The Instigator
Dragonclaw
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
mateoeh
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

can religion and science coexist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
mateoeh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 617 times Debate No: 67695
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Dragonclaw

Pro

I am for religion Christianity being able to coexist with science.
mateoeh

Con

I accept your debate and hope that it will be a polite and thoughtful one.

For my first round, I will point out a few parts of Christianity that contradict our scientific knowledge:

Life After Death
Our current understanding of consciousness shows no evidence that consciousness resides anywhere other than the brain [1]. When a body undergoes death, all blood flow to the brain is stopped within a short period of time, and after that time, the brain no longer functions; therefore, the person permanently loses consciousness. No evidences of a soul have ever or likely will ever be found.

The Earth
The Bible teaches that the Earth is around 6,000 years old [2]. However, ice core samples taken from the Arctic consist of layers (representing years similar to the rings of a tree) representing many, many more winter/summer cycles than that. For example, one sample had 420,000 years represented in it [3]! If the Earth is only 6,000 years old, how could these cores have formed? There would need to be at least 70 winter/summer cycles in each year of Earth's existence.

Continental Drift
Fossils of the same species of organism have been found spanning multiple continents, pointing to the fact that the continents were once combined into one supercontinent (Pangaea) [4]. At the current rate of continental drift, approximately 2 cm per annum [5], the continents would need millions of years to spread from Pangaea to the array of continents we know today [6]. A 6,000 year old Earth could not provide that time period.

Evolution of Man
Fossil records show that modern man was not, in fact, created within 7 days of the creation of the Earth. Instead, science puts the estimate for the evolution of modern man at about 12,000 years ago [7], which is far after the creation of the Earth from both a Christian's and a scientist's perspective.

The Great Flood
There are no evidences for a global flood at any time period, especially the time period specified in the Bible. There are no evidence of disruption in ice cores, no evidence of catastrophe in ring samples from trees over 10,000 years old, and such a flood would have completely broken up the polar caps, leaving no room for them to reform in the ~6,000 years the Bible allots them [8].

I look forward to your response.

References
[1] http://theness.com...
[2] http://creation.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://hypertextbook.com...
[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8]
http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Dragonclaw

Pro

I would like to start of with the definition of coexist meaning to exist separately or independently but peaceably, often while remaining rivals or adversaries. Thought science does in fact contradict Christianity both can still coexist peaceably as seen every day in everybody's normal day lives. I have not yet seen a Christian parent storm a school because the teacher was doing his or her job.

References
1.http://dictionary.reference.com...
mateoeh

Con

Let me begin with the definition of peaceably:
peaceably (adj.): inclined or disposed to avoid strife or dissention, not argumentative or hostile [1]
A Christian parent would not have to 'storm the school' for their actions to not be peaceable, and simply because you have not seen a Christian parent argue with a school about some certain scientific topics being discussed there doesn't mean it hasn't happened. In this round, I will list some of those instances.

Take, for example, the website CreationToday (http://creationtoday.org...), which specifically urges parents to drop their children from public school, start attending school board meetings for the sole purpose of dissuading the school from teaching evolution, and "Encourage students to do papers showing the religious nature of evolutionary theory in science class. Your school board may be persuaded to buy some material for the sake of equal time. If not, get and distribute books and videos as a mission project through your church." Argumentative: check. Hostile: check. Disposed to avoid dissention...? No.

There have been countless lawsuits from Christian people/organizations (including Teach the Controversy) that are trying to force young-earth Christian creationism (YEC) upon our youth attending public school. All have been rejected or thrown out in court, but the fact still remains that people are trying very, very hard to force Christianity on other people's kids. [2]

Last year, a science teacher in Louisiana continuously harassed non-Christian children, specifically calling atheist children 'stupid', and taught her Christian faith at a much higher priority than the required science curriculum. From the article:
"The Lane family claims in the lawsuit that Roark openly discussed her Christian faith with her students, telling them "people are stupid if they think God is not real" and teaching the students repeatedly that "the earth was created by God 6,000 years ago, that evolution is 'impossible' and that the Bible is '100 percent true.'" [3]. When the school was challenged, the school district stood behind its outrageous expression of religion, telling one set of parents that 'they live in the Bible Belt and must get used to Christian expression'. This is undoubtedly not the only case of public school teacher evangelism that has occurred in the USA.

References
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.christianpost.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Dragonclaw

Pro

Dragonclaw forfeited this round.
mateoeh

Con

..and it appears my opponent has forfeited. I would like to thank Pro for hosting and I wish him luck in further debates.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by mateoeh 1 year ago
mateoeh
Which religion? Deism can certainly coexist, but many other theistic religions cannot entirely.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
DragonclawmateoehTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually made a case... using christianity as an example does not work, but that went unrefuted so... arguments to con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
DragonclawmateoehTied
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 1 year ago
dsjpk5
DragonclawmateoehTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con. Pro also dropped all of Con's arguments, so arguments to Con.