The Instigator
alpineseven
Con (against)
Losing
34 Points
The Contender
solo
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points

God used Evolution to Create the World.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2007 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,021 times Debate No: 1098
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (22)

 

alpineseven

Con

If you believe God used evolution to create the world then you cannot believe the Bible to be literal. We know that for every sin there must be a penalty paid and that penalty is death. We also know that there was no death before sin, the world was made perfect. Stating the God created the world in millions of years means animals killed each other before there was a sin.
solo

Pro

God DID use evolution to create the world, EXACTLY as the Bible indicates. I pray that your blasphemy does not offend Him.
Debate Round No. 1
alpineseven

Con

You gave no oposing points to my argument. In this next round could you please explain to my how God used evolution to create the world? thank you
solo

Pro

My apologies, but you posted <> I felt that my statement of, "God DID use evolution to create the world, EXACTLY as the Bible indicates," negated that, thus invalidating your argument entirely. I thought I was being courteous in my efforts to make this debate interesting, when I could've easily taken a non-Christian stance (which also would've invalidated your argument's points). But if you insist on point-for-point nitpicking, you've got it.

<>
Ummm... no. We die once. That does not mean we've only commited one sin in each of our respective lives before we die.

<> We don't know that. You've assumed that through your own personal interpretation of your own religious doctrine -- you interpretation is flawed.

<> You're assuming they were always carnivorous. If humans weren't, why assume the same for animals?
Debate Round No. 2
alpineseven

Con

Ok, we both started this debate off terribly: I will take credit for that! I was assuming someone who believed in Creationism by way of evolution would debate me... I know I know, Assuming makes an... yeah. Anyways I was not prepared at all to argue without the Bible as my reference again my stupidity. I am also glad to see you are legit SOLO. Thanks for taking the debate too! Good luck!!!!

I realize your point in the first round but you gave no indication to why the bible does indicate evolution stands beside creation accurately.
I said "If you believe God used evolution to create the world then you cannot believe the Bible to be literal" Then you said (paraphrased) "God did use evolution to create the world, now your argument is invalid"... I dont see how that makes my argument invalid. I want to know how He used evolution to create.

Again, my point behind the sin and death argument was biblical... sorry for that but doctrinally Christ paid the price for ever single sin we commit, not just for someone who only sinned once.

The carnivorous point you made was a good one but for this debate there isn't much i can say about that. I do believe animals were carnivorous in the Garden of Eden because they lived with Adam and Eve :-) Here is the point i guess where we get away from my first points that are almost irrelevant. Honestly I am not sure where you stand on this issue at all, I hope this debate is not nul-set at the end. Where do you stand on this issue? Do you believe that God created the world with Evolution? Honestly you only told me why you felt my points were wrong you never stated what you believed.
solo

Pro

*sigh* Since we're apologizing, allow me: I did screw up with, "I pray that your blasphemy does not offend Him." I had a customer approaching me at the time and needed additional characters in my argument before the site would accept it, so lacking great imagination THAT is what came to mind. Sorry.

(Your arguments are confusing, but I think I know the direction you want this debate to take. You don't care about how God created the planet, you want me to explain how God created the "populated world". Right? I hope so, 'cause that's where I'm going with this. As for my stance on the issue and my beliefs -- they're irrelevant to this debate, but I'll tell you about them afterwards if you truly want to know.)

God used Mutation, Migration, Genetic Drift, Genetic Variation and Natural Selection to create the populated world (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...). From the lowest lifeform, God used evolution as his hands to build the populated world to what it is today. (Trying to anticipate a possible question from you:) The Garden of Eden, or what I recognize as Pangea (http://en.wikipedia.org...), was home to all of God's creatures and the reason evolution (the rise of man from bacteria) was able to happen in just one day was because back then the face of the Earth was exposed to the Sun for millions of years in just one of the planet's revolutions, which is what made God's work in the initial six days possible.

Animals were not carnivorous until after Eve damned us all according to these two different Bibles that support this claim.
Genesis 1:29 http://www.bibleontheweb.com...
Genesis 1:30 http://www.christiananswers.net...
Debate Round No. 3
alpineseven

Con

Since we have now both used the bible as references I deem it logical to use it also in this round. Progressive Creation and Evolution, scientifically do not match up according the the 6 days in genesis. We see that land plants were made first but the evolution theory says marine organisms were the first life forms. Evolutionists believe that land mammals came before whales, while the Bible teaches that God created whales first. Also something to consider the text states that on the fourth day God made the heavenly bodies after the earth was already in existence. Here is a blatant confrontation with science. Astronomy insists that the sun is older than the earth. Therefore this argument should already by ended.

Dr. James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, who himself does not believe Genesis is true history, admitted that, as far as the language of Genesis 1 is concerned, "... so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience, (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story, (c) Noah's Flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."

The reason for this is quite simple... the word for Day in genesis is YOM it is used 2301 times in the old testament and every time it is translated to mean 1 literal day (almost always day and night). Why then would we take the one YOM out of 2301 in genesis and make it mean billions of years.

Again will make this point because i realize it wasn't understood very well in my opening argument. The Bible teaches this "Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin" (Romans 5:12). It is clear that there was no sin in the world before Adam sinned, and thus no death. With progressive creation you have much death before the fall. Evolution teaches disease and suffering happened from some of the earliest life. Almost all Evolutionary scientist even believe cancer was around billions of years ago. That is in total contradiction to the bible.

Finally one last thought. Believing in progressive creation means the flood which happened around 5000-6000 years ago, according to the bible, would have been localized. One important tenet of progressive creationist is that the Flood of Noah's day was a local flood, limited to the Mesopotamian region. They believe that the rock layers and fossils found around the world are the result of billions of years of evolutionary Earth history, rather than from the biblical Flood. Here are some problems with that argument...

First God said he would never flood the earth again... did he mean he would never have a local flood again?

The measurements of the ark were big enough for all animals, why didn't he make the ark smaller and have the animals go to another region?

lastly the bible says the waters rose 15 cubits which is over 8 meters above the mountains. we all know that water finds its own level and cannot cover the highest mountains while leaving the rest of the world uncovered.

Thanks for the Debate.
solo

Pro

<>

LOL! You posted:

<>

I was simply showing you where you were in error, but since you were itching to keep this Biblical I'm all for it!

<>

Progressive Creationism has nothing to do with how God used evolution to create the world; nor does it have anything to do with this debate. Before God created the land plants on the third day, He separated/created the waters on the second day (which is logically when the marine organisms came into existence). God did make whales before land mammals -- evolutionists are not all-knowing of evolution, which is why they know evolution only as a theory and not as a fact, hence the Theory of Evolution. Also, God did create the Earth before he organized the heavenly bodies, but you're forgetting that the Earth wasn't initially lit by the Sun. In addition, just because astronomy insists that the Sun is older than the Earth it does not make it so. For centuries people believed the Earth was flat, but God never made it that way and they were totally and completely and utterly wrong.

<>

<>

Again, your interpretation is flawed. Just recently, in 2004, we've seen the Earth's day lengthen due to a tsunami (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The earthquake shortened the length of a day by 2.68 microseconds, due to a decrease in the oblateness of the Earth. (This was done by an earthquake with power that is infinitesimal when compared to the power of God.) This "alteration" has NOT changed how we define what a day is at all -- in the same way, we can take some YOM and just know that they are not measured the same way which other YOM are measured.

As for the Noah's Flood point... *raspberry* It's unrelated to this debate, so I invite you to directly challenge me to it on another, but I'm leaving it alone because it has no relevence.

<>

I'm not sure what kind of Bible you're using as a reference, as you don't support your claims the same way that I do (with links), but mine doesn't say that and I'm not into progressive creation and won't indulge you this late in the debate as you only made mention of it in the 3rd and Final Round, especially since it has nothing to do with how God used evolution to create the world.

I thank you for the debate and look forward to the next!
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
solo -

You are defining evolution. Wrongly. Evolution, by definition, isn't used to "create" anything (by god or anyone/anything else). It's what changes the things that already exist over time.
Posted by alpineseven 9 years ago
alpineseven
Many christains believe in progressive creation plus i would like more than anything to get non-christian votes. Nevertheless it seems, at least to this point, I have been beaten and for that I congradulate you. Still i feel my argument was better because i feel most of your arguments were explaining how I was wrong. We should debate again and go a full three rounds. You pick the subject but lets be more clear on it. I should have been more clear at the begining of this debate. Shall we????? You are are interesting to debate and you make it fun.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
<<You have not been able to seperate your personal beliefs with the side you took in this argument.>>
Wow. I've lost all respect for you. Spew whatever nonsense you like. I see what you're doing quite clearly, as the debate is over, so pander away for those Christian votes!
Posted by alpineseven 9 years ago
alpineseven
No. Again progressive creation is the term for the beleif that God created the world with Evolution. In this debate you chose the side that says God created the world with evolution. You also stated you dont believe in God. You chose to take this debate. Even when you said a day slowed down It still meets my definition of a day being one day and one night. its still a day or YOM in the hebrew. You are to caught up on the term progressive creation. That term is simply god using evolution to create. it happend in a progressive state. He created the first atoms at the big bang and had his hand in all of the rest of evolution. That is what progresive creationist believe and you chose that side of the argument. You have not been able to seperate your personal beliefs with the side you took in this argument.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
Yes, but your "Progressive Creation" was married to your misconceptions. You said:
<<Progressive Creation and Evolution, scientifically do not match up according the the 6 days in genesis.>>

So now what you're saying is with the above statement you meant:
::God using evolution and Evolution, scientifically do not match up according the the 6 days in genesis.::

God using evolution and Evolution are exactly the same thing in my argument. Your idea and use of "Progressive Creation" were exclusively yours and had no place in the debate. Progressive Creation may have been the correct term to use, but because you put your personalized and pre-load definition of it at odds with evolution, it simply made sense to me to invalidate your pointless point rather than assimilate it and appear as if I agree with you in some way while I was arguing In Favor of this topic; not the Con.
Posted by alpineseven 9 years ago
alpineseven
In your last response of the last round you stated that God using evolution to create the world has nothing to do with prgressive creation. Prgressive Creation is acctually the correct term for God using evolution to create the world...
Posted by alpineseven 9 years ago
alpineseven
No In this case The bible can be used as proof because we are both in agreement that there is a God, Not to mention Solo happend to use the bible also.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
debater882, we are in agreement. Thank you!

Mangani, the point of the debate wasn't to prove the Pro, but simply to argue in its favor. The burden of proof never played a part in this topic. I appreciate that you recognized my imagination, as I did make most of it up as I went along.

Tatarize, THANKS!
Posted by debater882 9 years ago
debater882
The Bible does not count as proof. It's only a bunch of story that are not meant to be literally interpretated. I say Solo won. If we interprete the bible literally, then it's like saying that Harry Potter actually exist because I read the book.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
I don't believe either of you "proved" your point, but Solo most definately "made" his point.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by EinShtoin 7 years ago
EinShtoin
alpinesevensoloTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by solo 8 years ago
solo
alpinesevensoloTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Defenestrator 9 years ago
Defenestrator
alpinesevensoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by skiies23 9 years ago
skiies23
alpinesevensoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
alpinesevensoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Grandma 9 years ago
Grandma
alpinesevensoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SperoAmicus 9 years ago
SperoAmicus
alpinesevensoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Raisor 9 years ago
Raisor
alpinesevensoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by cLoser 9 years ago
cLoser
alpinesevensoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by BrianFranklin 9 years ago
BrianFranklin
alpinesevensoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30