The Instigator
twentyseven
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
soccerisfun
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

the bible is scientifically correct

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 2 votes the winner is...
soccerisfun
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 685 times Debate No: 83864
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

twentyseven

Pro

Science does not prove the Bible wrong as some think.I believe there are no scientific facts that disagree with the Bible.Evolution is a theory,not fact,Evolution does not prove the bible wrong since it is a theory and not fact..If you think there are any scientific facts that prove the Bible wrong,accept and begin your argument in round 1.
soccerisfun

Con

Gravity is a scientific theory too. But everybody accepts it as fact. A theory is the highest something can be in science. ALL the evidence accepts evolution. It's as close to a fact as anything can get.
"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts." (...) " If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step " known as a theory " in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. " (...) "we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact"
(http://www.livescience.com...)
But there are even worse errors.
First of all, the creation of the Universe/world. Because of scientific techniques like carbon (although it works for other elements too) dating that allow us to figure out the age of radioactive materials, we know the Earth is way older than the Bible claims is to be. (http://www2.lbl.gov...) This also disproves the bible. The Earth is billions of years old, so the Bible is wrong with its age of the Earth. Not only that, the order of creation makes no sense at all. "The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite. God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?" (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...)
Finally, the Bible teaches that the Sun revolves around the earth.
"Religious institutions took longer to be convinced, with some of them still endorsing geocentrism centuries after it became laughably discredited. And, believe it or not, a few cranks still hold on to it today. You can thank the Old Testament for the lingering belief in this one. It has at least four verses claiming that the earth "cannot be moved," and one stating that the sun goes around the earth. It should not be confused with egocentrism, which is the belief that the sun, the stars, the other planets and the Earth all revolve around oneself." (...) "Psalm 19:6: It [the sun] rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat."
(http://rationalwiki.org...)

And if you want to know just how much the Church hates science, it killed people who disagreed with them.
"Galileo began to express openly his support of the Copernican theory that the earth and planets revolved around the sun. This challenged the doctrine of Aristotle and the established order set by the Catholic Church." (...) "Church Inquisition consultants pronounced Copernican theory heretical. In 1616, Galileo was ordered not to "hold, teach, or defend in any manner" the Copernican theory regarding the motion of the earth." (...) "Galileo was threatened with torture, and he finally admitted he had supported Copernican theory, but privately held that his statements were correct. He was convicted of heresy and spent his remaining years under house arrest."
(http://www.biography.com...)

The Bible has many scientific flaws, and this is why the Church hates science too - they even oppose condoms while Africa has insane population growth and AIDS rates. I have clearly shown many issues in the Bible. Vote Neg.
Debate Round No. 1
twentyseven

Pro

1. Con said there is evidence of traits becoming more or less common over time.Meaning evolution is a fact. But traits changing within a species does not mean the species is becoming a new species.For example the human eye color blue is becoming less common but we're still human. There is no evidence of evolution(species changing to different species. 2. Con says carbon dating disproves the Bible. But catbon dating is unreliable.Scientists admit it is.. 3. Con says how could there be a evening and a mourning on the first day since God did not make the sun until the fourth day.The reason is because God was speaking about time and not about the sun. 4Con says the Bible says that the sun circles the Earth.This is incorrect,The Bible says that the sun crosses the sky,not that it circules the planet. 5Con cannot blame the bible for what the church and people has done.The church is led by people ,and all people sin.
soccerisfun

Con

First, on evolution. You need to understand that evolution happens over loooooong periods of time. It's not that a new species forms every day, but every 10,000 years or so, a new species forms.
"For example, scientists estimate that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees lived some 5 to 8 million years ago." (http://www.pbs.org...)
As for carbon dating, when you search it, yes, sites say it is unreliable. But all the sites calling it unreliable are things like carm.org or christiananswers, etc. All actual, unbiased scientists concur that carbon dating is fantastically accurate.
"The burden of proof is on skeptics of old-earth geology to explain why tens of thousands of other carefully measured ages are all internally and externally consistent. Indeed, there is no known physical phenomenon that can yield consistent results in many thousands of measurements, year after year, except one: that these specimens really are as old as the data shows them to be. As biologist Kenneth Miller has observed, "The consistency of [radiometric] data ... is nothing short of stunning." (http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org...)
"The researchers followed the gamma-ray emission rate of each source for several weeks and found no difference between the decay rate of the spheres and the corresponding foils.

According to NIST scientist emeritus Richard Lindstrom, the variations observed in other experiments may have been due to environmental conditions interfering with the instruments themselves." (http://www.sciencedaily.com...)

On to the order of creation. My opponent only responds to a portion of the evidence. He doesnt respond to "The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite." So this point still stands.

The Bible says the sun rises at one end of the heavens, implying that it is the Sun that moves so this point stands as well.

And my fifth point has no impact, but if only one of my points is true, I'm still winning this debate. Since the other 4 stand, this is clearly a con vote. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
twentyseven

Pro

1 Carbon dating has been proven to be inaccurate.Its just a guess.http://contenderministries.org... 2 Genesis chapter 1 does disagree with evolution.Because evolution is false. 3 Con keeps saying the Bible says the sun circles the Earth. This is not true,The Bible mentions the sun as we see it from the ground.It does not say the sun circles the planet.Example: "But when the sun came up...-Mark 4:6. If you are watching a sunrise ,You say the sun is coming up.You don't say the earth is spinning around.
soccerisfun

Con

Once again, my opponent quotes a biased source for radioactive dating. And like I said in the first speech, evolution is a fact. My opponent doesn't quote any sources (or at least any good sources) on either of these points, while I show the scientific consensus on them, so I'm still winning these two points. My opponent also concedes on the order of creation, as scientists disagree with the order the Bible supposes. And finally, if the Bible says the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around, why would the church claim that the Sun revolved around the Earth? And why would they censor Galileo's work? Clearly they were wrong about this point as well. All my contentions stand, so this is an easy negation of the resolution. I'm also the only one to quote sources during the debate as well. I think that's certainly sufficient reason to negate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by matt8800 1 year ago
matt8800
Regarding the flood of Genesis:
1. How did animals native to landlocked regions, such as kangaroos, platypuses, etc get saved on the ark? There are no fossils of such animals in north Africa. Noah would have to travel to Australia, gather up the animals, bring them to his continent and then return them to Australia.
2. What did the animals eat? Supposedly all the animals that did not make it on the ark perished. All the vegetation was submerged for 30 days, which would cause it to rot and become inedible. No food would exist until the seeds germinated and grew plants that bore fruit. Living things would starve before that could happen. The only food that would exist in the whole world would be the other animals that were saved on the ark.
There is an endless list of scientific problems (people living in fishes, miracles that for some reason don't happen anymore, etc) but I think the flood is a good start.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
We humans have something that other animals don't, the power of retrospection and the ability to see our own abstractions (at least some humans have this ability). Psychologists call this ability, metacognition. Metacognition simply means "cognition about cognition." Indeed, I have the experience of belief as when reading a convincing novel or watching a movie or a play, but I know that novels and movies represent fictions because I have the ability to think about my feelings and thoughts. Although I buy, temporarily, the belief for the entertainment value, I do not own the belief. It would prove not only silly but dangerous to walk out of a theater (say The Exorcist) and still believe the story. The same goes with any belief experience whether it comes from rational scientific reasoning or to fictions or myths. I may feel (believe) that I have discovered a scientific truth, but I know that my belief comes as a property of brain function and I have the ability to disown the belief. I can say that it feels right, but I also know that feelings don't represent facts or knowledge any more than color exists as a property in matter. I also know that feelings-of-truth can mislead, especially when future evidence contradicts the truth-valve of the belief and can lead to intransigence. I can acknowledge the feeling but I don't have to acknowledge the belief. I simply ask a similar question about belief. Do humans need beliefs to survive? Nowhere in that statement do I claim that one should eliminate the feeling of beliefs, only that one can eliminate the ownership of them. We humans have an evolved brain that can contemplate our own abstractions and beliefs. We can disown beliefs and replace them. Critical thinking coupled with empirical testing .(AKA science)

You can feel that something seems true, even if false, while at the same time you do not have to think of it as true.
Posted by TheKryken 1 year ago
TheKryken
@missmedic
Everyone actually operates on a basic level of faith -- the faith that what they see is what is real, and the faith that their mind is capable of rationally observing the universe.

The theist has good reason to believe that what they see is real, and that rational thought exists, because in the view of a theist, God has created people to be rational and to observe reality.

In the view of someone who does not believe in a God, they have to rely on their faith that chemical reactions in the brain, which are a product of random chance, are capable of producing rational thought and accurate observation, and that their own chemicals produce truth while others do not, despite the fact that they came from the same natural processes.

No one can observe themselves or the universe from the outside to determine whether or not what they see is actually real. There is no reason to believe that chemical processes produce truth, except that people must believe it in order to function. After all, no one can survive if they constantly doubt the reality of what they see.
Posted by NotRich 1 year ago
NotRich
Soccerisfun is correct about theories that is how they work in science nothing is ever EVER certain no matter how hard we try or how much information we have on it. Here is a video to explain it better then i can.

https://www.youtube.com...
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Many religious people who challenge scientists, attempt to make their scientific theories equivalent to faith. I suspect this gives the faithful comfort, as reducing theory to the level of faith puts both on an equal plane. However, useful theories do not rely on faith and do not even require belief. Scientific theories must agree with nature to some degree, faith does not. If a theory's prediction fails to produce results, then the theory itself cannot provide usefulness and the scientists must throw it out. A hypothesis represents nothing more than a good guess subject to further verification and usually precedes a theory. A workable theory, however, represents a good guess based on evidence and makes useful predictions.
Posted by bananaedmonkey 1 year ago
bananaedmonkey
gravity is just a theory, I believe you mean INTELLIGENT FALLING.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Terminator 3 is scientifically "correct". But where is Terminator 3...?
Posted by SNP1 1 year ago
SNP1
I think you need to learn what a scientific theory is.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by truthiskey 1 year ago
truthiskey
twentysevensoccerisfunTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made the most convincing arguments as he used actual sources like PBS. Pro just cited Bible ministries. Pro, you need to show how your evidence is superior to his, else the reputability of his sources trumps yours. That was the deciding factor for me. Also, when Con refutes a point, all Pro does was restate his position or say it's a "guess" or "theory" (not knowing the meaning of a scientific theory).
Vote Placed by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
twentysevensoccerisfunTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling Grammar and conduct are tied R1 Cons definition of theory and its use rebuts Pros original premise and continues to state that there sufficient facts that validate evolution and point to Biblical inconsistencies pertaining to the order of existence of things on Earth and Sun /Earth rotation R2 Con rebuts Pros claims regarding carbon dating and preempts further rebuttal stating religious sites only attest to its unreliability. Pro drops response on creation order. Con does argue regarding the term Sun circling but instead crosses the sky but, as Con states this implicates that the Sun moves. R3 pro presents a Biblical reference site to firm up his stance on evolution but, as Pro pointed out earlier such sites are biased. Con leaves uncontested creation order. And firms his stance on the Sun and Earths revolution per Galileo?s persecution of statement.