The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ergodicsum
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gen. 1-3 was not intended to be scientific by the author

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 317 times Debate No: 65864
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

READ BEFORE VOTING:

The criteria of establishing reliable sources shall be outlined as follows:

Voters will judge the debate based on quality and quantity of sources. Debaters may attack sources according to this criteria.

Author - make sure the author is well respected and credible and doesn"t have a reputation for poor scholarship or expertise. With what organization is the author associated with? Does the author have peer reviewed publications?

Works cited - If the author cites source for their claims then they have been verified.

Date of source - Theories which often change over time due to new evidence should be checked for reliability. The more recent the date, the more reliable.

Source bias - Make sure that sources are objective in their claims and if you spot bias which greatly undermines the credibility of the source, you can present another source for counter arguments.

Books in print format can be used but concerning certain physical evidence, citations may be required. Voters may not have complete access to the book, thus a Google search on books may bring up results.

Logical arguments shall be judged on the number of logical fallacies made. The person with the least logical fallacies receives points for "most convincing argument."

Introduction:

My position is that the creation account in Genesis was never meant by the author to be a scientific text to explain the origins of the universe in accordance with modern scientific theories. Not only did the author lack an understanding of modern science, but also a lack of concern for theoretical knowledge. The ancient author was more concerned about morality taught through the creation narrative. We will be examining whether or not the author's beliefs conflict with science by looking at ancient near eastern thought and literature.

Pro - The burden of proof is on me to give evidence that the ancient perspective did not seek to create scientifically falsifiable claims nor to concern itself with science. If that is the case then the creation account cannot be refuted as "scientifically inaccurate." My position is that the claims of the author do not conflict with science.

Con - Con's position is to simply show that the evidence given isn't enough to make such a claim.

First Round Acceptance
ergodicsum

Con

I agree with Pro's position that the author didn't intend his claims to be scientific because the modern scientific method wasn't discovered at the time he wrote genesis. There is really no disagreement on what Pro said so I will not continue this debate.

What we disagree on is on the question: "Can we conclude that the beliefs of author didn't conflict with science?"

We will be having a debate on this issue on another debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
ergodicsum

Con

ergodicsum forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
ergodicsum

Con

ergodicsum forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
ergodicsum

Con

ergodicsum forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.