The Instigator
JovanyMerham
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
InnovativeEphemera
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection conforms with Christianity.

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 3 votes the winner is...
InnovativeEphemera
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 577 times Debate No: 66932
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

JovanyMerham

Pro

I am new to this website, so my format might by a little crude. Feel free in the first round to ask to change one of the rules, and I will confirm in the comment section.

Round 1) Acceptance Only - NO Statements or Rebuttals
Round 2) Opening Statements & Arguments - NO REBUTTALS
Round 3) First Rebuttals - Further Arguments
Round 4) Second Rebuttals - Final Arguments
Round 5) Final Rebuttals and Closing Statements - NO New Arguments

Rules:
No profanity, respect opposite opinions.
Try to cite as much information as possible.
InnovativeEphemera

Con

I accept. Best of luck!
Debate Round No. 1
JovanyMerham

Pro

First of all, in order for the theory of evolution to function and start, there must be have someone at the beginning to start it, subsequently that person is GOD.
Believing that evolution makes the idea of GOD is unnecessary, is similar to saying that because planets revolve around the sun due to gravity the idea of GOD is unnecessary. Both arguments are wrong.
Evolution is exactly like improving your Christmas tree over and over trying to reach perfection, to show it to your loved ones and celebrate with them. In my opinion GOD has been preparing the universe for our arrival, his loved ones, and then when we arrive we share it with him.
GOD doesn't just make things happen with no scientific explanation, though he can, he allows nature to take its course.
According to the theory of evolution, humans were one of the last species to be created, which correlates with the bible, Adam being the last kind of animal created.
If you look closely, you will notice that the primates appeared suddenly and fast, in evolutionary terms of course, unlike any other animal or plant.
InnovativeEphemera

Con

Thanks for initiating, Pro.

Unfortunately, you have stipulated that there is to be no rebuttal in this round. This strikes me as odd, given that this debate rides around a clearly positive affirmation. However, I am happy to demonstrate why, perhaps unpalatably, the theory of evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive and incompatible.

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - (AKJV) Genesis 2:4-3:24

From the same paragraph, "[I]n the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."

Of course, this is exactly the opposite order that evolution suggests. The Bible is explicit in its creation myth.

Over to you.
Debate Round No. 2
JovanyMerham

Pro

I apologize for not explaining myself, I was merely using Christmas as an analogy, since it is the season, sometimes it is hard for me to communicate my thoughts. More to the point.

I am glad you choose the verse at Genesis 2:7 (NKJV), it is the first one you have, it illustrates how GOD used the dust of the earth, and it doesn't specify a location, in that case, we have to assume that the components of the dust would be the populated by the most abundant elements in the universe and subsequently earth-H hydrogen, C carbon, O oxygen, N nitrogen- which is proved by science today to be the most abundant elements in a human body. This only strengthens my position that when the first organism was created, which the theory of evolution doesn't discuss, contained mostly the most abundant elements in the universe. Of course it was with the allowance and order of GOD, and not just nature acting on its own instincts, the laws of the universe didn't just create themselves, GOD is the one who created them to govern us.

Also mentioning that the creation story in the bible is a myth implies that you are not sure if it is true, which only weakens your argument.
InnovativeEphemera

Con

Sorry about the late reply! I was having a chat to some Jehovah's Witnesses who knocked on my door, funnily enough!

Right, now I can rebut. Let's play.

Round 2 Rebuttals
You said, "there must be have someone at the beginning to start it, subsequently that person is GOD."
Um, what? You went from a) there must be a cause, to b) it's a person and c) that person is God, with absolutely 0% of a reason. How do you get there? Total non-sequitur.

None of your other Round 1 statements are consistent with scripture.

You then say that Primates appeared "suddenly and fast".
Very incorrect. The first Primates appeared about sixty-five million five-hundred thousand years ago(1). The first hominis species only arrived somewhere around five-and-a-bit million years ago(2), with modern humans being around one-hundred to two-hundred thousand years ago. Even by evolutionary standards, this is by no means abrupt.

Round 3 Rebuttals
1. You have no way of knowing that 'dust' is those elements. In fact, 'dust' indicates particulate matter and not gases.
2. The Earth was initially anoxic, so no, there wouldn't have been oxygen . We know that Oxygen arose from early life, not the other way around(3).
3. You have no way of demonstrating that God created the laws of the universe. You cannot assert this as factual.
4. In what way does considering an old wives' tale a myth weaken my argument? That makes absolutely no sense. Your myth happens to be incompatible with evolution.

New Argumentation
So far, you have failed to actually address my contention. You have spoken about some elements, which are completely irrelevant, and then said that my disbelief weakens my point. I beg to differ.
You are saying that Man was created last. Although there are actually two accounts in the bible, Genesis 2 says that this is not the case, as demonstrated. Further, breathing dust into the nostrils of a person is not the same thing as a humans evolving as a species over time from a common ancestor of apes. This just doesn't make sense.

So far, you have provided no canonical justification for your assertion that Evolution and Christianity are mutually agreeable frameworks. I have provided the clear textual reason why they are not. You have not sufficiently refuted this.

I remind my opponent that they retain the burden of proof for demonstrating this affirmative proposition.

Back to you.

[As a side note, on more than one occasion you have used the word "subsequently" erroneously. I don't mind too much, just for your information]


(1) [http://anthro.palomar.edu...]
(2) ibid.
(3) [http://www.nature.com...]
Debate Round No. 3
JovanyMerham

Pro

JovanyMerham forfeited this round.
InnovativeEphemera

Con

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 4
JovanyMerham

Pro

JovanyMerham forfeited this round.
InnovativeEphemera

Con

"If we came from munkeys, then why're there still munkeys?"
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
Never thought I'd say this, but Cheyenne, you're completely right. The bible is explicit in its rendition of the creation of man. I do not see how evolution and Christianity can be completely reconciled. Let's see if the OP has read something we missed.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Anyone who makes this argument does no know the bible and certainly does not know God and how he works.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Mr.Chorlton 2 years ago
Mr.Chorlton
JovanyMerhamInnovativeEphemeraTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were kind of weak and did not give themselves the opportunity to redeem themselves in the later rounds because of forfeiture (also cost conduct points). Con was the only one to use sources.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
JovanyMerhamInnovativeEphemeraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
JovanyMerhamInnovativeEphemeraTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff