The Instigator
mission42
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

God used Evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,349 times Debate No: 21947
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

mission42

Pro

God used Evolution to create the earth. Evolution all by itself is far fetched and unlikely, however, it is not unlikely that God may have used Evolution to create the earth.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Rebutting My Opponent's Aruments


"God used Evolution to create the earth"



Evolution is a theory regarding how species evolved from previous species not a theory regarding the formation of the Earth [1]. You could have made a case for God using evolution to create humans (I would have refuted that too, but that's besides the point), but using evolution as a theory to create earth is flat out false.


"Evolution all by itself is far fetched and unlikely"

Occam's Razor is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect [2]. You are making the extra assumption that God is involved when the theory of evolution works without God, therefore it is more likely that evolution probably occured without God according to Occam's Razor (Occam's Razor isn't always absolute, but using it as an argument is certainly more convincing that bare assertions).

"it is not unlikely that God may have used Evolution to create the earth."

Bare assertion fallacy. What reasoning can you provide to support your claim?

Arguments for why God didn't use evolution

1. Around 99% of the species to ever live in this planet have gone extinct. Museums are displays of failed experiments biological experiments, it is unlikely than an omnipotent God would create life this way. Natural Secection is a blind mechanism which makes more sense of all the extinct species on this earth.

2. It is more than likely that if God exists, he didn't use evolution to create the Earth becasue the earth forming has to do with cosmology (I would assume), and Evolution has to with Biology.

Conclusion

God most likely did not "use evolution"

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor

PS. I'm not sure how to properly post pictures, so my apologies if it didn't work.
Debate Round No. 1
mission42

Pro

I do not disagree that I may have stated my original argument wrong. I believe that it is likely that God used evolution to create man.

Pointing out your comment on my argument that God likely used evolution to bring humans into being, You say it's a "Bare assertion fallacy. What ca you provide to support your claim". Proof:

Genesis states that God created the earth in six days. The book of Genesis was written by Moses. God gave Moses visions of how he crated the world. Moses could only comprehend so much of it, so he put into the simplest of words. He uses the word "day" ( on the first "day", God created light, On the second "day" God created water, etc.). The use of the word (day) implies a time period, not necessarily twenty four hours. The day could have been anywhere from twenty four hours to a million years. While I don't doubt that God would have the power create the earth in seven days, it would seem more likely that He would've taken His time, especially to create His mot important creation : man.

Your first argument on why God didn't use evolution is not an argument on whether or not God used evolution, but it sounds more like you are trying to disprove God's existence. While I would not hesitate to continue with that debate, it is not the topic of this one. Therefore your first argument is irrelevant.

Your second argument does not give any evidence whatsoever. It is more like two facts that don't have anything to do with one another.

Therefore, your arguments are irrelevant.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con


Rebutting my opponent's arguments

I find it ironic how you claim my arguments are irrelevant, while you post Bible quotes to try and prove that God used evolution to bring about different types of species. There was absolutely nothing in that Bible quote which indicated that God used evolution. The Bible actually contradicts the idea of man coming from a common ancestor we share with the great apes, by claiming that man came from Adam and Eve.

I find it strange how you use a book claiming that man was created ex nihilo, to try and make a case for God using evolution to bring man about.

"Your first argument on why God didn't use evolution is not an argument on whether or not God used evolution, but it sounds more like you are trying to disprove God's existence."

My apologies if it came off this way, however I was just making the statement that natural section doesn't have properties which fit properly with the idea of an all powerful all loving God."

"Your second argument does not give any evidence whatsoever. It is more like two facts that don't have anything to do with one another."

My second argument was just to point out that evolution has nothing to do with the earth forming, because it seemed like you were ignorant to that fact.

Continuing my case

P1: If there was a super-natural cause of evolution, then beings bound to the natural world trying to discover the mechanism/ cause most likely would not succeed without revelation.

P2: Beings bound to the natural world discovered the mechanism/ cause (Natural Selection) without revelation.

P3. There was most likely not a super-natural cause of evolution.

Also, if something can be explained naturally and you still unnecessarily invoke a super-natural cause then once more, you are violating Occam's Razor [1].

You will be hard pressed to find a scientific theory that violates this "rule of thumb" in science...


Re-Cap


1. Using a source that claims man was created ex nihilo to provide a case for God using evolution like my opponent did, is self contradictory.

2. If there was a direct supernatural influence to evolution, we most likely would not be aware if it without revelation but we are aware of the cause of evolution and how it works. This makes it less likely that the super-natural is responsible in my opinion because we are bound to the natural world until God hypothetically reveals other worlds to us.

3. If something can be explained naturally, then invoking the super-natural unnecessarily is just piling on assumptions and violating Occam's Razor.


Conclusion


God did not "use evolution".


Source(s)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I think The_Fool_on_the_hill meant to vote for me...Oh well lol
Posted by mariahjane 5 years ago
mariahjane
Evolution is a proven fact. How can you say it's fr fetched and unlikely?
Posted by mission42 5 years ago
mission42
What I am trying to prove is that it is likely that God used Evolution to crate the world
Posted by TheApologist 5 years ago
TheApologist
What are you trying to prove here? That is is LIKELY or POSSIBLE that God used Evolution?
Or that God DID use evolution?
Thanks,
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
mission42Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't say anything credible on pros side. Sounds new
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
mission42Rational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was purely speculative and full of bare assertion. Con's arguments were supported and uncontested.
Vote Placed by DakotaKrafick 5 years ago
DakotaKrafick
mission42Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's resolution doesn't even make sense. Con realized this and exploited.