The Instigator
vorxxox
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
dance_mi_amor
Con (against)
Tied
7 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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,447 times Debate No: 6646
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

vorxxox

Pro

I affirm the resolution. Everyone who's a Christian seems to feel insulted or attacked when someone is to introduce the idea of evolution. On the otherside, alot of educated scientists that are atheists think that somehow evolution disproves the existence of god. But how are these two ideas even contradictory? My opponent must explain to me how evolution disproves the existence of god.
dance_mi_amor

Con

I would like the thank my opponent for this debate and i am kinda new to this so please bear with me as i try to explain this right

Evolution is saying that we all were fish and in the Bible it says God createn Man, in Evolution it says that the ocean got to full and that one smart fish hopped out of the water and soonly grew legs

Its biology is no better. The Bible claims that rabbits chew the cud, that the pattern of goats' coats can be changed by what their parents look at while copulating, that only dead seeds can germinate and that ostriches are careless parents.

Fundamentalists try to explain away some of these examples in the light of what we now know: pi is approximately three, they point out, while rabbits eat their own droppings, which is a bit like chewing the cud. But such explanations essentially admit that the Bible is not the ultimate source of of reliable truths about the world.

In other words, if you want to know anything from how rabbits digest their food or how to breed goats to the value of pi or whether the sun orbits the earth or vice versa, you have to turn to science and mathematics, not the Bible. If that's the case, then surely the same is true of how life on Earth came about?

So how reliable is the Bible chapter that relates to evolution? Let's leave aside the long-standing evidence that Earth is older than 6000 years and that there was no world-wide flood, and look at what else Genesis says.
Genesis 1 gives the order of creation as plants, animals, man and woman. Genesis 2 gives it as man, plants, animals and woman. Genesis 1:3-5 says light was created on the first day, Genesis 1:14-19 says the sun was created on the fourth. Genesis 7:2 says Noah took seven pairs of each beast, Genesis 7:8-15 says one pair.

The list goes on. The fruit of the tree of knowledge is said to kill within a day of being eaten, yet Adam and Eve don't die after eating it. Genesis says there were giants (Nephilim) before the flood and that the flood annihilated all creatures other than those on the ark, but Numbers says there were giants after the flood

conclusion:
Attempts to resolve these contradictions are almost as old as the Bible itself. Those who regard the Bible as inerrant tie themselves in knots trying to explain them away (hands up who believes that T. rex was once a peaceful vegetarian?), or even take it upon themselves to rewrite the Bible to expunge them.

However, there are far too many errors, inaccuracies and contradictions to dismiss them all. The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that the Bible is not inerrant.

i dont really know if this answered it but this is coming from my knowlege
Debate Round No. 1
vorxxox

Pro

I thank my opponent for excepting my debate

First of all, I'm not saying that evolution is incorrect, I'm just saying it doesn't disprove Gods existence.

Second of all, even if the Bible were to have contradictory verses, it doesn't matter. The Bible could be a piece of crap and God can still exist. And besides, you can't use the bible itself as evidence in this debate; you have use EVOLUTION as evidence.

Therefore, the first half of your argument doesnt matter.

Third of all, I fail to understand why people keep saying the Bible says the world is only 6000 years old. I don't know, please brief me on that. What I would really like to know is this: does the Bible's words actually add up to 6000 years, or did scholars just come up with that?

Fourth of all, what's to say God didn't create humans using evolution, because he knew that's how life would eventually form? You know, working smarter, not harder. People don't seem to think outside the box. They make all these paintings of God and mislead people into thinking God is some kind of dude that just poofed everything. That's because they couldn't imagine different. I think God is too smart to waste all that energy making things all perfect instead of just creating something that would shape itself while he watches the superbowl.

I guess my opponent misunderstood the idea of this debate. I was not arguing that Christianity or the Bible was incorrect, I was just arguing that evolution doesn't disprove Gods existence. My opponent has failed to give any evidence on how evolution was even contradictory to the existence of god, and I proved that the two things weren't.

Please vote PRO
dance_mi_amor

Con

i would like to thank my oppenet for responding and also pointing out were i messed up.
What i want my opponent to explain to me is if we involved from fish to monkey's than way are do Monkeys and Fish still exist.

when you said "whats to say that God didnt create humans using evolution" in the Bible its clearly says that he created us in his own image. I keep referring to the Bible because it has all the Answers.

There is no edivdence of Evolution, yeah peoples Skulls and body bones that people have discovered and they maybe smaller than peoples today but diets are different now than they were back several thousands of years ago.

And I cant tell you if the world is 6000 years old.

Voters this is why i urge a Con Vote
Debate Round No. 2
vorxxox

Pro

This is why I have clearly won this debate:

My opponent kept attacking me for points I wasn't even trying to make. Yet, all the points I did make he failed to rebut.

"What i want my opponent to explain to me is if we involved from fish to monkey's than way are do Monkeys and Fish still exist."

When was I trying to prove evolution true? That's what YOU were supposed to do. If evolution is untrue, then I win this debate because it doesn't prove anything. My opponent just argued against himself.

"when you said "whats to say that God didnt create humans using evolution" in the Bible its clearly says that he created us in his own image. I keep referring to the Bible because it has all the Answers."

Uhhhh. Now I just said that - "They make all these paintings of God and mislead people into thinking God is some kind of dude that just poofed everything. That's because they couldn't imagine different."

Can you not imagine different? To make humans in his image, does god have to literally look like a human? Why couldn't his image be as something intelligent, since both Him and humans are intelligent? Or why couldn't his image be as something that controls stuff because He controls the universe and humans control the Earth?

Conclusion:

Throughout this whole debate, my opponent has failed to realize that I'm not responsible for proving the existence of God OR proving evolution true. I just had to prove that the two concepts didn't contradict EACH OTHER. You kept pointing out that the two concepts contradicted THEMSELVES. Even if the Bible was wrong, that wouldn't make evolution DISPROVE god's existence.

Please vote PRO
dance_mi_amor

Con

dance_mi_amor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
Christians don't get mad because evolution disproves the existence of God, because it doesn't. What it does disprove, however, is their precious holy book. THAT is why they throw a tantrum.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
vorxxoxdance_mi_amorTied
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 vorxxox 8 years ago
vorxxox
vorxxoxdance_mi_amorTied
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