The Instigator
janetsanders733
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
OtakuJordan
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Old Earth Creationsm vs. Theistic Evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
OtakuJordan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,699 times Debate No: 41205
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (4)

 

janetsanders733

Pro

I will be arguing Pro for Old Earth Creationsm(OEC), and against Theistic Evolution(TE). Con will be arguing against OEC, and for Theistic Evolution. *I want to debate someone who believes in Theistic Evolution, in particular another Christian who supports Theistic Evolution. This debate is not Old Earth Creationsm vs Evolution.

I would also like to thank Con, for accepting this debate.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments (Pro- O.E.C., Con- T.E.)
Round 3: Rebuttals (Pro-Rebutting TE, Con- Rebutting OEC)
Round 4: Conclusion.
OtakuJordan

Con

Thank you for debating me, pro. It is a pleasure to "meet" you. I hope that this discussion will be edifying for both of us.

Please state your case.
Debate Round No. 1
janetsanders733

Pro

janetsanders733 forfeited this round.
OtakuJordan

Con

Since Pro has forfeited Round Two, I will begin by presenting my arguments for evolution.

"Evolution" and "theistic evolution" defined
The modern-day theory of evolution, sometimes referred to as neo-Darwinism, has four parts.

1. Organic evolution, the composite of macro- and microevolution, occurs. In other words, the creatures we see today are descendants of other species that changed over time.
2. This change occurs through the gradual genetic transformation of populations of species over a vast period of time.
3. Speciation, or the rise of a new species through the splitting of a single genetic lineage into two, occurs.
4. Natural selection plays a large part in the afore-mentioned processes.(1)

Theistic evolution is the same as neo-Darwinism, except that it also teaches that a deity was involved to some unknown extent in the process. As I mentioned in the comments, this deity could have 1) wound the whole system up and let it run or 2) started it up and intervened here and there or 3) guided the entire process from the start to finish.

Evidence for evolution
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. I will be presenting only a brief overview.

The fossil record
Within the fossil record we find a progression of simple to complex fossils, with the simplest being found in the oldest rock and the most complex being found in the most newly formed. To provide just one example, I quote an article from Baylor university:

Mammals, for example, are prevalent today and can be traced back in the fossil record for approximately 200 million years, but are not present as mammals in the fossil record before that; however, fossil forms that have reasonably been interpreted to be associated with the evolutionary precursors to mammals are found in older rocks.(2)

This is exactly what the theory of evolution would predict.

Similarities between the living creatures of a region and the fossils present in the same region
Darwin observed that the species that live in a region closely resemble the fossils of extinct species found in the same region. This suggests that the living creatures are descendants of the fossilized creatures.(3)

Vestigial organs and behaviors
There are many vestigial organs and behaviors that can be found in nature. The accepted definition for vestigial organs among the scientific community is "organs or structures remaining or surviving in a degenerate, atrophied, or imperfect condition or form." Examples include the wings of flightless birds, the sexual organs of the dandelion, the erector pili and body hair of humans, the eyes of blind fish and human wisdom teeth, among others.(5) There is absolutely no reason why God would give these creatures such features or the DNA to develop them later on.

Imperfect designs
There are many imperfect designs in humans and other creatures. To give just one of many possible examples, evolutionary biologist Jerry A. Coyne points out the

bad design of the recurrent laryngeal nerve--a nerve that runs from the brain to the larynx, helping us speak and swallow. In mammals, this nerve doesn't take a direct route but descends into the chest, loops around the aorta near the heart, and then runs back up the larynx. It is several times longer than it needs to be.(6)

Why would God create humans in a finished condition with such an imperfect feature?

Conclusion
There is a large body of evidence to be found in nature to support the theory that organisms evolve from simpler life forms over time.

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.

Sources
1. Brockman, John. Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement. New York: Random House, 2006.
2. http://www.baylor.edu...
3. Ibid., Brockman.
4. http://www.livescience.com...
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., Brockman
Debate Round No. 2
janetsanders733

Pro

I would also like to thank Con again for those kind words and accepting this debate. This is my opening statement. Below I am going to list some beliefs of OEC.

Old earth beliefs:

  • God miraculously created the universe from nothing (ex nihilo), created life from non-life, and progressively intervened in history to supernaturally create new species of life.
  • The age of the earth has no bearing on the creation of life. An ancient earth does not equate with Darwinian evolution.
  • Darwinian evolution (change through unguided naturalistic processes) is unbiblical, biologically untenable, and not supported by the fossil record. Old-earth creationists adamantly reject the Darwinian concept of common descent—the hypothesis that all plant, animal, and human life ultimately evolved from primitive single-celled organisms through unguided mutations and naturalistic processes.
  • God miraculously created Adam and Eve, humanity’s historical parents, who were new distinct creatures from whom humanity’s sin originated.
  • Earth’s geologic features formed over long ages through both gradual and catastrophic processes.
  • Genesis 1 is a literal account of God’s creation. After God created the heavens and the earth, He then created life over six successive “days,” which in the original Hebrew may be literally interpreted as long epochs of time.

The Bible:

OECs believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God and believe the Genesis creation account to be historical narrative with some poetic areas —not myth, and legend.

OECs contend a literal reading of the Biblical creation accounts in Hebrew provides certain exegetical clues pointing to prolonged creation “days.”

Creation Days/Age of the Earth:

I would agree that the Bible supports an Old-earth. This is something that Con and I would both agree upon in this debate.

Biblical Hebrew has a very limited vocabulary (approximately 3,100 words) compared to the English vocabulary (estimated to be 1,000,000 words). Hebrew words often have several literal meanings. Linguistic scholars acknowledge the Hebrew word yôm (translated “day” in English) has several literal meanings: a period of daylight, 12-hour day, 24-hour day, time, period of time with unspecified duration, and epoch of time.6 While modern English has numerous words to describe a long time-span, no word in biblical Hebrew adequately denotes a finite epoch of time other than yôm.

The following types of Evolution are described:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.

I agree with (1) and (6). However I don’t agree with (2), (3), (4), and (5).

Microevolution: I believe inMicroevolution, involves changes only in size, shape, or color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations.

Macroevolution: major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.

I would say this is where Con and I disagree.

(As expressed by this figure above Microevolution vs. Macroevolution). Notice that macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only “horizontal” (or even downward) changes—no increasing complexity. Also note that all creationists agree that natural selection occurs. While natural selection does not result in macroevolution, it accounts for many variations within a very narrow range.

Science should always base conclusions on what is seen and reproducible. So what is observed? We see variations in lizards, four of which are shown at the bottom. We also see birds, represented at the top. In-between forms (or intermediates), which should be vast in number if macroevolution occurred, are never seen as fossils or living species. A careful observer can usually see unbelievable discontinuities in these claimed upward changes, as well as in the drawing above.

Homology (nonfunctional similarity, such as the five-digit limbs of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) is often cited as evidence of macroevolution, but genetic research shows a lack of correspondence between genes and limb structure.

Biologist Michael Behe has provided empirical experimental verification to such probability calculations by reviewing mankind’s fight against malaria, which is a single-celled microbe with a population “far more vast than any species of animal or plant,” resulting in a far greater reproduction and mutation rate. The relative time for malaria to develop a resistance to atovaquone (a drug requiring one point mutation) vs. chloroquine (requiring two mutations) matches reasonably with the probability calculations. “On the average, for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would need to wait (1015 years)”21—100,000 times longer than the age of the universe.

Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.

Biologist Sean Carroll states, “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for larger-scale changes evident of longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”

Discovery of regulatory genes, which can turn genes “on” and “off” to produce vast changes in phenotype, presents a new dilemma. Paleontologist Jack Horner predicts that within 50 years, “we will be able to flip genetic switches … and retro-engineer a dinosaur from a bird.” But this makes neo-Darwinism even less plausible. The probability of complex life-forms evolving from nonliving matter by chance is insurmountable, yet it seems even more improbable to also randomly evolve a class of regulatory genes and the genetic material to adapt to future environmental conditions not yet experienced. That would require super-intelligence—attributing a mythological godlike character to natural selection. Ironically, creationists have long suggested that observed changes in life-forms after Genesis 1 might be based on surplus genetic material, responding to environmental changes—an idea now made possible by regulatory genes.

Stephen Jay Gould confesses:

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”

It just seems like a huge extrapolation between Micro to Macro. I don’t see any evidence that a sponge and a bat for example, share a common ancestor.

Theological Interpretation of Adam and Eve:

I am not sure if Con agrees with a literal Adam and Eve. I am going to assume he doesn’t. I would have to say that Adam and Eve had to have been real for two reasons. I also believe the concept of original sin through Adam and Eve.

  1. 1. Jesus affirms Adam and Eve’s Existence: Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
  2. 2. Paul affirms Original Sin through Adam and Eve: 12 “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 5:12-21)

Sources:

http://www.creationscience.com...

http://www.freechristianteaching.org...

http://www.reasons.org...

http://www.biblegateway.com...

OtakuJordan

Con

Thank you for your reply, Pro. I shall categorize your contentions by type and then rebut them.

Definitions
Several of my opponent's definitions are incorrect.

For example, my opponent claimed that all Old Earth Creationists (who I shall refer to as OECs from this point forward) believe the Bible to be "the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God." Because the OEC position is not contingent upon this, I doubt that it is true.

Pro also has inaccurate definitions for organic evolution, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. I am assuming that his source for these definitions was "Dr." Kent Hovind, as these are the same definitions that Hovind presents in his seminars. Organic evolution is not a separate process from micro- or macro-evolution, nor is it the origin of life (or "abiogenesis" as Hovind likes to claim). If my opponent denies organic evolution then he is also denying micro-evolution. Below are some proper definitions of the term.

Def. 1: the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms(1)
Def. 2: the slow and gradual process by which living organisms have changed from the simplest unicellular form to the most complex multi-cellular forms that are existing today(2)
Def. 3: Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations.(3)

As to the way he defines micro- and macro-evolution, this is an old and stubborn creationist fallacy. It is worth quoting TalkOrigins at length to refute it.

Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution...

Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.(4)

Theology
Considering that the definition of theistic evolution I presented was not evolution manipulated by "the Judeo-Christian God" but evolution manipulated by "a deity," theistic evolution is within the domain of deists and theists of all stripes. Using the Bible as an argument against it, therefore, has zero weight. Also, theistic evolution does not require that Adam and Eve not be a literal couple who lived at some point in history.

Science
Contrary to Pro's claim that micro-evolution involves only lateral or downward changes in complexity, new genes can be formed by such things as gene fusion and gene duplication, among other processes.(5)

My opponent's claim that no transitional fossils or forms exist shows a lack of knowledge of what those terms actually mean. A transitional form will not have a hippo's head and a horse's body. Rather, all creatures are transitional forms--slightly advanced forms of their ancestors. As I pointed out in R2, the animals of a region tend to have similar characteristics to the fossilized creatures found in that region.

Many transitional fossils also exist. In fact, they number in the thousands.(6) A few examples include Tiktaalik, Ventastega, Vorona, Dorudon and Aetiocetus.(7) A good overview of the transitional fossils that have been discovered can be found at http://www.transitionalfossils.com....

As for why we don't see even more of these fossils, this is no source of embarrassment for scientists. Not only is fossilization a very rare process, but fossils stand a good chance of being destroyed by erosion before they are ever found.(8) Add on to this that we probably have not discovered even the majority of fossils on the planet and the problem of the "missing" fossils ceases to be a problem.

Pro's arguments concerning the statistical plausibility of the process evolution are unfounded. as theistic evolutionists believe that God either set up the system or intervened in the process from time to time. The involvement of a supreme intelligence in the process nullifies any arguments of the "It couldn't just happen!" variety.

Sources
1.http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2.http://www.tutorvista.com...
3.http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
4. http://www.talkorigins.org...
5.http://www.nature.com...
6.http://www.evolutionfaq.com...
7. http://www.transitionalfossils.com...
8. http://phylointelligence.com...
Debate Round No. 3
janetsanders733

Pro

"Evolution"and "theistic evolution" defined

Themodern-day theory of evolution, sometimes referred to as neo-Darwinism, has
four parts.

1.
Organic evolution, the composite of macro- and microevolution, occurs. In other
words, the creatures we see today are descendants of other species that changed
over time.

2.
This change occurs through the gradual genetic transformation of populations of
species over a vast period of time.

3.
Speciation, or the rise of a new species through the splitting of a single genetic
lineage into two, occurs.

4.
Natural selection plays a large part in the afore-mentioned processes.(1)"

"Theistic evolution is the same as neo-Darwinism, except that it also teaches that a
deity was involved to some unknown extent in the process. As I mentioned in the
comments, this deity could have 1) wound the whole system up and let it run or
2) started it up and intervened here and there or 3) guided the entire process
from the start to finish."

Evidence for evolution

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. I
will be presenting only a brief overview.

The fossil record

"Within the fossil record we find a progression of simple to complex fossils, with the
simplest being found in the oldest rock and the most complex being found in the
most newly formed. To provide just one example, I quote an article from Baylor
university:"

“Mammals,
for example, are prevalent today and can be traced back in the fossil record
for approximately 200 million years, but are not present as mammals in the
fossil record before that; however, fossil forms that have reasonably been
interpreted to be associated with the evolutionary precursors to mammals are
found in older rocks.”(2)

This is exactly what the theory of evolution would predict.

Similarities between the living creatures of a region and the fossils present in the same
region.

Darwin observed that the species that live in a region closely resemble the fossils of
extinct species found in the same region. This suggests that the living
creatures are descendants of the fossilized creatures."(3)

There are many other examples of different organisms
appearing abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. For example, the
first bats, pterosaurs, and birds were fully fledged flyers. This photograph(below) of the Palaeochiropteryx tupaiodon, shows that bats werealways bats.[4]



http://pt.wikipedia.org...

















Paleochiropteryx tupaidon is one of the 'oldest’ (by evolutionary reckoning) fossil bats. It was found in the Messel oil shale pit near Darmstadt, Germany, and is ‘dated’ between 48 and 54 million
years old. It clearly had fully developed wings, and its inner ear had the same construction as those of modern bats, showing that it had full sonar equipment.[4]

Another example are turtles. They are well designed and specialized group of reptiles, with a distinctive shell protecting the body’s vital organs.

The ‘oldest known sea turtle’ was a fully formed turtle, not at all transitional. It had a fully developed system for excreting salt, without which a marine reptile would quickly dehydrate. This is
shown by skull cavities which would have held large salt-excreting glands around the eyes.”
(Ren Hirayama, Oldest Known SeaTurtle, Nature 392(6678):705–708, 16 April 1998; comment by Henry Gee, p. 651, same issue.)

All 32 mammal orders appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. The evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote in 1944:

“The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic
ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from
one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so
large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.”[4]

Vestigial organs and behaviors

"There are many vestigial organs and behaviors that can be found in nature. The
accepted definition for vestigial organs among the scientific community is organs or structures remaining or surviving in a degenerate, atrophied, or imperfect condition or form." Examples include the wings of flightless birds, the sexual organs of the dandelion, the erector pili and body hair of humans, the eyes of blind fish and human wisdom teeth, among others.(5) There
is absolutely no reason why God would give these creatures such features or the DNA to develop them later on."

Why would these be such a bad feature to living organisms? Con needed to show the BoP for all these supposed “useless” vestigial organs that existed in present organisms today.

How does Con know that Vestigial organs can’t be a sort of “back-up” organ for living organisms today?

How is human body hair not useful? Body hair wicks away sweat, and can keep people warm.

I am not going to go through and explain all the examples he gave, but I would like to rebut his example of the Human Wisdom teeth.

According to a British anthropologist by the name of Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel at the University of Kent in England[2], examined 11 different people groups around the globe––six were agriculturalists and five engaged in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.[3]

The food that made up the diet of these two broad categories varies significantly in consistency. Hunter-gatherers eat food that is raw, requiring longer and more intense bouts of chewing. Agriculturalists
eat much softer food.

Research reveals that the jaw shape and size differs, depending on the means of subsistence. People who consume a soft diet (typified by an agriculturalist lifestyle) have shorter, broader jaws. Those who consume a hunter-gatherer diet exhibit longer, narrower jaws. The longer, narrower jaws of hunter-gatherers readily accommodate wisdom teeth. Conversely, wisdom teeth don’t easily fit into the mouths of people with shorter, broader jaws.[3]

This result indicates that, fundamentally, the human jaw is designed to house wisdom teeth. For most of human history peopleemployed a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and impacted wisdom teeth and associated ailments were likely not present. It was only when humans implemented wide-scale agricultural practices that wisdom teeth caused problems. Still, shorter, broader jaws weren’t inevitably a problem. Without dental care until very recently, people throughout human history lost teeth. This tooth loss would provide room for wisdom teeth. And, of course, having replacement molars was welcome at a time when tooth loss was common.[3]

Such advances take the teeth out of another evolutionary argument while sharpening the case for purposeful design. [3]

"Imperfect designs

There are many imperfect designs in humans and other creatures. To give just one of
many possible examples, evolutionary biologist Jerry A. Coyne points out the"

bad design of the recurrent laryngeal nerve--a nerve that runs from the brain to
the larynx, helping us speak and swallow. In mammals, this nerve doesn't take a
direct route but descends into the chest, loops around the aorta near the
heart, and then runs back up the larynx. It is several times longer than it needs to be.(6)

Why would God create humans in a finished condition with such an imperfect feature?

I am not sure how Con would think this would be a bad thing. So what if their RLN is longer than a human beings nerve. In fact Michael Egnor a neurosurgeon, has suggested that the RLN may have a medical function which gives the organism a warning that it is sick, and needs to heal
from an internal infection or disease originating in the chest area.

“There is actually a design advantage to the course of the recurrent nerves, if one
wishes to pursue this line of argumentation. The course of the nerves brings them through the mediastinum, where the heart and lungs meet. There are many lymph nodes there, and enlargement of these lymph nodes from processes such as cancer or infection (e.g. tuberculosis) often irritates these nerves and causes hoarseness or coughing. The course of the nerves reveals disease in an
otherwise hidden part of the body (deep in the chest) by interfering with a process (speech) that is readily evident. It serves as an early warning to get medical care (or, with infectious diseases, as a warning to others that this person is ill), and this early warning has saved many more lives than the
redundant course of the nerves has cost lives. The risk/benefit ratio needs to be examined comprehensively before one claims that the course of the nerves is biologically disadvantageous.”[1]

This shows that God cares for animals. It would make sense that he would make something for them to alert someone or something to let them know that there is something wrong going on inside their body.

Sources:

[1]http://www.evolutionnews.org...

[2] http://www.livescience.com...

[3] http://www.reasons.org...

[4] http://creation.com...

Conclusion:

We can conclude that we see small changes within different
kinds of organisms(Microevolution). But what we don’t see is a huge
extrapolation from one kind to another(Macroevolution). I would like to again
thank Con for having this debate with me.

OtakuJordan

Con

Pro has asked that I not post a final rebuttal to compensate for his forfeiture of R2. I shall comply.

Please vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by michael90000 3 years ago
michael90000
I would say that we have adapted to the environment and some structures may have evolved. However, I believe that humans remain as humans, apes as apes, insects as insects. I wouldn't go as far and insult ourselves by saying we came from a gorilla in a garage.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
Con has already made a rebuttal in round 3.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
@Silentsvc Nice, I hope I win this one with respect to OtakuJordan.
Posted by Silentsvc 3 years ago
Silentsvc
I personally am a Day-Age Theorist, so I am looking forward to this debate!
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
"1&2- I am strongly skeptical of both claims, do you have a source handy? 3- I am not sure what you mean hear but if its that early Christians sprang from followers of an actual Jesus then I'm ok with that I guess. 4- I'll give you that but there were many differences for instances a major split over the divinity of Jesus.

I think Historians use standards of evidence, skepticism etc and is compatible with the scientific method. However, I googled historical embarrassment and multiple attestation which sound extremely suspect. I looks like this is only used in religious circles and not by mainstream historians."Gert L"demann who is an atheist, and the leading German critic of the resurrection, himself admits, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus" death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."
Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection " Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:
"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."

Yes, I can give you multiple sources. When I say mainstream historians. I don't mean conservative Christians. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
@Janet "Yes there is. We have 4 main facts that all historians/scholars agree upon. 1. The empty tomb 2. The Post mortem apperances of Jesus. 3. Origin of disciples of belief. 4.Rapid spread of Christianity within 1st century Jerusalem under a hostile environment."

1&2- I am strongly skeptical of both claims, do you have a source handy? 3- I am not sure what you mean hear but if its that early Christians sprang from followers of an actual Jesus then I'm ok with that I guess. 4- I'll give you that but there were many differences for instances a major split over the divinity of Jesus.

I think Historians use standards of evidence, skepticism etc and is compatible with the scientific method. However, I googled historical embarrassment and multiple attestation which sound extremely suspect. I looks like this is only used in religious circles and not by mainstream historians.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
but there is only a mild consensus on a few events of Jesus' life.

"We have faith in Christ as Lord and Savior becaues of the evidence he left behind."

"There is no evidence that he was God, the savior, rose from the dead etc, unless you're speaking of something like an internal witness of the Holy Spirit. Equating evidence for Christianity over all with a question about the historicity of Jesus seems like you are simply dodging an issue that you raised.

Yes there is. We have 4 main facts that all historians/scholars agree upon. 1. The empty tomb 2. The Post mortem apperances of Jesus. 3. Origin of disciples of belief. 4.Rapid spread of Christianity within 1st century Jerusalem under a hostile enviornment.

"Science is not the only way to prove everything true."
Yes, but is not necessarily using the scientific method. History and archaeology. We surely don't use the scientific method to determine if anyone in History existed. We use historical criteria: Multiple Attestation, Historical embarassment, Internal Evidence, External Evidence, Honesty,etc.

Arguably any method used to accurately identify what is true is utilizing some evidence based methodology compatible with the scientific method. What other way is there to discover what is true?"
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
but there is only a mild consensus on a few events of Jesus' life.

"We have faith in Christ as Lord and Savior becaues of the evidence he left behind."

"There is no evidence that he was God, the savior, rose from the dead etc, unless you're speaking of something like an internal witness of the Holy Spirit. Equating evidence for Christianity over all with a question about the historicity of Jesus seems like you are simply dodging an issue that you raised.

Yes there is. We have 4 main facts that all historians/scholars agree upon. 1. The empty tomb 2. The Post mortem apperances of Jesus. 3. Origin of disciples of belief. 4.Rapid spread of Christianity within 1st century Jerusalem under a hostile enviornment.

"Science is not the only way to prove everything true."
Yes, but is not necessarily using the scientific method. History and archaeology. We surely don't use the scientific method to determine if anyone in History existed. We use historical criteria: Multiple Attestation, Historical embarassment, Internal Evidence, External Evidence, Honesty,etc.

Arguably any method used to accurately identify what is true is utilizing some evidence based methodology compatible with the scientific method. What other way is there to discover what is true?"
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
"Um we have overwhelming evidence for Jesus. Please tell me you don't believe the "Jesus Mythicists""

I don't think he was questioning the historicity of Jesus but there is only a mild consensus on a few events of Jesus' life.

"We have faith in Christ as Lord and Savior becaues of the evidence he left behind."

There is no evidence that he was God, the savior, rose from the dead etc, unless you're speaking of something like an internal witness of the Holy Spirit. Equating evidence for Christianity over all with a question about the historicity of Jesus seems like you are simply dodging an issue that you raised.

"Science is not the only way to prove everything true."

Arguably any method used to accurately identify what is true is utilizing some evidence based methodology compatible with the scientific method. What other way is there to discover what is true?
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
"Evidence is empirical in science. Scientifically speaking, there is little, to no evidence left behind of Jesus. That being said, it is more than possible for a scientist to be religious. It is not, however, possible, for someone to derive evidence of the supernatural from the natural world, nor from the scientific process that governs said world."

Um we have overwhelming evidence for Jesus. Please tell me you don't believe the "Jesus Mythicists"
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by NateTheFirst 3 years ago
NateTheFirst
janetsanders733OtakuJordanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
janetsanders733OtakuJordanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate overall. I could not decide who I would vote for. Both Con and Pro managed to present good arguments and appropriately respond.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
janetsanders733OtakuJordanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con: because Pro forfeited, and Con actually abstained from a round that he could have rebuttals in, so that Pro's forfeit could be made up for. Arguments to Con: Con provided undeniable proof of Theistic Evolution whereas Pro was only able to provide vague proof of OEC, and ignored all the contradictions in OEC that Con brought up like Micro vs Macro evolution.
Vote Placed by Silentsvc 3 years ago
Silentsvc
janetsanders733OtakuJordanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall, very good debate, I agree with Pro as a Day Age Theorist and still do. The fact that con agreed not to post his final argument for the sake of a fair debate is applauded and point to him for this. I didn't see many grammar errors so tie there. Pro, you would have had sources but you committed a professors mortal sin, you quoted Wikipedia. Due to the ability of Wikipedia to be altered by anyone with an account it is not an acceptable source for proper debate, so point to con. This was a great debate, you both have solid skills! Correction, Wikipedia was used for a picture only, my vote has been changed to reflect this