The Instigator
jwesbruce
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Magicr
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution does not disprove God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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...
jwesbruce
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,237 times Debate No: 24541
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

jwesbruce

Pro

No semantics.

First Round Acceptance.


Con may begin with arguments in the first round if they wish to come from a specific approach.
Magicr

Con

I accept and look forward to an interesting debate.

I will allow Pro to begin the actual debating in the next round and I will use this round to define several terms and make clarifications.

Definitions:

God- the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe [1]. God will refer to the God of the Jewish and Christian bible.

Evolution- change in the gene pool of a population fromgeneration to generation by such processes as mutation,natural selection, and
genetic drift [2].

Disprove- to invalidate [3].

For the purpose of this debate, neither side will have to prove the scientific theory of evolution, it will be accepted as true for this debate.

This is a topic that I have been thinking about recently so I look forward to an interesting debate.

Sources:

[1]- http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]- http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3]- http://dictionary.reference.com...




Debate Round No. 1
jwesbruce

Pro

1http://english.pravda.ru...

2http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com...

3http://www.mathgoodies.com...

4http://www.faizani.com...

5http://www.dyeager.org...

6http://www.stanford.edu...



Agreed, look forward to an educational, challenging clash.
___________________________________________________________


1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9, 10, 12 , 13 , 14 , 15


Numbers. Elementary in their basic form, yet universal in their reach. The only common language shared by all nationalities dating back to thousands of years before us. They abide by strict, abstract laws and as such place safe, firm perspectives on observations. They explain and breakdown the secrets of planetary motion. They reveal secrets of DNA. They break down ratios and solutions, helping us find cures to illnesses and diseases. They explain the relativity of the space, time, and matter that blankets the universe, in uniform. The possibilities and limitations of theories and observations are set within the confines of Numbers.

- -

Numbers Manifest Perspective.

- -


What is done with Perspective is up to the analytical reasoning of the observer.


Mathematicians state [1] [2], that even in the billions of years the universe has gone through, any probability that arises to 10 of the 50th power (or over) finds itself in the realm of impossibilities.

To be clear, it's not to say it is unlikely. It is to say, impossible.

Now math has it's own dictionary since it is a language of it's own. The mathematical definition of impossible is as follows:

An impossible event has no chance of occurring. If event A is impossible, then P(A) = 0. [3]

The odds of a typical protein molecule coming forth in existence is 10 to the 65th power [1]. Harold Morowitz, Yale physicist, concluded the odds of an individual bacterium reassembling itself is one in ten to the billionth power [2].

Roger Penrose, a close friend to Stephen Hawking, dove into the topic as well to see what the odds are that life occurred by random chance in the universe. The chances of life here occurring is 1010123 to 1. That is 123 zeros behind the one. [3]

Francis Crick, Nobel winner of biology, claimed,

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

However, Evolution is, in all likeliness, true due to overwhelming evidence.


So the theory has a crease, a gap, a need, whatever you may call it. The evolutionary theory needs to have a compliment to smooth it out.

Multiverse has been offered as an explanation to answer for the Evolution complications. [6] Though, much of the multiverse theory relies on the string theory because the multiverse theory also needs a compliment. The string theory, though, is rejected by many, these days, mainly because science journals became over saturated with conflicting theories of the same string theory.

Another problem with Evolution that needs to be smoothed out is the fact that it does not deal with a genesis. Evolution speaks to replicating. It has nothing to say about birth into existence. That is when educated guesses come up. The reason they have to make educated guesses is because evolution doesn't point them in any direction on the question.

The mechanisms of the inner-workings of the universe are becoming clear, yet in the clearness they become messy, complicated, and raw.

The main message of all these theories and their problems is they need help. A support, if you will. Because even though I, and all of you, should be fully confident that in a matter of decades we will have the mechanisms of the universe mapped more clearly, the numbers and odds they overcame point to a nudge in the right direction, let's say.

If anything the idea of a constant intelligence behind it all is exceptionally conducive.


Evolution, indeed, does not conflict with God, as it can be easily followed that God used the miracle of evolution to create the world we observe.

By all definitions of miracle, evolution, against all odds, may be the greatest one.

Evolution is a multi-billion year process. This process created countless, diverse species that have roamed, roam, and shall one day roam this Earth. The process is ever-working, constant, non-changing from it essence, which is change. It even created one species, from the same exact environment as all other species, vastly different, giving that species the capability of music, love, poetry, reason, humor, inner-awareness, true-evil, and selfless good. No other material mechanism is greater than that of evolution.

Evolution works wonders in the biological world. It has created complexity in the materialistic world for all of us to enjoy, reap, and destroy.

God resides not there though. She exists in the abstract. She resides in the timeless, in the unfathomable, in the immaterial. She is the immaterial, the timeless, the unfathomable.

Squeeze all of the matter of the universe down to a golf ball and you have but that. Squeeze the matter and energy of the immaterial and you have but nothing in your hand except faith.

The two ideas do not conflict in any sort of manner.

One is a mechanism that resides in the biological.

The other is the agent in the immaterial.

Two different levels of enforcement.

One, the staff of the other.

Life, the result.


Magicr

Con

Pro has agreed to the definitions I provided in R1, so they shall be accepted for the course of this debate.

Secondly, the focus of this debate is not whether a deity exists or whether evolution is true. The focus of the debate, based on the resolution and the accepted definitions, is whether evolution contradicts the existence of the God of the Jewish and Christian bible.

I will keep my argument short and simple. I could simply argue that there is no evidence for this God to begin with, however it is much simpler to argue that there is evidence contradicting the existence of this God instead. This evidence comes in the form of the theory of evolution, which we have accepted as being true for this debate.

My opponent has devoted much of his argument to proving the need for a deity. As I stated above, this is not needed, and I will not deny that another source may have been needed for life to be created. I will, however, maintain that evolution itself works without the necessity for a divine being [1].

Because the God my opponent is defending was defined as the God of the bible, this God would have created Earth through the process described in Genesis. Genesis describes a process of creation that took only six days [2]. This is an obvious contradiction: The source of information on the God who's existence my opponent must prove contradicts directly with the scientific record of the history of life on Earth. This scientifically measured age is approximately 4.54 billion years [3]. There is a huge difference between 6 days and 4.45 billion years.

This is not only accepted by the scientific community, but by my opponent as well. "Evolution is a multi-billion year process."

Another contradiction is that Genesis, the source of information on the biblical God, states that God created humans [2]. The theory of evolution states that humans evolved from another species over billions of years. If God created humans "in his own image," then they would not have evolved from another species.

So far, I have only highlighted a couple of contradictions that exist between the God of the bible and evolution. I believe this is quite enough to make it apparent to readers, and to my opponent, that the scientific and biblical accounts are very different.. One claims that the world is billions of years old, claims that the world was created in just six days. One claims that evolution is the driving force behind the present diversity of life on earth. The other makes no mention of evolution and claims that God created it all. We all know which account science supports: Evolution.

Thus, if evolution is true, the biblical account cannot be true. If the biblical account is false, then the God of the bible is false.

I am interested in seeing how my opponent will respond to this argument.

Sources:

[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]- http://www.biblegateway.com...
[3]- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
jwesbruce

Pro

I must apologize to my opponent for not being a Southern Baptist fundamentalist, as his argument becomes rather trivial. But I'll arrive back to this.


ROUND 2 SUMMARY


In R2 I stated, "...the numbers and odds they [Evolution and it's complimentary theories] overcame point to a nudge in the right direction, let's say...If anything the idea of a constant intelligence behind it all is exceptionally conducive."

I did not state, anywhere, Evolution has an absolute need for God's authorship. I claimed because of the great odds it overcame God's authorship is a reasonable authorship to believe. It is conducive. It's not certain, but in the truest meaning, it just makes sense.

We're dealing with an abstract, immaterial topic. This is often taken for granted, nothing can truly be certain. But with anything, concepts can either fit together or not fit together.

My opponent responded in one, minor paragraph, by stating, "My opponent has devoted much of his argument to proving the need for a deity. As I stated above, this is not needed, and I will not deny that another source may have been needed for life to be created. I will, however, maintain that evolution itself works without the necessity for a divine being"

The first bold "need" : I never said there is a need, nothing certain on a immaterial, abstract topic, only plausible.

The bold "not needed" : Agreed. But Divine Intelligence is very helpful and conducive, which you have conceded, on the grounds of odds, which was my entire argument.

The underlined sentence and the bold "needed" : Observe the blatant contradiction of the "not needed" and "may have been needed." He just swaps names from deity to another source. So not only did he drop my observation that a deity is conducive to Evolution but he also claims that a need, I did not even claim this, may have to be met by a "source." Then this sentence is contradicted by his last sentence where he states, "I will, however, maintain that evolution itself works without the necessity for a divine being."


The amount of contradictions in his short response is bewildering and slightly disappointing. But we do know for sure, is that God is conducive to appease the odds dilemma, as is conceded.



THUSANDS OF YEARS OF THEOLOGICAL QUARREL ENDED BY MAGICR


It is, indeed, unfortunate that I am not a fundamentalist, but that's what happen when an atheist want to debate theology--they don't even know where to begin. They assume the elementary interpretation and from there poke holes. The poking of the holes, though, is conveniently predicated off of their interpretation.

Lets analyze the strategy of Margicr. He makes the rather fatal mistake of putting all of his eggs in a very small basket. He ambitiously claims that if Genesis 1 is false then God is false. But we find the basket is actually smaller than that. If the elementary interpretation, or elementary, fundamental interpretation rather, is false then God is false.

Here are the different interpretations of Genesis 1 which have caused theological friction and debate between church leaders, fathers, and lowly ministers for thousands of years.

A Myth Re-Established

The creation account is a Mesopotamian myth that has been carefully re-done exclusively to express theological truths such as: Monotheism, Supremacy of God over nature, etc...


Framework Hypothesis

The Seven day creation story is not meant to be chronological but is a literary or symbolic structure designed to reinforce the purposefulness in God in creation and, of course, the Sabbath commandment.

[6]
Allegory

The creation is an allegory, it's the spiritual message contained in the allegory that is the truth. This is a very old Christian interpretation, it crosses over before Jesus of Nazarene.


Theology uber alles

A wholesomely accurate Bible is of no importance nor consequence to the theological truths. In other words the Bible should only be expected to be important because of it's theological truths, as it is not a science nor history textbook. The men who wrote the book, number one, were men. The men who wrote the book, number two, were theologians, not scientists and not historians*, trying to grasp the immaterial message of the spirit.


Literal Soundness

Billions of years passed between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Secondly, what was meant by day is not known, as time was termed exceptionally loosely.


Young Earth Advocates

As my opponent, Magicr, says, "process of creation that took only six days"


Christians only debate this now because of what we know in modern times...


Intuitive maybe. But historically speaking, for as long as the church has been organized, church leaders have always debated Genesis 1 and still do today.

Origen, Early Father of Church, in his book Against Celus (248 AD) points out much fault with Genesis 1 literalists. He ridicules their lack of spiritual insight. [1]

St. Justin Martyr, in Against Heresies (189 AD) states a "day" in Genesis 1 probably meant thousands of years. [2]

St. Cyprium of Carthage agreed (250 AD.) [3]

Clement of Alexandria writes we cannot know when creation took place from reading scripture, as he states it was "an indefinite and dateless production." (208 AD) [4]

St. Augustine, agreed, as he wrote that he believes the time it took is "impossible" to conceive (419 AD.) [5]

In the Book The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, St. Augustine is said to have looked at the chapter in a highly symbolic manner.

This demonstrates that Christians and followers of the God of the Bible have not subscribed to the literalness of Genesis 1 and still subscribe to their belief in God. It also demonstrates that this is not relative to 20th Century discoveries whatsoever.

Therein the "either-or" choice Magicr set up as inevitable is nothing but a product of intellectual laziness and is an illusion.


MAN, IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD


Magicr claims, "[Genesis states] God created humans [2]. The theory of evolution states that humans evolved from another species over billions of years. If God created humans "in his own image," then they would not have evolved from another species."

There are books and huge tomes written about "in his own image" and it's deep, spiritual meaning. The fact that your taking it literal is quite...disappointing. When Jesus told stories they were subtextual, as is much of the Bible told in subtextual, underlining meanings. I can't believe I have to do this again but okay...

"The early church fathers were quite agreed that the image of God in men consisted primarily in man's rational and moral characteristics and his capacity for holiness."http://books.google.com...
--Systematic Theology

Your contention still does not conflict, as God created man. His mechanism is evolution. Evolution went through the process. End result was woman, man. The Bible doesn't mention Photosynthesis and yes Magicr your correct it doesn't mention Evolution either. The Bible doesn't mention many things scientific. And why is this?


Because the Holy Bible is a book of spirituality and theology. Not Biology.

For water to evolve it had to come from molten, hot rock of which Earth once was. We did evolve, alike, because we are biological beings born forth into the laws of nature, which is the mechanism of God. But the mechanism speaks nothing of the agent. And Magicr, unfortunately, placed all of his stock in a two thousand year long theological debate.

*remaining sources are in comment box.


Magicr

Con

"I must apologize to my opponent for not being a Southern Baptist fundamentalist, as his argument becomes rather trivial. But I'll arrive back to this."

Apology accepted. My argument has not become more trivial. And like Pro, I shall return to his lack of Southern Baptist fundamentalism at a later point in my argument.

Round 2 Summary

"I did not state, anywhere, Evolution has an absolute need for God's authorship." -Quote from Pro in R2

"I never said there is a need, nothing certain on a immaterial, abstract topic, only plausible." -Quote from R2

"The main message of all these theories and their problems is they need help." -Quote from R1

Obvious contradiction.

Note: I was referring to a deity in my argument and he never specifically stated that a deity was needed, but this was his overall argument in round one: "Divine Intelligence is very helpful and conducive, which you have conceded, on the grounds of odds, which was my entire argument."

Regardless of whether a deity is needed, or is merely conducive, my general argument still stands. The question is not whether a deity is needed or conducive, but whether a specific supreme deity, described in a specific document, can coexist with evolution. I contend, based on the testimony of this document, that these actions of one are contradictory with the evidence of the other.

"Thusands" (as Jwesbruce likes to spell it) of years of theological quarrel ended by Magicr

"It is, indeed, unfortunate that I am not a fundamentalist, but that's what happen when an atheist want to debate theology"

Not that it is relevant, but I never stated that I am an atheist, in fact my arguments seem to lead to deism rather than atheism.

If Genesis 1 is false then God is false

My job is not to prove that God is false, but to prove that the ideas about God presented in the Bible conflict with evolution.

On a different note, here's something fairly important:

We are not debating the God of a specific religious interpretation of the Bible, but rather the God described in the Bible itself.

For every example my opponent gives recounting different ways Genesis can be interpreted, I can provide another, opposite example. He claims the Bible is to be interpreted figuratively, not literally. But there are plenty of people who disagree. For example, Southern Baptist fundamentalists (of which my opponent is not one), or these people:

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

http://www.creationism.org...

I could post more links, but I don't think it is necessary to get my point across:

Every religious group, or every person for that matter, has a different way of interpreting the Bible. That is why it would be impossible to debate the God of the Bible as interpreted by whomever we want. In debating the God of the Bible, we must debate God as described in the Bible, not as interpreted by others.

What this means is that my opponent's statement: "A wholesomely accurate Bible is of no importance nor consequence to the theological truths," is incredibly important.

So according to this argument, everything in the Bible could be false except for the parts about who God is and what he has done. Except the events of the Bible and the actions of God are linked.

My opponent argues that the Bible is not a history book. Except that's exactly what it tries to be. Virtually all of Genesis and Exodus contains what claims to be the history of the world and the Israelites. Yet, my opponent insists that this is not a history book. Given that fact, all of these events described could very well be false; a fairytale if you will. And if these events in the Bible are false, then why not the part about God? If the events are a fairytale, then perhaps so is God.

Next my opponent points out that humans wrote the Bible. I will not dispute this fact. It is exactly because humans wrote this book that it is open to such fallacy. So if the people who wrote the book got events wrong about history or science, then who is to say that they got the parts about God right? Why only one God? What if they got that wrong? Then the fundamental part of the identity of the God of the Bible has been undermined.

So: It is imperative that the Bible be historically and scientifically accurate in order for us to accept that the part about God is accurate.

Next, I will refute some of my opponent's statements.

"Billions of years passed between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Secondly, what was meant by day is not known, as time was termed exceptionally loosely."


My opponent provides no evidence showing that a day really meant billions of years. Although the term "day" may have been used loosely, there is no way it could have meant billions of years.

"Intuitive maybe. But historically speaking, for as long as the church has been organized, church leaders have always debated Genesis 1 and still do today."

As I stated above, this debate does not concern itself with a church's interpretation of the Bible, but rather the way the Bible is written itself. Thus, all of his examples regarding interpretations of the Bible do not matter.

My opponent has busied himself with showing how the man in the image of God item is full of subtext. Unfortunately, the image of God part is not the most important part. The most important part is that God created man, fully formed. The image of God part shows that he, not evolution, shaped man. The Bible does not say God created single celled organisms who eventually evolved into humans. The Bible says God created man.

"Because the Holy Bible is a book of spirituality and theology. Not Biology."

We both agree that humans wrote the Bible. Why would humans write the Bible? Because they were trying to explain the world around them. This was their science. Today we would not consider that to be science. Today science is a process where we use observations and evidence to draw conclusions. But back then, this theology was how they explained their world. Theology and science were one thing. So today when we can show that their science was wrong in a variety of ways, evolution being one, why do we still accept their theology, their science.

Conclusion

In this round I have shown why the Bible must be accurate historically and scientifically in order to justify its God. As I showed in R2, evolution conflicts with the literal reading of Genesis. This literal reading must be used if the God of the Bible is to have any factual worth at all.

Debate Round No. 3
jwesbruce

Pro


No intro, No conclusion, sorry, character limit.

Man-Image argument--look to my previous paragraph on two different levels of enforcement for the response. Bible is about why not how, thus rightly does not discuss mechanisms, as God created all is the only necessary statement.

Con says were debating God as described in the Bible, not church interpretation. Jesus gave the church authority over the kingdom of God. Refer to Mark 13:34, John 17:18, Luke 9:1, Matt 16:18-19. You just brought a knife to a gun fight, magicr. Sorry you debate God, you gotta debate the church, as God, according to the Bible, gave authority to the church to speak on her behalf.

It is indeed unfortunate that I have to spend much of my conclusion on clarifications, since he took everything out of context, but lets begin:

I gave a list of different theological interpretations of Genesis 1. Here are the quotes he mishandled:


1. What this means is that my opponent's statement: "A wholesomely accurate Bible is of no importance nor consequence to the theological truths," is incredibly important. 2."Billions of years passed between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Secondly, what was meant by day is not known, as time was termed exceptionally loosely." 3. Next my opponent points out that humans wrote the Bible.

I was not arguing as a proponent for these points. I was listing them as examples of differing interpretations. That's all...you could re-read that round to confirm that. You busied yourself with analysis of them in vain.


He quoted me stating, "The main message...is they need help." He pointed out the word "need" and said, "There! Look he said it!"

At this time will readers please go to Round 2 (not Round 1, as stated before.) Right following this quote I more completely state, "Because even though, I, and all of you, should be fully confident that in a matter of decades we will have the mechanisms of the universe mapped more clearly, the numbers and odds they overcame point to a nudge in the right direction, let's say. If anything the idea of a constant intelligence behind it all is exceptionally conducive." I'm giving an admission that science will explain the complete mechanism of how, so there is no mechanism-need. I'm mildly arriving at the conclusion in bold. Natural phenomena could be miraculous or God could do something miraculous. The point is is that God could easily be fit inside the picture.

It's not an ambitious claim, but I don't need to prove anything ambitious, as all I need to demonstrate is that "Evolution does not disprove God."

As a side note in that same clause Magicr states, "The question is not whether a deity is needed or conducive, but whether a specific supreme deity, described in a specific document, can coexist with evolution"

Response: Brilliant. He concedes a deity is conducive.

Definition of conducive, "Making a certain situation or outcome likely or possible."

https://www.google.com...

Therein The Killer:

Magicr has not even offered a rebuttal to my Round 2 argument. In fact in Round 3 he confirms this by stating, "Regardless of whether a deity is needed, or is merely conducive, my general argument still stands."

At the point where Magicr concedes a reality where God is conducive to a universe where Evolution exists, he makes this debate near impossible for him.

But wait he said this is about a specific deity, he still has the war against crazy-fundamentalist-who-always-find-themselves-on-CNN argument...

Of course he still has that argument lingering, and I will get to that. But first we must take a look at what this drop looks like. In the world where you 1) admit God is conducive to Evolution and then 2) state that if Evolution is true then God of the Bible is false, then you have flat out contradicted yourself. This deems your entire platform invalid.


So at this point I have one thing left to summarize, in such a manner, that readers will see how magicr COMPLETELY, 100% mishandled the theological debate, his last leg. Therein showing how Evolution and the God of the Bible are indeed compatible.

NO LOGIC IN MAGIC

To be blunt,

Magicr did not double check his reasoning.

He says, "In debating the God of the Bible, we must debate God as described in the Bible, not as interpreted by others."

So when someone reads Genesis 1 he or she should only look insofar to their reading, as the bare definitions of the words. Magicr's entire argument hinges on this one point, Genesis 1 must be taken literally. Magicr won't win if he does not demonstrate that interpretations are abusive because if he cannot demonstrate that then there's no reason to discount of all them as he wishes.

Interpretations, however, are essential to expressing truth.

Truth of language is dependant upon context.

Interpretations take context as the mechanism for defining.

But Magicr's paradigm is, the definition of the word should be the only thing analyzed, for there is no implications from context.

Magicr is smart, though, I'm sure this is not a paradigm he believes to be logically, necessarily true.

Everyone at this moment define, "Right."<-----In that context.

The definition, of course, is dependant upon the context it is used in. So we know the reasoning that magicr is using is not logical. We know that interpretation is necessary. God is immaterial. This is greatly mysterious. An infinity more mysterious than ambiguously using the word "right." So interpreting the message of God is greatly contextual especially since that immaterial message passed through the material, flawed vessel of man. So the interpretations of a chapter in the Bible is based off the holistic contextual experience of God, Bible, and the interpreters personal journey with God. These main items conjoin for one context. Based off this context a interpretation is given to passages. We know when God came incarnate, which I have brought up, through Jesus he only told parables. So even when Jesus, God in person, talked directly to people he did not even talk directly. So how magicr believes that God, through flawed man, spoke directly is bewildering to the logical mind. And suitable to the mind that only makes CLEARLY biased*, non-universal arguments.

*And I have proven that interps. are not biased since they've been around for thousands of years.*

If one discounts interpretations then he or she discounts metaphorical, allegorical, mythical truths holistically.

Which brings the next illogical conclusion of magicr, "It is imperative that the Bible be historically and scientifically accurate in order for us to accept that the part about God is accurate."

So to analyze the paradigm of magicr once again, If one item is shown to be wrong then every other item is conclusively wrong.

Let me disprove this, I got up to a child, and say, "Stop signs mean go and Einstein authored the General Theory of Relativity."

Under magicr's logic and reason this kid is taught to think my statement of Einstein is to be wrong. And according to magicr's reasoning one is expected to think so conclusively. As oppose to investigating and interacting with each statement in it's own right. Magicr's reasoning propagates intellectual laziness.

Especially in the context of God, as the true evidence is only experienced in the personal journey.

Moreover, this is a logical fallacy called falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus, which means he is not even logically reaching his conclusion, as he is making the mistake of false for part(s) thus false for all. By analyzing a part you cannot claim you have analyzed the whole. Metaphorically speaking, for my readers since magicr does not endorse interpretation, just because you know Earth does not mean you have a claim to the knowledge of the solar system.NIGHT!
Magicr

Con

"Bible is about why not how, thus rightly does not discuss mechanisms, as God created all is the only necessary statement."

Wrong. The Bible contains more hows than whys. How did God create the world? First he created heaven and earth. No further explanation needed. He has supreme power so he just did it. Then said "let there be light" and because of his supreme power, there was light. He continued on like this until he made all of the animals. Then, last, he made man by shaping him out of dust and breathing life into him. And it was all done in six days. [1].

So we have God, who has supreme power, who makes everything. That's how he did it. Why did he do it? Well that's not in the Bible. How he did it is in the Bible, but not why. The why part is the part that is up for interpretation.

So the question becomes, if you have supreme power, why would you waste your time with evolution when you could just follow the procedure described in Genesis and make everything in six days.

Pro has not refuted my statement that the Bible was originally written by humans to explain the world. Thus, it is accepted that the original purpose of the Bible was three things that were combined into one: Theology, history, and science. Even if there is doubt that the bible is a science book, there is certainly no doubt that it contains a vast amount of history.

We do not take a history book and try to interpret that for a deeper meaning. This first part of Genesis is quite obviously describing a historical process that explained a natural event: how the world came into being.

"Jesus gave the church authority over the kingdom of God"

Which church? There are so many variations on the Christian religion, all of them claim that they are the right one. I maintain my point from the previous round: We cannot debate the Church's interpretation of the Bible because there are so many interpretations, some interpret six days to mean six days and some say that six days means a billion years. Instead, we must look at the Bible and read it as it was originally intended to be read: history, science and theology.


The three things I apparently "mishandled"

Number one and number two were used as examples, but because I showed their fallacies, they don't' matter anyway: They are only examples of flawed logic. Number three is a fact that is largely accepted by scholars [2].

Instead of defending these arguments, he just steps away from them and says that they are just examples of different interpretations. By doing this, he admits that they are flawed.

Next, as a matter of fact I very clearly conceded something in R2 that Pro is only now realizing that I conceded. I quote form R2: "I will not deny that another source may have been needed for life to be created." I conceded in the very beginning that a deity was conducive to the creation of life. I never conceded, however, that a deity was necessary for evolution to occur. So Pro spent all that time arguing over something that I gave him in R2.

"But first we must take a look at what this drop looks like. In the world where you 1) admit God is conducive to Evolution and then 2) state that if Evolution is true then God of the Bible is false, then you have flat out contradicted yourself. "

1. A lie: I did not concede that God is conducive for evolution, I conceded that a deity is conducive for the origin of life. A deity likely created life. That is all I have conceded.

2. Therefore, I did not contradict myself. A deity likely created life, but evolution still directly conflicts with the account that is presented as history in Genesis.

"So at this point I have one thing left to summarize, in such a manner, that readers will see how magicr COMPLETELY, 100% mishandled the theological debate, his last leg. Therein showing how Evolution and the God of the Bible are indeed compatible."

Nope.

Logic

I concede that truth of language depends on context, but, in Genesis, the context is provided. I never argued "the definition of the word should be the only thing analyzed, for there is no implications from context." Based on the context given in Genesis, we can say that God created the world in six days, etc. as I stated at the beginning of this round.

"We know when God came incarnate, which I have brought up, through Jesus he only told parables. So even when Jesus, God in person, talked directly to people he did not even talk directly. So how magicr believes that God, through flawed man, spoke directly is bewildering to the logical mind."

Another distortion. I do not believe that God spoke through flawed men. I believe that these men wrote the book without the help of God to explain the world, a point that was not contested by Pro.

"And I have proved that interps. are not biased since they've been around for thousands of years."

The longevity of something does not ensure a lack of bias.

"If one discounts interpretations then he or she discounts metaphorical, allegorical, mythical truths holistically."

I am not discounting interpretations, I am discounting interpretations that distort what is very clearly presented with no need for metaphorical interpretation.

Part is wrong, so the whole is wrong

Not necessarily, but because the Bible is the original source for God, if we can find numerous fallacies, then the validity of the source as a whole is discounted. Because this is really our only source for God, we must doubt its validity based on the fallacies it contains.

With the stop sign/ Einstein example, we are looking at two very unrelated statements. The Bible, however, is all related. If part of the Bible is false, then that can change what happens in the rest of the book. If God did not create the world, then he has no authority to demand worship as creator of the world, which is essential to the Jewish and Christian religions.


Conclusion


Here is a summary of my entire argument for this debate.

1. Identity is who someone is [3]. Who someone is includes what they have done. God's identity includes the action he performed.
2. Genesis states very clearly that God created the world in six days and that God created man and woman.
3. Evolution has been accepted as true for this debate.
4. The theory of evolution states that it would have taken much longer than six days for the present state of life to evolve and that humans evolved from the same common ancestor as the rest of life.
5. Therefore, the God's actions conflict with the accepted theory of evolution.
6. God conflicts with evolution.

Thanks to my opponent for this debate.

Sources:

[1]- http://www.biblegateway.com...
[2]- http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]- http://dictionary.reference.com...


Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
RFD

Pro started the debate with 'No semantics'. However, he failed to define God. Magicr accepted the debate and defined the terms in way which suited him. A much more desirable approach would have to post a query in comments.

Con's whole defense relies on his definition. He conceded all the original arguments by Pro.

Con presented two contradictions in The Holy Bible. Both the arguments are weak. In Arabic, 'Yawm' can be translated either as a 'day' or a 'long period'. Since Hebrew and Arabic are both sister languages, it is probable that similar rules apply in Hebrew also.

Creation of man in 'God's image' is clearly metaphorical; irrespective of its complete interpretation.
Posted by popculturepooka 4 years ago
popculturepooka
"I must apologize to my opponent for not being a Southern Baptist fundamentalist, as his argument becomes rather trivial."

I lol'd, man. XD
Posted by jwesbruce 4 years ago
jwesbruce
I meant Jesus the Nazarene not 'of'. Just putting that out there.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 4 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
It appears that Pro wants to argue that Evolution needed a Guide. I think that is a mistake, that it can be shown that no Guide was needed. Meanwhile, since the Resolution is "Evolution does not disprove God", all that Pro need do is ignore Evolution entirely, and focus on strange things that indicate God could exist, regardless of Evolution. On the other hand, that approach might fall under the "no semantics" exclusion....
Posted by flylike1 4 years ago
flylike1
I don't think anyone who understand science would claim that evolution DOES disprove god.

The "god" debate isn't up to nonbelievers to prove one doesn't exist, it's up to believers to prove that one does
Posted by Thrasymachus 4 years ago
Thrasymachus
Also, disprove as in "It is necessarily the case that if evolution is true God does not exist", or the much more defensible "Evolution is powerful evidence against the existence of god?"
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
Agreed, we'd need to firm this resolution up a bit. Which god, for example? And would that god have to conform to it's relevant scriptures (in which case it's an easy win for Con) or would Pro be allowed to argue that this deity could have created the evolutionary process as part of his universal master plan (in which case it's an easy win for Pro)?
Posted by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
Definitions would be really important.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
jwesbruceMagicrTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Analysis in comments.