The Instigator
xXCryptoXx
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
Andrew.Cerean
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Science Should Progress Religion Instead of Religion Dictating Science

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 7 votes the winner is...
xXCryptoXx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,178 times Debate No: 46079
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (79)
Votes (7)

 

xXCryptoXx

Pro

Many of the time I witness religious peoples arguing against science using their own religious doctrine. I believe this position is flawed and that science, something confirmed by reality should take priority over religious beliefs. For example, some religious people believe and argue for Young Earth Creationism even though it is implausible according to Evolution. Instead of YEC advocates trying to disprove science with religious doctrine, they should use science to advance their religious beliefs and come to a higher intellectual understanding of reality, or even their own religion.

First round is for acceptance.
Andrew.Cerean

Con

Religious people still believe in science, and to say they don't is an outrageous claim. Where does religion argue against science? Are you talking about religious people disagreeing with the theory of evolution?

Evolution has not been proven as a fact, so why should people have to agree with it? Some creationists believe in a young earth, but does that belief imply that they disagree with all science? Origins and evolution are questionable issues and science still has not provided the answers, so what's the issue?

Religious doctrine (the Christian bible), makes no attempt to disprove science. In all reality, there are quite a few verses in the bible that give reference to real world science. The bible provides information on weather patterns, atoms, and even radio waves. I would like to know what science you believe religious doctrine is trying to disprove. Science is not only limited to evolution and origins. Do you see my point?

Can you scan through all of the information in the bible and disprove it through history or science? No you can't, and I would like for you to disprove the bible through historical accounts or through science.
Debate Round No. 1
xXCryptoXx

Pro


My opponent ignored my rule that the first round is for acceptance and therefore loses conduct points.



My opponent seems to entirely misunderstand the debate resolution. I am not arguing or even claiming that no religious people accept science. Rather, I am arguing that science should progress religion instead of religion dictating science.


I gave an example of this in Round 1. There I said that many people still believe in Young Earth Creationism, which has empirical evidence to be untrue.


The flaw that any religious people fall into is that they actually deny reality in order to justify their beliefs. Imagine if people still believed in Greek Mythology. They would think that some god in the sky creates lightning and that Atlas holds up the Earth. Both of these have been shown to be scientifically false. In this way, science progresses religion in that it may falsify beliefs and also confirm others. If people who continued to believe in Greek myths did so only for the sake of holding on to their beliefs, then they are actually trying to use their beliefs to dictate science and deny reality.


Take the famous astronomer Galileo for example. In the day the Catholic Church’s belief was that the Sun revolved around the Earth due to a Bible passage saying it as so. Galileo however discovered that the Earth instead revolves around the Sun. To hold on to their own beliefs simply for the sake of it, the Catholic Church denied Galileo’s discovery and punished him. This is an example of religion dictating science. Eventually after Galileo’s findings were proven the Catholic Church accepted that the Earth revolves around the Sun. This didn’t disprove the Bible, rather science to progressed religion in that it allowed the Catholic Church to discover the true context of that Bible passage.


One has to remember that if God created everything, then God’s nature can be found in what he created. To deny God’s creation is to essentially deny God. This is how science progresses religion and this is why religious people must stop denying reality for the sake of holding on to their own religious beliefs.



Not that my arguments and examples have been made it can be logically concluded that my opponent has gone way off topic, even accusing me of things I never claimed and trying to argue against point I never made nor am I arguing for.



To clarify once again, I am arguing that science should be used to progress religion. You are arguing that religious beliefs should take precedence over science. I am not arguing that God doesn’t exist, or that all religious people deny science, ect. ect. like it seems you think I am arguing.



Thank you I await your response.


Andrew.Cerean

Con

Did I behave inappropriately? It is the first debate I accepted, does that call for a deduction of points?

"I am arguing that science should progress religion instead of religion dictating science"

Definition: Religion: (1) The belief in a God or group of Gods. (2) An organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a God or group of Gods. (3) An interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.

Belief: (1) A state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or some thing. (2) Conviction of the truth of some statement or reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on the examination of evidence.

(These Definitions were pulled from Merriam-Webster.com)

Science should not be required to progress religion as religion (the belief in a God), only requires a belief, which can be defined as a state of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.

Science has yet to prove or disprove a God or Supernatural being. Religion can be defined as a belief in God, do you expect people to not believe in a God until it is proven by science?

As for the last part of the statement, "instead of religion dictating science".

I do not disagree with the notion that at one point in history, religion dictated science. However, in today's society that it not the case. Science, not religion, is taught in public schools, so can you please explain to me how religion is dictating science in the United States?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I gave an example of this in Round 1. There I said that many people still believe in Young Earth Creationism, which has empirical evidence to be untrue."

Can you explain how the belief in Young Earth Creationism is an example of religion dictating science in today's society? Origins still have not been explained through science. This allows for people to have beliefs on origins which could give rise to religion. Do you have any issues with the reasoning I just presented?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The flaw that any religions people fall into is that they actually deny reality in order to justify their beliefs"

Please elaborate on this further. How do religious people deny reality in order to justify their beliefs. Has science fully explained our origins? If your answer is yes, please present these facts as scientific evidence.

"Imagine if people still believed in Greek Mythology"

Some people still do, but the majority of the world does not. This concept has nothing to do with the debate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the day the Catholic Church's belief was that the sun revolved around the Earth due to a Bible passage saying it as so."

The Catholic Church is based on Christian beliefs. Nowhere in the Christian bible does it say that the sun revolved around the earth. Am I mistaken? If I am, can you please cite the passage wherein this piece of science is revealed. Based on this mindset, has there ever been any mistakes in the history of science? The statement you provided still does not strengthen your argument.

Does the Catholic Church still believe the sun revolves around the earth? No, the church does not believe that, therefore science progressed religion as you mentioned. If religion dictated science, people would still believe the sun revolved around the earth, but that is not the case. Do you have any issues with the statement I just made?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One has to remember that if God created everything, then God's nature can be found in what he created. To deny God's creation is to essentially deny God. This is how science progresses religion and this is why religious people must stop denying reality for the sake of holding on to their own religious beliefs"

This statement is well written, and it sounds reasonable. Which God are you talking about? There are different Gods, if we are talking about the Christian God and the Young Earth Model, not all Christians believe in a young earth. Some people view the days of creation as periods of time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Not that my arguments and examples have been made it can be logically concluded that my opponent has gone way off topic, accusing me of things I never claimed and is trying to argue against a point I never made nor am arguing for."

Pardon my initial response in round 1. As you mentioned, round one was for acceptance only, therefore nothing mentioned by me should count towards the debate. Are we good with that?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"To clarify once again, I am arguing that science should be used to progress religion"

My opponent still has yet to present any type of argument relating to the topic of this debate. He is simply trying to explain his way around an issue without creating valid arguments based on today's religion, especially the practice of Christianity in the United States.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I will bring up some arguments in regards on how Religion has progressed science:

"The first incorporated hospital, Pennsylvania Hospital, was established in 1751. It is from these early church-and community-sponsored hospitals that today's hospitals have evolved." (1)

Hospitals have used science to advance medicine. Some credit to the evolution of hospitals in the United States can be given to the church and the practice of religion. I would like for all of you to remember that a practice of certain religions calls for helping others. Do we have any issues with the source or information I provided?

There are numerous scientific facts that can be found within the Christian Bible. Some include....

1. Earth's free float in space.
2. Invisible structures such as Atoms.
3. Reveals the Earth is Round.
4. Oceanography (ocean currents). Inspired Columbus to search for these currents.
5. Radio Waves.
6. Entropy.
7. Water cycle.
8. First Law of Thermodynamics.
9. Ship Dimensions.
10. Meteorological Laws.
11. Air Mass.
12. Earths Rotation
13. Laws of Hygiene.
14. Fat intake.
15. The immune System
16. One common Ancestor.
17. Origins of Sexes.

Here is a list of some scientists who believed in the bible.

Physics: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin.
Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay.
Geology, Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Agassiz.
Astronomy: Kepler, Galileao, Herschel, and Maunder.

The Bible is a Historical document, as of today, no scientific evidence has disproved the Bible. If you like, I can provide passages for each one of the bits of science that is found within the bible. I can also provide information on the scientists that believed in the bible.

From the information I have gathered on your initial argument , it is clear that you believe religion should not dictate science. However, it is obvious you are basing your reasoning on the misinterpretation of the bible. There have been misinterpretations, and I do not deny that fact. However, they were merely misinterpretations. Scientists still have trouble understanding so many things in this universe. Christians can also have trouble understanding the bible since the Bible is filled with metaphors.

I await your response.

(1) http://www.vhi.org...
Debate Round No. 2
xXCryptoXx

Pro

Please note that since my opponent posted an argument in Round 1 he will not be posting an argument in Round 3 in order to provide an equal number of arguments for both of us. If my opponent for some reasons chooses to respond to my arguments all of his arguments are to be completely disregarded.


My opponent once again completely misinterprets the resolution, even after proper explanation and examples given by me. I am not arguing that religious people don’t agree with science. I am not arguing that God does not exist. I am not arguing towards a certain time period. I am not arguing that the Bible is false, ect.

The resolution is to be taken as bare bone. Anything that is not part of this resolution is not part of the debate.

Examples of my opponent misinterpreted the resolution or arguing against something never claimed:

“Science has yet to prove or disprove a God or Supernatural being.”

This debate is not about science disproving religion, or religious beliefs that science cannot disprove (such as the existence of God). This debate is about science progressing religion through scientific discovering which falsify religious beliefs.

“I do not disagree with the notion that at one point in history, religion dictated science. However, in today's society that it not the case.”

The resolution does not regard any specific time in history. Rather it covers a generally standpoint. The resolution is to be interpreted as Science Should Progress Religion Instead of Religion Dictating Science (At any point in time) since time was not clarified. In the same if I say “abortion should be illegal” then I claim that it should generally be illegal with the absence of a specific time period.


My opponent still has yet to present any type of argument relating to the topic of this debate. He is simply trying to explain his way around an issue without creating valid arguments based on today's religion, especially the practice of Christianity in the United States.”

The only person here who has been going off-topic is you. Since my debate resolution did not clarify, by default it is a general standpoint. I am not arguing that certain religions are deluded, or am arguing against Christianity. Again, no specific time period was clarified so it goes as a general statement with no time period.

“Now I will bring up some arguments in regards on how Religion has progressed science:”

Everything under this argument was completely unrelated to the debate. Again, the resolution is Science should Progress Religion instead of Religion Dictating Science. Nowhere in the resolution do I deny that religion can progress science so nowhere must I defend against this argument. I am also not saying that religion dictates science, rather I am saying that religion shouldn’t dictate science. This is very important because a few words can change the entire context of meaning. In the same way, I could say a Christian shouldn’t support abortion. That doesn’t mean Christians support abortion, it just means that I think they shouldn’t. This being said, the entire argument is irrelevant to the debate.

“Science should not be required to progress religion as religion (the belief in a God), only requires a belief”

I am not arguing that science is required to progress religion. Rather I am arguing that science should progress religion instead of religion progressing science.

Now onto my arguments and responses

“Can you explain how the belief in Young Earth Creationism is an example of religion dictating science in today's society?”

Perhaps it was not the best example considering YEC has technically been disproven but there is an exponential amount of empirical evidence against it. Fact is, by continuing your belief in YEC you are denying God’s creation and attempting to dictate science with your already near falsified beliefs. Science should rather progress religion in that by proving YEC to be untrue religious people can come closer to knowledge of God’s creation and the context of their beliefs.

“How do religious people deny reality in order to justify their beliefs”

Well simply imagine a man that believed lightning was the cause of a great flying sea horse god and denied all science in order to continue believing in what he believes. I am not necessarily saying that people do do this. The resolution does not state that people deny science in order to justify their beliefs. Rather the resolution states that people should not deny science for the sake of their beliefs.

“Some people still do (still believe in Greek mythology), but the majority of the world does not. This concept has nothing to do with the debate.”

Has clarified above, I am not arguing that people deny science for the sake of their beliefs. I am arguing that people should not deny science for the sake of their beliefs.

“ Nowhere in the Christian bible does it say that the sun revolved around the earth. Am I mistaken?”

It actually doesn’t even matter. The point of the example wasn’t in the historical facts, rather it was in the message. That message was that religion should not deny reality for the sake of their beliefs.

“has there ever been any mistakes in the history of science?”

There are no mistakes in science. There is only progress.

“Does the Catholic Church still believe the sun revolves around the earth? No, the church does not believe that, therefore science progressed religion as you mentioned.”

Concession.

“If religion dictated science, people would still believe the sun revolved around the earth, but that is not the case”

It is not the case because science progressed religion.

Everything else I found to be overall irrelevant to the debate and had no need for a response.

Conclusion

My opponent completely and utterly failed to argue the religion should take precedence over scientific discovery where as I have given examples of how science has progressed humanity and evolved religion.

This resolution has gone completely unscathed and has been affirmed.


Andrew.Cerean

Con

You completely avoided addressing the points I made that religion did play a role in progressing science.

I he you understand that science is not confined to origins. Science involves medicine (progressed by religion). I already provided historical evidence of this.

Also, I would like you to know that nearly EVERYTHING progresses science. Science can be an observation or experimentation.

Religion progressed science, but not in a way you have comprehended. You need to think out side of the box and understand that some scientists work to disprove religious beliefs, therefore, religion plays a role in progressing science . I hope that makes sense.

I really wish you would have used some sources or valid points in your debate.

I kept my last argument short, as I made a few short statements to begin with. I do believe we are fairly close in word count.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
79 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Now: For what you have been alluding to.

I've covered the Fact of Evolution, which was confirmed by Genetics, such as we are 98% ape.
We can only extend the Fact of Evolution as far back as we can find DNA/RNA evidence, anything beyond that comes under Evolutionary Speculation which is not Factual.

It was the Fossil record that was the first verification of Evolution, but, because we don't have DNA evidence to corroborate this speculation it cannot be called Factual.
Though recent fossil evidence that does have DNA samples, definitely proved Evolution as Factual.

Though to speculate and say that Evolutionary principles applied to fossils prior to DNA evidence is again speculative, thus we cannot say that the Pre-Cambrian explosion was a result of Evolutionary principles, we can make the assumption that it was, but again that is highly speculative, unless we can find DNA sampled from that period which is currently seen as impossible.

So, Evolution can only be considered as Fact for that which we can demonstrate it as a Fact, which is limited to evidence backed up by DNA samples.
Beyond that Evolution cannot be called Factual so we can only speculate on such eras and say that it is highly likely that Evolutionary principles created the Pre-Cambrian explosion, but we can say that the Velociraptors evolving to the form of birds such as the Ostrich is so evident that it can be considered close to Factual.

Though to state that as an actual Fact needs further proof.

Hope this clears up some of what I've been trying to say.

The Fact of Evolution only applies to that which we have proven beyond doubt. Only that which is backed up by DNA evidence.
The other side of Evolution that you have been wrongly pushing as all of Evolution is the speculative side of Evolution only.

Get it now!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
All the following back up everything I've been saying.

You have no real knowledgeable sources to back up your tripe!

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com...
http://www.notjustatheory.com...
http://bigthink.com...
http://www.ted.com...
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Now you are distorting Evolution.

Yes, evolution explains how organs develop and how generations of genetically similar organisms can evolve to develop additional traits.
But guessing games, such as Pre-Cambrian explosions and events in times that we don't have any real biological data on, have nothing to do with Evolution as a science.

As a science and as an explanation for how natural selection and genetic changes occur.
Evolution is a Fact.

Because we can project it back and make predictions about such things as pre-Cambrian events, is only because it is a well grounded Factual Theory.
Stephen J. Gould made this clear in his examination of pre-Cambrian fossils.
He found that phenotype properties hold true right through the fossil record to Evolutionary principles.
Some of the Phenotypes he examined had the same number of building blocks as we humans have today, only those building blocks are utilized differently.
It's this consistency that makes Evolution applicable to ancient times.
But, ancient times is not the basis of the formulation of the Theory by Darwin.
It is a side issue, not the main game of Evolution.

Evolution is a Biological Fact that can be applied to past present and future with accurate predictable results.
That is all.
It's still a Fact in the format that Darwin and others after him formulated it.

You are to naive to understand what I'm saying, that if pre-cambrian explosion occurred from a non-Evolution based event, it still would not disprove Evolution any at all.
Because the principles are Factual in the here and now.
Evolution is still a Fact!

No matter how you try to irrationally spin it.
Posted by Andrew.Cerean 3 years ago
Andrew.Cerean
@Sagey. Evolution has everything to do with the past, how am I irrational?

"Evolution is only about what happens now"

Please don't warp the theory in a way that best fits your argument. That makes no sense at all. Evolution has everything to do with the past, present, and future. You CANNOT identify evolution without the past. This simply shows your lack of reasoning skills. You cannot identify evolution by looking at the present. If you are trying to use DNA comparison between different species of animals, that argument is completely irrelevant. Once again, you cannot grasp the concept that he structure of our world is bound to a thing called the periodic table. It's like coding when programming a computer. The coding could be a bunch of 1's and 0's, which can be arranged in ways with almost limitless possibilities.

Just because the information uses the same coding, it does not explain evolution.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
It's only that Paleontologists have applied the principles and Facts of Evolution to their guesses about the Pre-Cambrian era and discovered that it paints a more accurate picture of possible events than any other theory or concept (including Creationist concepts) thus Evolution has been applied to the science of Paleontology. Yet, Evolution itself is not based on any such era, it is only based on what Darwin and others since Darwin have observed.
To apply it to ancient life forms is only guessing and Evolution is not really concerned with ancient events, only current genetic changes in organisms and organ structures.
Stem Cell research is proof of Evolution.
This is what evolution is really concerned with.

Not the Pre-Cambrian explosion.
It truly has nothing to do with Evolution, nor do we seek to use such events as proof of Evolution.
Evolution has enough existing proof to be a Fact.

It's just very likely that the principles of Evolution were involved in the Pre-Cambrian explosion, as Paleontologists believe so, but even if it were not, it would not detract from Evolution being a Fact at all.
That's the whole truth of the Matter!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Your concepts are Irrational.
Evolution is only about what happens now.
The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with origins or abiogenesis.
It is you who has no idea of Evolution.

As far as current biological processes go, Evolution is a Fact.
Evolution is really not concerned with what happened in the Pre-Cambrian era.
Paleontologists have added evolution to their concepts as they it also explains much of what they discover.
Though Darwin and The Theory of Evolution was not devised to cover origins theories, only to explain adaptations of different species studied in the real world. So this is what it is based on.
And when studying and considering such biological movements in the real current world.
Evolution Is Fact.

You do not know anything about Evolution, apart from some rubbish you have read.
We know how organs such as eyes developed, these are evidence of evolution.
But evolution does not explain how cells arrived from combining elements (abiogenesis).
Yet some scientists have almost produced living cells from combining elements, so that is another Science, it is not Evolution.

Evolution is still Fact.

Your comments have nothing to do with evolution.
I'm far more logical and rational than you.
I also have infinitely more knowledge of science and evolution.
That is obvious.
You still need an education! Seriously!
Posted by Andrew.Cerean 3 years ago
Andrew.Cerean
@Sagey Just because there are no other alternate theories out there that are as logical, you cannot label a theory as a fact. You still don't see the point. It is so simple, it feels as if evolution is your religion. Where are the fossils to link a single branch in Darwin's Tree of Life, where is it? Explain the Cambrian Explosion and how thousands of different species appeared in such a short time, evolution cannot explain. Evolution is merely based on random mutations paired with natural selection over a very long period of time.

Science has only made some observations of what is already in place. There have been no real developments or hard facts of evolution. What science had done is take an obvious fact, and attempt to develop the most logical theory of how that piece of evidence came to exist. That is where the Theory of Evolution came to play.

I can tell by your posts that you are not using any form of logic. I am not telling you to accept creationism. I am not telling you to throw evolution out the window. I am just telling you to quit fooling yourself. Yes, evolution is the most logical method used. However, that's all it is, a LOGICAL method, for minds that place all faith in science.

I love science, I just don't take the theory of evolution as a fact. I view it as the most logical explanation that is currently used. Am I wrong to have that perspective? No, I'm not, and in holding that view, I am not a hypocrite. If you know the definition of science, and hold it to be true, you CANNOT label the Theory of Evolution as a complete scientific fact. Evolution is the big picture, don't try to feed me mess that there are small facts within the theory, as it's entirely irrelevant.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Though I should be more specific:

Evolution explains adequately all the Facts of Biological processes and progression in organisms in a tangible, experimentally verifiable manner, in that it can be used to make practical predictions, and so far all such predictions made by Evolution have been extremely accurate.

Thus, using cumulative evidence for verification of the Factual nature of Evolution.
Evolution can be considered as nothing else but Factual.
Thus Evolution is a Fact!

There is no competition from any other Theory on the planet in the predictability and accuracy of Evolution.

No scientists as yet, have been able to find a flaw in Evolution.
Though many Scientists are trying to find flaws in it, often for their own glory.

Some Young Earth Creationist scientists have attempted to falsify flaws by taking comments of real scientists out of context, but such deceptive use of Semantics in itself is Fraudulent.
Only demonstrating that all Young Earth Creationist/ID scientists are Frauds!

When a scientist can prove a flaw in Evolution, likely they would receive a Nobel Prize for it and worldwide recognition, but I don't see any Creationist scientists with any such notoriety for their Deception.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
There is no competing, tangible Theory Of Development Of Living Organisms on Planet Earth.

Evolution is the only one, thus it is the only Fact in How Living Organisms Develop.

There is no other!

Every Evolutionary scientist and legal professionals versed in scientific matters knows this Fact.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
@ Andrew: If you read my sources: Evolution is Definitely A Fact!

There is no other Theory to even challenge Evolution in any way.

Evolution has shown no faults and it explains all the Facts of Evolution, thus Evolution is Fact.

In that regard you are wrong, Scientifically and Legally.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
xXCryptoXxAndrew.CereanTied
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 comment's
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
xXCryptoXxAndrew.CereanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: They both appear a little green in debating, though Con did post a source that was irrelevant so it didn't count as a valid source for Con's argument. Con's argument was circular in that people have added or contrived Bible passages to make them fit scientific discoveries, if one reads the entire passages, they have nothing to do with science. it's irrational cherry picking of passages that appear to reflect scientific knowledge, that did not exist in the Bible at all, the scribes had no idea of scientific knowledge, that's obvious. So it is circular, Bible said this, but it does not advance knowledge, just repeats that which was discovered over a century ago, repetitively.
Vote Placed by PatriotPerson 3 years ago
PatriotPerson
xXCryptoXxAndrew.CereanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was more rounded and gave much better arguments. Con loses conduct for his disobeying of round 1 being for acceptance and that he wasn't to argue in round 3.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
xXCryptoXxAndrew.CereanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll agree with Con that the resolution is a bit unclear. But the resolution is whether science should help religious people choose which of their beliefs is correct or whether religious people should first choose which beliefs are correct and only then evaluate scientific claims. Con does not argue the resolution. Supposedly everything would be on the table for science to disprove except the existence of God. Pro should have made the topic clearer though and bears the blame for this being a rather non-substantive debate.
Vote Placed by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
xXCryptoXxAndrew.CereanTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
xXCryptoXxAndrew.CereanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: I'd like to say that Con booched the definition of Religion. Con didn't listen to the rules of the Debate, and loses Conduct. COn did a poor job of understanding the Resolution and discussing it, while Pro's arguments remained more relevant. Con gets sources, while Spelling and Grammar remain even.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
xXCryptoXxAndrew.CereanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution is quite specific with little room for interpretation. The pro stuck to the resolution and made convincing arguments for it. The con's arguments wander off-topic onto subjects not covered by the prompt. Con spelling and grammar was better. Con cited only one source, but Pro cited none, thus automatically loses citation point. On the topic of conduct. It is not fair for the pro to post arguments on the first round and expect con not to post arguments. Pro use of "first round for acceptance" was abusive and against the spirit of fair debate.