The Instigator
Thiest_1998
Con (against)
The Contender
ogsavage
Pro (for)

Evidence for macro evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Thiest_1998 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 266 times Debate No: 113723
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Thiest_1998

Con

I take the notion that there is no evidence for macro evolution and that the God of the bible created the Earth and everything in it in 6 days if anyone believes differently feel free to accept the debate
ogsavage

Pro

Theist_1998, I must disagree with your claim on macro evolution. I do believe in God but I do not believe He created the universe in 6, 24 hour days. For this to be true the Earth would have to be about 5,000 years old. This is obviously not the case as most rocks are lots older than this. There are even trees that date back father than this if you follow the line of Adam and Eve. Thus, I have come to the reasoning that God created the universe, but was not meant to be taken literally in that he created the universe in a span of 144 hours.
Debate Round No. 1
Thiest_1998

Con

ogsavage

Thank you for debating me it's an absolute honour.

I would just like to ask what dating methods did they use and is it consistent and if so where is the proof and what would be the age of the earth in you opinion?

Why shouldn't it be taken literally?
ogsavage

Pro

Theist_1998, over the years scientists have come up with different ways to test the age of rocks, trees, or other matter. Obviously some have worked better than others, but the latest one has worked quite well.
According to www.space.com, "In the early 20th century, scientists refined the process of radiometric dating. Earlier research had shown that isotopes of some radioactive elements decay into other elements at rates that can be easily predicted. By examining the existing elements, scientists can calculate the initial quantity, and thus how long it took for the elements to decay, allowing them to determine the age of the rock." In simpler words, since they know how each radioactive isotope decays and what it can decay into, it is easy to fill the gap with how long each stage of decay takes. Also, because the process is predictable, this method is very consistent.
The proof for this is that there is simply no scientific evidence that disproves it. There is no way to see that far into the past through other humans but by taking what they know about isotopes and their decay, scientist have come up with a way to date the Earth with extremely little room for error. Everything they have done has been proven and proven again without a scientifically based doubt. Therefore, what scientists have agreed is that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old. This age is consistent with the age of the moon and other bodies in our solar system.
To answer your question asking why the Earth being made in 6 days shouldn't be taken literally I would say this. First of all, it is scientifically disproven; no arguments are happening among the people who date the Earth, Christian or not. Second of all, if this is taken literally, who's to say everything else in the Bible is to be taken literally. For example, in Matthew it is said that "If your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. " I'm sure we could agree this verse is illustrating to humans how serious it is to sin. It is not telling you to actually gouge your eye out.
In conclusion I must ask you: How old is the Earth in your opinion and where is your proof? What other source than the Bible, which I believe you have misinterpreted, supports your claims?



Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Thiest_1998 5 months ago
Thiest_1998
*Would
Posted by Thiest_1998 5 months ago
Thiest_1998
@EyeSayWhatever Yes I have wold you like to debate me?
Posted by EyeSayWhatever 5 months ago
EyeSayWhatever
Theist_1998, you say "I take the notion that there is no evidence for macro evolution." Have you done any research about this topic prior to the debate?
Posted by zzzzzzzz666 5 months ago
zzzzzzzz666
Endogenous Retroviruses PROVE common ancestry with the other apes. ERVs are the BEST evidence possible of evolution.
Posted by canis 5 months ago
canis
https://www.theguardian.com...
What will we evolve by selection in 2018 ?..
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.