The Instigator
rangersfootballclub
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
nugzin2040
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

The theory of evolution , beats religion every time

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
nugzin2040
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,459 times Debate No: 7228
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (7)

 

rangersfootballclub

Pro

what the title says , I never thought I would post a debate like this , but I am sick of ignorant religious idiots who are single minded and refuse to accept to even to listen to the theory of evolution , your job if you are one of those idiots or just somebody up for a debate , is to prove me that the theory of evolution is wrong , and the theory of Christians on how god made the world is , no offense meant to the religious community , but I am sick of the occasional moron , mocking evolution and not proving afterwards how religion is true , they just say , "because god made the world " where's your proof ? " because it says so in the bible "
nugzin2040

Con

Interesting debate.

I'd like to point out that evolution doesn't prove the Bible wrong. Science technically can't prove anything. There's considerable support for the idea of evolution in the scientific community, and that isn't something I would attempt to argue with. I'd argue with the idea that evolution disproves the Bible. Evolution supports the idea of people evolving. It doesn't support the idea of G-d having nothing to do with it.

You have to keep in mind that the Bible and modern science as we know it, are seperated by over 1,000 years. How could modern science and the Bible be compatible? How could the Bible teach us about science? It can't. It's seperated by too big of a period.

The Bible is a story that is meant to teach people lessons. We read the Bible through our own human minds and hearts, and since we are all imperfect beings we easily can reach conclusions that we thought were once true, but clearly were wrong. Science is there to do that. Science in itself isn't perfect either, as there have been theories that many scientists held onto that have later been proven wrong. Neither one is inherently perfect. To imply that either one, is kinda like a plague. Religious people can decide if they want to oppose science or not, but such an action is not particularly intelligent.

So, my argument is not centered around the idea of religion beating science, as I find such an argument as silly as the counterargument would be. It's centered around the idea that religion and science are not incompatible, and the theory of evolution has little to do with proving G-d wrong. On the contrary, G-d can't be proven or disproven with science.
Debate Round No. 1
rangersfootballclub

Pro

thank you for accepting this debate.

However , it is your job to prove that the idea of god creating the world is more realistic than evolution.

I will continue my argument , scientists can technically prove that the theory of evolution is true. The remains of fossils and rock formations cannot be argued against . If people attempt to argue against them , it makes no sense because these are fossils and evidence from the time . I agree with what you said about science and religion . However the main point of the bible , is not to teach lessons , well my abe it is , but the biggest point is to show how god is the almighty and created everything. the bible cannot be used as a valid argument against the theory of evolution , because its just a book , passed down over centuries and always being changed. Fossils and rocks never really change , unless they are destroyed.

so I will remind you , your job is not to argue about what religion teaches you or what science can or cannot prove about religion . It is to prove that what Christians believe about god creating the world is more believable than evolution.
nugzin2040

Con

You have a basic premise that religion and evolution are not compatible. To this point you have not supported your argument. I have merely shown that are many religious people that believe in both G-d and the premise of evolution, as a theory. Belief in one does not conflict with the other, thus your argument is not applicable to all religions, but only to Literalist believers of a religion. Thus, your argument that evolution always beats religion is shown to be false in the millions of believers who do not claim a literalist dogma perspective.

The problem is that your argument is based on the premise that evolution and G-d are incompatible. My argument is centered around the idea that just because evolution is a theory, doesn't mean that it has to include or exlude G-d.

The theory of evolution does nothing to disprove G-d. Science, by its very nature never proves anything. It has theories which are heavily supported by evidence but they are NOT proofs. It disagrees with the concept that some people might have had about G-d. That the story of Genesis in the Torah, is a literal story and that G-d created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, with man being created in that span. Obviously, a literal telling of this story is not compatible with evolution as evolution teaches that man has evolved over a period of time that far surpassed six days.

All evolution does is show that a literal interpretation of Genesis is not likely correct. That since light was not there in the beginning of the first day of creation, there was no concept of how long such a process would take. It does not directly conflict with the idea of evolution.

Even if I was to take a literalist perspective, which I clearly am not--the carbon dating has such a range with it, that one could argue that it isn't undeniably proof of anything.

Yes, the Bible emphasizes that G-d is the creator, but there are lessons to be learned in everything that is said as well. You're arguing this from a literalist perspective, and I would argue such an argument is incredibly dangerous and not really the intent of any Holy Book.

And again I'm not Christian, but Jewish so their claims are not mine.
Debate Round No. 2
rangersfootballclub

Pro

My argument is valid , because at no point did I say all Christians or religious people , I merely said Christians. Yes it is valid because you have conceded that most religious people to oppose the theory of evolution , while I accept that quite a lot do not. This argument is based around those who do , so lets no change the subject.

If science , backed by millions of years of evidence and fact is not considered good enough to be true , what is then ?
I also understand that you say these arguments are not of your own religion , as you are Jewish , but yet again you should not have took this argument up if you were not prepared to argue in the case of religion V's Evolution.

Now back to my point , I have yet to make much claims but here I go .

Charles Darwin , traveled to the Galapagos island around a hundred years ago , he noticed that the birds varied from island to island . Why ? because they were shaped by nature to adapt to their surroundings . He also noticed that the locals could see a lot further than he could , why ? because he had bad eyesight ? no because the lies they lived required them to. Evolution is very clear. If you look at the bigger picture you will notice an incredibly strong resemblance from monkeys to humans , they way the act as well. Nature dictates the survival of the fittest , not god.

Christians argue that god did this , god did that . Yet there is little evidence of the existence of god never mind what he done , infect you could say there is none.

I would like everybody to vote , not on what their believes may be , understandably if you believe strongly in something , then you will find it hard to listen to an argument that is heavily criticising it , but if I saw an argument that was incredibly good in the favour of religion with facts and everything , I would be going to my local church tomorrow.
nugzin2040

Con

Your title said "The theory of evolution, beats religion every time." And the Christian idea of creation has similarities to the Jewish one, tu such an extent that I felt it was worthy to discuss this with you. You say that I shouldn't have taken up the argument if I was not prepared to argue in the case of religion vs evolution. Christianity isn't the only religion in the world, and funamentalist Christians are not the only branch of the Christian doctrine. As stated earlier, there are millions of believers that have no problem believing in both G-d and in a particular religion. So the theory of evolution can't beat religion if there are religious people that do NOT see the two as being at odds with each other. And it also can't beat religion since it is only a theory. A theory with much support to it, but it still can NOT be proven.

On the contrary, many believe that science is there to teach religious people the errors of their religious beliefs. In other words, the evolution of man in science leads to people of a particular religion to EVOLVE in their faith as well. There is considerable proof of this with the amount of Unitary and Inclusive churches that have grown in the last twenty years in Christianity, and inclusive thought in Islam.

Your description of Darwin is accurate. But none of that disproves G-d in any way. I'm not doubting evolution. I'm doubting whether religious belief is at odds with it. And while we have certain characteristics in common with the primates, it's quite clear that we've involved in cognitive ability far surpassing that of primates.

Now, is there proof of G-d? Yes, I do believe so. Judaism is the only religion that believes in national revelation. We believe that G-d came not to one person, but to the entire nation of Israel. The Torah is very clear that this event was a one time event that will never occur again. It occurred on Mount Sinai. The hebrew word for hate is sinah and is very similar in pronunciation to the name for the mountain. So, in this you have two events that seem to have been fulfilled.

1. No other religion has made the claim of national revelation. Why? Because you can't make a lie on someone elses experiences. I can lie and tell you that G-d told me to do this, or do that. But I can't lie and tell an entire congregation that EVERYONE saw you. You wouldn't believe it because it's your experiences, and you know it didn't happen. The counterpoint would be that it was a scam. Scams are repeated events, that are relatively easy to repeat. So, you have a quandry. Either the Torah was the biggest scam in the history of the world, one that could never be repeated (as the Torah itself predicts!)... or it was true. As a result, the other popular religions must rely on G-d speaking to a prophet, and not to everyone.

2. Since the day the Torah was given to the Jewish nation, the world itself has had to answer the Jewish question. What to do with the Jews? Why do they not believe in my "god?" Why are they willing to die for their beliefs? In picking a hebrew word that is very similar to that of hate, G-d meant to illustrate that the rest of the world will always be deciding the answer to that question. Some, while not taking on the covenant of the Jews themselves have decided to openly accept the Jews as people. Others, have seeked the destruction of the Jews--whether it be by physical means, as Nazi Germany and the many pogoms prior, attempted to do. And today still, some Christian missionaries still seek the destruction of the Jewish soul.

These essential truths are only a foundation for the truth that is the torah. Other things that we once thought were truth, we realize through science were incorrect. But these essential two truths remain undeniable. Science is there to further progress our faith, and usually supports it--not denies it.

Back to your argument: your premise of the theory of evolution beating religion every time, is with all due respect, a weak one. Your only argument centered around Charles Darwin seeing that birds were different at different islands--and that they adapted to their surroundings. This, in no way, disproves the theory of evolution being incompatible with G-d.

And fun debate rangersfootballclub.

I would also urge people to vote (I really don't care if I win this debate or not actually) based on who made the better arguments. Did my opponent, at any point say something that could convincingly disproved the idea of G-d and evolution being incompatible? With all due respect, almost none of the theories of evolution that could have been discussed by him were. His theory was based on the same premise that fundamentalist Christians base when they say evolution is incompatible with G-d--a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by snickerdoodle 6 years ago
snickerdoodle
In order to understand what I have said, it would only make sense to read it from the very first comment. Which would require you to scroll down.
Posted by snickerdoodle 6 years ago
snickerdoodle
In one case red blood cells and hemoglobin were found in the remains of a dinosaur bone. According to scientists dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years, however; red blood cells and hemoglobin would not last more than a thousand years. (C. Wieland, "Sensational Dinosaur Blood Report!" Creation, 1997, 19(4):42-43, based on M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, "The Real Jurassic Park," Earth, June 1997, pp. 55-57)
Evolutionists have spent a chunk of their lives defending the belief of Neo-Darwinism, and the single tree of life theory. By writing this paper I have spent no more than three weeks breaking down the foundation for which their lives have been so dedicated to. The choice is yours.
Posted by snickerdoodle 6 years ago
snickerdoodle
"In 1931, German scientist Alfred Weidersheim listed 180 human organs as beginning vestigial or rudimentary in humans. Structures like the appendix, the tonsils, the thymus, ect. were all on the list. Today that list has been abolished due to our increased knowledge."(Harrub, Brad, Ph.D.,"Convicted" Copyright – 2009) Even still biology books around the world proclaim vestigial structures exist. Why? They admit vestigial structures exist because of their lack of knowledge. To this day mankind is still learning more and more about the human body and how every structure plays a part in the life of a human. It is ludicrous to believe that everything is known about everything. "Just because we don't know what something is does not mean it is evolutionary baggage."(Harrub, Brad, Ph.D.,"Convicted" Copyright – 2009)
In books, movies, games and "Denny's kids meals," (Harrub, Brad Ph.D., "Convicted" Copyright – 2009)) the world proclaims that Dinosaurs and men never coexisted. "Dinosaurs and other interesting animals lived during the Mesozoic Era, which was between 248 and 65 million years ago."(Feather, Snyder, and Zike, 2008 p.408) But after the proper evidence is displayed one will see otherwise. There are thousands of Inca burial stones which the Incans buried with their dead. Each one of them displays a picture of some sort. About 1/3 of the stones captivate a certain picture of certain animals we like to call dinosaurs. (Harrub, Brad, Ph.D. "Convicted" Copyright – 2009) Dinosaurs? How would the ancient Incans know how to draw accurate drawings of dinosaurs? Creatures that had not even discovered yet people carved them on stones, wove them into tapestries and described them in books, such as the Bible. If people had not even heard about dinosaurs then how can they be accurately drawn about way before the first fossils were found?
Posted by snickerdoodle 6 years ago
snickerdoodle
Natural selection is true, microevolution is true. Scientists tend to slip in macroevolution when talking about microevolution. Microevolution can be explained through small mutations and genetics, however; macroevolution is completely false, and you can not get macroevolution from natural selection. During Darwin's voyage of the H.M.S. Beagle, he visited some islands known as the Galapagos. There he noticed thirteen species of finches that had differences in beak shape, diet, and their natural environment. Darwin claimed that these beak sizes and the things these finches ate indicated a new species of bird. (Hall, Prentice, "Biology") But this small change can be seen in "microevolution." Microevolution is basically a change over time; it explains how genes work and how a red haired dad and brown haired mother came out with a blond haired child. Organic evolution can not explain the existence of these birds in the first place. They are still finches, they can still interbreed, but if they keep reproducing they will not create a hippopotamus. In other words there is a limit to how far something will evolve. "Additionally, these changes in beaks actually argue more against evolution. Evolutionists have always argued that evolution is a slow process requiring millions of years. Yet, the changes observed occur in a relatively short amount of time. A few minor changes in beak size are hardly proof of common descent." (Harrub, Brad Ph.D., "Convicted" Copyright – 2009)
Posted by snickerdoodle 6 years ago
snickerdoodle
(Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 1902 edition) Did they just disappear? If it took millions of years for these animals to evolve there should be fossils to prove it. "Unfortunately the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and is all but blank for the apes." (Leakey, Richard, "The Making of Mankind" Copyright – 1981) The fossil record relies almost fully on speculation, for it has no real evidence to support it. Just because two creatures look similar does not mean that they evolved from one another.
Posted by snickerdoodle 6 years ago
snickerdoodle
Another reason the earth could not possibly be millions of years old is because oceans are 3.6% salt water. The salt water comes to the ocean through the water cycle. "Calculations demonstrate we would have gone from fresh to salty water in less than 5,000 years."(Harrub, Brad, Ph.D., "Convicted" Copyright – 2009) If the world was billions of years old, the oceans would contain too much salt to sustain any life.
The 8th point on the Darwinistic theory states, "All organisms on Earth are united in a single tree of life by common decent." This theory has branched out throughout the years; suggesting that more and more animals are evolving and new creatures are being made from the evolutionary process. We have even found tons of fossils of animals, such as dinosaurs, that do not live now. So the question is where are all the animals? If there are supposed to be more animals now then where did they all go? Just like suggested in the tree of life, it branches out and gets bigger at the top. Another point to make on this single tree of life is that we have no fossils of the in-between stages of evolution from certain animals. If horses used to have multiple toes and now they have hooves, where are the fossils from the in-between stages? "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely granulated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
Posted by snickerdoodle 6 years ago
snickerdoodle
An amazing discovery was made. A powerful blast was made at Meeting House Hill in which they found a metallic vase with engravings on the side. This metallic vase was found 15 feet below the surface. (Scientific America/"A Relic of a Bygone Age"/1852/ p.298) So by using the Darwinism theory one would have to say this vase is millions of years old. But the Darwinism theory itself admits humans have not been alive that long. So just by glimpsing at this topic of modern evolution one can see how it falls short of our expectations. "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."(Darwin, Charles, "Origin of Species", 1902 edition.)
Posted by snickerdoodle 6 years ago
snickerdoodle
Dating by geologic columns is one of the most used dating methods out there. The biggest issue against this method that has to do with the geologic columns is that it's based on circular reasoning. The strata layers were dated with the fossils found in them, and the fossils found in them were dated by the strata layer they were found in. This leads us to an endless circle of unexplainable aged objects. Students today are often taught that the geologic column shows us proof of this modern "age of the earth" theory. But even though it seems to be some good evidence, the physical evidence just does not add up. Polystrate fossils, the name was coined by N.A. Rupke, a geologist from the State University of Groningen in Netherlands. Polystrate fossils are embedded in sedimentary rock that goes through several different strata layers. "Large fossils…are found which extend through several strata, often 20 feet or more in thickness" (Morris, Henry M./ 1970 Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science)This idea of dating the age of the earth by geological columns is invalid, this. "There is no doubt that this type of fossil was formed relatively quickly, otherwise it would have decomposed while waiting for strata to slowly accumulate around it." (Huse, Scott/ 1997/The Collapse of Evolution/p.96) Sadly, this method of dating is still taught as fact in schools, but as seen it is quite the opposite.
Posted by snickerdoodle 6 years ago
snickerdoodle
how can dead things that are dated truly be accurate? Several times people have sent bones and fossils to be dated without telling the scientists what it is they are dating. The results have come back as far younger than expected. However, whenever the scientist is told what it is he or she is dating, they draw back the results and explain that the results were faulty. Another example of this is from 1922 when a shoe print was found in a slab of rock that was supposedly five million years old. (Harrub, Brad, "Convicted" Copyright - 2009) Many scientists claim that people existed for more than a million years, so there should be no way that there is a shoe print in the rock. Yet another example is when wood was taken from living trees and was carbon-14 dated. The results were that the trees were 10,000 years old. (Haskins, Caryl, "American Scientist," June 1971) Obviously this process for dating is faulty.
Posted by snickerdoodle 6 years ago
snickerdoodle
Radiometric dating appears to be an accurate way to date objects, and it is if one has all the facts right, but what happens is sadly this dating is based on assumptions. What radiometric dating assumes is how much of a certain substance it started out with, and that the substance has been digressing at the same rate since it began. Every one of these dating techniques requires the same assumption. They all require that the earth is unchanging. This is not the case. Consider the effects of volcanoes or water. When volcanoes erupt they release tons of radioactivity making part of the world more radioactive than others. (Harrub, Brad, Ph.D. "Convicted" Copyright – 2009) Water causes materials to decay and age faster than a lack of water. An example of this is dousing hardwood floors with water which causes them to start to mold and morph. This assumption leads to impossible results.
A living mollusk was carbon-14 tested and dated as 3,000 years old (Keith, M.S and Anderson, G.M., "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," Science, August 16, 1963, 141:634). If living things are dated as thousands of years old,
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
rangersfootballclubnugzin2040Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sorc 8 years ago
sorc
rangersfootballclubnugzin2040Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
rangersfootballclubnugzin2040Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by nugzin2040 8 years ago
nugzin2040
rangersfootballclubnugzin2040Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Diebold 8 years ago
Diebold
rangersfootballclubnugzin2040Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
rangersfootballclubnugzin2040Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by erbelgerbels 8 years ago
erbelgerbels
rangersfootballclubnugzin2040Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25