The Instigator
Muted
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
stubs
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

The Christian God is incompatible with 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 5 votes the winner is...
stubs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,089 times Debate No: 26937
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (38)
Votes (5)

 

Muted

Pro

I will assume familiarity on the topic by stubs, thus I will not define the terms.

Rules
1. No vulgarities/trolling
2. No plagiarizing

Round format
R1. Acceptance
R2. Opening arguments
R3-R4. Arguments
R5. (Idea taken from Microsuck) Closing statements, under 1.5k characters
stubs

Con

I accept. My opponent has the burden of proof to show that the Christian God is incompatible with evolution. I must show that it is possible the Christian God and evolution are compatible. I would just like one last clarification. Am I allowed to respond to your arguments in round 2 or must I wait until round 3? I look forward to hearing my opponents arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Muted

Pro

Yes. You can respond by then. I make the opening, after that is arguments.

I thank Stubs for accepting this debate. Without further ado, I will begin.

Evolution is theologically incompatible with the teachings of the Christ, who is the Christian God.

Evolution clearly states that humans have only been around for a short period of time compared to entirety of time that life has been on Earth.

Jesus states in Mark 10:6, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Here He was referring to Adam and Eve, who He claims was around from the beginning, not from near the end.

In Luke 11:50-51, He states, "That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation."
So there were prophets from the foundation of the world. Were there any monkey prophets? I think not.

In Romans 1:20, Paul writes, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
How could humans perceive the "invisible things" of Christ if they were not at the creation of the world?

Therefore, I have to conclude, based on this, that evolution and the Christian God is incompatible.

Now you may begin rebutting.

All information taken from [1]. All Bible quotations from KJV.
stubs

Con

First I would like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as well as thank my opponent for initiating this debate. There are a couple of things I would like to first point out. The fact that God created is more far more crucial than how long God's creating lasted. The breath-taking splendor of God's creation isn't diminished if the process took billions of years rather than six 24-hour days. The heavens still declare God's glory. I'm firmly committed to Scripture's authority, and if commonly-accepted scientific theories genuinely conflict with Scripture, we should bow to Scripture's authority. The dispute about Scripture and science is often hermeneutical, however. One must distinguish between Scripture"s authority and our interpretations of it. The two "books" of Gods self-revelation "His Word and His world" aren't ultimately contradictory.

Clearly, Genesis 1-3 is historical based on text such as Luke 3:38 and Acts 17:26. However, it has a number of non-literal/metaphorical elements as well not to mention poetic elements of terseness, repetition, etc. Some evangelical exegetes consider the early chapters of Genesis "poetical-historical." The biblical commentator E.J. Young, who believed God created in six literal 24-hour days, believed that Genesis 1 is poetical-historical language.

"God "divides" light from dark, waters above from waters below, and sea from land.
"There are metaphors (God "breathed" and "walked").
"There is poetic parallelism (1:27; 2:2) as well as poetically arranged strophes with "echo" and "re-echo ("God said"/"and there was"); these repeated refrains aren't exactly like a straightforward historical recounting.
"We have light (first day) before we have heavenly bodies mentioned (fourth day). We have evening and morning (apparently) before we can have sunset and sunrise"for three "days".

Consider how God forms Adam from the dust of the ground and breathing life into him; Job 10:8-9 tells that God created Job by his "hands'"but Job's conception and birth were typical and hardly unique.

Unfortunately, many young-earthers have accused old-earthers of not taking the biblical text "literally" an often ill-defined term that fails to take genres and important literary features into consideration or that they are compromising with naturalistic evolutionists. But many careful evangelical exegetes such as Gleason Archer, Craig Blomberg, Craig Keener, Derek Kidner, Vern Poythress, Walter Kaiser, Bruce Waltke (to name a few) believe that the word "day [yom]" in Genesis 1-2 hardly entails a 24-hour time-period; the text is more generous than this. So we must take every portion of the Bible literarily ("each according to its genre") even if we don"t take every portion literally.

Note too that if you take the "literal" (as opposed to literary) approach, one might think the Bible also teaches that:
"the sun and moon are the largest heavenly bodies (Gen. 1:16);
"the sun rises and sets (Gen 19:23; Deut 16:6; Ps 19:6);
"the earth does not rotate (Ps 93:1);
"the earth rests on foundations (Ps. 104:5);
"the earth is flat/has an edge (Dan. 4:11, 22);
"the moon is literally a "light" (Gen. 1:16; Ps. 136:7-9)"rather than a reflector.

I will now move on to the scientific evidence for an ancient universe.

The appearance of some celestial bodies millions or billions of light years away have been noted during recorded human history (e.g., Tycho Brahe's study of the 1572 starburst), which would undercut the allegation that all light beams were in place at creation. For example, on 23 February 1987, astronomer Ian Shelton photographed a supernova (an exploding star), whose light was 160-170,000 light years away. That is, the explosion took place 160-170,000 years ago, but its light only reach the earth in 1987 [1] [2]. But such an observation does not make sense if the young-earth creationist allegation is true.

The Grand Canyon is another example of long processes over a long period of time"not a sudden global cataclysm. Rather than the higher layers being finer than the lower, we have a sequence of fine-coarse-fine-coarse; also, one should expect no multiple layers of limestone deposits interspersed with shale and sandstone layers [3].

There is good reason to take Noah's flood as affecting all humans, but regional in its extent (see Ross, A Matter of Days; The Genesis Question). As geologists Davidson and Wolgemuth note:
If the Flood was violent enough to rip chunks of rock up from the earth and move entire continents (standard Young Earth claims), then it should be obvious that life forms from every imaginable niche would be tumbled and mixed together. We should find numerous examples of mammoths mixed with triceratops, and pterodactyls mixed with sparrows. Ferns and meadow flowers should be found in the same deposits, along with trilobites and whales. Further, we should find all major life forms still living today, for Genesis 7:8-9 is clear in stating that all terrestrial animals were preserved on the ark. What we actually observe is far different. There is an orderly sequence where trilobites only occur in very old rocks, dinosaurs in later beds, and mammoths in still later layers. Organisms like flowers and ferns are present together in more recent deposits, but only ferns with no flowers are found in older deposits [4].

The "Big Bang" about 13.7 billion years ago (the beginning of matter, energy, space, and time) "turns out to be an excellent confirmation of Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" [5].

Did God create with the appearance of age?

It is also very strange that many young-earth creationists will say that the evidence for a young earth can be found only in Scripture via revelation, but yet declare that their belief is "now strikingly confirmed by modern science" [6]. If it is "strikingly confirmed by science," why don't more scientists--including evangelical Christians--recognize the evidence?

God's creating the universe with the appearance of age is deceptive, and consequently, inconsistent with God's character. For the universe to give the false appearance of vast age when it is allegedly quite young flies in the face of reason. This apparent-age view implies that we while we can take the Bible at face value, we cannot take God's revelation in creation at face value. In the case of creation, God would be deceiving us by placing us within a complex world which bears innumerable indications of a complex history that did not actually happen [7].

If the universe is created with the appearance of age, then all we can say about all seeming-indications of pre-history as that they were created and bear only an illusion of history. It seems incredible to be able to trace the processes of history back to 10,000 years or so, beyond which time everything becomes apparently old. This strikes me as counter-intuitive. This renders all created rocks to be scientifically off limits. But the question is, "How do we determine that a rock could be older than 10,000 years? How do we decide that a rock may not be legitimately studied by the methods of geological science?." The appeal to the appearance of age essentially throws out the scientific enterprise [8].

In light of this assessment, it seems more in harmony with God's character and with our own common-sense intuitions that whatever "objects of [God's] creation we subject to scientific analysis will reveal their true age--provided the analysis is theoretically valid" [9].

[1]23 March 1987 Time cover story, "Supernova!"
[2]The Evolution of the Universe, by P. James E. Peebles, et. al. in Scientific American [October 1994]: 53-64
[3] Davidson and Wolgemuth, "Christian Geologists,"5.
[4] Ibid 6.
[5] Paul Copan/William Craig, Creation Out of Nothing (Baker Academic).
[6] Morris, Remarkable Birth, iv
[7] Young, "Scripture," 300.
[8] Ibid 301.
[9] Ross, Creation and Time, 54
Debate Round No. 2
Muted

Pro

I would love to contend with you about the evidences for evolution and the Big Bang. They are, however, not part of this discussion. This is because the truth or falsity of evolution has no bearing on the resolution.

Firstly, I will respond to your jabs (such as "allegation," "literal," "claims") about YECs. YECs do not interpret the Bible "literally." Rather, YECs interpret the Bible CONTEXTUALLY, which is different from literal. YECs do not allege. There are testable theories on this, which I will not go into.

Now I will quote a liberal scholar who believes Genesis is meant to be taken literally.
James Barr in a letter to David C.C. Watson:
"...probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1"11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
3. Noah"s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."" [1]

Yes, I agree that SOME words are metaphorical. Does that make the WHOLE text metaphorical? You are taking things totally out of context.

Also, in your view, the "beginning" is all the way to the first humans from the creation of the world. Now that is a long beginning.

Was the Flood global? Well, what does the text tell us? It tells us, (see following, it was in prose form) that the waters covered the earth and that all the mountains were covered. That is not compatible with a local flood.

You have just elevated nature to the status of divine inspiration. This is known as the "dual revelation theory" [2]. In fact, every time that "nature" and the Bible has clashed, people like Ross have always compromised on the Bible and magnified the nature. This shows clearly which is the more highly regarded. If they were both equally well-regarded, cognitive dissonance would result.

In your list of "literal" verses, you cite some things clearly poetical. Note that young-earth creationists do not believe in a "literal" interpretation.

Certainly in some cases the word "yom" is interpreted in more than one way. Firstly, is it poetry or prose? Well, [3] the Hebrew Genesis lacks the poetic markers found in Hebrew poems. It is thus logical to conclude that it is not a poem. There is also a different ratio of verbal forms in genesis than in poetry. The grammatical structure is also that of prose as opposed to poetry.

Now we can look at the context of Genesis. In all of the six days, they are marked with "evening and morning..." Can one infer from this that it is poetry? I doubt so.

So why is there not more YECs? Well, firstly, there has been an increase of YEC scientists. Slow, to be sure. But growing. (You"d notice that if you read YEC literature)

Now we will deal with the assertion that YECs believe that God deceptively made the Earth look old. One simple fact. It does NOT look old. It is assumed to be old. Now, even if it were old, that does not make it compatible with the Christian God.

In conclusion, I will like to mention several things. The truth/falsity of evolution has nothing to do with its compatibility with the Christian God as revealed in His Word. If it were true, then it directly contradicts the Bible. This is widely recognized. So widely, in fact, that I need not cite this. If it is false, then the Christian God is not contradicted.

Either way, evolution and the Christian God can never be reconciled.

I know I haven"t responded to the evidence for evolution and long ages, this is not because I concede them, but because I feel they are in no way relevant to the discussion. Just to note, in the future rounds I will take the position that long age is true, and will show why the Bible is incompatible with that.

To you.

As you have sourced in the argument box, so will I. To keep things fair.

1. http://creation.com...
2. http://creation.com...
3. http://creation.com...; http://creation.com...
stubs

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his thought provoking and interesting response.

"I would love to contend with you about the evidences for evolution and the Big Bang. They are, however, not part of this discussion. This is because the truth or falsity of evolution has no bearing on the resolution."

This statement would be true, however, as I stated in the previous round "The two "books" of Gods self-revelation "His Word and His World" aren't ultimately contradictory." The truth or falsity of the appearance of the age of the earth/universe is central to this debate.

Next my opponent had a quote that said, "there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1"11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that [...] creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience."

That is very interesting because in the last round I listed 7 scholars who would disagree.

"Now we can look at the context of Genesis. In all of the six days, they are marked with "evening and morning..." Can one infer from this that it is poetry? I doubt so."

Actually that provides evidence for my opinion. As I mentioned earlier the repetition of "evening and morning" and the echo/re-echo of "God said/there was" are nothing like historical documentation.

"Now we will deal with the assertion that YECs believe that God deceptively made the Earth look old. One simple fact. It does NOT look old. It is assumed to be old. Now, even if it were old, that does not make it compatible with the Christian God."

I have given good reason to believe that the earth does look and is old. You have given no reason to believe that the earth being old and the Christian God are incompatible other than just stating the bare assertion.

In conclusion I have shown that Gods Word and the world he created are not contradictory. I have given good reason to believe that age of the earth and universe are most likely closer to the estimated time given by the old earth view rather than the young earth. I'd have been happy to find solid support for a young universe (I'm still open to persuasion), but I regularly found it to be shaky at best. The more I studied the Scriptures and the relevant, wide-ranging scientific data, the more reasonably I could conclude that (a) the universe is billions of years old and (b) Scripture accords nicely with this evidence.
Debate Round No. 3
Muted

Pro

I agree absolutely with the statement "The two "books" of Gods self-revelation "His Word and His World" aren't ultimately contradictory." Why so? Because His World must be interpreted without naturalistic assumptions.

I would like to note that you haven"t yet responded to the theological implications of the opening round. Please do so.

Are the seven scholars you listed professors at world-class universities? According to Ting Wang [1],
"The semantic range [list of all possible meanings] of the English word "day" is not unlike the range of the Hebrew word (y"m). No-one denies that "day" can mean a period or era in some contexts in both languages. For example, that"s what we mean if we say, "in Martin Luther"s day " ."
"Similarly, in Proverbs 25:13 we find "as the cold of snow in the time/"day" of the harvest." However, it"s totally improper to claim "day" can mean "era" in a different context. For instance, "on the last day of Luther"s life " ," "day" clearly must mean an ordinary day"the modifier "last" and the context"Luther"s passing"render the meaning clear.
"In Genesis 1, y"m comes with "evening" and "morning", and is modified by a number. So it"s obvious that the Hebrew text is describing a 24-hour day"the exegetical burden of proof rests crushingly upon those who view otherwise (notice too that in Jeremiah 33:17"22, God"s covenant with the day and the night, so that both will come at the appointed time, is as unalterable as the promise that a son of David will reign). But no amount of evidence will convince those who are persuaded to play devil"s advocate"just like the serpent in Genesis 3, they must ask, "Did God really say?""
Furthermore, most liberal scholars believe Genesis was a prose historical account. [2]

"Actually that provides evidence for my opinion. As I mentioned earlier the repetition of "evening and morning" and the echo/re-echo of "God said/there was" are nothing like historical documentation."
I can"t locate those sentences. However, I can refute the idea given here. It is certainly not normal historical documentation. However, it certainly is not even close to a poetic form. In fact, there seems to be too much information, [3] which does not go well with a poetic form.

I would like to back up my assertions with some sources. I assert that the genealogies list leave no room for over ~6000 years. This is because one name leads to the next, with the year of birth coinciding with the year of age. [4][5]

I will not refute the claims that the Earth is old. Not in this debate. It is, however, incompatible with the Christian Bible and the Christian God. It is incompatible with the genealogies. I won"t go into the other incompatibilities here.

So in the next round consider the question, when science and the Bible are seemingly in conflict, which one is compromised? Or is both compromised?

Back to you, and please respond to my opening arguments. This has been a thoroughly interesting debate, although I don"t seem to be putting much effort into this...I prefer reading your rebuttals.

1. http://creation.com...
2. Cited in the previous round.
3. Ibid.
4. http://creation.com...
5. http://creation.com...
stubs

Con

I thank my opponent once again for his response.

My opponent agreed with my claim that Gods word and the world he made will not be contradictory. He also, however, said, "I will not refute the claims that the Earth is old. Not in this debate. It is, however, incompatible with the Christian Bible and the Christian God." That is problematic because if the two "books" of Gods self-revelation are consistent than the old earth claims are central to this debate.

"Jesus states in Mark 10:6, 'But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.' Here He was referring to Adam and Eve, who He claims was around from the beginning, not from near the end."

I just do not see how this is problematic at all. It is similar to in Genesis 1 when it says, "In the beginning God created..." It would be near impossible to show that "beginning" in both places means near instantaneous. The text just does not imply that.

"In Luke 11:50-51, He states, 'That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.'
So there were prophets from the foundation of the world. Were there any monkey prophets? I think not."

Why would I believe there were monkey prophets?

"In Romans 1:20, Paul writes, 'For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse'
How could humans perceive the 'invisible things' of Christ if they were not at the creation of the world?"

You're interpretation is clearly off because even with the YEC view humans would not have been around to see the creation of the world because that happened before humans were made.

My opponent made the claim that the Hebrew word "Yom" always means a literal 24-hr day. However, besides the fact that there is no grammatical rule in Hebrew grammars that requires such an interpretation, it's simply false. For example, consider The phrase "day one [yom echad]" in Gen. 1:5 is identical to the one found in Zech. 14:7, referring to "the day of the LORD" clearly not a 24-hour day. "Evening"/"morning" isn't mentioned on the seventh day, suggesting God's complete rest from this initial creation is still continuing (cp. Heb. 4:4: "God rested on the seventh day from all His works") a very long "day" of rest! (See also Heb. 4:9, 11: God never truly stopped working; he simply ceased creating.). If this final day can be more flexibly understood, then why can't the others?

If Gen. 1-2 is a historico-poetic genre (real history using poetic and figurative language), then it's unfair to make unwarranted literary demands upon it (such as the ordinal + yom configuration = 24 hours). Think of how wrong-headed it would be to insisting that Revelation's numbers be literalized for similar reasons, when this genre (apocalyptic-prophetic) literature is highly symbolic. Think also of Daniel 9:24, which speaks of "seventy weeks"; these weeks aren't literal weeks, but refer to years.

"It is certainly not normal historical documentation. However, it certainly is not even close to a poetic form."

This I find interesting and would love to hear more information on because I believe I gave lots of example of poetic language found in Genesis and I do not know of anyone that denies the creation story being a poem.

My opponent thinks that the genealogies in some way discredit the idea of an old earth. That is, however, simply untrue. Old earth creationists do in fact believe in a literal Adam.

"So in the next round consider the question, when science and the Bible are seemingly in conflict, which one is compromised? Or is both compromised?"

I already stated in round two that if Gods word and science are in genuine contradiction that I believe we should bow to scriptures authority. However, I do not believe there is a contradiction. As I said in the last round the more I studied the Scriptures and the relevant, wide-ranging scientific data, the more reasonably I could conclude that (a) the universe is billions of years old and (b) Scripture accords nicely with this evidence.
Debate Round No. 4
Muted

Pro

I would like to conclude. Unfortunately, I did not focus much on this debate and I will be only able to respond to some of your replies here.

The old earth claims can be compared with that of Scriptures, and we find it does not stack up.

The problem I have is that your beginning is long. To long. The evolutionary timescale says that humans have only been around for a fraction of the time.

There were killed prophets from the foundation of the world. Evolution does not permit humans to be around then.

So who is without excuse?

Yom: The problem I have with that interpretation is that there IS hebrew grammatical rules. They were expounded upon in my sources. The lack of an evening/morning on the seventh day does not mean we can disregard the presence of an evening/morning on the six days of creation.
You now make a straw man of my arguments by appealing to figurative passages to try to prove your point. I did state CONTEXTUAL. I also did state clearly that genesis is not poetry, but prose.

If you would like to hear more information on that. I would be glad to supply it. In a PM maybe?

If there was a literal Adam, then all humans came from him. Genetic studies, however, show that mitochondrial eve was from a group of several individuals several thousand years before Adam.

With that I will leave it to you.
stubs

Con

Thanks once again to my opponent for his response.

My opponent said, "The problem I have is that your beginning is long. To long."

That's fine that you have a problem with my interpretation, but until you give evidence that your interpretation is correct, my evidence still stands strong.

"Next my opponent stated, "Yom: The problem I have with that interpretation is that there IS hebrew grammatical rules. They were expounded upon in my sources."

Since I have talked to numerous professors that teach Hebrew and none of them have ever said there is a grammatical rule, I decided to look more into your sources. However, I could not even find in there solid reason to believe so.

I would like to end with what I have already said before.

The fact that God created is more far more crucial than how long God's creating lasted. The breath-taking splendor of God's creation isn't diminished if the process took billions of years rather than six 24-hour days. The heavens still declare God's glory. I'm firmly committed to Scripture's authority, and if commonly-accepted scientific theories genuinely conflict with Scripture, we should bow to Scripture's authority. The dispute about Scripture and science is often hermeneutical, however. One must distinguish between Scripture"s authority and our interpretations of it. The two "books" of Gods self-revelation "His Word and His world" aren't ultimately contradictory. I have given good reason to believe that age of the earth and universe are most likely closer to the estimated time given by the old earth view rather than the young earth. I'd have been happy to find solid support for a young universe (I'm still open to persuasion), but I regularly found it to be shaky at best. The more I studied the Scriptures and the relevant, wide-ranging scientific data, the more reasonably I could conclude that (a) the universe is billions of years old and (b) Scripture accords nicely with this evidence.
Debate Round No. 5
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by stubs 2 years ago
stubs
**Work mostly came from Dr. Paul Copans notes**
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
cite anywhere you wish, as long as you can get your arguments in.
Posted by stubs 4 years ago
stubs
If I have room to cite in debate section may I do that?
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Please cite in the comments section so that there will be more space for the debate arguments.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Ok, I'll try to edit the debate
Posted by stubs 4 years ago
stubs
Because I don't agree with your terms. I think we could work something out that says "Evolution is incompatible with the Christian God"
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Why not both?
Posted by stubs 4 years ago
stubs
I'm saying instead of this debate
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Not yet. I have so many thing to finish this week and the next.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
MutedstubsTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Important for my evaluation was for the philosophy behind 'non-literal' scriptures. Pro seems to argue that we have no metric by which to determine which scriptures should be considered "true" and which should be considered "poetic." This rhetorical headlock was never broken by Con. Muted is characteristically combative, and prefers full-contact contests - this one was no different, but in this case Pro's composure earned Conduct scoring from me. I always try and score for S&G, but in this case, I was not able to see a clear winner.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
MutedstubsTied
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 says that if evolution is true, then Jehovah does not exist. Con points out that lots of Christians believe in Jehovahs that are compatible with evolution. Both sides lack cogency, bu I don't see that Pro ever overcomes that objection.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
MutedstubsTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Very good debate from both sides, unfortunate that it seems to have been under-voted upon. A surprising amount of dispute focused around Genesis, however in the end I feel that Con won out by noticing that if the Genesis account's events transpired exactly as written, you'd have bizarre things happening (like evening and morning before sunrise and sunset). Probably the most interesting (in terms of never having been heard before) arguments from Pro was about the 'monkey prophets', and I'm not sure how well Con dealt with that one. However, it seemed (to me) to lack sufficient support to affirm the resolution alone, when most of the other points were more negated than not, and so I vote for Con. Sources to Pro because, while his sources were not massively superior or anything, I don't want to tip the scales too much. All in all, a very good debate.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
MutedstubsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter.
Vote Placed by DeeZeeQuinn 4 years ago
DeeZeeQuinn
MutedstubsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting.