The Instigator
RedShirt
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Macro-evolution is absolutely incompatible with Christian Doctrine

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 5/5/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,676 times Debate No: 8125
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (39)
Votes (7)

 

RedShirt

Pro

The "Ground Rules"
The challenger will be a Christian who believes that God either did or could have used macro-evolution as His method to create life on earth.

This debate will NOT be on the existence of God, non-Christian deities, atheism vs theism, the validity of evolution or the validity of Biblical creation.

The Argument:
I contend that macro-evolution, as currently understood and popularly accepted, is absolutely incompatible with Christian Doctrine and it is therefore impossible for God to have used macro-evolution as His method to create life on earth.

The Reasons:
There are numerous reasons why my contention is correct. I will state five of the most critical reasons:

1. The Biblical account of creation in Genesis clearly emphasizes six 24-hour day periods for the process of creation. But the macro-evolution theory requires billions of years.

2. The Genesis account of creation specifically states the order that things were created. The order in Genesis is not the order prescribed by the macro-evolution theory.

3. Death did not enter the world until the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden. But the macro-evolution theory requires billions of years of death prior to the Fall of Man.

4. Christ died on the cross to pay the price for men's sin. But death is an integral part of the macro-evolution theory and therefore could not be the penalty for sin and therefore Christ's death would not have satisfied the debt for sin.

5. The Genesis Flood account was global and required that all non-aquatic creatures generate from the animals on the ark. But the macro-evolution theory requires billions of years to produce the bio-diversity we see today therefore all modern animals could not have descended from the few on the ark.
beem0r

Con

Thanks to my opponent for starting this debate, hopefully it will be a good one.

My opponent suggests that Christian doctrine and (macro)evolution cannot coexist. This is patently false, and I hope to show why. He offers five reasons to back up his claim, so I shall address each of them below.

==============
1. SIX DAYS vs. BILLIONS OF YEARS
=======
My opponent is correct that a literal reading of Genesis indicates that humanity existed only a few short days after the beginning of the universe. I fully concede that point. However, note that a literal reading of Genesis is not the only possible reading of Genesis. Only some Christian doctrines, those that are literalist/fundamentalist, claim that Genesis must be taken literally. This supposed contradiction only exists for those doctrines. Doctrines which are unclear on their position about the literalness of Genesis - they are compatible with evolution.
I will go a bit further, though. Some Christian doctrines claim that Genesis is, in fact, non-literal, and that Evolution should be regarded as a valid scientific theory. One such doctrine is that of Catholicism, the LARGEST sect of Christianity. That immediately fulfills my burden of proof - my opponent suggests that Christian doctrine is absolutely incompatible with macro-evolution, but I have found at least one instance where they get along quite well. I will not end my round here though, even having proved my side of the resolution. I will continue addressing my opponent's claims.

==============
2. GENESIS vs. SCIENCE: ORDER OF EVENTS
=======
First, I would point out that the theory of evolution does not specifically state one order of events. Using the theory of evolution along with other parts of science and some observations, science has concluded that a certain order of events is extremely likely, but that order of events is separate from Evolution.
Even so, I will reference the counterpoint to my opponent's first claim. Only if Genesis is taken literally, which is not the case in all Christian doctrines, does this order of events cause any contradiction with science at all.

==============
3. DEATH: SINCE BEGINNING OR SINCE FALL OF MAN
=======
First, let me note that Evolution does NOT require death to have existed since the beginning of life. Evolution only requires that the first lifeforms in the long family tree it says we have were able to reproduce. Consider this fringe possibility:
a. Lifeforms in the beginning reproduce, with some reproducing more than others due to different genetic code and environmental circumstances.
b. Lifeforms with positive genes reproduce more often than those without.
c. Humans eventually evolve by this process.
d. Fall of man.
e. Stuff starts dying.

Certainly that is not the order of events science has predicted, but as I noted previously that order of events is not part of evolution. Evolution is merely the process by which things change over generations - it does not necessaarily require that older generations die off.

And once again, I'd like to point out the same thing I've pointed out for the previous arguments. A literal reading of Genesis is the only reading where the fall of man has to even be seen as a concrete event, and the order of events in a symbolic Genesis do not have to coincide with the order of events science predicts to have happened.

==============
4. CHRIST'S SACRIFICE ON THE CROSS FOR MAN'S SIN
=======
I have several points here.
First, Original sin is not the only type of sin. According to ALL Christian doctrines, Jesus did not die on the cross SPECIFICALLY for original sin, or else anyone who sinned after they were born would still go to hell. No, Jesus took upon him ALL the sin of man, not just a hypothetical original sin.
Second, note that in a non-literal reading of Genesis, original sin could come from many things - that part of Genesis may even simply be symbolic of the natural wretchedness of the human spirit.

My opponent has also suggested that death is the penalty for sin, rather than being a natural process. Unfortunately for my opponent, both can be true. My opponent here is using death in two ways. The death a person suffers naturally is just an ordinary death, one that could lead to heaven, hell, or in some Christian doctrines a few other places. The sort of death that a person suffers as a penalty for sinning is a very different kind of death - it is a spiritual death, an eternal separation from God. That is why it was not sufficient for Jesus simply to die an ordinary death on the cross, then go back to heaven. He actually went to hell, and this is what paid the price for the sin of the world.

==============
5. THE ARK - A FEW THOUSAND YEARS vs. BILLIONS
=======
Once again, only a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis requires that the flood was worldwide, killing all animals except those on the Ark. As I've shown already, not all Christian doctrines see Genesis as necessarily literal, and some outright declare it as non-literal (including the biggest sect of Christianity, Catholicism).
Also note that even a non-believer in (macro)evolution would believe that all the biodiversity today came just from the animals on the Ark, either by accelerated (micro)evolution or through there being more biodiversity on the Ark than many assume. Neither of those explanations contradict (macro)evolution.

Having addressed all supposed contradictions between (macro)evolution and Christian doctrine, and offering a very large example of a Christian doctrine that is indeed compatible with (macro)evolution, I feel I have done all I can this round.

Thank you for reading, and good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
RedShirt

Pro

1 Six Days vs. Billions of Years
My opponent readily concedes that a "literal" account of Biblical creation, as recorded in Genesis, is incompatible with the billions of years required by macro-evolution.

However, he argues that it is possible to disregard the face-value reading of Genesis. Further my opponent points out that there are factions of Christian denominations that do disregard the face-value reading of Genesis. As an example, my opponent offers the Catholic Church as the largest "sect" of Christianity that disregards the face value-reading of Genesis and is willing to accept macro-evolution as compatible with their teachings. My opponent believes that it would be sufficient to rest on this point. This is not the case.

The authority for Christian doctrine is God, not man. Christian doctrine represents an objective reality and absolute truth. God's chief revelation to man of objective reality and absolute truth is the Bible. The Bible, as God's revelation to man, is the final authority on the objective reality and absolute truth of Christian doctrine.

Note that in order to accept macro-evolution one must necessarily disregard a face value reading of Genesis. In no case can a face-value, or literal, reading of Genesis be compatible with macro-evolution. This means that macro-evolution and a face value, literal reading of Genesis are mutually exclusive. The law of non-contradiction dictates that they cannot both be true.

Since we know that the Bible is God's revelation to man and our final authority on objective reality and absolute truth, anything that contradicts the Bible must necessarily be rejected as false. Any teaching that contradicts the Word of God must be regarded as false. If such a falsehood is found to be taught in a Christian denomination it must therefore be regarded, not as Christian doctrine, but as heresy.

2 Genesis vs. Science: Order of Events
My opponent concedes that a face-value or literal reading of Genesis is contradictory to macro-evolution. This makes them mutually exclusive and the law of non-contradiction dictates that they cannot then both be true. Anything that contradicts the Word of God must necessarily be rejected as false and therefore incompatible with the objective reality and absolute truth of Christian doctrine.

Additionally, my opponent states that macro-evolution does not require a specific order of events. I believe he is mistaken. Macro-evolution, as popularly understood and accepted, dictates a progression of life from the simplest self-replicating cells through an ongoing series of increasingly complex life forms.

A key evidence given to support the validity of macro-evolution is the fossil record which shows the progression of life from the lowest and simplest forms on the bottom layers with an increase of complexity as the layers rise. So key in fact is the layering of the fossil record in showing the progression of macro-evolution, that it has been famously repeated that the discovery of a rabbit fossil in the Precambrian layer would falsify macro-evolution theory.

In order to reconcile macro-evolution with Christian doctrine, my opponent would have to deny the necessity for a prescribed order of events and thus do violence to macro-evolution theory as it is popularly understood and believed. Such machinations of macro-evolution do not satisfy my opponent's burden.

3 Death: Since Beginning or Fall of Man
My opponent asserts that death would not be required for a macro-evolutionary process to generate life forms up to and including man. He offers a suggestion for how this process may have taken place but admits it disregards macro-evolution theory as it is popularly understood and accepted. His suggestion requires a reordering of "events science has predicted" and discounts the necessity for events to hold to such predicted order.

As shown above, the order of events in macro-evolution are indeed very important to its validity. So much is the case that a fossil found out of place would falsify the theory.

Additionally, macro-evolution theory, as popularly understood and accepted, holds that the time between the emergence of fish and the emergence of pre-human creatures is approximately 498 million years. Absent of death and killing things, what did these fish eat for 500 million years?

The process of macro-evolution hinges on natural selection and survival of the fittest. The whole process requires that the non-fit creatures die and the creatures with mutations favorable for adaptation perpetuate. Without things getting dead there is no pressure to bring about the changes in natural selection. Additionally, the fossil record, which is made up of dead creatures, clearly shows that there were hundreds of millions of years of things getting dead between the emergence of fish and the emergence of men.

It is clearly evident by all popular understanding and acceptance of macro-evolution theory that death is absolutely required for the process to take place. But my opponent concedes that this is only a problem with a face-value, literal reading of the Bible. As this is the case, macro-evolution and face-value Genesis are mutually exclusive and the law of non-contradiction dictates that only one can be true. Anything that contradicts the Word of God must necessarily be rejected as false and therefore incompatible with the objective reality and absolute truth of Christian doctrine.

In order to reconcile macro-evolution with Christian doctrine, my opponent would have to deny the necessity of death as a catalyst for change and thus do violence to macro-evolution theory as it is popularly understood and believed. Such machinations of macro-evolution theory do not satisfy my opponent's burden in disproving my thesis.

4 Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross for Man's Sin
My opponent's argument seems to be that the penalty for sin is only spiritual death and not physical death. This is clearly not the case.

The penalty for sin is both spiritual and physical death as demonstrated by Old Testament sacrifice and Christ's death on the cross. O.T. sacrifice was a foreshadowing of Christ's necessary sacrifice. O.T. sacrifice required the physical killing of animals and the shedding of blood. How would this represent a death that was only spiritual?

My opponent fails to recognize the most important aspect of Christ's death being that He was resurrected from the dead and walked the earth in bodily form. Christ conquered spiritual death and physical death.

Macro-evolution requires death. If God used macro-evolution as His method of creation then He would have created death and said it was good (Gen 1:12, 21, 25 & 31) This is in contradiction to Romans 6:23: "the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Since macro-evolution requires death it is in contradiction to the Bible and the law of non-contradiction dictates that both cannot be true. If anything contradicts the Word of God then it must necessarily be rejected as false and therefore incompatible with the objective reality and absolute truth of Christian doctrine.

5 The Ark: Few Thousand Years vs. Billions
My opponent refers to three possible ways to reconcile macro-evolution theory and the Biblical account of the flood.
The first is to disregard the face value reading of Genesis and deny either that the flood was global or that the flood happened at all. This solution would make macro-evolution and face-value Genesis mutually exclusive.

The second and third solutions would not validate the compatibility of macro-evolution with Christian doctrine because there would be no intersection between the two.

I appreciate the attention of the reader and anticipate my opponent's vigorous response.
beem0r

Con

======
1: Six Days
===
My opponent claims that it is impossible to not take Genesis literally, because "Christian doctrine represents an objective reality and absolute truth." Not only has my opponent made this claim without supporting it at all, simply assuming that every reader already agrees with him, but even most Christians do not view The Bible as absolute truth.

Less than half of Christians believe that the Bible is to be taken literally, yet my opponent has taken the minority position and claimed that his position is right because it is absolute truth by God's authority. When did God ever say every word of the bible was literal? In fact, it seems likely that the bible was not meant to be literally true, which is why there are minor inconsistencies in the Bible. Minor inconsistencies are no problem if we don't assume that everything in the bible is word for word true, but even the smallest inconsistency is a problem if we take the bible as an literal work of absolute truth.
Lacking a statement from God about this matter, it seems the only authorities who have actually made their positions on the issue clear are church leaders. As I've noted previously, Catholicism has openly accepted evolution as a valid theory, and have noted that Genesis is symbolic rather than literal. Why is their viewpoint invalid? Because someone from some other group has claimed that the bible is literal, on the absolute authoprity of God? It's really too bad we don't have God's testimony on the issue - the Catholic church could also claim that their position has absolute divine authority. We have no reason to believe my opponent's claim of his specific interpretation having divine authority backing it up.

My opponent claims "Since we know that the Bible is God's revelation to man and our final authority on objective reality and absolute truth, anything that contradicts the Bible must necessarily be rejected as false. Any teaching that contradicts the Word of God must be regarded as false," but we don't know that the bible is what he says it is. Many christians do not believe that. Perhaps the doctrine of his specific church claims that, but many other Christian doctrines do not say that the Bible is the authority on objective reality.

You'll note that there are many different doctrines in Christianity. However, my opponent seems to be referring to "Christian doctrine" as one specific thing. The only sensible way to define this is by calling "christian doctrine" the necessary doctrines one must hold in order to be a Christian. This seems to be as brief a doctrine as follows: "Jesus died on the cross for the sins of humanity." There's very little else that would be in a specific thing called "Christian doctrine." We cannot include "the Bible is absolute truth" because that is only a position SOME christian groups hold to be true. That would be a Southern Baptist doctrine, and a doctrine of whatever other groups consider the bible to be absolute truth.

My points here stand - my opponent has simply claimed that non-literal interpretations are wrong, and he has claimed that divine authority agrees with him on this issue, but he has failed to produce any proof for his bold claim.

======
2: Order of Events
===
Note that the important part of this point is already dealt with in my response to point #1.

However, I did make a side-point that my opponent is now challenging. I claimed that macroevolution does not dictate a specific order of events. This is true. The theory of macroevolution is simply the theory that there is a system by which speciation can take place, and that system acting out has led to the current biological diversity.
Claiming that macroevolution dictates a specific order of events is like saying "That apple over there is going to fall towards the earth when I let go of it" is part of gravitational theory. Application of gravitational theory would indeed lead to the conclusion that the apple will fall toward Earth, but "that apple will fall toward earth" is not a tenet of gravitational theory.

My opponent also brings up the fossil record, which works to support macroevolution. This is like the observations we have made of things falling. While it's true that those observations supported gravity, that does not mean that those observations are actually part of gravitational theories - they are simply observations that are in line with gravitational theories.

======
3: Death
===
Once again, the point about a non-literal bible stands. See #1.
But in side-narguments, the order of events is not described in macro-evolution theory, it is described in other fields of science. Macroevolution is ONLY the PROCESS by which speciation occurs. It isn't the timeline of such speciation events. While the potential falsehood of these timelines would take away much of the support we have for evolution, it would not disprove evolution, since evolution is only a process. A person might not be justified in believing evolution if this happened, but it wouldn't be incompatible with even a literal interpretation of the bible in this sense.

But like I said last round, and my opponent ignored completely, the death which came into the world with the fall of man was a spiritual death, the type of death we earn through sin (hypothetical non-sinners still die biological deaths, they just go to heaven, as any sinner who has had their sins taken from by Jesus does).

======
4: Sacrifice on the Cross
===
As humans, people die. This is a simple fact.
As sinners, people die a spiritual death in the form of separation from God for eternity.
In the Old Testament, it seemed that God required a sacrifice to appease his justice, and people sacrificed animals to him. This may or may not have been an adequate - I don't recall God ever telling us whether it was or not.
Heck, perhaps it's the case that God accepted sacrifices of physical lives as payment for the well-being of spiritual lives. In any case, it is not contradictory to believe that Humans die as part of nature and that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Also, I will have you note that Evolution makes no claim about whether death exists necessarily for all life.

======
5: Ark
===
My opponent first brought up this point as a supposed contradiction between Christian doctrine and Evolution. Note that the argument I gave in point 1 is still valid here - many Christians do not see the Bible, especially Genesis, as being literally true.

But note that I gave two possiblities to reconcile even a LITERAL view of Genesis with Evolution in this regard.

1. Accelerated microevolution
This is likely how many creationists try to explain the biodiversity we have gained in only the past few thousand years since the Ark. While it's often used by creationists, it is NOT an explanation that contradicts macroevolution, so I have shown that a literal view of Genesis and Macroevolution do not contradict on the point of the Ark.

2. More biodiversity on the Ark than we thought
This is the only other explanation a non-evolutionist can use. Once again, this expanation does NOT contradict macroevolution as my opponent claims it does.

Until next round.
Debate Round No. 2
RedShirt

Pro

1 – Six Days
My opponent heavily appeals to one of two strategies. The first strategy is to discredit face-value Genesis. The second strategy is to deny the reality of established and currently accepted scientific records of the history of the planet. I will attempt to dispose of these two strategies under this point and, where necessary, address any particulars under the remaining points.

The second strategy is the easiest to dispose of so I will start there. We note that the thesis states "macro-evolution, as currently understood and accepted," therefore any manipulation of macro-evolution that my opponent employs that alters it from the "currently understood and accepted" state, necessarily fails. This might be a disputable point if it were applied to an unsettled or disputable aspect of the scientific record but my opponent has used this strategy in attempts to suggest drastic alterations of reality.

Under point 2 my opponent suggests that the order of events is not important to macro-evolution. The problem is that the fossil record is used as evidence to prove the validity of macro-evolution precisely because of the order of events it is purported to show. The fossil record cannot be changed no matter what my opponent speculates. Additionally if the fossil record were changed in a manner that fit Genesis, macro-evolution would cease to be "as currently understood and accepted" or valid at all.

Under point 3 my opponent suggests that death is not required for macro-evolution to produce complex creatures like men. The problem is that the fossil record, as applied to macro-evolution, dictates hundreds of millions of years of stuff getting dead. The fossil record cannot be changed no matter what my opponent speculates. If his speculations don't match with reality then they are not valid.

To dispose of my opponent's strategy of attacking face-value Genesis will apparently require a more thorough development. He attacks my statement "Christian doctrine represents an objective reality and absolute truth" as being unsubstantiated but the statement is actually self evident in terms of this debate. It is a simple logical progression.

Once we assume the Christian God, which we must to have this debate, we necessarily assume that God is the author of the objective reality in which we operate and is also necessarily the author of Christian doctrine. It is also a necessary assumption that God, objective reality and Christian doctrine are true and non-contradictory. If we change any of these assumptions then we change the nature of what is being discussed and it is no longer of the Christian God.

Furthermore, when we assume the Christian God, we must necessarily assume the scripture of the Holy Bible is God's revelation to man. Why? Because it is the chief source of what is known about the Christian God. One cannot assume the Christian God but deny the source from where the knowledge of the Christian God is found. To do so would change the nature of God. If we assume the Bible then we must assume that the Bible is true and non-contradictory with objective reality and Christian doctrine.

In short, if we assume the Christian God, which we must to have this debate, then God, objective reality, Christian doctrine and the Bible must necessarily be non-contradictory and true. Therefore anything that is contradictory with one of these things must necessarily be false.

My opponent points out that there are those who operate under the label "Christian" but hold a variety of often contradictory beliefs. This is of no consequence. Objective reality, God, Christian doctrine and absolute truth remain unchanged. These things and their nature are not contingent on belief or on consensus. The final authority on objective reality and Christian doctrine is God. Not men.

Where do we learn about God's objective reality and Christian doctrine? God's Word, the Bible. My opponent points out that some, who claim the label "Christian," do not believe that the Bible should be taken at face value. Should it be? Is the Bible the absolute authority of God? My opponent wishes that we had God's testimony on the matter.

We do. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Furthermore we have the Biblical record of Jesus Christ habitually quoting and referencing scripture and Christ believed that scripture is the Word of God (Matt 22:31,32)

The Bible is God's revelation to man. Is it logical to think that God's revelation should be taken figuratively or that it could be disregarded? If your boss gave you instructions in a memo, would it be reasonable to disregard the face value meaning in exchange for one foreign to what was written? If the supreme creator-god of the universe gave you instructions would it be reasonable to disregard its meaning for a wildly different interpretation?

The face value meaning of Genesis is very clear and specific. There must be some compelling scriptural reason to justify disregarding the face value meaning for one that is foreign to what is written. No such compelling scriptural reason exists. Without a compelling scriptural reason, any departure from face value scripture must be regarded as heresy, not Christian doctrine.

2 – Order of Events
See point #1

Here my opponent relies on his objections to face value scripture cataloged in his point #1. I address those objections in my point #1.

We are not dealing with theoretical musings of what may be possible in the framework of macro-evolution but with matters of scientific record held to be a true account of how macro-evolution operated on earth and deposited a fossil record. This isn't about "what might happen if" but about what the scientific community says did indeed happen. My opponent does not enjoy the privilege to manipulate the order of the scientific record to fit speculation. Either the scientific record of what is accepted as macro-evolution on earth is consistent with Christian doctrine or it is not. I say that it is not. My opponent would reconcile the two by either destroying the integrity of the Bible or the integrity of the fossil record.

3 – Death
See point #1

Additionally: I am puzzled about my opponent's assertion that I ignored the spiritual aspect of death as consequence of the fall of man. My opponent actually discussed this in his 4th point of round 1 and I dealt with it in my 4th point of round 2. I ask my opponent to review those points. If he still finds that I have ignored an aspect of his argument, I will strive to atone.

4 – Sacrifice on the Cross
My opponent continues to hold to the notion that the penalty for sin is only spiritual death. He fails to address the fact that Christ's death on the cross was a physical death as well as a spiritual death. Furthermore, and more importantly, Christ's resurrection was a physical resurrection. This gives ample support to the fact that the penalty of sin is both spiritual and physical.

5 – Ark
My opponent holds three possible ways to reconcile Genesis with macro-evolution in regard to the flood. This first is to say Genesis isn't true – see point #1. The second - accelerated micro-evolution and third – sufficient biodiversity do not create a conflict between Christian doctrine and macro-evolution but neither do they confirm a harmony between the two because there is no necessary intersection. Nevertheless, I will concede point # 5 to my opponent.

I conclude that my first four points stand and as such represent irreconcilable conflicts between macro-evolution and Christian doctrine. I concede my 5th point to my opponent but note that the 5th point holds no bearing on the first four nor does it confirm a positive, harmonious interworking of macro-evolution and Christian doctrine.

I await my opponent's response.
beem0r

Con

beem0r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RedShirt

Pro

I regret that my opponent has forfeited the last round. He leaves much unanswered and unchallenged.

I will move to my closing words.

I am glad for the opportunity this debate has given me to test and reflect on my positions and arguments.

In considering this debate I believe I have succeeded in logically defending my position and have done so in a considerate and thoughtful manner. I am interested to read my opponent's closing words if he chooses to leave any and take advantage of having the last word. Other than that, I leave the debate in the hands of the reader to judge as they see fit.

Thanks again to my opponent and thanks to anyone who took the time to read this debate.
beem0r

Con

Having forfeited my previous round due to neglect, it seems unfair to bring up any new points. However, I will go over the arguments I did make.

===
Example
===
There is at least one form of Christianity which explicitly accepts evolution while rejecting some of the notions biblical literalists put forth.
The example I gave is Catholicism, the largest branch of Christianity. Its (Christian) doctrine is compatible with evolution, macro and micro alike. Christian doctrine is therefore not _absolutely incompatible_ with macroevolution. An absolute such as that statement can have no exceptions, and I have shown an exception, therefore the statement is false.

===
My opponent's arguments
===
My opponent brings up many parts of the bible that do not mesh with macroevolution. However, only strict biblical literalists have the entire bible as doctrine. Christianity as an inclusive term has only a few doctrines - Christ came to earth and died for mankind's sin so that mankind could get into heaven through his sacrifice. That's pretty much all the doctrine necessary for a form of Christianity. Specific brands of Christianity have additional doctrines - for example, biblical literalists believe the entire bible is literally true. However, that is part of biblical literalist doctrine, not part of Christian doctrine in general. Biblical literalist doctrine may be incompatible with macro-evolution, but Christian doctrine and macro-evolution can indeed coexist.

I have also shown that macroevolution does not specify what happened in the past. It is a theory about a process, not about a timeline. The theory of gravity does not say that 300 years ago a man jumped and fell to the ground, but it does explain the process by which that would happen. Macroevolution does not specify that death existed at time X, and macroevolution does not even need death in order to work (it simply needs imperfect reproduction and comparative reproductive advantages). The entire point about physical death only existing after the fall of man does not contradict macroevolution. It may contradict the fossil record, it may contradict the timeline of events we have theorized, and it might therefore contradict a lot of the supporting evidence for macroevolution, but it does not contradict the process of macroevolution (though it would likely make it just a hypothesis, rather than a theory).

I'll rest my case there.
Thanks to my opponent for the debate, and to all of you for reading.
Debate Round No. 4
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RedShirt 7 years ago
RedShirt
1Billion applies circular logic to express his prejudiced disposition toward Christianity.

Notice: "the more sensible a Christian is about thier faith, the more their faith starts disassociating with the Bible and fundamentalist ideas."

Here 1Billion makes the judgement that it is "sensible" to disassociate with the Bible. Hence the only criteria he gives for being "sensible" about faith is to the degree that one rejects the foundation of that faith.

He also seems to approve of those who would claim to be a "Christian" and yet reject any foundation that would give meaning to the claim.

I wonder. Would 1Billion also approve of someone who, for instance, claimed to be a college graduate when they were actually a high-school drop-out and simultaneously condemn someone who claimed to be a college graduate who actually was a college graduate?
Posted by RedShirt 7 years ago
RedShirt
beem03 makes an unsubstantiated claim: "Most Christians don't view Genesis as literally true"

However, even if it were true that "most Christians don't view Genesis as literally true," it would have no bearing on whether or not Genesis is literally true.

Reality is not contingent on belief. Nor is reality a democratic process where the majority gets to vote on it.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
agreed. It's interesting to point out, however, that the more sensible a Christian is about thier faith, the more their faith starts disassociating with the Bible and fundamentalist ideas. Many Christians merely keep the idea of God, and throw out the rest as rubbish.
Posted by beem0r 7 years ago
beem0r
Most Christians don't view Genesis as literally true, so they likely don't believe that God made the first female human from the first male human's rib.

Only fundamentalist Christian doctrines require that Genesis be taken as word-for-word truth. Science does disagree with that specific sub-doctrine on several points, but there is no clash between the most general form of Christian doctrine and "macro-evolution."
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
God took a rip from Adam and made Eve from it. Can't think when in the evolutionary process where that occurs. 6 day creation seems to be true according to that piece of Genesis.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Con won this one in simple form due to the resolution, "absolutely incompatible" will not work with several different Christian doctrines. Con needed to show any doctrine that allows for evolution to refute this one. Pro attempted to claim any doctrine not in accord with a "face value" reading of Genesis as heresy; such claims are false as YECs use a selective reading of Genesis not one of face value. Kent Hovind did this in a live debate with a theistic evolutionist, he did not do well once the audience heard his claims of heresy.
In addition, macro evolution should simply be the theory of evolution as much as YECs hate to hear that, it is true. Con wins.
Posted by RedShirt 7 years ago
RedShirt
Black lipstick? (he asked expecting the answer "yes")

Do a search for a Muslim-themed debate and guess what kind of matching service you will find in the rented box to the left.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
ooooooh.... your talking my language now. But she has to have cut marks on her wrists and lots of lipstick...
Posted by RedShirt 7 years ago
RedShirt
Rob1Billion,

They're probably just stock photos that are used to advertise everything from truck-stop diet pills to knock-off cologne.

Were you thinking about signing up? I bet if you go over to the industrial-nihilist-atheist-skater area of the forum you can see stock photos of some pale-skinned chick with black nail-polish and a gauge. That'll getcha goin', eh?
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
I'm getting a kick out of the "certified Christian" dating service ads on the left of the screen. It's got a picture of some slut with a christian stamp of approval on her, she probably doesn't even know how to spell kristchin.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
RedShirtbeem0rTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a better case in his stance that, "Macro-evolution is incompatible with Christian Doctrine".
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
RedShirtbeem0rTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a rather frustrating debate over-all, and I realize my vote is inherently biased since I believe the Pro side; But legitimately believe the Pro wins here. I would have definitely liked to have seen more link to scripture, and less of the whole "I think I think that"
Vote Placed by gtvwls8 7 years ago
gtvwls8
RedShirtbeem0rTied
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:23 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
RedShirtbeem0rTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
RedShirtbeem0rTied
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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
RedShirtbeem0rTied
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 Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
RedShirtbeem0rTied
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:07