The Instigator
Conservative101
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
chewster911
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Evolution and the Creation Could Both be True

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
chewster911
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,160 times Debate No: 66065
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)

 

Conservative101

Pro

First round is for acceptance. The burden of proof is shared.

It is Pro's job to show that macroevolution and the creation do not contradict each other and could thus both be true, while Con will try to find contradictions between the two and argue the case that if one is true, the other is not.

This debate is not about proving/disproving macroevolution or the Bible model of the creation.


chewster911

Con

I accept.

Although i think that BoP should be on you, Pro, since you are arguing for an arbitrary claim.

I will be proving that Creation and Evolutionary theory are not compatible with eachother, therefore they cannot both be true.
Although only my rebuttals would be enough for the win.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Conservative101

Pro

BoP: Fair enough.

Arguments

The Bible does not state how God created the plants and animals, only that he did. There are no verses in the Bible that show incompatibility with the evolutionary theory. In fact, 1 in 4 Americans believe God guided evolution[1]. The Catholic Pope himself has declared that the evolutionary theory is compatible with church teachings[1]. Since the Bible does not say how God created anything, it doesn't make sense to say that he for sure didn't do it a certain way. However, the assumption still exists with some religious and non-religious folk that the two cannot coexist.

Some young-earth creationists point to Genesis and state that the world was created in 6 days and that it was created some 5,000-10,000 years ago. However, the Bible also says that time is relative in the heavenly world. In 2 Peter 3:8 it reads, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." According to this verse, the "six days creation" could really be thousands or millions of years from our perspective, but just six days in God's time. Young-earth creationism is really a series of assumptions made about the length and age of the creation.

Another objection is that if Adam and Eve were the first humans, then they couldn't have evolved from apes. A common stance for Christian evolutionists to take is that Adam and Eve's bodies were formed by evolutionary processes, but their souls were created uniquely by God. In other words, when the Neanderthals evolved to the point where their bodies were human enough, God took an already evolved human-like being and put a human spirit into him, creating Adam.

It is indeed logical for a theist to admit that evolution is an acceptable explanation for present life and still maintain that God was the ultimate creator of the world, using evolution as a tool.

Sources

1. http://www.pewresearch.org...
chewster911

Con

Thanks for the arguments Pro. I really hate quoting the Bible in order to prove my points, but that's just how it's gonna be.

Rebuttals

I would agree that half of the Bible does not show any contradiction with the theory of evolution. That half is called the New testament (From Jesus's birth and death). That is the only part of the Bible an open minded Christian should accept. You can even accept some moral teachings from the Old testament too, but to accept the Old testament as literal and true is a little far fetch'd. Actually a lot. The 1 in 4 Americans that do believe God guided evolution are not creationists, but religious moderates/theistic evolutionists, and we are not talking about them.

"Some young-earth creationists point to Genesis and state that the world was created in 6 days and that it was created some 5,000-10,000 years ago. However, the Bible also says that time is relative in the heavenly world. In 2 Peter 3:8 it reads, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." According to this verse, the "six days creation" could really be thousands or millions of years from our perspective, but just six days in God's time. Young-earth creationism is really a series of assumptions made about the length and age of the creation."

I think that the real translation of 2 Peter 3:8 is that a day spent with God is like 1000 years. It's trying to emphasize that a day spent with God feels like 1000 years have passed. I don't know how can you get 1 million, or let alone 1 billion from that. Let's not argue this, since there are many translations of the Bible. What you are endorsing here is Old earth creationism (OEC). OEC accepts the age of the Earth to be 13.8 byo, but still rejects evolution. What you are trying to do here is to connect the two. Deism is actually a belief that there was a creator, but that he/she/it did not care what will happen to the universe and left it alone. We would get deism if we got rid of the Bible from the story. However this is still not the wanted result. You are trying to make them all work together. OEC - Religion + naturalistic processes = Deism
However we are trying to create OEC + Religion + naturalistic processes. Creationism is not a religion (yeah). Creationism is a pseudo-intellectual enterprise, which is inspired by religion, but is not a religion.

If we are going to try to make them work, then let's assume that both of them are true. We are just assuming.
We have to make the scripture of the seven-day (or seven-thousand/million/billion years whatever) creation and naturalistic processes such as stellar evolution, chemical evolution, and the evolution of life through natural selection. Let's see what the Old testament has to say about the creation:[1]

Day one: God creates heaven and earth, and light and dark.
Day two: God creates the firmament.
Day three: God creates land in the water, then plants.
Day four: God creates the sun and moon; then, as an afterthought, he creates the other stars.
Day five: God creates water animals, then birds.
Day six: God creates land animals, then Adam.
Day seven: God rests.

Let's assume those days last billions of years. Or whatever to equalize them to 13 billion years. To equalize them,then one day must be 1.85 billion years (7 x 1.85 = 13). We immediately see the inconsistency there. Cosmic/stellar evolution tells us that after the Big Bang around 200 million years stars began to form [2], yet the Bible tells us that stars formed around 5.55 billion years after the Big Bang (3 x 1.85 = 5.55). Radiometric dating tells us that the Earth formed around 9 billion years after the Big Bang, but the Bible tells us that Earth formed just after the Big Bang. Biochemistry proposes that life originated from chemical processes in the oceans [3], yet the Bible tells us that "God created man from dirt". Evolutionary theory (of life) tells us that plants, animals, fungi etc. evolved at the same time, but the Bible tells us that plants came before the animals, you get the point.

This is fairly enough to prove that creationism (be it OEC or YEC) is incompatible with naturalism (evolution, be it stellar,cosmic, chemical, evolution of life, etc). You have to realize that we cannot improvise that we don't need the scriptures to be correct. In order for creationism to be correct, the scriptures have to be correct as well, since that's (only) what creationism relies on.

Let's have some more fun with this.

Adam and Eve

Bible actually tells us how Eve was created. She was created from Adam's rib. The proposition of Adam and Eve being gifted with a "human spirit" leaves many things unanswered, and it contradicts both claims. Since it has been established that God created Adam from dirt and Eve from a rib by the claims of creationism, then they couldn't have evolved (self-evident). Even if they did evolve, then all the supernatural should be removed from the story, because we concluded that NATURE AND SUPERNATURAL CANNOT GO TOGETHER. Either it is one or another.

Noah's flood

According to creationists (be it OEC or YEC) the Biblical flood actually happened. Science disagrees with this. The flood story proposes that the Earth was covered with water up to the highest mountain (Genesis 6-7). Geology and oceanography (which are on the evolution's side) disagree. Bill Nye explained the incompatibility between them in the debate with Ken Ham (for me the best dumb-down explanation).

So in conclusion: Since creationism (be it OEC or YEC) relies on the Biblical scripture (which endorses the supernatural) and evolution relies on science (naturalism), then creationism and evolution are not compatible with each other, therefore cannot both be true. Furthermore, they are explaining the world in 180 degree maner from eachother.

Keep in mind that i didn't try to prove or disprove any of the claims, i just listed the inconsistencies.

That's all from me for now, back to you, Pro!

Sources:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org... [1]

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov... [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]









Debate Round No. 2
Conservative101

Pro

Semantics

Many Christian evolutionists accept the entire Bible as truth, both the Old and New Testaments. These people, like myself, don't find contradictions between macroevolution and the Genesis account of the beginning of the world, so they see no problem with accepting both. I consider taking the Old Testament literally as interpreting it as a 6-day creation with a 6,000 year old world. Bible literalists make unnecessary assumptions from the creation account, and reject science as a result of it.

Creationism might not be a religion but it is a big part of some religions. Who says that the God of the Bible had to create the world a certain way? If God created nature, would it not make sense for him to use naturalistic processes to create the world? I'm not one to say the Genesis account isn't really a fast-forward of evolution, especially since no real time periods are given.

Noah's ark and the six-day Bible model are actually pretty irrelevant to the debate, seeing how I specified in Round 1 that this debate is about macroevolution (human evolution). We could go on and on about Genesis 1 and whether the creation model is viable, but as I stated earlier, this debate is not about trying to prove/disprove creationism, but rather discuss the consistencies/inconsistencies of human evolution and it's comparison with the Bible. However, the time span of macroevolution is fine to discuss, since it is relevant. I have been contending against young earth creationism since that theory is inconsistent with it.

2 Peter 3:8

Although there are many translations of the Bible, that doesn't necessarily mean that each verse means a different thing in each. I decided to search what 2 Peter 3:8 comes out to be in 22 different translations of the Bible[1]. What I found is that the verse has a few words rearranged in each translation, but in each, the meaning is the same. Every one had the words "like a thousand years" or "as a thousand years". The message is pretty clear, and what the writer really does seem to be trying to say is that time is relative to the Lord. There is also the assumption being made that this could be referring to a literal thousand years, but as we examine the verse:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

The word as (similar to "like" in the other versions) is being used, indicating that this isn't exactly 1,000 years, but that time is relative to the Lord. No, it doesn't say exactly how long that comparison of time is, but it is wrong to make an assumption based on a guess.

Adam and Eve

The rib part of the Adam and Eve account is an interesting bit. A bit of research shows that "...Adam's rib was used in the creation of Eve. The word translated rib is the Hebrew word tsela. It is used more than thirty times in the Old Testament and is only translated rib in this passage. It refers to the side of Adam. In the Sumerian language, one of the most ancient known to humanity, the word for rib also means life. In this context it is clear that the woman was created from the life of the man.”[2] This opens up a big window of possibilities. Evolution without religion has a problem: life cannot be made from non-life. Here we see that Eve was made from the life of Adam, but not necessarily from his rib, since rib and life are the same word in the Sumerian language.

To end this round, I'd like to state Genesis 2:7 which says: "And the Lord God formedmanof the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." I actually find this verse to more supportive of evolution, because evolution holds that life was created from the mixture of many elements, or in other words, the earth itself.


Sources
chewster911

Con

Thanks for the arguments!

Rebuttals

"Many Christian evolutionists accept the entire Bible as truth, both the Old and New Testaments. These people, like myself, don't find contradictions between macroevolution and the Genesis account of the beginning of the world, so they see no problem with accepting both."

I would love to know who else, besides my opponent, accepts both the theory of evolution and the entire Bible as true. I read many polls about evolution vs creation, and the claim that both are true was nowhere to be found. Theistic evolution is irrelevant to this claim.

"Noah's ark and the six-day Bible model are actually pretty irrelevant to the debate, seeing how I specified in Round 1 that this debate is about macroevolution (human evolution)."

Wait, how is it irrelevant? Are you trying to shift the goalpost now? You stated in the title and your first round that this debate would be about consistencies/inconsistencies about the Creation model and Evolution. Also you did not give any precise definition for "creation" and "macroevolution" in the first round, but now you are referring to it as "human evolution". Even if you are referring only to the evolution of humans, it is still a fact that evolution talks about the descent of ALL living beings from one common ancestor, therefore not only humans matter here. Creation is defined as "literal interpretation of the religious scriptures" [1]. Since you didn't give any definitions, and then tried to shift the goalpost in the 3rd round, my arguments are completely justified.

"We could go on and on about Genesis 1 and whether the creation model is viable, but as I stated earlier, this debate is not about trying to prove/disprove creationism, but rather discuss the consistencies/inconsistencies of human evolution and it's comparison with the Bible. "

I never tried to disprove creationism in the 2nd round, and it looks like this is the resulting claim of your goalpost shifting. Genesis 1 is pretty relevant to this debate.

2 Peter 3:8 can be translated to mean any of the two. Bible can be put in any context one wants. I am not an expert on the Bible verse translation/interpretation, so i'll skip over that. Though this verse is not helping my opponent at all.

I did a research on the word "tsela" myself and...yes you are right, it can mean life as well, but the "Eve was made from the life of Adam" isn't clearing up anything. Let's see why:

"This opens up a big window of possibilities. Evolution without religion has a problem: life cannot be made from non-life. Here we see that Eve was made from the life of Adam"

This is kind of contradicting to your position, Pro. First of all Evolution (of life) never mentions the origin of life, just to clarify that. Abiogenesis (which is about chemical evolution) states that. Since Evolution started immediately after abiogenesis, then it means that the two are directly connected. You just listed an inconsistency yourself here. Bible claims that life must come from life (although Adam didn't come from life, if we consider God as non-life), and Abiogenesis states that life came from non-life (chemistry).

"To end this round, I'd like to state Genesis 2:7 which says: "And the Lord God formedmanof the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." I actually find this verse to more supportive of evolution, because evolution holds that life was created from the mixture of many elements, or in other words, the earth itself."

I assume that with "evolution" you are referring to abiogenesis. You say that the verse is more supportive of it. This is bad for you for 2 reasons:

1. You are contradicting your previous claim that life cannot come from non-life
2. Abiogenesis states that life actually originated in the oceans, not dirt. And that most of the water and chemicals arrived on the comets that fell on the Earth after the formation.

In short, Pro hasn't really answered any of my arguments, but instead tried to shift the goalpost.

Source:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [1]





Debate Round No. 3
Conservative101

Pro

Semantics

"I would love to know who else, besides my opponent, accepts both the theory of evolution and the entire Bible as true. I read many polls about evolution vs creation, and the claim that both are true was nowhere to be found. Theistic evolution is irrelevant to this claim."

Here is a poll about whether evolution and creationism could both be true (See Source 1). Most of the voters, currently 16, believe that the two could coexist.

As for the debate setup, macroevolution should be a given. Anyone who has studied evolution for even a little bit knows that macroevolution does not refer to the Big Bang, or the Solar System. Considering how virtually every evolution debate on this site is about human evolution, it did not seem necessary to point that out every time, since one could use common sense and a basic knowledge of evolution.

Abiogenesis

Let me clarify some things here. I never stated that I believe in abiogenesis; I have instead contended that life does come from non-life, and that life was created by God. The fact that abiogenesis states that life originated in the ocean does not apply to the evolution-creationism compatibility model, because there is no reason to incorporate abiogenesis with evolution. Abiogenesis is a theory/idea and has not been proven, because it has not been shown that life can arise from non-life. Experiments such have these have been performed before by scientists but have failed.

The other "contradiction" that you brought up was that God is not alive, therefore stating that he created life is a discrepancy. The problem with this is that this is a baseless statement. Nowhere in the Bible does God say that he is not alive, nor is that a tenet of Christian belief. What it does say is that is that Christ was resurrected and still lives, and that he is God. So to assume that God is non-life makes no sense. That is just an assumption made as an attempt to find an inconsistency in my argument.

I appreciate Con's willingness to debate this topic with me and to discuss the arguments that were made. Good luck in the voting!

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein

Source

1. http://www.debate.org...
chewster911

Con

Thanks for the arguments.

Poll

I found 1 more person that agrees with your precise belief, others only talked about theistic evolution which is not equal to creationism. Fair enough i guess.

Rebuttals

Though it is true that macroevolution refers to the change in species, it is still a fact that macroevolution is directly connected to the Darwinian evolution, and from that we conclude that every evidence found that points towards Darwinian evolution points towards macroevolution. You say that "macroevolution is a given", but is still a fact that macroevolution of all the species of Earth are relevant to this debate. I already have shown some evidence of scripture contradicting macroevolution, such as the order in which things were created in Genesis, Noah's flood and Adam n' Eve.

Specifically the Genesis tells us that plants were created before the animals, and macroevolution tells us that everything evolved at the same time.
Noah's flood also can't account for the number of species today working in accordance with logic.

This is an important question for people with beliefs like yours, Pro: If Evolution actually happened, why are the scriptures so inaccurate in describing the creation? Why don't they mention change?

That said: macroevolution is compatible with creation if we rule out the Bible. Then we go back to good old Deism and Theistic evolution.

"The fact that abiogenesis states that life originated in the ocean does not apply to the evolution-creationism compatibility model, because there is no reason to incorporate abiogenesis with evolution"

Actually it does, since evolution started right after the first DNA replicated.

"Abiogenesis is a theory/idea and has not been proven, because it has not been shown that life can arise from non-life. Experiments such have these have been performed before by scientists but have failed"

True that we are still working on the hypothesis of abiogenesis,but there have been experiments that succeeded, such as this one [1]

"The other "contradiction" that you brought up was that God is not alive, therefore stating that he created life is a discrepancy. The problem with this is that this is a baseless statement. Nowhere in the Bible does God say that he is not alive, nor is that a tenet of Christian belief. What it does say is that is that Christ was resurrected and still lives, and that he is God. So to assume that God is non-life makes no sense. That is just an assumption made as an attempt to find an inconsistency in my argument."

Okay, I made an assumption, but that doesn't change the fact that Adam n' Eve contradict macroevolution. We come back to the "Eve was made from the life of Adam", you didn't answer that. Bible clearly states that Eve must have been created, and was not given birth from a proto-human and she is now a first woman. So even without the assumption, inconsistency is still present.

I think that the point is made. Thanks for the debate, Conservative101.

Now, let the voting begin. Good luck!

Source:

http://www.news.gatech.edu... [1]


Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Basic belief in something requires a bases for the belief. When accepting a statement as true, there are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, and when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it.
Your philosophy is your worldview, which is a backdrop for all thought and a context for all knowledge. The decision about examining philosophy is between: 1) to make your philosophy explicit, or 2) to be a slave to the subconscious notions, principles, and other people's philosophies picked up throughout life. To ignore the topic of philosophy is to be doomed to the second choice. Examining your philosophy will allow you to discover and root out all errors and contradictions and allow you to more easily acquire knowledge and to think in concepts rather than concretes.
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
That logic makes no sense. Belief in anything requires nothing but belief.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Belief in the bible does not require common sense or an education, only faith is required, that is dumb.
Also you would articulate your ideas better if you did not write in the vernacular.
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
Those examples are of people who do not use common sense. If you pray for your child to get better from an illness, it would be dumb not to take them to a hospital or anything.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
*talking
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Read what I say before you say what I say because I did not say that.
This is what I am tacking about.
http://www.patheos.com...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://hinessight.blogs.com...
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
@cheyennebodie Claiming that "speaking" is a spiritual law does mean that God couldn't have used evolution to create the world. Wouldn't it make more sense for him to use the laws of nature that he created?
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
@missmedic People go to jail for being religious? Yeah, I'm sure.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
And people go to jail for believing that B.S. when they let there children die.
It's far too common to see religious theists trying to defend their beliefs by relying on faith, claiming both that faith justifies their position and that their beliefs are based on faith.
Claims about faith can be used to justify and defend absolutely anything on an equal " and equally unreasonable " basis, as you prove time and again.
One of the greatest failings of religion, is that it gives credibility and value to faith.
The Dictionary defines the English language we all use, the bible does not.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Why would oxfords definition of faith be better than the bible's?

The evidence is he got up and walked out.And how do you know no limbs have ever grown back. Have you been to the thousands of healing meetings all over the world over the last centuries. Even in Jesus, ministry he did things not recorded in the word of God.

God does not heal people to prove he can. He heals people because he promised us he would, IF we walk in faith in his word.He and I do not showboat our faith. I cannot make anyone believe anything. Don't even try. Just tell them what God says and let the rest be between them and God.

I have found and am fully persuaded that God heals .But that is up to each of us individually.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
Conservative101chewster911Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments where mostly he said she said but cons round two was great and wasn't disproved. (arguments). Con also used better factual sources when pro used opinion sources, mostly. (sources)