The Instigator
radz
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Micro-Evolution will not undergo Macro-Evolution

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 3 votes the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,977 times Debate No: 39158
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

radz

Pro

Debate Introduction

It is said that
Microevolution ( i.e. The first phase of biological evolution) will inevitably undergo macroevolution ( i.e. Speciation of an organism dramatically results into a completely different specie than its ancestor) as time goes by.

I admit that this is scientifically an educated guess (i.e. hypothesis) and hence, it's probably the correct natural explanation of the origin of all current life forms in our natural and physical
world.

But there is an alternative explanation than this one and it's found in the Christian Scriptures.

I request to my opponent to consider the book per se as infallible in this debate because I will present scriptural evidence for both creationism and evolutionism but not theism.

Points of Agreement

1) Evolution is descent with modification and it's change of genome not of an individual but of a population
2) Macro-evolution is reality (e.g. antiobiotic resistance)
3) Natural Selection
4) Adaptation
5) Mutation

Points of disagreement

1) Macro-evolution is focused on speciation per se in which " an organism became different in form than its ancestor". It's a probable explanation of how life forms exist based on scientific hypotheses but not the best explanantion because this area of scientific study is lacking of evidence of how did all start. This sort of biological evolution is only focused on what happens after all started to exist.
2) Common ancestor

Specifically, my argument is that Micro-Evolution will not undergo Macro-Evolution because the Christian Scriptures highly implies that it will not.

Conclusion:

Both micro-evolution and the Christian Scriptures offers a very possible, coherent, logical and rational explanation, which is non-contradictory to science, for the existence of all current life forms but in this debate I must prove that the Christian Scriptures offers the best one because of it's large scope that includes the origin of life per se.











Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I accept the debate. To clarify, I am going to highlight a few more points of agreement, and a few more points of disagreement.

Points of Agreement

1) Evolution, though each time only affecting an individual, causes entire populations to change.
2) Evolution is the combination of natural selection and genetic mutation on a scale large enough to cause speciation.
3) Natural Selection and mutation are of course proven beyond all doubt to occur.
4) Biological evolution is not a moral or ethical theory, and we cnanot derive from the existence of evolution a moral principle
5) Speciation is defined as a change in kind, or to use a common layman definition, the change of one species dramatically enough to prevent mating which causes viable offspring.
6) The strength of a theory relies on two points:
i) The number of potentially false hypotheses, and
ii) Not containing any actually false hypotheses (i and ii make falsification, proposed by Popper).
7) The debate is not about whether macro-evolution did occur historically, but whether it can occur (or rather, is occurring, for macro-evolution takes a long period of time).


Points of disagreement

1) Christianity in my opponent's interpretation is justified
2) The Christian Scriptures explicitly denies the existence of evolution on a speciation scale.


I will not, to be clear, assume here that the Bible is infallible. For many reasons I will not do this, but the major one being it is a category error. A book does not contain fallibility or infallibility, but only readers or people who can express thought. A book can be interpreted in many, many different ways. The Bible, the most read book in history, so clearly has so many interpretations that to assume it to be infallible is nonsensical. Moreover, there is nothing stopping the book being infallible, and metaphorical. Indeed, much of the Bible is metaphor or parable, so to take it all literally is again contrary to reason. In short, I will be expecting my opponent to show the validity and factual nature of the Bible in the course of the debate as well as showing creationism to be true.
Debate Round No. 1
radz

Pro

I am happy and glad that my opponent has accepted my debate.

I granted my opponent's wish. We are now to deviate from the debate topic and below are my arguments about the holy Bible and theism.


On the Infallibility of the Scriptures


The Christian Scriptures are infallible because they contain no errors or contradictions. I challenge my opponent to give one explicit contradiction in the said book.

Premise 1: The Bible says it.
Premise 2: Evidence proves it.
Conclusion: what the Bible says is true because it's verified by evidence.


On the Interpretation of the Scriptures

The Christian Scriptures per se records that many will false teachers of the Bible will come and this is the reason why although there are many interpretations there is always one true interpretation that exists. As to how to know if someone's interpretation is the right one, we should consider the following:

1) context of the text
2) cultural and historical backround of the text
3) intended meaning of the writer
4) meaning which is not contradictory to other texts

Humans are rational beings. God himself said "Come, Let us reason together" ( Isaiah 1:18) and the context of this utterance of God is about salvation of his people from their sins which are compared to obejcts and hues via figure of speech, simile: "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool."

On the existence of God

God means "the creator of all things, worthy of worship". The Christian God is One and this is the only one true God.This single deity exists as three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

I will only give evidence for the existence of God because this is the request of my opponent.

Premise 1: All natural things known on earth has its origin
Premise 2: All that has an origin has a creator (whether it's a person or not)
Conclusion: There's a creator who caused all natural things into existence.

If my opponent cannot give an alternative explanation of the origin of life then theism has its veracity confirmed because my opponent cannot say " we'll know it soon as science progress" or the like.

In fact, science cannot prove that God doesn't exists because s
cience operates on induction. The inductive method entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observation. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find.

Since science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything, one can never accurately claim that science has proven God doesn't exist. That's a misuse of the discipline. Such a claim would require omniscience. The only way one can say a thing does not exist is not by using the inductive method, but by using a deductive method, by showing that there's something about the concept itself that is contradictory.

This means, by the way, that all inductive knowledge is contingent. One cannot know anything inductively with absolute certainty. The inductive method gives us knowledge that is only probably true. Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in an absolute sense. It can provide a high degree of confidence based on evidence that strongly justifies scientific conclusions, but its method never allows certainty.

I challenge my opponent to present an irrefutable proof for atheism and against theism.

Thank You!

Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I'll argue in favour of the evolutionary model over the creationist doctrine. My argument is three-step. First, I'll argue against God. Then, I'll criticise the Bible being an infallible document supporting creation. Finally, I'll support for evolution. Note that each of these three steps are independent: there is no domino effect, where if one is false, so are the others. Disproving God does not disprove the Bible's support of creation, nor does it prove evolution to be true. However, if God does not exist, or if the Bible is inaccurate, or if evolution is true, then the doctrine of my opponent is necessarily false. With that in mind, I'll begin.

The Existence of God

The problem of evil is a simple enough argument. Consider you see a woman being mugged and raped in the corner of an alley. Imagine you have a stun gun in your hand, and now how to use it. You have the ability to stop an evil being committed: therefore, we would all agree, we ought to stop that woman being mugged and raped. Yet God, we are led to believe, has the tools to stop evil taking place, as well as the moral righteousness to stop the rape taking place. So why does evil exist? Some respond that God protects our free will, which justifies his inaction. This has three problems: the woman’s free will of course is being infringed upon, so God’s inaction infringes still upon free will. Secondly, if infringing on the free will of the rapist is immoral, then I must allow these atrocities to continue, which is abhorrent and blatantly ludicrous. And finally, this explains moral evils, but not natural evils: why is it that the world has tsunamis, earthquakes, animals that kill us, diseases that plague our existence, dirty water, nuclear radiation, an endless list of destructive ills that maim, torture or kill us, when a God has the power to stop it?

My second “Argument from Evil” is one from technology. Compare the life of a working class woman in Britain or America a thousand years ago to today. The technological and political advances today give that woman so much more freedom and liberty and happiness and general quality of life. So what reason is there not to have granted that woman a thousand years ago – or the first couple – the boons of technology? Free will of course is a moot point here: we had resources to build these technologies, and in a sense of resources we had some, such as fire and wood, but lacked harder metals and the ability to use them. Instead, we spent thousands of years toiling vainly, doing things that took days in the past that take minutes to do now, like manufacturing clothes or working the land. The lack of technological aid implies the inexistence of a God, similar to the existence of the gratuitous suffering of the innocent.

Regarding my opponent's cosmological argument, I shall quickly present my rebuttal. Firstly, the fact that all natural things known on this earth has an origin is as true as the claim that all things known on this earth have a natural cause. So are we to assume inductively that the cause is natural also? This is a fallacy of composition, where we assume because the part of an object has a characteristic (an origin, orcause), then we assume that the whole - in this case the universe - has an origin as well. To skip the science quickly for brevity (though it shall be expanded upon in R2), I believe that an uncaused singularity is the most likely explanation for the cause of all other natural things. To refer causation to a supernatural thing presupposes the existence of the supernatural, and that the supernatural can interfere with our world: two premises that need to be justified for my opponent’s argument to succeed. Mine, however, does not rely on the supernatural and therefore is much more sound.

The Case Against the Bible

I’ll state here my case against the historicity of prophecy, and then later move on to my case against miracles. The prophecy I’ll criticise though is the inflammatory Ezekiel. He is very entertaining to read, but simply fails to be accurate even the most adamant bibliophile must admit. Ezekiel’s prediction was Tyre's destruction would be complete and permanent:

"The merchants among the peoples will hiss at you; you will become a horror, and be no more forever". God, according to Ezekiel, states: “I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, with chariots, and with horsemen, and an army with many people. He will slay with the sword your daughter villages in the fields; he will heap up a siege mound against you, build a wall against you, and raise a defense against you. He will direct his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers… I will put an end to the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps shall be heard no more. I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets, you shall never be rebuilt, for I Yahweh have spoken,"(emphasis added)(Ez. 26)

He doubly mentions Tyre’s complete permanent destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, yet its falsehood can be verified by a simple visit to your public library. Ezekiel prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and that "you (Tyre) shall never be rebuilt" (26:14) and "shall be no more, though you are sought for, you will never be found again" (26:21). History, however, records the fact that Nebuchadnezzar not only didn't destroy Tyre, he didn't even capture it. The New Encyclopedia Britannica 1978 states: “ and in 585-573 (B.C.) [Tyre] successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II”, and Encyclopedia Americana 1984 states: “Nebuchadnezzar II, subjected the island to a 13-year siege (585-572) without success”. The city was only taken by Alexander, hundreds of years later. But even if we are to assume Ezekiel got the name wrong (and catastrophically wrong at that), “The city did not lie in ruins long. Colonists were imported and citizens who had escaped returned. The energy of these with the advantage of the site, in a few years raised the city to wealth and leadership again”[4]. The Bible’s prophecies are bunk, and with it so are scriptural inerrancy.

Secondly, I want to move to Biblical Miracles which are supposedly to have occurred. One of my most favourite miracles of the Bible is Joshua 10, where in the midst of a battle between Joshua and the five Amorite Kings, "The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely theLord was fighting for Israel!"[5] In other words, God stopped the spin of the earth and its spin around the sun.

Miracles like this are common in the Bible. Indeed, they are a central necessity for the Bible to be true. Yet we have every reason to believe that miracles are impossible. As Hume pointed out, a miracle is defined as "a violation of the laws of nature". Miracles are simply without evidence: no miracle has been provided which gives us strong evidence to believe that the laws of nature which we observe every day as holding to be true, have ever been suspended for a single individual or group at a moment of time for no particular reason apart from Divine Will. Indeed, miracles seem impossible because the suspension of the laws of nature is contrary to every fiber of our reason. Moreover, the miracles that seem to arise are only justified by flimsy witness testimony - usually a secondary source at that. We know for a fact that human beings tend to exaggerate, and miracles are usually only found among those who are in a pre-scientific time, by those who would rather believe the fantastical stories than not, yet very rarely are they accepted by those who have no vested interest to believe the miracle took place. Finally, the sheer number of miracles from each different religious group - Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etcetera - all force us to question whether there is anything unique about these miracles at all. For if we accept a miracle proving Christianity, there are many miracles in Islam and Hindu faiths which are equally strongly (or weakly) supported. When seen with a critical eye, we have no reason to support the existence of these miracles, and therefore cannot accept the God thrown along with them. Both God and the inerrancy of scripture must be chucked.

My opponent also referred to a completely unsubstantiated argument in favour of the Bible’s inerrancy. As such, I’d lie him to justify each premise. I claim that not only the Bible is inaccurate, but it nowhere denies macro-evolution as well. Furthermore, how are we supposed to know the intended meaning of the author who wrote the Bible? They are long dead, and we are only guessing at their intended meaning based on our cultural and historical understanding (which is synonymous with context). My opponent’s justification for interpretation is essentially whether it fits context, and is consistent. Of course, this means there are dozens of correct interpretations of the Bible, which I am sure is not what my opponent wishes to claim. And to make one more nitpick: all this comes down to personal interpretation of the Bible. Is this not subjective?

Justifying Evolution

I’ll rely on a mathematical formula to explain evolution:

Natural Selection + Genetic Mutation = Diversification and Speciation.

This means there are three premises to justify:

1) Natural Selection (we have granted this)
2) Genetic Mutation (again, granted)
3) This leads to diversification and speciation (contended).

As such, I'll be focussing on justifying premise 3. It does seem intuitively obvious, however: a single letter change in a ten thousand deep code would probably have little effect (I say probably - of course some are huge). But what about ten? A hundred? A thousand changes? This would completely alter the entire system and cause complete diversification. Why does my opponent deny this to occur?

Debate Round No. 2
radz

Pro


The Bible disprove macro-evolution:

Premise 1: The Bible states facts
Premise 2: Science is a set of facts
Conclusion: The Bible coheres with science. There's no contradiction to both.

Hence,

Premise 1: The Bible states that creatures are created by a common creator not evolved from a common ancestor ( Genesis 1)
Premise 2: Science must concur
Conclusion: Micro-Evolution will not undergo Macro-Evolution because the Christian Scriptures highly implies that it will not.

On the existence of God

Premise 1: God is perfect
Premise 2: Perfection denotes without any defect
Conclusion: Everything God does is never wrong

Premise 1: God forsees that creation would gone wrong
Premise 2: God still caused his plan creation to exist
Conclusion: God's deed is perfect

In the realm of post-fall, the universe is subject to the consequences of the original sin which God did not create but only allowed for his glory.

God's glory is the ultimate purpose why all things is happening the way they are. If someone does evil, there's a just punishment for it. Without evil, God's justice, holiness, grace cannot be evinced. This highly suggests that the entire creation is under God's sovereignty even in the existence of all sorts of evil.

The case against the Bible

On the Propohecy about Tyre

Failed Prophecy? There's no evidence against this claim. In fact, there's an evidence of its veracity and reality.Check this out: https://www.apologeticspress.org...;

Time stopped for Joshua, and it ran backwards for Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:9-11).
God used this event as a special sign to show Hezekiah that he would regain his health. The sun’s shadow moved backwards by ten steps, probably five to six hours on the sundial. That is, the sun appeared to move eastward instead of westward. The conclusion is again the same, that such a miracle is beyond scientific explanation.

God may have temporarily reversed the Earth’s rotation, including all its inhabitants, or the miracle in Hezekiah’s day could have been local instead of worldwide. The latter view is supported by 2 Chronicles 32:31, which describes envoys who traveled to the land where themiracle occurred.

Joshua and Hezekiah both made lofty requests of the Lord, that the very heavens might be altered. And God answered their prayers. The sun, moon, and stars obey the Creator who placed them in the sky by the power of his word.

Justifying evolution

This per se is our debate and I proposed a very rational argument supporting both sides.

Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Due to time restraints, I'll only post a quick rebuttal. However, I'll try to remain as accurate as I can.

The Bible and Macro-evolution

Firstly, I dispute every premise, because my opponent substantiates none of them. Secondly, I dispute the logic of the entire argument. While the Bible states "facts", its facts are literary, similar to the facts of A Clockwork Orange. They are allegorical and not meant to be taken literally, but instead a history of the Jewish people. Furthermore, my opponent is in reality claiming the following argument:

P1 - The Bible states true facts
P2 - Science is a set of facts
C1 - The Bible coheres with science.

I dispute that the Bible states anything on evolution. Indeed, I claim that the Bible is wholly compatible with macro-evolution, and my opponent has not substantiated where it states otherwise.

The Bible and Macroevolution Part Two:

Again, I dispute every premise. Other than "science must occur" being a category error (science is a systematic way of thinking: it cannot be compelled, nor must it concur with the Bible), more importantly my opponent completely misses the mark with his first premise. Note my seventh point of agreement:

"The debate is not about whether macro-evolution did occur historically, but whether it can occur"

While I hold that macro-evolution did occur historically, my opponent's argument here is irrelevant. Moreover, I invite him to show us why Genesis One states macro-evolution could not occur. I do not see any reason to believe this is so.

On God's Existence

Again, I dispute most premises. For one, my opponent's entire argument is hiding the uncomfortable truth that by his world view, God's creation is completely flawless as it is now. I dispute in fact premise one. It implies that God created the world knowing it would "go wrong", implying it would not go according to his ideal wishes. This is a necessary defect, and therefore God's world could not go wrong. So we have a conundrum: either this world is perfect, or God by my opponent's view does not exist. Clearly, one is more likely than the other. Moreover, his case referring to just punishment is maddening. God allows for the murderers to murder for the sole purpose of punishing them? What kind of gleeful monster creates purely with the goal of their punishment? None of this, however, is even remotely relevant as a rebuttal to my problem of technology argument, which needs addressing.

The Bible Prophecies

As has already been pointed out, the link does not work. However, I expect my opponent to actually explain why the Tyre prophecy stands up to scratch rather than proclaim it does then ad verecundium link me off-site.

And secondly, regarding Joshua 10. While my opponent has given a very nice account of what the Bible says, it does not substantiate that the event took place. Indeed, ignoring the fact that no-one else in the history of mankind has registered the event taking place, I gave many arguments why the miracle is one that should make us disbelieve the Bible.

Justifying Evolution

My opponent has not answered my question that I put forward already: why is it that a single small change - the drop of water in the bucket - is acceptable, but enough changes - enough drops of water in the bucket - does not justify macro-evolution? Just as a drop of water followed by another and another will eventually start to fill up a bucket, so does enough evolutionary micro-changes start to become a macro-one.

Examples of macro-evolution

I'll just list these off quickly:

1) The Lenski experiment - proved the macro-evolution of e.coli strands by teaching them to eat citric food sources. This is the equivalent of humans adapting their entire ingestion system to eat metal.

2) London Underground Mosquito - this mosquito type was isolated from other mosquitos, and has developed so much that it has become a separate kind. The term "mosquito" is kept only superficially[1]

3) Sphinx Moths and similar creatures have committed not just evolution, but saltation, which occurs over a single generation[2]. Though incredibly rare, saltation is a strong justification for evoution.

1 - http://www.gene.ch...;
2 - http://www.plosone.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
radz

Pro

On the Scriptures

The Bible records facts that are not contradictory to science. The facts recorded therein are all to be taken either literally or figuratively based on its literary type.

Historically,allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament Scripture started with Hellenism in Judaism. Hence, this sort of understanding the texts wasn't clearly the ancient way.

Conclusion:

My argument still stands:

P1 - The Bible states true facts
P2 - Science is a set of facts
C1 - The Bible coheres with science.

The Bible and Macro-evolution

I agree that the Bible never speaks of biological evolution per se but modern science doesn't contradict the Bible. What contradicts the Bible is the scientific hypothesis of macro-evolution.


The Bible and Macroevolution Part Two

I am referring to science as a set of facts which itself having contain those facts doesn't conflict with the facts stated in the Bible.


Science works on induction as stated earlier in the debate. This shows that science can only prove what it can observe what it cannot observe.

Macro-evolution could have been occured based on current evidences in the field of sciences ( e.g. biology, genetics, paleontology, etc) but this evidences we got from those relevant sciences falls short in that all of it collectively is micro-evolution per se plus very long time.

Genesis One states macro-evolution could not occur because macro-evolution presupposes that every specie has its origin from a common ancestor, that animals and plants were not created after their own kind.

On God's Existence

My opponent misapprehended my argument. In my world view, God's creation is in the current state of perilous condition:

1) defect

2) disease

3) death

4) moral evil

5) natural evil

These are the inevitable effect of the original sin ( Genesis 3, Romans 5; 8:28). Hence, it is referred to as the post-fall.

The question Atheists always asks is why did God still caused his plan of creation to exists if he knew that rebellion against him will inevitably usher?

It is because he has his plan of restoration having known the destruction that will come.

God doesn't allow murderers to murder for the purpose of punishing them. The purpose he allowed it is because it will show his trait of being just by means of punishing them. The purpose why the world still exists despite of the presence of evil is for God's glory and the fact that it exists and is headed to an eschatological event evinces God's sovereignity.

Problem of technology

Genesis chapter 3 laid the answer:


1) Because of Eve's deception she is made subordinate to her husband.

2) Because Adam obeyed her wife, he will work for a living.

God cursed mankind and this is the direct consequence of the original sin.

It is logical that from this curse,mankind became what they are today as history itself also confirms. What we have today ( science and technology) are results of these just punishments.

Of course, the punishment per se are for their own sake, that is, for their own survival.

The Bible Prophecies

The Destruction of Tyre

Nebuchadnezzar did not succeed in completely destroying subduing Tyre because the inhabitants of the city all abandoned it to escape to a large island fortress off the coast. Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of mainland Tyre however fulfilled Ezek 26:7-11.

Ezekiel 26:3 certainly indicates that multiple nations would be involved in the ultimate destruction of Tyre (see also Ezek 29:18). This may refers to Alexander the Great’s later conquering of the city of Tyre. Again the people of Tyre tried to escape via their island fortress.

Alexander the Great scraped bare the dust from the city of Tyre in order to construct a walkway out to the island, he then destroyed Tyre (as prophesied in Ezek 26:4). In modern times this area is for the most part desolate rock where fishermen spread their nets (as prophesied in Ezek 26:14).

Joshua 10

“the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the people had revenge upon their enemies” (Joshua 10:13).

Honestly, I have clearly no scientific proof for this because as said earlier, science works on induction. What we can only know is that this a miracle done by God whch is recorded in the Bible. By knowing this, no one can disprove the miracle without first disproving the existence of the God of the bible.

P1: The Bible is inerrant
P2: God exists
C1: God can perform a miracle. In fact, he created all things ex nihilo.

Justifying evolution

Macro-evolution is an educated guess (i.e. hypothesis). It's a probable scientific explanation of how diverse sorts of biological specie exists. Basically, this is the second phase of biological evolution being the micro-evolution the first phase.

It is said that Microevolution ( i.e. The first phase of biological evolution) will inevitably undergo macroevolution ( i.e. Speciation of an organism dramatically results into a completely different specie than its ancestor) as time goes by.

This is the mathematical formula that explains macro-evolution:

Natural Selection + Genetic Mutation + sufficient time = Diversification and Speciation.


The crux of the argument is TIME and indeed, a very long one that none of the scientists can observe. Science works on induction and hence, because macro-evolution cannot be observed science could only speculate about it.
































Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Evolution

Most of what my opponent has said has no relevance to my case, interestingly enough, on this point. There are two claims he makes here which are relevant: firstly, that macro-evolution claims we have all descended from a common ancestor. Secondly, that macro-evolution has never occurred.

With regards to the first claim, that macro-evolution claims we all have descended from a common ancestor - this is not the topic of debate. Consider this possibility: the world was created last thursday. This means there has been absolutely no time for even natural selection and genetic mutation to take place, meaning no micro-evolution has occurred, yet alone macro-evolution. Does this make macro-evolution impossible, however? No. Given enough time in the future, even if the world was made last thursday, macro-evolution could (and will) still take place. The starting point of where life came from has no grip on whether macro-evolution takes place. My opponent is still yet to give evidence from scripture that macro-evolution is impossible.

Secondly, my opponent claims macro-evolution has never been observed - indeed, that it cannot be observed. However, what we are looking for in short is genetic mutation and natural selection on a scale large enough to cause speciation. In other words, we are looking for speciation. Speciation has been found, as I have already stated, in the Lenski experiment, with the London Underground Mosquitos, and the Sphinx Moths. We also have Nylon bugs[1], Cavefish[2], and even cabbage[3] that undergo speciation in our lifetimes. The flu virus in fact speciates every year! To claim it has not been observed is to reveal an ignorance in science.

On God

My opponent with regards to the problem of evil has just pushed the goal posts further, but he has made it more difficult for himself. His argument is now that the fall occured, and it was just. I dispute both. I dispute that the fall is a historical event that we should take literally and not figuratively, and I dispute that it was a morally right actions.

Moreover, my opponent is showing God to be more psychopathic by the moment: God creates murderers for the express purpose of murder, so he may sadistically punish them? If a scientist created mice to torture and kill other mice, so he later could torture those mice (behind close doors, of course, so it won't deter other mice from torturing and killing), we would call that scientist a monster, abhorrent, and a plethora of other words. Yet even the most ambitious megalomaniac would pale at the suffering that my opponent claims God causes, simply "for God's glory" or "to show [God's] trait of being just by means of punishing them." If any person did this, we would call the abhorrent. Yet my opponent is ludicrously making exception for his deity.

However, none of this even touches upon my technology argument. Even if it is all true, then God still allows us to use computers, cars, planes, and a plethora of other technologies. These ameliorate the punishment God justly gave upon us. Are we immoral by making lives easier for ourselves? Is technological advancement a sin? It must be, according to my opponent's case. "Science and technology", my opponent states, "are results of these just punishments". Ignoring how he avoids any moral dispute by using the adjective "just" in front of every noun to cover up any moral atrocity, this does not answer the question: is technological advancement a sin? According to my opponent's argument, it must be, no matter how much he tries to avoid to admit it.

The Bible Prophecies

While it is true that the Bible fulfilled a meagre portion of the prophecy of Tyre - Nebuchadnezzar did indeed seige Tyre - it did not fulfil the sections where it clearly stated Nebuchadnezzar would bring its destruction. It clearly does not say that Nebuchadnezzar would almost destroy the city, but that he would entirely and completely destroy and crush it, never to be made again. So if Alexander the Great was the one who conquered Tyre, clearly the prophecy is false!

Ezekiel prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and that "you (Tyre) shall never be rebuilt" (26:14) and "shall be no more, though you are sought for, you will never be found again" (26:21). History, however, records the fact that Nebuchadnezzar not only didn't destroy Tyre, he didn't even capture it. The New Encyclopedia Britannica (Micropedia, Vol. 10, 1978) said this in reviewing the long history of Tyre:

... and in 585-573 (B.C.) it successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II (p. 223).

In its summation of this same period of Tyrian history, The Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. 27, 1984) says:

The neo-Babylonian conqueror, Nebuchadnezzar II, subjected the island to a 13-year siege (585-572) without success (p. 331, emphasis added).[4]

In The History of Tyre, Wallace B. Fleming said this of the city's defeat by Alexander:

Alexander then left the city which was half burnt, ruined, and almost depopulated. The blackened forms of two thousand crucified soldiers bore ghastly witness to the completeness of the conquest. The siege had lasted from the middle of January till the middle of July, 332 B.C. The city did not lie in ruins long. Colonists were imported and citizens who had escaped returned. The energy of these with the advantage of the site, in a few years raised the city to wealth and leadership again (Columbia University Press: New York, 1915, p. 64, emphasis added).[4]
All we learn when we examine the evidence - specifically, the evidence not taken directly from apologetics trying to subvert scripture to fit their ends - is that not only did Tyre survive Nebuchadnezzar, but it barely was scratched by him. Instead, Alexander caused massive destruction to Tyre - but it was still rebuilt. God prophecised that Tyre would never be found again, but it was discovered by the Romans, Christian Colonists, Arab Colonists, Venetians, and more until becoming in Lebanon and a UNESCO Heritage site in 1984[5]. To claim Tyre is a "desolate rock where fishermen spread their nets" is somewhat insulting to the 113,000 people who live there. In short, the Tyre prophecy simply is a failed one.

Science Cannot be Proven, or the Sun Miracle

My opponent here defends the sun miracle by claiming:

P1: The Bible is inerrant
P2: God exists
C1: God can perform a miracle. In fact, he created all things ex nihilo.

Now, I dispute the first premise because of the Sun miracle. So to justify the miracle by appeal to this argument is clearly circular. The argument would go as follows:

How did the Sun Miracle Occur?
Because the Bible is inerrant
How do you know the Bible is inerrant?
Because the Sun Miracle Occurred
How do you know the Sun Miracle Occurred?
Because the Bible is inerrant

And it loops. I dispute that the Bible is inerrant, because the Bible claims the Sun Miracle occurs. I gave multiple arguments against believing the Sun Miracle occurred and therefore the Bible is errant. My opponent needs to address these, not simply continue to assume there is no debate. The Bible is errant. Therefore, its claims that macro-evolution did not occur does not justify macro-evolution not occurring. No more than Harry Potter including magic proves magic being real.

With that, I pass over to my opponent for his summarising remarks.

1 - http://www.nmsr.org...;
2 - http://www.sciencedaily.com...;
3 - http://evolution.berkeley.edu...;
4 - http://www.infidels.org...
5 - http://whc.unesco.org...
Debate Round No. 4
radz

Pro

On Evolution

I do believe in speciation of an organism but not in the sense that it can occur outside its genome. The possibility of speciation by means of evolutionary mechanisms (i.e. natural selection and genetic mutation)is true however this does not mean that macro-evolution per se has occured because it is agreed that a very long time is needed for this ensue.

One classic example claimed to be a macro-evolution proof is the genus Raphanobrassica which itself is contains all of the various artificial hybrids bred from the species of the plant genera Raphanus (radishes), and Brassica(cabbages, kale, brusselsprouts, kohlrabi).

We must stay on the facts that we have. Macro-ecolution is explicitly an educated guess (i.e. hypothesis ) which is scientific per se on the grounds that biological evolution is deemed to be elavating in a superb change over time which is not always the case because natural selection includes maladaptive population by natural selection.

What we need to be honest of is that it is not necessecary to conclude macro-evolution as the answer to science's very limited source of information which is posteriori knowledge and is specifically empiricism.

Guess what? macro-evolution is an a prori knowledge and so is my opponent's argument on its possibility given his example of time-chance scenario.

I consider that 1) this argument of empirical nature of science as an irrefutable point of macro-evolution as a possible but not necessary given its scanty proof in any field of scientific research( in fact, up-to-date there is no, not even a one biological mechanism that is known to add (extra) genes(i.e. information) into a genome to procure macro-evolution that is scientifically accurate research both in nature and in the lab!!! ) and that 2) the Scriptures are par excellence on this.

On God

Moreover, my opponent is showing God to be more psychopathic by the moment: God creates murderers for the express purpose of murder, so he may sadistically punish them?

What? I never said that God creates evil people. People are evil by their very nature—what theologians calls the result of the original sin (Romans 3:10) and the proof of this is laid on the Bible itself:

Not a single person on earth is always good and never sins. ( Ecclesiastes 7:20)

If a scientist created mice to torture and kill other mice, so he later could torture those mice (behind close doors, of course, so it won't deter other mice from torturing and killing), we would call that scientist a monster, abhorrent, and a plethora of other words.

I concur! Based on your own words, that scientist you are talking about created a mice that is programmed to torture and kill other mice. This is very devilish. Indeed, we would call that scientist a monster, abhorrent, and a plethora of other words.

Are we immoral by making lives easier for ourselves? Is technological advancement a sin? It must be, according to my opponent's case.

The answer to both of these questions are no. I never implied in my response those accusations.

What I said is that the punishment given to Adam and Eve was for their own sake, that is, for their own survival which is good. This includes the possibility of science and technology based on the reality of the post-fall.

The Bible Prophecies

Ezekiel 26:3 verse says that "many nations" will be against Tyre. Babylon, Alexander the Great, and the Muslim crusaders are commonly cited as fulfillment. I will argue later that it is unnecessary to bring the Muslim crusaders into the picture and that Alexander's actions sufficiently fulfilled the prophecy.

Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon was the first of the nations to come against Tyre. Alexander's forces were put together from a coalition of Greek city-states. Each of these was an independent entity and acted as a nation unto itself. Alexander's father, Philip II, unified (by military force) these city-states and the regions of Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece proper under his rule - giving Alexander the unified front he needed to go forth and conquer.

Nevertheless, this was a coalition composed of many nations - and thus fulfills the prophecy.

What then of "built no more"? Previously I followed the appeals that went as far as using Mulsim Crusaders as fulfillment, but I now see than as unnecessary. It is here where I now bring in specific insights learned from observation of ancient use of hyperbole, especially in oracles of war. Consider first this statement from Ramesses III:

I slew the Denyon in their islands, while the Tjekker and Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and the Washesh of the sea were made non-existent, captured all together and brought on captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore.

Ramesses speaks of the Sherden and Washesh being "made non-existent" but then goes on to say that they were captured. Is this contradictory? Of course not. The "made non-existent" part is manifestly "trash talk". In the Victory Stele of Merneptah, we also see trash talk like, "Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent..."

Clearly literal descriptions (conquered, seized) are mixed with clearly metaphorical ones (made non-existent), and that is what I now argue we have here. The threat to be "built no more" is trash talk like that of Ramesses speaking of his non-existent, captured people.

In fact, Ezekiel goes on a skein of what we now regard as "trash talk" in the next several verses:

15 Thus saith the Lord GOD to Tyrus; Shall not the isles shake at the sound of thy fall, when the wounded cry, when the slaughter is made in the midst of thee? 16 Then all the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones, and lay away their robes, and put off their broidered garments: they shall clothe themselves with trembling; they shall sit upon the ground, and shall tremble at every moment, and be astonished at thee. 17 And they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and say to thee, How art thou destroyed, that wast inhabited of seafaring men, the renowned city, which wast strong in the sea, she and her inhabitants, which cause their terror to be on all that haunt it! 18 Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that are in the sea shall be troubled at thy departure. 19 For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee; 20 When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living; 21 I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD.

Islands shaking and trembling at the sound of a fall, the princes descending from their thrones and sitting in dust (signifying actually the fear of other nations over Tyre's conquest); the figures of desolation and of water flowing over, and descent into a dungeon -- all of these bespeak ancient "trash talk" and threats like that of turning Edom's streams into pitch (Is. 34:9).

Therefore there is no need for my previous arguments with respect to the identities of the ancient and modern cities, or never "finding" the city again. Ezekiel does not predict a permanent destruction but uses the ancient metaphors of war to describe the seriousness of Tyre's predicament.

On the Miracle

The Bible proves the miracles by being inerrant NOT VISE VERSA :)

Hence, my opponent's argument is null and void.

SOURCES:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

http://evolutionwiki.org...

http://www.tektonics.org...

http://www.theskepticsguide.org...

http://www.faithfacts.org...

Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I must profess, I do not understand my opponent. He agrees that macro-evolution takes place. He cites additional examples to my own that it occurs. For example, the genetic mutation of Raphanobrassica caused between Raphanus and Brassica life. However, he then goes on to claim that this knowledge is not a posteriori but instead a priori. For those not familiar with the latin phrases: a posteriori knowledge means knowledge gained from experience, and a priori is knowledge gained from reason. Two common examples of these types of knowledge:

1) It is a posteriori that a bachelor is happy. I can learn this to be true (or false) only by examining the world.
2) It is a priori that a bachlor is male. I can learn this through reason alone: examination of the world is useless here.

Does it make sense, therefore, to say that the scientific theory of evolution is a priori? Of course not: it requires examination of the world to test its truth. No amount of introspection of macroevolution will so it to be true or false. Only examining the world, and seeing how natural selection and genetic mutation leads to speciation (which my opponent agrees on)

Secondly, my opponent claims that natural selection produces a maladaptive population. Of course, there are no examples of this: natural selection specifically selects for the most adapted to the environment. Indeed, this even is a priori, as it is part of the definition of natural selection: choosing the best.

Finally, he claims that the addition of genes/information has never been observed (Muller's morphs however are observed on a regular basis, and constantly are the addition of gene functions and information), Scriptures are par excellence to 'this' (whatever 'this' means!), and a litany of scientific errors. However, I want to focus on one more clear essential point to my opponent's argument regarding evolution: none of what I have said has been refuted.

Return to my argument for evolution:

Natural Selection + Genetic Mutation = Diversification and Speciation.

My opponent has agreed all these take place (an example being: "I do believe in speciation of an organism"). Though he has tried to push the goalposts further back, by asking for a genome speciation - in other words, the entirety of a species' genetic code - not only is this impossible, it is irrelevant. It is impossible because keep in mind the majority of our genes are shared with a banana[1], so an entire change is comical. It is irrelevant because speciation happens much earlier: it is the change of kind so severe that two creatures cannot reproduce with one another and make viable offspring. All my examples (with the exception of the cabbage, as plant reproduction is of course different!) are of species who cannot mate with each other's relations. My case for macro-evolution stands perfectly strong. Even if all my other arguments are fallacious to the extreme, my case here disproves the resolution.

On the small matter of God

The Problem of Evil

I do not even know my opponent's objetion here. God creates people evil and unable to not sin; God wants to punish those who sin; therefore, God creates people knowing full well he will punish them for his glory (a synonym of narcissism). This creation of creatures to punish and torture is morally abhorrent. A parent who acted in the same way as The Father does would be locked up and vilified! This is not a God which exists: this is not a God which any true Christian ought honestly put their faith in. Another formulation of a theodicy to rebut my case, or another defence of God could plausibly protect him from my case. However, this formulation must be rejected, and we must agree that my opponent's deity is not a Christian one but instead a moral monster.

Problem of Technology

My opponent's entire response here is the following:

the punishment given to Adam and Eve was for their own sake, that is, for their own survival which is good. This includes the possibility of science and technology based on the reality of the post-fall.

If anyone can explain what this means, please put so in the comments, because I cannot understand how to put this into a syllogism or what it rebuts or what it even means. I understand that my opponent's theology supposes that Adam and Eve learnt of evil, and by doing so they were punished by losing the rewards of the Garden of Evil, and this punishment for eternity is supposedly just. However, if the punishment is just, trying to subvert it with technological advancement to make life easy is immoral and wrong, surely? My opponent's case eludes me here, and I see no rebuttal to my problem of technology.

The Bible Prophecy

My opponent claims that the prophecy was fulfilled, because the term "many nations" refers to many different states. However, as any politics student will tell us, the terms nation and state mean very different things, especially in the past. State of course remains the political term, but nations refers to the different cultural background of a group[2]. To give examples, there is a Palestinian nation even if there is not a state. In the 19th century, there was an Israeli nation if not a state. To see this with relations to other words, think of Jewish Nationalism. Are we to say that Jewish nationalism did not exist until the fifties, for example? It refers to the vast number of people underneath Nebuchadnezzar, as clear by the context of the passage. If it meant many states over a few centuries, the context would have stated as such. Instead, it makes clear Nebuchadnezzar will do the deed. Take the passages following:

"And [Nebuchadnezzar] he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers." (Ez. 26:9)

"By reason of the abundance of his horses" (26:11)

"he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach" (26:11)

"[His horses] shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water." (26:12)

In short, my opponent is taking the Bible out of context to prove his own agenda. Moreover, keep in mind the passage still has been stated:

"I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again" (26:21)

My opponent puts this down to "trash talk". That's just a comical cop-out! It's the kid in the playground saying "I would beat you up, but you'd be hurt so bad that I'd be thrown in prison" to the rugby team captain. It essentially means God cannot deliver. Indeed, how much of the Bible are we to take as "trash talk"? Ezekiel's prophecy? All of the prophecies? The entire book? Why not the entire Bible? It's not that large of a step, really, once we decide God is the kid in the playground making idle threats. After all, why not put "many nations" down to trash talking as well?

And keep in mind that this is the God who commits genocide on his people's enemies, murders kings arbitrarily if they deviate from his whim, and more.

Miracles

Keep this in mind with the above: my opponent has stated the Bible is inerrant. However, we see many times where we have to go throug some amazing gymnastics to retain even consistency, yet alone truth. Yet my opponent gets "truth" fromt he Bible, by assuming it is infallible. This is just bad form at this point: miracles are, as I've stated, impossible. My opponent, instead of engaging in reasoned debate, is presupposing his book's authority and proclaiming it on high. This is not debate: this is presupposing infallibility, which is rebutted by the fact that impossible events occur in the Bible. This point remains unrebutted.

With all this in mind, I can close the debate. My opponent has not responded to my objections sufficiently to the Bible's objectivity, and has provided none to defend it. My opponent has dropped his arguments to prove his deity in the final round, while mine, I believe, are still strong. And finally, my argument for macroevolution stands perfectly strong. With this in mind, I urge a vote against creationism, and against the resolution. Vote CON.

1 - http://genecuisine.blogspot.co.uk...
2 - Andrew Heywood, Political Ideologies; Andrew Heywood, Politics; Barbara Goodwin, Using Political Ideas; etc. for a very small list of examples
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Did I read here that Pro wanted the Bible ( one of the most error ridden and false reference books on the planet) to be considered Infallible. LOL Not much luck there. There is not a book in the Bible that isn't plagued with errors.
To consider it infallible would be a massive Joke and show an extremely low intellect to boot.

They might as well base Christianity on Tolkien's "Lord Of The Rings", they would probably end up with the same morals, just as many errors, but Sunday School and church would be a lot more fun.
Posted by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
@Pro - I noticed multiple claims throughout the debate that are inaccurate, regarding genetics. I think you would find the book "Genome" by Matt Ridley very enlightening.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
contentions about historical accuracy, therefore this goes to con as well.

With those 2 strong points going to Con he wins argument. He has successfully refuted the fact the bible is infallible which leaves pros case in shambles.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
contentions about historical accuracy, therefore this goes to con as well.

With those 2 strong points going to Con he wins argument. He has successfully refuted the fact the bible is infallible which leaves pros case in shambles.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
contentions about historical accuracy, therefore this goes to con as well.

With those 2 strong points going to Con he wins argument. He has successfully refuted the fact the bible is infallible which leaves pros case in shambles.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
"Secondly, I want to move to Biblical Miracles which are supposedly to have occurred. One of my most favourite miracles of the Bible is Joshua 10, where in the midst of a battle between Joshua and the five Amorite Kings, "The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely theLord was fighting for Israel!"[5] In other words, God stopped the spin of the earth and its spin around the sun."

This is a proper refutation and goes against basic science and everything we know in history. Con shows that the bible can be wrong at this point.

He then goes on to break down again what points are contested and agree upon , giving a basic formula to show that diversity is what is being contested at this stage.

Pro almost drops Cons case against evil. Simply chalking it up to "gods plan", is the best inference i can draw.

Pro also briefly addresses a previous point Con brought up about a the prophecy of tyre but drops the other contentions con mentioned.

At this point Pro has dropped

(1) Argument of evil
(2) the sun standing still
(3) c3 (inaccuracy of the bible)

The next two rounds go virtually the same. Con bites down on the argument from evil and does not let go. Pro fails to justify this no matter how he tries. Con brings up rape and other issues , and pro responds with "Gods glory is why things happen the way they are". This is a cop out and pretty much saying that he has no idea why God allows it to happen. Con wins this point heavily.

they go on to contest different points about prophecies in the bible and their accuracy, while pro still has not responded to cons original contentions in his opening arguments. The way it is interpreted is based on the person reading it which Con also hints at. Due to this being impossible to score, I award this mere part a tie.

However Pro dropped all of cons earlier con
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I am awarding PRO conduct due to his R1 request that the bible be considered infallible. Granted this can and should not be done, but he specifically requested that his adversary take the debate under that assumption. Con denies this and pro seems to accept it as such, therefore the debate goes on.

Sources are eve, and most are quite viable by both contenders. S&G is equal as well.

Pro starts this off with the bible is infallible. Essentially saying there is always evidence to support it, so anything the bible claims is true(face palm).

He then claims the bible can be portrayed as false due to translation errors and what not. This breaks down to, the original context is infallible but the modern translations are flawed. He then presents this

Premise 1: All natural things known on earth has its origin
Premise 2: All that has an origin has a creator (whether it's a person or not)
Conclusion: There's a creator who caused all natural things into existence.

So know pro is saying per the bible, that we have to have a creator to exist then requested Con to show the bible is in fact inaccurate.

Con responds with the argument from evil. He even knows this is a simple enough claim to refute pro. Where does evil come from, why do we suffer evil and the like. It is much more in depth but Con does a good job of hitting the main points to disprove a God.

Con the offers up a majority of claims to disprove the bible is not historically accurate and therefore not infallible, which would negate the resolution. One of which being
Posted by radz 3 years ago
radz
@Jakeross LOL :)
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
Checked out source for "evidence" for fulfillment of the prophecy and its blank lol
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
Checked out source for "evidence" for fulfillment of the prophecy and its blank lol
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
radzStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark-1 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 think that CON wins all three premises. The point is pretty moot though in a world where he wins "macro-evolution" occurs. Pro suggests that there is spotty evidence for Macro-evolution occurring because not enough time has transpired. Time is irrelevant because evolution is driven by heredity through generations. Con isolates multiple species with rapid reproduction rates in which scientists have observed speciation and thereby proves the existence of macro-evolution. On the other issues... The problem of evil neatly demonstrates that either god doesn't exist or god is insanely evil itself. Con is correct in stating that Pro's defense of this issue actually makes it more difficult for god to exist. A "perfect being" creating original sin and the fall is ludicrous; the fall is verging on insanity for any being. And finally, the bible does predict the fall of Tyre at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. This does not happen.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
radzStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
radzStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments rely on the inerrancy of the Bible. Sufficiently disproving Biblical inerrancy, then, effectively disproves Pro's arguments. Con argues (1) failed prophecies show the Bible to err and (2) the Bible claims that impossible events (miracles) occur. Pro argues that the obviously false claims of (1) are trash talk and God's seemingly factual claim that Tyre will never be rebuilt was not made literally. However, as Con argues, if false claims in the Bible can be labelled "trash talk", then what else in the Bible can be labelled as not literally true. Pro argues that miracles (2) do occur because the Bible says they occur (and the Bible is inerrant), however as Con points out, this argument is circular. Con argues more convincingly that the Bible is not inerrant, so Pro's arguments are disproved. However, even had Pro shown the Bible to be inerrant, his argument against evolution in the future was based on empirically false claims and not scripture. Arguments to Con.