro
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Evolution (Pros) VS. Adam And Eve (Con)

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...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,775 times Debate No: 52237
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (7)

 

Cooldudebro

Pro

First round is for acceptance! Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Cooldudebro

Pro

Oh sh*t it's Mikal, I mean, good luck.


DEFINITION:

Evolution Definitions:


a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better


Case 1: Proving Evolution

First, I would like to prove how evolution is real. In a shocking discovery, we share 98.6% of our DNA with an ape. (1) if you click into link, you can barely tell the ape and human chromosome apart! Yet, when you compare it to a mouse's chromosomes, you can clearly see the difference. This proves that the ape and humans are greatly related. This proves evolution. Still not satisfied? Well, we should prove evolution using man's best friend. It is proven we share 5% of our genome sequence with dogs and mouse. (2) this again proves evolution. Even dogs and mice have a scientific similarity!







Here you can see the images of the human, mouse, and ape chromosomes. As you can see, this points towards evolution, as you can barely see the difference between the human and ape chromosome, but you can clearly see the difference between the mouse and the human.







Here you can see the similarities of our brain. However, you will see our brain is considerably larger. This gives us the power to communicate and give us a sense of right and wrong.






Here you may see how the skulls start out with a little similarities, but then has a bigger and bigger resemblance








Here you can see the beginnings and current human skulls. When you look at the first one, you see it is very different. It then gradually evolves into the human skull we know today.


Case 2: Adam And Eve

The Bible self-destructs with everything science has taught us. The science of forensics disproves Adam and Eve 100 times over. If we are from Adam and Eve, We would practically be cousins with everyone in the world! No. This is scientifically impossible. Instead, forensics states that we are not all related. Adam and Eve also don't explain race. If we are all descendants from Adam and Eve, we would all be one race. Adam and Eve states they have two sons, Kain and Abel, but, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE GIRLS?!???!? They must have had something to repopulate with. It is also said Adam and eve knew how to speak, but even cavemen had no idea of the simplest languages! Wouldn't Adam and Eve have taught their children to speak their language? They also say that Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge, yet, man has never found a tree that give knowledge of everything in the universe! The tree had a fruit, which means it probably had seeds, which would have made other trees similar to it, giving infinite knowledge of everything. They also say that the snake spoke at one time, yet, the snake has no vocal cords! (5) There is also evidence that the Earth is older than 4,000 years. Human footprints believed to be 40,000 years old have actually been older! It is 51,000 years old. (3) Even a tree shows the Earth is older than 4,000 years! (4) That is all Adam and Eve should be taken as. A story.
Mikal

Con

Jumping straight into this

We are comparing what is in fact true, evolution or the story of Adam and Eve. Now from the resolution, there are a few things we need to look at. My adversary is operating under the assumption that the story of Adam and Eve, and the bible are non compatible. The bible and evolution are entirely compatible when you look at it from the right perspective. That is how I am going to tackle this resolution.

I do not need to show that Adam and Eve is a superior story or is the only correct account of how we got here, I Just have to show that the story of Adam and Eve could be true. My adversary has taken on the Bop trying to show that it is false, and that evolution is the only viable theory. I am going to operate under the assumption that these two theories are compatible, then when I prove this it will negate the resolution.

C1) Metaphorical stories in the bible/parables

The argument that I am about to present focuses on the fact that the bible is not to be read literally but metaphorically and can even submit to evolution.

Needless to say this accounts for a lot of things in the bible. The bible is filled with metaphors and parables to help illustrate points. My adversary again is operating under the assumption that the bible should be read literally. The earth is less than 10 thousand years old, adam and even actually existed as humans, etc.

(a) One example of a parable is the story of the good Samaritan.
(b) The story of two houses, one built upon a rock and upon the earth

There are countless others, and I don't think this can be really contested so I am not going to go in great depth. Essentially a lot of these stories begin with key phrases. Some of the phrases are "like unto" or "similar" , depending on the translation. Some parables have phrases that note they are a parable and others do not.

Matthew 13:33

" The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. "[1]

Not all verses do this. Review the verse where it is comparing men sowing and reaping good and bad fruit [2]. Obviously men cannot sow or reap fruit, so this is speaking of the fruits of the spirit and committing good and bad actions. This is one of many metaphors that began without having a notation that it is in fact a metaphor. We just have to arrive at this conclusion logically.

So now lets take it back to the story of genesis. The story of how God created the earth

God created the earth in 7 days. The fact that God created the earth in seven days can mean a lot of different things, it does not have to mean that it is a literal seven days but that it could represent a epoc or certain time period. There is no way to measure whether it was literal or metaphorical. Logically we can see the earth is more than 10,000 years old. So whether or not the bible is true/ or not true, we can operate under the logical assumption that the 7 days in the bible happened to be an certain interval of time or (x) years. Under this logic , the bible in fact could support evolution. Actually there are even hints of dinosaurs in the bible, especially in the accounts of genesis.

"Can I not cast up leviathan with a hook"

Or even when it speaks about behemoth having a tail like a tree. When you examine these in great detail, a lot of the features are similar to certain dinosaurs that existed. This is not a fact but it is a working theory that could be possible.


Now that we are aware the accounts of genesis could be a metaphor for a larger time scale, the question is was adam and eve actually real or where they a metaphor? Adam and Even represent the start of humanity , or the very first thing to point of life. The bible could be referencing not in fact two humans, but two of anything. It could be two atoms, two apes, or even two molecules. Adam and Even literally represent the genesis or start of life.


C2) Dissecting the resolution

I do not even have to show that evolution is false, but just point out that creationism and evolution an be compatible. Since my adversary has taken the BOP to claim that evolution is in fact the only viable method for how we exist, I just have to show that creationism can work side by side with evolution and then his BOP his not fulfilled.

It does not matter how I arrive at this conclusion

I can show creationism from a

(a) literal standpoint
(b) Metaphorical standpoint

Since we can conclude the bible is mostly metaphorical and not be taken literally, I am going to focus way more on B. If i am able to show that Adam and Eve/ Creationism is a viable model that can work side by side with evolution, the resolution is negated. Even if the viable model is a metaphor.

Bear in mind that Evolution itself is still a theory and not a cold hard fact. Only things that are observable can be labeled objective facts, we however can arrive logically at the fact that evolution probably is a fact. We just cannot verify it. There is however countless amounts of evidence to support evolution being true, but in the end it is still a theory.

Reminder : I just have to show that the two opposing factors in the resolution are compatible with each other, to negate by adversaries case and make sure that he does not uphold his BOP.

C3) Theistic Evolution compatible with Adam and Eve

I want to take this back to an example of how history can be reordered. There can generally be four ways in which history can be written about/recorded

(1) Factual or straight
(2) What the author thought was factual or straight
(3) Imaginary history / Metaphorical sense
(4) Convey a message. The facts where not meant to be accurate or false, but meant to convey a message/truth

There is a lot of ways Adam and Even could actually be factual from a historical perspective. We all know that the authors in the bible did not write the bible with the wisdom of God, but were in fact human. There were erros that were made.

I mean think of it like this. If someone were writing about the accounts of genies, it probably would have been an author writing about what he thought had happened or (2) from above. You mix that in with (4), he could have written with assumption and the need to convey a general message about what he thought was accurate. Add in a metaphorical possibility (3). You have a perfect example of how and why Adam and eve could have been a metaphor for the origin of life or human life. It does not have to be literal, but from the authors perspective they were the start of everything. That affirms that Adam and eve was an actual (historical statement)

Okay so now throw in the fact evolution happened ( I acknowledge that it probably did). The story of adam and eve is in fact compatible with evolution. Whether we acknowledge that God guided it (theistic evolution), or that it occurred by speciation and different variables in the environment, evolution does not negate the story of Adam and Eve. It would lead up the person who wrote the accounts of genesis, who wrote the accounts from a perspective that he thought would be the most accurate(bear in mind the time frame in which genesis was written).

The book itself can be placed around 500 BC, as far as when it could have been written [3]. The lack of scientific advancement in that type of society would lead the author to believe a creation story about how the world began. We see this in all major religions[4]. This verifies the fact that Adam and Even is a metaphor for the origin of life, which is in fact a reality and is compatible with evolution.

Conclusion

Both Evolution and Adam and Eve are accounts that are accurate in some sense. They are also compataible. The resolution is negated, due to him not being able to uphold the BOP.


[1] http://biblehub.com...
[2] Matthew 7 : 16-20
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.innovationslearning.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
Cooldudebro

Pro

Now, nearly your whole argument is based on who has the BOP. I was expecting you to try to prove both wrong. I have already proved evolution right (admitted by you) so if it were to stand right now, I would take convincing arguments. Your only hope is to prove that Adam And Eve happened to tie. Providing you saying that it is probably a metaphor makes it a he// of a lot harder for you to prove it right. As for my argument against Adam and Eve, you literally didn't try to rebut any of it.


Good luck!
Mikal

Con

Note : Generally the opening round is always for strictly contentions, which is what I used it for. There was nothing to refute due to me building my case.I will offer some refutations here, granted nothing really needs to be refuted.

Cases presented by Pro

Evolution is a viable theory

This does not even effect the debate at all. It is on pro to demonstrate that the tale of Adam and even is false in both a metaphorical sense and literal sense.

The story of Adam and Even by Pro

Again this is from a literal standpoint, and does not need to be addressed. I brought this up in the last round. No sane minded person would actually believe the story is literal, but that it has to be metaphorical or in the sense it gives a "moral story"


Rebuilding contentions

Metaphorical vs Literal

I explained this in my last round and it remains non refuted by Pro. A majority of the stories in the bible are metaphorical and not to be taken literally. I explained this in the last round and even gave some examples of this. In addition to this I also explained how the bible was written by humans

A human who was writing the bible (which is quite literally not accurate), would assume a God created the earth. Almost everyone accepted this back in this time period. I also cited this in the story of creation tales in different religions and time periods. So when the author was writing this, he wrote it with the intent of giving the best account that he knew how to give. Which was the fact that God created the earth with a man a woman. That simplistic logic stays in line with almost all other evidence involving primitive thinking. A divine creator had to have caused the universe and from there humanity came into existence because of (x)

We see this in countless religion, and even in Christianity. The author was not writing this from a literal sense, but a metaphorical sense. It may have been literal to him, but the intent behind what he was writing was to portray that there was a (cause) of humanity. In his logic, the most logical cause would have been a (man) and (woman). The cause is irrelevant, because we can see it from a metaphorical sense. Therefore the (adam) and (even) in the bible is the (cause) for why we exist, which corresponds and can work alongside with evolution

We just have to consider it from the right perspective.

Conclusion

The resolution is negated and Pro cannot uphold his BOP.
Debate Round No. 3
Cooldudebro

Pro

Okay, Adam and Eve is metaphorical, but so is evolution. We could say evolution is metaphor for changing over time mentally. So evolution can be taken metaphorically. Thus, since I have proven evolution in scientific and metaphoric stance, and you have only proved Adam and Eve metaphorically, and not literally, I win convincing arguments.


Ladies and gentlemen, I have proved:

Evolution is true scientific
Evolution is metaphoric
Adam and Eve can't be proven scientifically.

Thank you.
Mikal

Con

Sadly Pro Concedes this debate and I am going to explain why.

" Okay, Adam and Eve is metaphorical, but so is evolution "


(1) He has the BOP. He took the stance that evolution is the only answer for why we are here. That is on him to uphold. He has to disprove that the story of Adam and eve is true. By acknowledging that the story is metaphorical and could represent the genesis of life , he concedes this debate.

(2) I do not have to show that evolution is false, but show that Adam and Eve could be true to uphold my end. Even if both can exist simultaneously, I win the debate due to the BOP.

(3) Evolution is metaphorical is the wackiest claim I have heard in this debate, he tried to argued it scientifically and then says it is a metaphor. This refutes almost every point he has made thus far since they were all scientific. By dismissing the fact that evolution is not scientific we must drop all of his other arguments, because it undermines all of his previous contentions.


Conclusion

There is no way for Pro to win this. He did not meet his BOP, he changed the entire foundation for his argument in his closing statements which leads us to dropping all of his previous stated contentions, and he even concedes that Adam and Eve "is" a metaphor. The key word is "is", he did not say adam and eve "could be" a metaphor but that it "is". By doing this he concedes the debate. He is acknowledging the con position

Let me restate this one more time to the voters. I am arguing that Adam and Eve is a true story and he is arguing for evolution. All I have to do is show they are compatible to win. Review this statement

" Okay, Adam and Eve is metaphorical, but so is evolution "

He concedes to the negation of the affirmed.

The debate is not affirmed.

vote con
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Dan4reason 2 years ago
Dan4reason
This debate is mostly about what this debate is about. Mikal did give the most convincing arguments about what this debate is about, but I find them incorrect.

If I interpret the debate to be about a certain subject and one person argues well for another definition but does not convince me, then I will interpret who has the most convincing argument from what I think this debate is about.

In the title it clearly states that pro argues for evolution, and con argues for creationism. Implicit is that pro must argue against creationism and con must argue against evolution. If one disagrees with the setup of this debate, then ask for clarification or don't join the debate. One does not debate against the setup of the debate but about the topics assigned.

So by definition, the debate is not about a metaphorical creationism but a literal creationism because only this contradicts evolution. Anyway when most people say evolution vs. creationism they mean the literal creationism.
Posted by XLAV 2 years ago
XLAV
Come on Cooldude, don't fail science!
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
@Cooldudebro - your copypasta is starting to show! Didn't you use the same paragraphs in the last debate? At least take time to write it yourself...
Posted by MickO 2 years ago
MickO
What is the "right" point of view? I believe Obi-Wan Kenobi said something about "points of view"...
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Part of Mikal's wisdom is mindf*cking you with the BoP. He did just that.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Part of Mikal's wisdom is mindf*cking you with the BoP. He did just that.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
This is gonna be a good 'un XD
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
GodChoosesLife
CooldudebroMikalTied
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 started off with a good argument, but then didn't seem to really respond to Con's arguments and Con's arguments seemed to be more thorough and steady.
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
CooldudebroMikalTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly misinterpreted the resolution: burden of proof was shared, and Con based his case on the insulting generalization that no "sane minded" person would take the Genesis for real, but there are a lot of people who believe this who are functioning members of society. By disregarding this, Con has basically CONCEDED the debate, because he never defended the resolution he had chosen to accept: "Adam and Eve rather than evolution", as "VS." clearly indicates. This is a full concession of the debate. Con used Wikipedia as a source, so I'll give sources to Pro, too. Con loses conduct points for insulting a large number of Christians as "insane", which is not an acceptable statement.
Vote Placed by CJKAllstar 2 years ago
CJKAllstar
CooldudebroMikalTied
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: This was very hard to judge. Sources, conduct, spelling and grammar, sources were equal. As for arguments, it depends on who had the BOP. If it was shared, then Mikal has lost. If it was on Cooldudebro, then Mikal has won. If it was on Mikal, he has also lost, so as a debate, he has lost. But there isn't a section for who has won the debate, only for the convincingness of the argument, which I believe Mikal has won. And considering that BOP was not specified and was a blurred line, it is unfair to judge based on something that is not inherently obvious and has not been specified, which does leave me with the convincingness of the argument. Which I vote for Mikal. This is a message to us all however, with debates. Remember to define words and meaning, specify ideas, state your premise if needed and state where the BOP lies. Then this confusion would not have had to happen.
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
CooldudebroMikalTied
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: Upon reading case 2 in Pro's round 1 arguments, I do not believe Pro is informed enough about the bible or the theory of evolution to have a proper debate. As a matter of fact, it certainly is possible for every human in the world to be related through a distant ancestor. It's called the Mitochondrial Eve theory and it in no way disproves the theory of evolution. As a matter of fact it, correlates with evolution. Also while Adam and Eve were the first two humans created by god in the bible, that doesn't mean god just stopped making humans. In fact the bible has shown that there were other humans around while adam and eve were still alive. Con has sufficiently showed that the resolution is negated and that Pro has not met the BOT.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 2 years ago
TheHitchslap
CooldudebroMikalTied
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: Honestly, even if Con moved BOP incorrectly, Pro should have continued arguing. Inappropriate BOP is a fallacy to the syllogism, and so it still warrants refutation along with the rest of the claims Con makes. My problem with Pro is he simply assumes he's won when he should have continued to argue in a professional manner and point out the error Con was making. He didn't. Args to Con as a result. Real shame too because if he did continue to argue I would have voted for Pro instead
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
CooldudebroMikalTied
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: The basis of this debate mainly lied on a metaphorical sense. Con did play with the BoP, but it was justified to do so because pro failed to give a clear resolution. Mikal made solid arguments that Adam and Eve can easily coexist with Evolution, which would've needed to be refuted to give pro any chance at winning this debate whatsoever. However, as Mikal pointed out, that argument was conceded. Pro also tried to argue evolution on a metaphorical sense, which refuted all of the scientific evidence that pro presented. Then, pro failed to refute Mikal's argument in R3 and R4, which sealed his coffin. In conclusion, the BoP of the pro was not met, and thus con wins arguments. All else is tied, as there is no clear advantage to either side. Good job to both debaters.
Vote Placed by Dan4reason 2 years ago
Dan4reason
CooldudebroMikalTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was wrong about what this debate about and did not argue against evolution or for literal creationism so I agree with Pro. A more in-depth explanation is in the comments section.