The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The Genesis account, if true, excludes macro-evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 653 times Debate No: 60456
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Round one: acceptance. Use comments to clarify topic if needed. BoP is equally shared.


Ohhh i dont know how i got here... lol Genesis and marco evolution... how u brought me here anyway
Debate Round No. 1

I saw you post that truth seeker always takes the position against the Bible when he was pro on a debate in favor of macro-evolution. I clicked on your profile and requested the debate to give you a chance to defend that position and possibly learn something new in the process that's how you got here.
I contend that the Genesis account of creation and other Scripture that reference it are very non-specific. The burden of proof i carry in this debate is simply to show that the Genesis account can have an evolutionary interpretation. I don't not believe evolution took place. I have an open debate on that subject. I do not intend to prove evolution is either true or scientifically possible. With this understanding, I shall proceed with my simple argument.
When reading the Genesis account, the statement for each day follows the pattern, "G-d said ... and it was so". It is really not specific to how it was made so. There is a verse in the BritHaDesha (New Testament) that says that He created out of nothing. It didn't say that He created out of nothing each day of the week. Overlooking humans, this allows for each day of the creation week to have more species evolve.
To address humans, Adam and Eve could still have been created special out of the ground, independent of evolutionary processes. If what we think we observe is true, than there was a nonhuman species, the neanderthal, with which humans could breed. In fact, evolutionary theory teaches that humans and neanderthals evolved independently from a common ancestor and did breed with each other as supposed by certain similarities and differences in DNA (again, not that I believe it). In the Scriptures we see the first two children of Adam and Eve going to get wives for themselves. Cain had a wife, but we don't know from where. Was it his sister? We don't know.
As for the age of the earth, some argue the science that supports old earth. If G-d used evolution, He didn't need millions of yeasts to do it. But there is plenty of evidence to show that the earth is old. That is another debate, but I'll provide a link for reading.


i said nothing on evolution or genesis... check his views.. actually he against the bible ALWAYS.
the bible says homosexuality is wrong, he say its right.
the bible says premarital l sex is wrong, he say its right.
the bible says earth is 6000 years old, he says its not,
the bible says God created Adam and Eve, he says humans are result of evulotion we are from apes,
someone asked him is porn a sin, he is dancing around the issue.
Jesus said mattew 5:28: But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." he says you can.

so far from the little i read all his views are agaisnt the bible, he is trying to modernize the bible, he suits himself with the excuse "metaphorical" and not literally. you as a christian must condemn him not me. God knows how far he against his own bible.
Debate Round No. 2


You just said the Bible says the world is 6000 years old. I already addressed the issue in my first argument showing that statement is wrong. One of my links is titled "A Biblical defense of old earth creationism". I disagree with you on what "the Bible says". You have been taught an interpretation of the Bible which may or may not be the correct interpretation. When one man said the earth revolves around the sun, he was persecuted by the church (which was the government at the time) for disagreeing wroth the Bible. How about you show that the Bible says the earth is young. Let's start there.


Ok watch this debate

Here this is their site ( trying to explain why the earth is "6000 years old", and they are consistent because they believe actually what the bible says, its long you can read it i copying the first sentences...


Where Did a Young-earth Worldview Come From?

Simply put, it came from the Bible. Of course, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly anywhere, “The earth is 6,000 years old.” Good thing it doesn’t; otherwise it would be out of date the following year. But we wouldn’t expect an all-knowing God to make that kind of a mistake.

God gave us something better. In essence, He gave us a “birth certificate.” For example, using a personal birth certificate, a person can calculate how old he is at any point. It is similar with the earth. Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1–5). From there, we can begin to calculate the age of the earth.

Let’s do a rough calculation to show how this works. The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first five days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today.

Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).

So a simple calculation is:

5 days
+ ~2,000 years
+ ~4,000 years

~6,000 years


So you got to deal with the bible with "metaphorical" approach, or your fellow christains.
Debate Round No. 3


I have a feeling you didn't read the article that I posted like I read the article you did. I was unable to view the YouTube video. but I'm guessing it had Kent Hovind in it. I am very aware of his work I've seen multiple debates with him in it. your link talks about dating the earth using genealogy. My link compares the age of the earth using different genealogies that start and end with the same people but end up with different ages which shows how unreliable using genealogies really is. and just F 11 says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth did that take place before day 1 of creation or I or did it take place during the days of creation? if you read the Hebrew for the day that the Sun and Moon were created alright you'll see in the Hebrew they don't use the word for created it I have more to do with taking objects that already exist and moving them into place. This is in contrast to my other days of creation. Just how many days took place before the Sun was put into existence and how are the days measured before the Sun was put into place? if you've heard Kent Hovind talk about the word yom I would like to point out several examples that the word yom is used for more than one literal day. But I will point out just one because my link points out others. Look up in several translations hours long did Jacob feel he worked for rachel. In Hebrew it says it felt to him as yom echad. It isn't typically translated as "one day", even in the most literal translations like KJV. Part of the problem is that we read Genesis in English, not Hebrew. The word used for day isn't always one 24 hour period of time.
As for radiometric dating, Christians like to point out the known limitations of radiometric dating. Let me ask did Christian scientists discover these limitations or did secular scientists discover these limitations and why were these limitations discovered? When we learn the scientific method in school, we are taught to understand how reliable and to how many decimal places or result is. Scientists want to do the same with all thier tools, including radiometric dating. That is why various forms of radiometric dating are used on the same rock samples and performed in multiple independent labs. It turns out that they all agree almost all the time. The results not just agree with each other, they agree with the predicted age based on other geological observations. Young earth creationists question the reliability of radiometric dating and point out the flaws found by those testing them m what they fail to show is that there is evidence that they are unreliable. There is a mound of evidence in favor of their reliability. There is even a debate on the topic on this very website (surprise surprise) where one side gives multiple examples of how radiometric dating has been verified by the scientific community. If you find this a contentious issue, I'd be glad to debate the age of the earth. I grew up a young earth creationist myself until I started asking my opponents how they knew I was wrong, and they showed me. There are many many other ways to show the earth is old, not just radiometric dating. Are you able to show that radio metric dating can be shown inaccurate at least 20% of the time it is used in practice? The following debate gives multiple proofs that it is reliable.
I contend that if the Bible and nature disagree, is probably not the Bible that's wrong; it's your understanding of the Bible. Several verses say the earth shall not be moved, yet today we understand it revolves around the Sun. Just saying...


Im not christain and i dont want to push my ideas into your head, just saying what your fellow christains say, i dont care if its 1 day or a long one but lets deal with it...

im talking about Ken Ham not Kent Hovind. the debate is Bill Nye vs Ken Ham. if you read the hebrew or english it doesnt matter it mantions 1 day, morning and evening, it doesnt sound like long period of time. here the same site refuting your arguments in great detail.

Exodus 31:12 says that God commanded Moses to say to the children of Israel:

Six days may work be done, but on the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the sons of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant. It is a sign between me and the sons of Israel forever. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed (Exodus 31:15–17).

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

clearly it shows it cant be long period of time, but examinig the 2 options scientifically both cant be real, they dont make any sense in scientific approach.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor spelling.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
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: Pro doesn't even try to refute cons "day" argument. All pro does is quote verses with "day" in them.