The Instigator
bigtown
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Dynasty2468
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Theistic evolution is not compatible with God or His Word.

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...
Dynasty2468
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 975 times Debate No: 60131
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (1)

 

bigtown

Pro

Hello, I would like to argue that theisitc evolution is not compatible with the Word of God, ie the Bible. Any religion or belief that does not believe in the literal creation is therefore undermining the very essence of God Himself revealed to humanity in the Bible. In effect, how then do you have a relationship with someone you can't trust, and does that mean that you don't believe in Jesus' Divinity also?

How about it? Open to anyone who could make a good case. BoP 100% on me.

R1 Acceptance only
R2 and R3 opening arguments and 1st / 2nd rebuttals
R4 No new arguments and closing

God - One true God of the Bible and Creator.
Bible - the literal reading of the Genesis account of Creation, and subsequent references to it in the Old and New Testaments
Evolution - microevolution or adaptation through natural selection not included, as observable in the world. Macro evolution to account for speciation from single cell to man is what is meant here.
Theistic Evolution - God did it all over billions of years, and it's just like how the evolutionists say it happened. Just trust us it happened ok.


Thank you. Any questions put them in the comments section.
Dynasty2468

Con

I will accept this debate. Let the science and religion get along...
Debate Round No. 1
bigtown

Pro

Hello to my opponent, and I hope we have an informative and constructive debate on Theistic Evolution as a theory and using it as a basis for having an open and full relationship with God. Please read my definitions above for this debate, and we agree when we say evolution here, we mean macro evolution only. I’m not arguing against adaptation here, but I believe the variation is bounded. So please take note to avoid any misunderstandings.


I’m a non-denominational Christian, who believes in the Bible as being the true Word of God. Therefore I believe in the creation account in Genesis and the account of the flood. These 2 factors alone probably create the most doubt in someone’s mind about the actual events being true and therefore the existence as God, and the whole Bible being true and reliable. That’s fair. This is true for Christians and non-believers alike I would imagine. And I don’t blame anyone for that, would you have a relationship with someone you don’t trust or who lies to you? No, I think the answer would be. For this round I will give just 2 arguments, the science of evolution, and the incompatibility of the theory to a theistic worldview. The following round I will give 3 examples of things I think should and must be explained satisfactorily by evolutionists and evolutionary theists for it to change my position.


We are bombarded almost daily with the idea of evolution through the mainstream media and publications, and that somehow say ‘science’ has definitely proved this to be true. It makes for persuasive headlines for a captive audience, you don’t really need to believe in God, look its all true we evolved from ‘nothing’ by ‘nothing’ essentially. Just look at these fossils arranged neatly on this table, there you go, man evolved from apes. You don’t need to think about such silly things as God anymore, science has given you everything. But have they really? Have you looked hard enough for answers yourself, or competing views or theories? Could the Bible be true? After all it is your life and possibly after life too.


1.My main argument is primarily against evolutionary theory being regarded as ‘science’, and that the start point for that theory was already based on the assumption that God did not exist. That is, it had already decided somehow God did not exist, everything in the universe is material, and that it could in effect explain everything in material terms. It did not like the creation scenario.


Good science already presupposes the existence of logic and math, which science itself cannot explain, and good science surely should be based upon what we observe as physical phenomena in the world, and putting a theory or theories together that makes predictions based on that. If those predictions are proven false, then the theory needs changing or dropping altogether.


What we have with evolution, in the broad sense, is that we have no observations of evolution to begin with, or any real phenomena like that to explain. We just had the world and everything in it as is. Yes, there was variation and people crossbred all types of dogs and flowers and plants. As I said, this is not under argument. But there is a limit, variation within genetic boundaries, as such. There was no observation of animals growing new limbs or changing features or organs, and nobody knew the real complexity of life as we know it today, ultimately through the good science, and I like that. Also it gives no explanation as to the origin of life itself. It wasn’t scientific as such, but some attempt at removing God out of the picture and explain everything in material or naturalistic terms. A counter God theory as it were. I don’t see it as science at all. It looks scientific, but it’s somehow not. In essence I can’t trust anything that isn’t truly scientifically objective, and what seems to be purely opinion driven. It’s a materialist philosophy, when clearly the world isn’t purely matter. They have removed the ‘mind’ out of the equation.


It was, until the 18th and 19th century, the predominant view that the world was in fact only a few thousand years old. Most people, observing the world around them, would never think of such an absurdity as evolution, in the macro sense. I don’t disagree with them, and it doesn’t make sense to me either. Catastrophism and uniformitarianism were also 2 competing views of the world also.



2. Theistic evolution. This assumes that evolution did occur, but it was a process that God / or Deity started and managed all throughout. Dripping things in here and there and somehow controlling every aspect of it, tinkering with this and that, until we get to man. Again in this scenario we do not see anything evolving (refer definition again if you need to) in this manner, so God has now somehow pulled back and stopped His little tinkering. Also it does not provide any answers to my following cases or observations that I will make in the next round.


My main contentions with this idea, are the following:


If God had a plan of how or what it was going to look like at the end, why wouldn’t He just make it as He planned it. It’s just so illogical. He has the ability to do it, what gain is it to have Him constantly tinkering with species over billions of years? It makes no sense. You have the plan, the power, the will, why not, just do it? (sorry Nike the god of trainers). In effect you have to endure looking at an imperfect creation for billions of years, I thought He would want a perfect Creation from day one, oh sorry no day 6 J I know He is eternal and outside of our time and He’s got all the time ever, but it’s just clumsy and awkward.


Theistic evolution creates more problems than it would ever answer. The idea of the mind/soul or conscience comes into play here. At what point does He decide to inject the now physically perfected humans that didn’t have these things before, and how? I can accept He had full control at Creation, but not this constant interfering in the development of man. Did all humans become divine in His eyes at the same time. Were some humans who didn’t get the God injection in effect just left like zombies, looking all the same but somehow not conscious or divine. It’s just absurd. How does it work?


How does a theistic evolutionist read the Bible in any meaningful way, and consequently believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. It’s almost admitting you think it’s a lie, but you still believe in the good bits as it were. It’s such a weak stance, you undermine your own beliefs. There is not one reference in the Bible to either evolution or billions of years being involved. Jesus taught that scriptures were the Word of God. If he taught that, and you believe in evolution, do you really not believe anything else He said, or that He was not the Son of God?


2 Peter 3 1:5 Kind of makes me want to believe in the creation story.


1 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.


3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”


5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.


Thank you and I hope for some interesting responses and your arguments of course.

Dynasty2468

Con

I thank my opponent for providing a detailed debate.

The Pro had said that the evolution is simply a theory and no observation had ever been made (Or begin with). But there was many evolution that had been observed.

1) Darwin and the Galapagos Island. Darwin discovered that every finches on the islands have different beaks, but similar body. Therefore he developed the theory of evolution, saying that a species of finches arrived at the island, and adapted to the environment. (After settling down at their destination)
2) The Peppered Moth Evolution. During the Industrial Revolution, the lichens that the moths relied on to blend in died from the sulphur dioxide and the trees became covered with soot. The white moth that was originally dominant began to get wiped out as they can no longer blend in with their polluted environment, therefore it's easy to spot for the birds. And the black moths started to populate the forest because they can blend in easily with their new environment.

"If God had a plan of how or what it was going to look at the end, why wouldn't He just make as He planned it"
If He wanted to destroy the world and want to build an ark for the pure human-being, then why don't he just magically built one? The answer is simple, even God has limit. It's just like origami, you can just magically make a boat! But instead you have to fold that and that to make a boat. Paper=Universe and us. Person who makes the boat=God.

"There is not one reference in the Bible to either evolution or billions of years being involved." There's a verse "God called the vault "sky." Now we know that the sky is not a vault, but layers of gas that surrounds the Earth. In another word, the Genesis was written by a man. Therefore we can conclude that the scribes who wrote the Old Testament was not so advance as we are today. If they're not that advanced as we are (Or 18th centuries), then isn't it obvious why they didn't add the reference of evolution?
.
What I don't get about theist creationist is that they do not accept the evolution despite the fact that we discovered dinosaurs, bones of other human cousins. If you guys don't like science, then why don't you guys just reject all the modern treatment that had been invented using science?

My argument against atheistic evolution is that if you go to to root of the evolution, from the first human to the time when the Earth created, from that to the Big Bang, you can't find the cause! What caused it? An accident? If you just fill the word God in there, you'll solve this problem. God triggers the Big Bang, creates Earth, creates DNA, and created a microscopic living thing that eventually evolved into us!

My argument against theistic creationism. As I had said before, whoever wrote Genesis was not advance enough, as you can see with the verse "God called the sky vault" and the " And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse" We sent spacecraft through the atmosphere, and it's clear that there's no water between the above the "vault"

"Behold, the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." - Proverb 9:10

"So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.: Luke 11:9

I await my opponent's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
bigtown

Pro

Hello to my oppenent. Thank you for your responses.

I would like to point out to anyone reading this debate, that my oppenent has failed to read the definitions for the debate and the title itself, and has therefore has made many irrelevent comments or arguments on that basis. I'm not sure of my opponents beliefs or position in this argument. It sounds atheistic with an almost child like smattering of Bible appreciation, which is a shame. I do not think we can continue debating this topic without becoming embroiled in supposed evidences for evolution, which is not the topic. I therefore do not think my opponent can make any good arguments on why theistic evolution is not compatible with God or His Word.

At this junction, I would just be willing to end the debate and re-challenge another who may be able to handle the topic under question with slightly more intellectual riguor, than my opponent has in his first round.

Thanks for your time. Unfortunately I do not wish to waste any more time with this debate. It will not be helpful to you or I, nor any readers.

I will extend my arguments from R2 to the next and see if my opponent can muster any argument in line with the topic only and in line with the definitions.


Dynasty2468

Con

Apparently the Pro doesn't understand his own debate. The key word here is the word "compatible"

Compatible-able to exist or occur together without a conflict.

simplified: Theistic evolution is not able to occur together without a conflict with God or His Word.

My argument was basically trying to unite science and religion together. Filling the void, countering the pro's argument, and trying to

The Con had commented that the theistic evolution is basically child like smattering of bible appreciation. To me, the theistic creationist is basically bunch of people believing the Cinderella or the Harry Potter.

" I do not think we can continue debating this topic without becoming embroiled in supposed evidences for evolution," I was simply rebutting the argument, is there anything wrong with that?
"I therefore do not think my opponent can make any good arguments on why theistic evolution is not compatible with God or His Word. " You are the Pro, and you're arguing that the theistic evolution is not compatible with God or His Word. MY job is to argue that it IS compatible.

It seems that the Pro is either giving a false reason to avoid my argument or that he just don't want to debate anymore. This round is a waste. I await the Pro's excuse. May I also ask the Pro to give example instead of asking the audience to scan through 3-4 paragraphs just to find what he or she means.
Debate Round No. 3
bigtown

Pro

Hi, ok I will have to spell it out for you then.

1. You do not read the definitions, hence why would you give 2 examples of adaptation or genetic variation?

2. You bring up the subject of the flood and ark, and make childish comments about folding paper and the universe?

3. You ignore totally my first argument and do not address anything in that, theory of evolutionary 'science'. No rebuttal.

4. Just because YOU do not understand the bible and how it is phrased, you can therefore not conclude anything about it.

5. Have you not considered this fact. If you brought a fossil into a court of law and said this proved we came from dinosaurs, you would be laughed at. I don't want people to laugh at you so do not bring up fossils for proof. They prove something died and was buried. Actually most rock layers and fossils contained within them give a lot credence to creation and a huge cataclysmic event occurring. But if don't want to investigate anything yourself, then you will remain ignorant. Medical science is nothing to do with this. Science cannot even prove itself, because it presupposes logical and mathematical proofs. Refer main argument 1, which you ignored.

Your bible phrase fits nicely with what you do not do yourself unfortunately.
Behold, the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." - Proverb 9:10

6. You do not believe the Bible is the Word of God that's pretty obvious. What's the point of this argument?

7. Re Genesis. You have never heard of the hydroplate theory. Walt Brown, look it up online. Still no argument here though. YOU AGREE THAT GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE.

8. You do not make any rebuttals or arguments for the references made by Jesus, that the scriptures are the Word of God, and the testament of other apostles. Do you not believe anything that these guys said?
NO REBUTTAL given.

9. You do not say anything about the soul in a theistic evolution scenario. NO REBUTTAL

THE DEBATE IS WHETHER THEISTIC EVOLUTION IS COMPATIBLE WITH GOD OR HIS WORD.

To summarise your arguments, that are not really relevant to the debate and definitions:

What I don't get about theist creationist is that they do not accept the evolution despite the fact that we discovered dinosaurs, bones of other human cousins. If you guys don't like science, then why don't you guys just reject all the modern treatment that had been invented using science?
Refer main argument 1. That's why. I like science very much indeed. You sound like a naive atheist, and scientists are the new gods. You might want to rethink your faith.


My argument against theistic creationism. As I had said before, whoever wrote Genesis was not advance enough, as you can see with the verse "God called the sky vault" and the " And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse" We sent spacecraft through the atmosphere, and it's clear that there's no water between the above the "vault"
You are not arguing against this, you are arguing your relgious belief being compatible with the Bible
Part of hydroplate theory, the fountains of the great deep were broken up at the time of the flood. Water was under the land surface pre-flood. The whole earth was totally transformed by the flood. It wasn't just rain.

I'm not being funny here, but you just sound like some sort of deist, who does not believe anything in the Bible. Sorry.

This is why I wasn't going to waste any time with this. I wanted to debate a believer who could justify their position solidly and give me some good srguments. I didn't get either from you.

Take care. God bless









Dynasty2468

Con

Looks like the Pro is angry. Since I still do not get why he's angry, I'll just pass this round as a waste.
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dynasty2468 2 years ago
Dynasty2468
gg
Posted by bigtown 2 years ago
bigtown
Dynasty- I will apologise again to you, but you made no arguments that were relevant to the debate. I'm not angry with you, I assure you of that. There was nothing I could do. I set out clear definitions and arguments, and you ignored them. This was not about evolution per se, but reconciling your belief, if you are a Christian, to your belief evolution is true versus the Word of God. If you are a deist, then this argument is not valid for you. If you are a theist, then please make some arguments for your position and also your belief in a Christian God. There is much science that can assist you, if you would like to investigate further. I was arguing that theistic evolution is not compatible with God or His Word. Can't you see the errors you were making. You were giving the impression you don't believe anything in the Bible and why evolution is true. This is not the debate. Take care. Read it again and I think you will realise your many errors. I will of course be happy to debate evolution with you, if you would like? Let me know.
Posted by macaztec 2 years ago
macaztec
Well on another debate I challenged someone to debate KJV onlyism. I really don't think much research would have been needed to defeat that person, but I wanted to get as much in as needed.
Posted by bigtown 2 years ago
bigtown
we'll stick to this set of three I think, because I think these are extremely pertinent to the subject. Else we will just go round and round in circles with purported evidences. This requires no fossils to explain or extrapolate from, and just your eyes to observe nature.

well I wouldn't worry about hell as such, think of it as just a slow roast in the absence of God! He doesn't want you to be with Him if you don't want to be with Him of course.

Textus Receptus indeed - hardcore. :-) that's what you wanted to debate with someone?
Posted by macaztec 2 years ago
macaztec
that should read or if another set let's agree on it before hand. Then continue with the rest of my comment. Long day of being called a liar. HA!!
Posted by macaztec 2 years ago
macaztec
"I know you were busy on a another debate today.... ahem TR...... :-)"

Who is following whom now? But yes, I have been quite busy being condemned to Hell in the comments of another debate.

TR.....Textus Receptus?

The debate sounds interesting. I would ask that we either limit it to those three or if another set. I would want to do some research. Currently I am nose deep (literally over 20 tags open) in "KJV Only" research (though between the two of us I don't think that the person that I want to challenge will actually debate it). This is why the TR comment was interesting.
Posted by bigtown 2 years ago
bigtown
well yes, if you've got some good scientific explanations of how it works that would be your argument. I will argue that evolution is probably not likely because of these observations in nature today. ok don't strain it, whenever you feel like it. I know you were busy on a another debate today.... ahem TR...... :-)
Posted by macaztec 2 years ago
macaztec
It may just be that my brain is shot today:

Are you saying that the last three - Metamorphosis in insects, Sexual Reproduction and last one, Infanticide as a phenomena in the animal kingdom - are questions left by evolution and that would be what we are discussing?
Posted by bigtown 2 years ago
bigtown
ok, how about, 'Evolutionary questions unanswered' and no I don't just want because it happened ok?
Clear and concise drivers of the process. You say natural law or nature did it and you're out, forfeit :-)

Real tested evidence of these two facts:
Metamorphosis in insects
Sexual Reproduction
and last one, Infanticide as a phenomena in the animal kingdom

ok?
Posted by macaztec 2 years ago
macaztec
Hmmm.....I will think on it. Shout out any suggestions.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
bigtownDynasty2468Tied
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: While Pro at least did not forfeit rounds, I found his conduct in response to Con to be bad enough to warrant conduct and, overall, rather spoil the debate such that it's nigh-impossible to score the other categories. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.