The Instigator
killshot
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
timmyjames
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Christians cannot *rationally* believe in creationism and evolution simultaneously

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 424 times Debate No: 120123
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

killshot

Pro

Christian creationism is centered around the book of Genesis. This fable and it's obviously false assertions are incompatible with core facts of evolution. There are many reasons I could list, But to keep this debate concise and direct, I'll start with one reason - there were never only two humans on earth.

The general definition of rational is - based on or in accordance with reason or logic
https://www. Google. Com/search? Q=rational

Because evolution and creationism are incompatible views, Believing in both is irrational by definition.

To be clear - This debate is whether a Christian can believe in evolution AND creationism and simultaneously be considered rational.
timmyjames

Con

Christians can believe in micro-evolution. This is the belief that there is in fact variation and natural selection, But it is changes within the genetic code. For example, A dog can change into different species of dog overtime but will always fundamentally be a dog.

For Christians, It is very simple. When God created all the animals, He created their genetic code with a great amount of variability. As time went on, That probability then began manifesting itself. For example, There might have been a typical dog during creation week and through the process of micro-evolution, We get the many species of dogs we see today.

Evolution does have limits however. A dog cannot evolve to a fish or anything ridiculous like that.
Debate Round No. 1
killshot

Pro

Evolution is simply the change in heritable characteristics of a population over time. The theory of evolution is not broken into separate theories for micro and macro scales. You cannot believe a subset of evolution and deny another subset. It's either wholly true or it's not.

You said "For example, There might have been a typical dog during creation week and through the process of micro-evolution, We get the many species of dogs we see today. "

A "kind", As referred to Biblically, By definition, Cannot have ancestors. It's the highest archetype for it's group. So the "kind" of "dog" would not have an ancestral lineage, For example. It would not have a fossil record beyond it's highest archetype. It's genome could not be sequenced beyond the original archetype. It would be found in the same geological strata as all other species since they all coexisted simultaneously leaving no chronology. Morphology would be impossible since nothing transitioned from one thing to another. This is just simply NOT how things work. If this is what you believe, It is NOT evolution.

All clades share a common ancestor as they network back throughout the figurative tree. This is demonstrable using genomic sequencing, Morphology, Geology and many forms of radio metric dating.

So back to my original assertion. A Christian cannot believe in both evolution and creationism and be considered rational. These two views are incompatible.
timmyjames

Con

timmyjames forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
killshot

Pro

Since my opponent forfeited, I guess I have nothing to say in this round. .
timmyjames

Con

timmyjames forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by K_Michael_Tolman 3 years ago
K_Michael_Tolman
I believe that one of the theories that some Christians endorse, Not as doctrine, But as a plausible theory, Is that evolution WAS the creation. In Genesis, It says clearly that the world was created in seven days (or six, If you want to get technical). However, The eternal God in a pre-universe existence may have a different concept of time, So that six days could have been majority of the existence, And that the rest of time thereafter is in the last six thousand years or whatever.
The Big Bang kinda matches up with "'Let there be light. ' And there was light. " So saying that he created all of the animals in existence doesn't necessarily mean they were conjured from nowhere.

I don't know about this theory myself, But it's something to think about, And I didn't explain it very clearly.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
@Con

Creationists have to deny that fossils that show gradual evolution of species into different species are real.

When people say "evolution" they are speaking about the full theory. Creationists have to deny most of it to be consistent.

If you allow micro-evolution then macro evolution becomes inevitable over time. You can't have great variability and stay the same forever. It is silly to think of it like "dogs can't become fish. " But let's take that argument shall we.

If the world floods to where there is little land left the dogs most likely to survive will be the best swimmers. Dogs will either go extinct or the best swimmers will breed with the other best swimmers more often than not. Over the course of millions of years if the world's land area decreases more and more and natural selection continues to select for dogs with special skills, And dogs are forced to either change their habits or die, You will see dogs so different from dogs nowadays as to be a bit silly to still call them dogs. Millions of years from then, Who knows.

Apes and humans both evolved from a similar ancestor, If you believe in evolution (which you can't if you're a creationist). We have many similarities, But while we are similar in many respects, We're different enough in enough ways to not be considered the same thing. If we compared us to our ancestors, Perhaps we'd think we had undergone 'macro-evolution. '

The evidence for macro-evolution is part of 'evolution. ' You won't win this one on a technicality by saying 'we can accept half of evolution' because the evidence for the other half is just as strong. You either haven't looked at the evidence for the other half yourself, Or you are basing your entire argument on a holy book or what your eyes can see change. That isn't evolution.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.