The Instigator
Megan_K
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
tpmassive
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Catholic Religion, Evolution, And the Big Bang Theory are All True

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 1 vote the winner is...
Megan_K
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,080 times Debate No: 52765
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Megan_K

Pro

The Catholic Religion, Evolution, and the Big Bang Theory are all true. If you disagree, then what is your reason for doing so?
tpmassive

Con

It is a void insinuation to assume that different explanations for the same phenomena or occupancy are true. The theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory may both be regarded as true as one may claim that the earth was created by the Big Bang theory and man later came to adapt to the environment through the theory of evolution. However, the catholic religion is unable to co-exist with both statements or beliefs as it can be seen that the catholic religion directly contradicts both statements. In this scenario, the theses lie parallel to each other hence they cannot all be regarded as true.
Debate Round No. 1
Megan_K

Pro

I shall start with the creation, since that is where the most contradiction may appear to be.
The Bible says that the world was formed in seven days, but this definition of "day" is referring to "a specified time or period" (www.Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/day).
On the first day, the Earth was just an idea, but the Big Bang was happening. The Bible says "Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters" (Genesis 1:2). So it's saying the Earth was not physically existent yet, but an idea. "A divine wind sweeping over the waters" refers to the Big Bang, where there was a big gust of energy, mass, space, and time. Waters, in this context, is what "fills" the void before the Big Bang, because on the Earth when this part of the Bible was written by Moses, the land was what people mainly focused on, and the oceans, just a filler in between the land. When God was explaining the creation to Moses, He used many metaphors, because He didn't want to confuse Moses, because of the lack of scientific knowledge in that time period, and the fact that God didn't require everything to be written down. Also on the first day, God started to form the solar system. "God said 'Let there be light', and there was light" (Genesis 1:3). Now this was light from the point of view from earth, so the Sun, for lack of confusion. On the second day, God formed the atmosphere around the developing Earth. "God said 'Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.' And so it was" (Genesis 1:6). Again, "waters" is referring to what fills space. They called the atmosphere in this time "heavens." On day 3, God finished forming the Earth. "God said 'Let the waters under heaven come together into a single mass, and let dry land appear.' And so it was" (Genesis 1:9). He also began to make plants. "God said 'Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees on earth, bearing fruit with their seed inside, each corresponding to its own species.' And so it was" (Genesis 1:11). On day 4, God cleared the sky to let the Sun appear clearer, and stars appear. "God said 'Let there be lights in the vault of heaven to divide day from night, and let them indicate festivals, days, and years" (Genesis 1:14). And of course, the stars and position of the Sun were used to indicate time. On day 5, God created birds and water creatures. "God said, 'Let the waters be alive with a swarm of living creatures, and birds wing their way above the earth across the vault of heaven.' And so it was" (Genesis 1:20). On day 6, God created mammals. "God said 'Let the earth produce every kind of living creature in its own species: cattle, creeping things and wild animals of all kinds.' And so it was" (Genesis 1:24). God also created man on this day. "God said 'Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild animals and all the creatures that creep along the ground. God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female, he created them" (Genesis 1:26-27). Later, in Genesis 2, it goes a little more in depth of how He created animals and humans, saying that He "shaped them from the soil of the ground." This is metaphorically saying that He made animals and humans from what was rich on the Earth, and with much evolutionary evidence, that implies other organisms.
And the order in which these organisms were formed according to the Bible agrees with the order in which organisms were formed according to the Theory of Evolution. First came plants, then fish and birds, then land dwelling animals, then humans. Well, if you look at an evolutionary timeline, and notice that it says mammals originated before birds, back then God grouped animals we today might not classify as birds, such as pterodactyls, in the bird group, again for lack of confusion, resulting in birds originating before mammals. Same thing goes for the other groups of plants, fish, and land dwelling animals. Humans would be classified as Homo sapien sapiens, rather than just Homo sapien. Here is an evolutionary timeline: http://stuffpoint.com...
Also, in the Bible, the first humans were in the garden of Eden, which was in the present day fertile crescent. In the Bible it said, "A river flowed from Eden to water the garden, and from there it divided to make four streams. The first is named the Pishon, and this winds all through the land of Havilah where there is gold. The second river is named the Gihon, and this winds all through the land of Cush. The third river is named the Tigris, and this flows to the east of Ashur. The fourth river is the Euphrates" (Genesis 2:10-11, 13-14). And evolutionary scientists believe that Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens met at the fertile crescent and mated, and eventually formed Homo sapien sapiens, and the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens became extinct, because their knowledge was not as good as Homo sapien sapien's. If you would like to learn deeper about this, you may watch a Nova video about decoding Neanderthals. http://video.pbs.org...
tpmassive

Con

My opponent has taken a theoretical tether than factual stance. This in turn is compelling me to adapt the view of Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis who would simply ask the question " where you there?" Where evidence for some scientific theses exists, such as the finding of Ramapithecus skulls by Louis and Mary Leaky, one may find no reason to dismiss the statements as they are backed by archaeological evidence. The Bing Bang theory however, is a controversial theory which up to this day remains a theory because no evidence to back it up had been found. Furthermore, one is able to easily notice that the forced coincidence of religious and scientific facts by my opponent is rather an act of guesswork and mild intuition. What my opponent had done is trying to bridge gaps between three theories that are not liable to co-exist. Moreover, if my opponents claim that "day" is a metaphorical word in the bible then the whole bible itself is rendered void. Reason being periods of times are continually mentioned in the bible. We are unable to accept the bible'a description of Jesus spending forty days in the desert, resurrecting after three days, Lazarus being dead for four days, the trip to Mount Sinai taking three days or any other discrepancy that contains time because perhaps a day might be a second, an hour, a year, a decade, a century or a millennium.
Debate Round No. 2
Megan_K

Pro

The Big Bang Theory does have evidence to support it's truth. The light from other galaxies as observed on Earth, is more towards the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum than it should be, corresponding to it's mass, if the galaxy was stationary relative to Earth. Due to the Doppler Effect, this proves that galaxies are moving away, which is what the Big Bang Theory proposes. Also, there is cosmic microwave background radiation going in all directions in space, which is the remains of the energy released by the Big Bang. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
In addition, I believe my statements are not forced, but may appear to be, because of the complexity of considering all variables when interpreting the Bible.
Also, my opponent has said " Moreover, if my opponents claim that 'day' is a metaphorical word in the bible then the whole bible itself is rendered void." To clear up any misunderstanding, when I said "The Bible says that the world was formed in seven days, but this definition of 'day' is referring to 'a specified time or period'," I meant that that definition only applied to Genesis 1, in the Bible.
tpmassive

Con

tpmassive forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Megan_K

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the last round, so I see no need to state more evidence as of now.
tpmassive

Con

tpmassive forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Megan_K

Pro

Megan_K forfeited this round.
tpmassive

Con

tpmassive forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
It's actually fallacious inductive reasoning.
We have Three Sets A: Big Bang, B: Evolution and C: Catholicism.
These sets actually have no common elements apart A and B being Scientific Concepts.

So Pro is stating Because C supports A and B which are deemed to be true, C must also be True.

That is Fallacious reasoning.

Fallacies involved;
Fallacy of Composition.
False Attribution Fallacy.
Hasty Generalization Fallacy.
Faulty Generalization Fallacy.
Association fallacy.
Inconsistent Comparison Fallacy.
False Analogy Fallacy,
etc.... Ad infinitum.

Essentially the entire argument is incredibly Fallacious!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
@ Megan_K, your argument is full of massive holes, though tpmassive had pointed out some of those holes, he did not stick around to finish the job.

The re-translation of Genesis to suit modern knowledge is actually fraudulent and doesn't account for the anomalies in the creation story, such as the incorrect order of things created.
Such as plants before the actual Sun, if the sun took more than a few days to be created, then the plants would have perished.
Also the rest of the Bible talks of the dome as a firmament with stars glued underneath it.
Thus the alteration of Genesis, then is contradicted by the rest of the Bible.
What would a new translation of Genesis be when they finally come to the conclusion that the Big Bang came from a Black Hole. Where there are many Black Holes in the Cosmos that could potentially create more universes.

Then Genesis would sink like a stone, which in reality it has already done.
Genesis has nothing to do with Christianity anyway, it is the Jew's Book, so it belongs to Judaism, not Christianity.
Posted by Megan_K 3 years ago
Megan_K
I'm sorry I have not had enough time to complete round 5, but as it being a generally a concluding round, I believe my argument is pretty straight forward.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Hmm Interesting, 1 is definitely true, 1 is very likely true, the last is extremely unlikely to be True.
Wonder how the arguments will pan out.
Posted by demonlord343 3 years ago
demonlord343
Fair enough, ... still, had some structure! Quick! Before its too late! lol
Posted by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
She's 14 and this is her first DDO debate. Hopefully a senior member doesn't swoop in and slaughter her.
Posted by demonlord343 3 years ago
demonlord343
No rules? No claim? No specific structure? Are you looking for a chaotic debate?
Posted by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
Good luck!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Megan_KtpmassiveTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's reasoning appears to be flawed, though Con really didn't attack the points so between them I couldn't decide on a winning argument, expected more from Con, but Con left the building and a conduct point to pro.