The Instigator
happy-bread
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Is christianity's idea of creation flawed?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
happy-bread
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,462 times Debate No: 20438
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (7)

 

happy-bread

Pro

In this debate, I will attack my opponents christian beliefs about how the earth and humans were made. My opponent will accept the debate by answering the following question(s). (Elaborate on/defend your responses.)

Do you believe in a literal 6 day period where God created the earth and its creatures, or do you believe that God intervened in evolution and the creation of earth over billions of years in order to eventually create humans?

If you believe in the intervention theory, do you think that it was chronological? Example: The heavens and earth were made first, then God created night and day, then he created the sky etc...

(Also, please do not accept this if you don't legitimately believe in the position that you are defending.)
ConservativePolitico

Con

I am going to take Round One to explain my beliefs and then Pro can take it away in Round Two.

My beliefs:

I am an ardent Christian who believes in the Creation story.

However I do not believe that the "literal 6 day period" was 6 days per say: meaning that I believe that the heavens were created by God but not in a day. I personally don't know how long God took to create the universe.

That being said yes I believe it was chronological.
Debate Round No. 1
happy-bread

Pro

Since my opponent believes that the earth and mankind were not created in a matter of days, then as a result I must assume that my opponent believes that the earth and mankind were created gradually over a long period of time which supports the idea of evolution.

The divinely guided idea of evolution that many christians are starting to believe in is flawed however. In fact, the idea of evolution and the views of the bible cannot coexist. This is so mainly because the events are not chronological. According to Genesis chapter 1, the "birds of the air" and the "fish in the sea" were created on the fifth day and the creatures on land were created on the sixth which means that birds were created before land animals. However, according to the theory of evolution and New Scientist, the first birds were on the earth 150 million years ago, which was 50 million years after the first proto-mammals and approximately 250 million years after the first tetrapods which would "conquer the land." (http://www.newscientist.com...)

My opponent believes that the events of the bible are chronological which means that in order for the bible to coexist with evolution, birds would have had to evolve before land creatures. Although evolution itself isn't ironclad, it doesn't take an expert to realize that it is highly improbable for fish to evolve straight into birds without the evolutionary step of land creatures.
ConservativePolitico

Con

There are a few flaws with your assumptions.

Firstly:

Carbon dating has been declared inaccurate past a few thousand years. [1] Therefore there is no way to truly tell how old something is past a few thousand years. Birds then could have evolved first before the creatures of the land like the Bible says.

Also it is apparent that fish came first so that is accurate.

Secondly:

If evolution was guided by God like I believe then it is entirely possible that fish could have gone straight from the sea to the air. Flying fish are a good example of this.

- Any of various marine fishes of the family Exocoetidae, having enlarged, winglike pectoral fins capable of sustaining them in brief, gliding flight over the water.
- Members of the family Exocoetidae, which are commonly found in tropical waters, especially throughout the Caribbean. The name of this fish comes from its ability to soar through the air for great distances, sometimes up to almost 350 yards. To manage this feat, the flying fish builds up speed in the water, then leaps into the air, extending its large, stiff pectoral fins, which act like wings. [2]

As you can see it is quite possible that fish evolved with wings and simply flew right out of the water and onto land. With evolution and God in play this is more than possible.

This being considered Creation then fits the chronological order presented in the Bible.


[1] http://www.angelfire.com...
[2] http://www.amnation.com...
Debate Round No. 2
happy-bread

Pro

First of all, to attack my opponents claim that carbon dating is inaccurate past a few thousand years. Yes, there are some inaccuarcies in carbon dating since we don't know for sure how much C12 there was in the atmosphere in the past. However, scientists can Predict how much C12 was in the atmosphere through archeological evidence[1]. This is obviously not 100% accurate, but carbon dating should not be completely thrown out of the debate because it is not 100% accurate. I would also like to point out that I did not specifically reference carbon dating previously because carbon dating isn't the only way to determine how old something is. For example, if a fossil of a land creature is found in a layer of earth beneath a layer of earth where a bird fossil lies, then that land fossil is older than the bird fossil. Clear evidence of this is shown through agiweb.org that says that the first reptile-bird fossil was found in limestone that was 150 million years old which means the bird lived 150 million years ago[2]. (This part of the debate simply proves the logic that says that fish cannot become birds without a step in between.)

Secondly, my opponent claims that fish could evolve into birds without the evolutionary step in between (land animals). He tries to prove this claim by saying that there are fish that can glide through the air for a few seconds. This is inherently false because too much evolution is involved all at once in order to convert fish into birds. Developing lungs would have been a critical first step, then they would have had to be extremely light and turn their fins into wings somehow. And finally, they would have needed to grow legs and have some resemblence of a beak (since the first fossil of a bird had all of the above).

In summation, it is impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt whether the bible or evolution is correct with regards to creation.Therefore, what we need to look to is probability. Since I have proven that it is highly improbable for birds to have been created before land creatures, then the bible and evolution cannot coexist and as a result my opponent's belief that God caused evolution in order to create humans is false.

[1] http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org...
[2http://www.agiweb.org...]
ConservativePolitico

Con

Either way, once you get past 50,000 years carbon dating becomes inaccurate meaning that my theory is still in fact plausible. Due to the unknown factors in carbon dating things from millions of years past there have been known to be wild swings in results meaning that we don't even know if the layers you are talking about are 150million years old or perhaps a different age. Due to the wild inaccuracies we cannot tell for sure.

There is an inherent flaw in my opponents logic regarding evolution. First of all he says that developing lungs would be a crucial first step in evolving from a sea creature into a non-sea creature. But would fish not have to develop lungs to evolve into a land creature? They would. We know that fish developed lungs anyways, why is it hard to believe that they developed lungs and then into flying creatures? Fish did develop lungs in order to turn into "land creatures" so this argument is near worthless.

Next we have the evidence showing that fish could and can leap out of the water and glide. It is not so much of a stretch to believe that these fish evolved into birds. In fact it is easier to believe that flying fish evolved into birds than it is to believe that they evolved into creatures with legs. You see flying fish already have wing like appendages while they have nothing at all resembling legs. According to your logic it would actually be easier and more believable for fish to evolve into birds rather than land creatures.

Also you forget that you yourself pointed out that this evolutionary process is "divinely guided" meaning that it is actually much more probable and plausible that God guided the fish out of the sea and into the air rather than onto land first especially since that is the way it is written in Genesis.

In conclusion:

The order of Biblical creation can be supported with evolutionary evidence.
Therefore if the order is indeed correct then God guided Creation up until the Creation of Man in said order.
This supports the truth of the Biblical claim of creation.
Then the creation story is not flawed.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by happy-bread 5 years ago
happy-bread
@Gileandos I had the burden to prove that my opponent was wrond and I believe i successfully did that
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Resolved: Gileandos' vote on the following debate was more appropriate than that of Maikuru: http://www.debate.org....

Gileandos, you'd be Pro and I'm Con. You down?
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
I am appalled that anyone would have voted for Pro.
As Pro and instigator the BOP was upon Pro and never was it met.
I was dissappointed with sources and argumentation.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Wow 3 points is vote bombing? Fascinating...

royalpaladin votebombed me, she gave my opponent 5 POINTS! AH

JT only gave me three. hardly seems fair.

Either give me conduct or shut up about votebombing, got it royal?
Posted by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Believe what? I actually don't believe in divinely guided evolution but accidently got sucked into that thread...

I believe that the first bird found was indeed the first bird created.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
JT is votebombing again . . .
Posted by Oldfrith 5 years ago
Oldfrith
politico-
Why do you believe that? Is God not powerful enough? Or do you think when the Bible clearly states, "morning and evening" that it isn't true? And if thats not true, wouldn't that make God a liar? And if God's a liar, wouldn't that make him the author of sin?

Could you please answer these questions?
Posted by happy-bread 5 years ago
happy-bread
@jimtimmy I couldn't "recover" because there aren't anymore rounds to debate in hahaha
Posted by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Tempting...
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
happy-breadConservativePoliticoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Ron-Paul's VB as far as I can see everyone gave a valid RFD
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
happy-breadConservativePoliticoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Man. Some of the voters here really VBed this debate.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
happy-breadConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm sorry Gileandos, but you seem confused. Con's reference to carbon dating was a non-sequitur, especially--as seen in Pro's words--since there are multiple ways to date fossils. Pro won on that but both are tied in terms of the evolution of the flying fish. Neither exploited their sources fully....Both sides seem to be throwing assertions, although Con's note about Pro's "divinely-guided" notion of evolution is false. Sources to Pro as well due to the elaborate time-line of evolution and
Vote Placed by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
happy-breadConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I am appalled at some of the other voters. I doubt they actually read the debate, merely agree with Pro's side of the resolution Pro never met the burden of proof. Conduct to Con. Better Arguments and clearly superior sources.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
happy-breadConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: happy-bread had stronger arguments, and more valid citations.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
happy-breadConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments from both sides read mostly like simple assertions with sources thrown in, so sources were the key. Saying carbon dating may or may not be accurate isn't really a devastating blow from Con. Con then gives examples of fish with bird-like abilities, which pales against Pro's R3 materials providing a detailed description of the evolutionary timeline of birds (i.e. descended from land animals). Con's divinity argument could have made a difference if presented before the final round.
Vote Placed by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
happy-breadConservativePoliticoTied
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: Con succesfully pointed out many logical flaws in Pro's argument. Pro couldn't recover.