The Instigator
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
vorxxox
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points

Evolution does not disprove the existence of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
rougeagent21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,512 times Debate No: 7011
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (7)

 

rougeagent21

Con

I stand in negation. I will allow my opponent to open, seeing that he/she is affirmative.
vorxxox

Pro

First of all, since it is negatively worded, I think my opponent is unaware that he is arguing AGAINST the existence of god.

ie: The opposite of this resolution would be 'evolution does disprove the existence of god'

Well, I affirm that Evolution does not disprove the existence of God.

Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
rougeagent21

Con

Yes, this topic is a bit misunderstood because of its wording. As con, I am arguing that evolution and God cannot co-exist. (When I refer to God, I mean the Christian God, I am that I am)

The theory of evolution and the existence of God cannot co-exist. This is a result of the following reasons:

1. Evolution proposes the Earth is billions of years old, while God says through the Bible that it is around 4,000 years old. Evolution says that it would need a lot of time (billions and billions of years) for the theory to be correct. The Earth is simply not that old. (According to the Bible) How do we know the Earth has been around for about 4,000 years you ask? Simple. The Bible tells us. There are many genealogies throughout the Bible. Here are a few:
Genesis 5 Adam to Noah
Gensis 11 Noah to Abraham
Abraham to Moses is then counted
Moses to Judges then
Judges to Kings then
Historical timelines.
These lists state a precise account of ages of Biblical characters. Allowing for calendar changes, we can take the Earth to be roughly 4,000 years old.

2. "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
This is taken from Genesis 1:27 of the New American Standard Bible. This states specifically that God created man. He did not create primordial soup, which turned into bacterium, which turned into fish, apes, etc. GOD CREATED MAN.

Because of these two reasons, God and evolution cannot co-exist. These are the choices for all viewers:

(A) Deny the Bible's accuracy, therefore saying that God does not exist, giving CON the winning vote.
(B) Accept the truth, that God and evolution cannot and do not co-exist, again giving CON the winning vote.

"Evolution does not prove the existence of God."
Negated.
vorxxox

Pro

First of all, the resolution states that evolution does not disprove the existence of God, so you are obligated to use evolution as evidence against God. Sorry, but you already lost when you posted this debate.

" "Evolution does not prove the existence of God."
Negated."

Uh, you misplaced a word. It's actually 'disprove' instead of 'prove.' Nice try though.

Arguing that neither can co-exist doesn't give you the victory. You have to prove evolution true and then use evolution as evidence to disprove the existence of God.

:)

I strongly challenge you to answer these questions:

1) Is the Earth closer to 6000 years old or 4.6 billion

2) Does evolution disprove the existence of God?

I affirm that Evolution does not disprove the existence of God. The reason why is because the two don't necessarily contradict. God could have simply used evolution as a tool to create man and we simply lacked the intellect to imagine such.

Vote PRO
Debate Round No. 2
rougeagent21

Con

I will defend my case, then attack his.

Well, my opponent does not actually attack my case. ALL of my arguments still stand. He only challenges me to answer some questions.

NUMBER 1
"Is the Earth closer to 6000 years old or 4.6 billion" (I think he meant to put a question mark there)
Now, I see where my opponent is going to go with this. He is going to say that the Bible was mis-interpreted, and that it doesn't actually say how old the Earth is. Don't even play that card. (By the way, according to the Bible, the Earth is actually around 4,000 years old) This question is for a different debate. (You can see that debate between us for reference if you want) In that debate, I PROVED that according to the Bible, the Earth is roughly 4,000 years old. Having answered his first question, I will show you how God and evolution cannot co-exist. Since the Bible says the Earth is around 4,000 years old, evolution does not have time to occur. (Even if it were genetically possible) In this way the Bible and evolution contradict each other.

NUMBER 2
I have answered this in answering his challenge number one. There is, however, even more evidence. "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
This is taken from Genesis 1:27 of the New American Standard Bible. This states specifically that God created man. He did not create primordial soup, which turned into bacterium, which turned into fish, apes, etc. GOD CREATED MAN. Because of this also, evolution is not able to co-exist with God.

So, I have answered BOTH of my opponent's challenges. HE HAS NOT ANSWERED MINE. PLEASE DO THIS IN YOUR NEXT SPEECH.

I have addressed his "case" while upholding mine. I have also answered both of my opponent's challenges. HE HAS NOT ATTACKED MY CASE. I will now address my opponent's closing statement.

"I affirm that Evolution does not disprove the existence of God. The reason why is because the two don't necessarily contradict. God could have simply used evolution as a tool to create man and we simply lacked the intellect to imagine such."
-I have already taken care of this. Please see my answer to his question 2, as well as my opening case. Because my opponent has NO case, and mine has been COMPLETELY upheld, I stand in absolute negation of the resolution. Thank you.
vorxxox

Pro

This is why I have won this debate. My opponent has tried to play around and weasel out of answering my questions. This is because my opponent has realized that in order to win this debate, he has to state that evolution disproves the existence of God, and that was something he couldn't do. He thought that he could decieve my fellow audience by attempting to convince them that all he had to prove was how neither theory could co-exists. I have stated then and I will state now: Nice try.

:)

Let me refute my opponent's arguments for one last time:

"Well, my opponent does not actually attack my case. ALL of my arguments still stand. He only challenges me to answer some questions."

Well, your arguments may stand, but they don't matter/count. You could be 100% correct arguing that the two theories can't co-exist, and I'm not even arguing against that. I'm just arguing that that still doesn't show how evolution would disprove the existence of God.

My opponent said:

"Because of these two reasons, God and evolution cannot co-exist. These are the choices for all viewers:

(A) Deny the Bible's accuracy, therefore saying that God does not exist, giving CON the winning vote.
(B) Accept the truth, that God and evolution cannot and do not co-exist, again giving CON the winning vote."

Well, in order for my opponent to maintain a consistent argument, he would have to do both A and B. He did B, but he didn't do A.

:)

Oooh, this is just too good. That ought to be enough for me to win, but I could keep on going.

As I said:
"I strongly challenge you to answer these questions:

1) Is the Earth closer to 6000 years old or 4.6 billion

2) Does evolution disprove the existence of God?"

Now, if you really read my opponent's response, he never really clearly answers my questions. Actually, he just doesn't.

First, he says:
"NUMBER 1
"Is the Earth closer to 6000 years old or 4.6 billion" (I think he meant to put a question mark there)
Now, I see where my opponent is going to go with this. He is going to say that the Bible was mis-interpreted, and that it doesn't actually say how old the Earth is. Don't even play that card. (By the way, according to the Bible, the Earth is actually around 4,000 years old) This question is for a different debate. (You can see that debate between us for reference if you want) In that debate, I PROVED that according to the Bible, the Earth is roughly 4,000 years old. Having answered his first question, I will show you how God and evolution cannot co-exist. Since the Bible says the Earth is around 4,000 years old, evolution does not have time to occur. (Even if it were genetically possible) In this way the Bible and evolution contradict each other."

Ok, first, he makes a reference to another debate. Well, that doesn't really matter because I didn't confirm such arguments in THIS debate. Then he keeps saying 'Well, the Earth is 6000 years old..... according to the Bible of course.' You see! He doesn't CONFIRM that the Earth is REALLY 6000 years old. That's because that is what he really thinks, but he doesn't want to do that, because as he said, evolution wouldn't have time to occur. If that is true, that would be a victory for me.

"NUMBER 2
I have answered this in answering his challenge number one. There is, however, even more evidence. "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
This is taken from Genesis 1:27 of the New American Standard Bible. This states specifically that God created man. He did not create primordial soup, which turned into bacterium, which turned into fish, apes, etc. GOD CREATED MAN. Because of this also, evolution is not able to co-exist with God."

See! He didn't directly answer! He doesn't want to, because if he says yes than he's not a Christian, but if he says no he loses this debate!

Then he says:
"So, I have answered BOTH of my opponent's challenges. HE HAS NOT ANSWERED MINE. PLEASE DO THIS IN YOUR NEXT SPEECH."

Challenges? What challenges? Try this: I HAVEN'T ANSWERED ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE I WASN'T ASKED ANY. I swear! I wasn't!

"Because my opponent has NO case, and mine has been COMPLETELY upheld, I stand in absolute negation of the resolution. Thank you."

I didn't really need a case. If you read how this resolution if worded, the burden of proof is actually on CON. All I had to do to win is tear down his argument. Take this for example:

Resolved: Airplanes do not disprove the existence of cows.

Uhhh, you see what I mean. Where resolutions are usually negated by default, this resolution is affirmed by default. Basically, if neither of us had an argument, I would still win by default. Therefore, since I showed how your argument was flawed, I win by default.

In conclusion, I clearly stated in the beginning of this debate that my opponent was obligated to use evolution as evidence and then claim that it disproved the existence of God. My opponent probably realized this, and tried to distract everyone from this truth, but he failed miserably. In the act of attempting to distract everyone, he didn't answer any of my challenges and didn't use evolution to disprove the existence of God. Therefore, I have won this debate.

Please vote PRO
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
I'll have to fix that next time.
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
I think pro should have won for the wording of the debate topic, he would have to show how evolution proves that there was a god. Is the way I saw it.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Yes. It was difficult wording, I apologize for that. :(
Posted by CerebralCortex 7 years ago
CerebralCortex
I think the title should have been "Evolution does not disprove the validity of the bible" and you could have taken the con position. I think that is correct. But I guess this is what you meant anyway.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
thats true...
Posted by Nail_Bat 7 years ago
Nail_Bat
Think about who the judges are...
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Probably because you didn't do QUITE as well as you thought? It happens to me all the time ;)
Posted by vorxxox 7 years ago
vorxxox
How am I losing this? I nailed this guy!
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
"Was there any evidence brought up? Or was this just religious [or anti-religious] banter?
This may be a personal thing, but I hate it when people use the Bible as a source for an argument [or an entire debate, as con did]."

Actually, there was a lot of evidence. Yes, it was from the Bible. Given that this was a religious debate, the Bible is the only valid source! Anything else is irrelevant.
Posted by Glitchy 7 years ago
Glitchy
I'm agreeing with KyleLumsden on this one; This was painful to read. There were a fair amount of words tossed back and forth, but nothing was really said.

Was there any evidence brought up? Or was this just religious [or anti-religious] banter?

This may be a personal thing, but I hate it when people use the Bible as a source for an argument [or an entire debate, as con did].

I really can't vote on this one, considering I don't think either side earned a victory.

Oh, and my previous quote was from Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.... It had to be said.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Riley09 7 years ago
Riley09
rougeagent21vorxxoxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
rougeagent21vorxxoxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
rougeagent21vorxxoxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
rougeagent21vorxxoxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by vorxxox 7 years ago
vorxxox
rougeagent21vorxxoxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
rougeagent21vorxxoxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
rougeagent21vorxxoxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70