The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Science and Religion Are Incompatible

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,295 times Debate No: 93695
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)





SCIENCE is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation. In other words, science is a specific way of analyzing information with the goal of testing claims." [1]

" for the compatibility of science and religion...[are]...weak, resting on assertions about the nature of religion that few believers really accept...religion could never be made compatible with science without diluting it so seriously that it was no longer religion but humanist philosophy." [2]

RELIGION is "action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this." [3] Alternatively, religion may be defined as "a particular system of faith or worship." [3]

FAITH is "belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority." [3] Or, "belief in the truths of religion; belief in the authenticity of divine revelation (whether viewed as contained in Holy Scripture or in the teachings of the Church) and acceptance of the revealed doctrines." [3]


[1] Michael Shermer, "Why People Believe Weird Things"
[2] Jerry Coyne, "Faith vs. Fact"
[3] Oxford English Dictionary


I will be arguing that science and religion are incompatible. My opponent will argue that there is no conflict between religion and science.

Round 1 = Acceptance
Round 2 = Opening Arguments
Round 3 = Rebuttals
Round 4 = Counter-Rebuttals
Round 5 = Closing Remarks


I accept. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


I will be arguing that science and religion are incompatible.

By “incompatible” I mean to say that science and religion are “mutually intolerant; incapable of existing together in the same same subject; contrary or opposed in character; discordant, incongruous, inconsistent” [1] as methods of apprehending truth.

Science makes claims about the way things are. Science’s claims about the nature of reality are based on a procedure that involves…

Induction: Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.
Deduction: Making specific productions based on the hypotheses.
Observation: Gathering data, driven by hypotheses that tell us what to look for in nature.
Verification: Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypothesis. [2]

Religion also makes claims about the nature of reality. But the religious method of apprehending truth does not involve induction, deduction, observation, and verification. Religious claims (unlike scientific claims) are accepted dogmatically. For example:

Jesus came back to life after being dead for three days is a factual claim. Moreover, it is an incredible claim. Where is the incredible evidence to back up this story? Well, all the “evidence” we have to support it is the testimony of the Gospel writers, who contradict each other:

“How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)? [3]

Did an angel cause a great earthquake that rolled back the stone? Yes, according to Matthew. The other gospels are silent on this extraordinary detail.” [3] (See link below for more contradictions in the resurrection story)

Here’s a more plausible explanation:

“There are…many alternative and non-miraculous explanations for the story of Jesus’ Resurrection. One was suggested by the philosopher Herman Philipse. It seems likely — for Jesus explicitly states this in three of the four Gospels — that his followers believed he would restore God’s kingdom in their lifetime, including sitting on twelve thrones from which they’d judge the tribes of Israel. But, unexpectedly, Jesus was crucified, ending everyone’s hope for glory. Phillips suggests that this produced painful cognitive dissonance, which in this case was resolved by “collaborative storytelling” — the same thing modern millennialists do when the world fails to end on schedule. The ever-disappointed millennialists usually agree on a story that somehow preserves their belief in the face of disconfirmation (for example, “We got the date wrong”). Phillipse then suggests that in the case of the Jesus tale, the imminent arrival of God simply morphed into a promise of eternal life, a promise supported by pretending that their leader himself had been resurrected.” [4]

It's not reasonable to believe that Jesus literally came back from the dead based on the testimony of the Gospels. Anyone who attempts to an impartial look at the evidence should see this.

Which is more likely: (1) people coming back from the dead, or (2) people making up lies? What's more common: (1) people coming back from the dead, or (2) legends invented to assuage people's fears and disappointments? Many cultures have resurrection stories of some kind.

Nevertheless, Christians would claim to be absolutely certain that Jesus rose from the dead. It's the cornerstone of their faith, and it's taken as literal truth. Clearly, the religious method of apprehending truth (through dogma, sacred literature, authority) doesn't work.

"Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. For example, how do we know that the Earth is round? It is a logical conclusion drawn from observations such as:

- The shadow of the earth on the moon is round.
- The mast of a ship is the last thing to be seen as it sails into the distance.
- The horizon is curved.
- Photographs some space

And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence. For example, how do we know the earth is round?

- Our parents told us.
- Our teachers told us.
- Our minister told us.
- Our textbook told us.

Dogmatic conclusions are not necessarily invalid, but they do beg other questions: How did the authorities come by their conclusions? Were they guided by science or some other means?" [2]

"Faith" is considered a virtue in religion. It's a vice in science.
"Doubt" is considered a vice in religion. Skepticism is a virtue in science.

The scientific man is open-minded. His beliefs are open to disconfirmation. He's willing to accept that he doesn't know everything, and so he's willing to update his beliefs as he learns more.

The religious man thinks he has the "absolute truth" and this belief is rooted into his heart. Certain ideas are untouchable; certain beliefs sit inside their heads like bricks. In this way, science and religion are incompatible.

[1] Oxford English Dictionary
[2] Michael Shermer, “Why People Believe Weird Things”
[3] Bob Seidensticker “Contradictions in the Resurrection Account”
[4] Jerry Coyne, Faith vs. Fact


Science and Mathematical Probability-

Jesus fulfilled 365 Jewish prophecies of their future Messiah.


Denying that Jesus is the "Son of God" is antichrist by Biblical definition.

(1 John 2:22)
"Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist, denying the Father and the Son."

(1 John 2:23)
"No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also."


(Revelation 17:14)
"These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful."

In the hadith (Sahih-Al-Bukhari Bk 73; Num 224) Mohammed said, "The most awful name in Allah"s sight on the Day of Resurrection, will be (that of) a man calling himself Malik Al-Amlak (the King of kings)."

(1 Timothy 6:15)
"Which He will bring about at the proper time--He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords."

(Revelation 19:16)
And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."


Muhammed and demons-

Here is the story told by Muhammad's wet-nurse, related in Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq, page 72:
"His father said to me, "I am afraid that this child has had a stroke, so take him back to his family before the result appears. -" She asked me what happened and gave me no peace until I told her." When she asked if I feared a demon had possessed him, I replied that I did.""


"(The Antichrist)"The beast"

(Revelation 13:16)
"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:"

Muslims are looking for a "beast of the Earth" who will "mark foreheads".

"And when the Word is fulfilled against them (the unjust), we shall produce from the earth a beast to (face) them: He will speak to them, for that mankind did not believe with assurance in Our Signs."

"R01;Qur'an, sura 27 (An-Naml), ayat 82

In the Biblical book of Revelation there are 2 "beasts". One is the "False Prophet". He directs his followers to worship the other "beast" (The Antichrist) and renounces Jesus as the "Son of God".


The "beast (Antichrist) is set up at the Temple Mount proclaiming himself as God. He opposes Christians and has them beheaded.

(Revelation 13:6-8)
6"He opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7"And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8"And those that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb."

(2 Thessalonians 2:4)
"He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."

The Dome of the Rock bares a full fledged antichrist inscription.

"It befitteth not the Majesty of Allah that he should have a son."


(Link to the full inscription)


(Revelation 13:17)
"And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

Revelation 13:18
"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of his name; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

Walid Shoebat, ex Muslim, tells us 666 in Greek reads "In the name of Allah" in Arabic.


Muslims do bow to a graven image, the Kaaba stone. (Video proof)


(Acts 2:17)
"'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.

Muslims everywhere are claiming to see the divine Jesus in dreams and converting.


Antichrist's followers behead Christians-

(Revelation 20:4)
"And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or bowed to its image."

And ISIS is beheading Christians in droves.


(Matthew 24:21)
"For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been nor ever will be again.

Christians are being genocided in the Middle East.

What are the odds the things the New Testament claimed were coming would actually manifest? Not good. Scientific, mathematical probability is compatable with science...
Debate Round No. 2


According to the New Testament, Jesus fulfilled a lot of Old Testament prophecies about the Jewish Messiah. But take a closer look at these "prophecies" and you'll find many of them are vague. Take a closer look at the Old Testament, and you'll find that many of these "prophecies" aren't about the Messiah at all.

"How can Jews fail to accept the claims of Christ? Why don’t they believe? Are they just being stubborn? Are they hard- headed? Can’t they read? Are they stupid? Why is it that the vast majority of Jews has always rejected that Jesus is the one who was predicted—a savior sent from God in order to suffer for others, so as to bring salvation, and then be raised from the dead?

The answer is actually quite simple. In the Jewish tradition, before the appearance of Christianity, there was no expectation of a suffering Messiah.

But doesn’t the Bible constantly talk about the Messiah who would suffer? As it turns out, the answer is no. Since the beginning, Chris- tians have frequently cited certain passages in the Old Testament as clear prophecies of the future suffering Messiah, passages such as

Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, in which someone suffers horribly, some- times expressly for the sins of others. These passages, Christians have claimed, are clear statements about what the Messiah would be like. Jews who do not believe in Jesus, however, have always had a very effective response: the Messiah is never mentioned in these passages. You can check it out for yourself: read Isaiah 53 or Psalm 22 (I’ll quote the relevant verses later in this chapter). The term “Messiah” never occurs in them. In Jewish tradition, these passages refer not to the Messiah but to someone else (or to lots of someone elses).

Before Christianity there were no Jews that we know of who anticipated a Messiah who would suffer and die for the sins of others and then be raised from the dead. What then would the Messiah be like? We know from Jewish documents written around the time of Jesus that there were various expectations of what the Messiah would be like. In none of these expectations was he anything like Jesus.


That the Messiah would be a powerful warrior-king was the expectation of many Jews in Jesus’ day." [1]

So, Jesus didn't really fulfill the prophecies too well.

My opponent links to a website that lists "365 Jewish prophcies of their future Messiah."

The first alleged "prophecy of the future Messiah" is Genesis 3:15: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring [seed] and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” If you look at the context, this is what God says to Eve after discovering that "The serpent deceived me, and I ate [the forbidden fruit]". This verse has nothing to do with the Messiah.

But, let's look at which verses fulfill this "prophecy". Apparently, Luke 1:35: "The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

Also, Matthew 1:18-20: " This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly."

Apparently, this is a fulfillment of prophecy...because "seed of a woman" is mentioned in Genesis 3:15 (with no reference to the Messiah) and Jesus was the "seed of a woman." Prophecy fulfilled? This website has some pretty low standards for "prophecy fulfillment."

None of the prohecies my opponent lists are particularly compelling reasons to accept the outlandish claims of Christianity. He mentions Matthew 24:21 -- "For then there will be great tribulation..." Yes, there is great tribulation. Christians are being genocided in the Middle East. And a few decades ago, Jews were being genocided in Germany. Something is always going on. This is not an amazing prophecy. No reasonable person would convert to Christianity because the Bible predicts something that could be defined as "great tribulation" will be taking place somwhere in the world.

Muslims see Jesus in dreams because Jesus is a prophet in Islam. I'm not surprised that Muslims have religious dreams. I'm not surprised if Hindus have dreams that involve their own religious characters, imagery and symbolism.

Have you ever heard of confirmation bias? "Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs." [2]

Christians are desperate to consider anything in the Old Testament a "prophecy" and they're even more desperate to see that "prophecy" fulfilled in the New Testament. If you care about truth, developn some reasonable standards for what is a "prophecy" about the Messiah and what is considered a "fullfillment" of that prophecy.

[1] Bart D. Ehrman, "Jesus Interrupted"
[2] Robert Todd Carroll, "The Skeptic's Dictionary" [online]



I don't find being "ambiguous" the issue here:

1)Islam, in real life, does claim a god who resides at the Temple Mount with an anti-christ slogan inscribed on the temple. They do bow to a graven image, the Kaaba stone. They do persecute and behead Christians. They do have an anti-christ great prophet who set up an image to his god to be bowed to.

2)We know these exact attributes are given to one group in Revelation.

3)If one is still uncertain, all of the nations Christ fights in end times prophechy today are Islamic, and Islam did not exist, nor would it for another 700 years.

4)If one still wants a little bit more, it tells us in Genesis, which was thousands of years before Christ's birth, much less Muhammed's, the exact group that God would never except because of their violent and restless spirit: the children of Ishmael. Muslims are the "children of Ishmael" literally and even according to themselves.

5)And if one wants just a little bit more Christ himself told us where the "throne of Satan" was in the end times, per the book of Revelation. Pergamon, Turkey, which was at that time Roman, and is now Islamic. Coincidence? That's more than a fair sample size of unambiguous prophechies for any unbiased mind.

Confirmation biases are included in all groups. I've seen Atheist evolutionists tickled at a Darwinian "intermediary find", then examine the find myself and quickly realise they saw what they wanted to see. Such as? The intermediary illustration of ambulocetus and rhodocetus in "whale evolution" drawn to look similar to a land mammal and a whale. It was drawn with flippers and a fluked tail. In the later interview we find out the tail and flippers were "assumed".

Even with confirmation biases, which are real, not everyone, bias or not, is wrong. Someone is right.

"How can Jews fail to accept the claims of Christ? Why don"t they believe? Are they just being stubborn? Are they hard- headed? Can"t they read? Are they stupid? Why is it that the vast majority of Jews has always rejected that Jesus is the one who was predicted"a savior sent from God in order to suffer for others, so as to bring salvation, and then be raised from the dead?'"

Their own prophecies said they would reject Him.

Nevertheless, all 12 Apostles were Jews, and so were those original followers.

We even now have a group called "Jews for Jesus".


"In Jewish tradition, these passages refer not to the Messiah but to someone else (or to lots of someone elses)."

I disagree. So do many Jews. Pro is welcome to explain to us what he interprets Isaiah 9:6 to mean.

We also know what Josephus, a first century Jew, said in relation to the issue, and the idea of this messianic interpretation wasn't his issue, but of Jesus actually being the messiah or not.


"Before Christianity there were no Jews that we know of who anticipated a Messiah who would suffer and die for the sins of others and then be raised from the dead."

Interesting. John the Baptist was a Jew before Christianity and was feared because of his many followers. He preached this message.

(John 1:23)

(Mark 1:4-5)
"John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins."

(Luke 3:15-17)
"Now while the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, as to whether he was the Christ, John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."


"Muslims see Jesus in dreams because Jesus is a prophet in Islam."

They are seeing a DIVINE Jesus in dreams and converting by the millions at the exact point in history where Christians are being genocided and specifically...beheaded. It's a 3 in 1 prophecy. And only one of many.


"Have you ever heard of confirmation bias? "

This might be plausable if:

1)I had been born and raised a Christian.

2)Theprophecies were not specific.

-Antichrist God by Biblical definition that renounces Christ set up at Temple Mount- literally true.

-Gets authority from great prophet who renounces Christ as Son of God?- literally true.

-Followers bow to a graven image? - literally true.

-Followers behead Christians? Literally true.

-Followers persecute Christians with intensity?- literally true.

The identity is also given in the OT, per Genesis, of what exact group God will never accept. The children of Ishmael. Muslims are the literal and figurative children of Ismael.


The OT and NT also tell what nations Messiah fights in the end times. All are Islamic. This is impossible by probability, seeing Islam did not exist for another 700 years after Christ.


It even declares in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Revelation the identification of their holy city, Mecca(which did not exist yet).

"Mystery Babylon"(video for those interested)


----- must all happen at a time when Damascus is leveled."

(Isaiah 17:1)
"A prophecy against Damascus: "See, Damascus will no longer be a city as it was, but will become a heap of ruins."

Drone footage of Damascus destroyed.


We are given yet another thing that must happen in paralel with these many events.

(2 Thessalonians 2:3)
"For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God."

The "New Atheist Movement", consisting of Harris, Dawkins, & Hitchens, began to take off in the 2000's. Since then a phenomenon known as "Militant Atheism" began to become very prevalent. In the 1990's Christianity was almost 90% of America. Now it is 69% and in steep decline. The same phenomenon happened all over Europe.

Ironically, Sweden, who is now only 18% Christian is overwhelmed by a myriad of problems, being named the "Rape Capital of the World". In contrast, Poland, 83% Christian has some of the best statistics on Earth.
Debate Round No. 3


I'm dealing with a "Gish gallop" here.

"The Gish Gallop (also proof by verbosity) is the fallacious debating tactic of drowning an opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that the opponent cannot possibly rebut each one in real time." [1]

"It could have been different. The scriptures might have contained revelations that, while incomprehensible to people at the time of the revelation, may still have been recorded as mysterious, esoteric knowledge. That knowledge then might have become less esoteric as science and the other knowledge arts, such as history, developed higher levels of sophistication.


But, we have no risky prediction anywhere in the scriptures that has come true. Of course, preachers have disingenously told their flocks that many Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled.

In Evidence That Demands a Verdict...Josh McDowell of the Campus Crusade for Christ...lists sixty-one Old Testament prophecies that he claims precisely foretold the coming of Jesus Christ as the Messiah.

Each of the prophecies listed by McDowell is confirmed in no other place except the Bible. We have no independent evidence that events actually took place as described -- especially the ones happening in heaven. Before making the extraordinary claim that something supernatural occurred, simple common sense tells us that we must rule out the ordinary, far more plausible account that the events are fictional, written so as to conform to Biblical prophecies." [2]

At the end of the day, the "mathematical probility" of all these "prophecies" being "fulfilled" only seems to impress Christians. Christians want these prophecies to come true. So, their standards for what is a "prophecy" are extremely low, and their standards for "fulfillment" are even lower. Raised Christian or not: when it comes to these prophecies, you're counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

[1] RationalWiki, "Gish gallop"
[2] Victor Stenger, "God: The Failed Hypothesis"



"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
-Howard Aiken


"I'm dealing with a "Gish gallop" here."

So Squonk chose zero of my points to refute. He/she could have picked at least one to rebuttal, so all points stand as unchallenged.


"But, we have no risky prediction anywhere in the scriptures that has come true. Of course, preachers have disingenously told their flocks that many Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled."

Sure we do.

(Matthew 24:14)
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

This logically should have been snuffed out by the Roman genocide of Christians and the Jewish authority, but nope. Now it's the biggest religion on planet Earth by far. about Ezekiel 29:15

IEgyptwill be a lowly kingdom and will never again exalt itself above the other nations. I will make it so weak that it will never again rule over any other nation.

Did it? Has it? Nope. And if it does, the Bible is wrong.


"In Evidence That Demands a Verdict...Josh McDowell of the Campus Crusade for Christ"

I'm not Josh McDowell. He can defend his own arguments.


"At the end of the day, the "mathematical probility" of all these "prophecies" being "fulfilled" only seems to impress Christians."

So 1/4 of planet Earth are impressed at minimal.


"Raised Christian or not: when it comes to these prophecies, you're counting the hits and ignoring the misses."

Which misses?


Science and Religion Compatable-

According to the Huffington Post, the percentage of scientists that believe in some form of a deity or power was 51 %, slightly more than half.


Of the 10 highest IQ's on Earth, 8 are known theists, and 6 are known to be Christians.


Fred Hoyle, Atheist, English astronomer noted primarily for the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis, tried to "disprove God". The more he dove in the more it began to sink in. He said that his "Atheism was shaken" by his findings.

It was this work that caused Hoyle, an atheist, to begin to believe in the guiding hand of a god (what would later be called "intelligent design" or "fine tuning"), when he considered the statistical improbability of the large amount of carbon in the universe, carbon which makes possible carbon-based lifeforms such as humans.


Howard H. Aiken (1900-1973)-
"Modern physics teaches me that nature is not capable of ordering itself. The universe presupposes a huge mass of order. It therefore requires a great "First Cause" that is not subject to the second law of transformation of energy, and that is therefore supernatural."


Allan Sandage-
He determined the first reasonably accurate values for the Hubble constant and the age of the universe. He also discovered the first quasar.

"It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence." -Allan Sandage


"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
-Albert Einstein

Squonk @ Brontoraptor

"I'll punch you square in the face."
Debate Round No. 4


In Round #2, I made the case that science and religion are incompatible as methods of apprehending truth. I was hoping for a debate about the methodology of science vs. religion in discovering truth.

My opponent wanted to have a debate about Biblical prophecy. So, he threw out 10+ alleged "fulfilled prophecies" of the Bible. If the omniscient creator of the universe inspired the Bible, the prophecies could have been reallly impressive, i.e. "Americans will land on the moon in 1969." But we don't see those kinds of prophecies.

Like I said, this is a "Gish gallop." So, I'll do my best to dispel all these "fulfilled prophecies" in one fell swoop.

Most scientists (especially eminent scientists) do not believe in God and are not people of faith:

"In 1997, the British science journal Nature published the results of a random sampling of 1,000 scientists...approximately 40 percent of scientists proclaimed a belief in a personal God." (1)

" a follow-up study [Edward] Larson and [Larry] Witham controlled for "eminance," or what their predecessor James Leuba called the "greater" scientists -- those who held 'superior knowledge, understanding, and experience.'" [1]

"...Larson and Witham found...that when eminance is controlled for, disbelief in God rose to 69 percent among biologists, and 79 percent for physicists. When "doubt" or "agnosticism" is factored in, actual belief in God among eminent scientists (averaged over all fields) drops to a paltry 7 percent." [1]

"It should be emphasized that these figures are for Americans. The United Kingdom, Europe, and other developed nations of the world show lower levels of belief for both the general population and among scientists..." [1]

These prophecies only impress those who are already Christians. Why do you think that is?

[1] Michael Shermer, "How We Believe"



"I'll do my best to dispel all these "fulfilled prophecies" in one fell swoop."

Pro challenged none of the prophecies. Pro could have tried to show they were "wrong", vague, or "up for interpretation." At the very least Pro could have challenged one and tried to hurt my credibility in the debate. Pro did not.

"These prophecies only impress those who are already Christians. Why do you think that is?"

I was raised in Mohammedism, became Agnostic, then after 7 years became a Christian.

Walid Shoebat was raised in Mohammedism, then later became a Christian.

Fred Hoyle was an Atheist and became a Christian. This disproves the generalization that to see Christianity or Christian prophecy as true, you have to be pre "indoctrinized".

I can see it because a religion coming into being that has a great antichrist prophet, who sets up his god in the exact spot: Temple Mount, the great prophet sets up a graven image for people from all over the world to bow to, and is looking to oppose someone called the "King of Kings" to stand against in the end, looking for a person who will stand against the "King of Kings" to rule the world, and is literally the descendent of Ishmael is virtually impossible.

Now add to it the Gospel finally going worldwide, then this group trying to genocide Christians and beheading Christians, a "rebellion" against God at the approximate time that Damascus is leveled, people begin rampantly mocking God, and the world's problem become "perplexing, and you've got quite a magical "guess".


It's hardly a secret that being a creationist or challenging any concept that atheism uses will get you fired and ridiculed, whether your findings are valid/correct or not.

Nathaniel Abraham filed a lawsuit in US District Court in Boston saying that the Cape Cod research center dismissed him in because of his Christian belief that the Bible presents a true account of human creation.

Abraham says in the suit that he lost his job as a postdoctoral researcher in a biology lab shortly after he told his superior that he did not blindly accept evolution as scientific fact.


Kris Helphinstine said in a phone interview with The Bulletin newspaper of Bend that he included the supplemental material to teach students about bias in sources, and his only agenda was to teach critical thinking. "Critical thinking is vital to scientific inquiry," said Helphinstine, who has a master"s degree in science from Oregon State. "My whole purpose was to give accurate information and to get them thinking." Helphinstine was fired.


"In 1997, the British science journal Nature published the results of a random sampling of 1,000 scientists...approximately 40 percent of scientists proclaimed a belief in a personal God."

Which sounds about like it should be seeing the UK is only 59.5% Christian and is the Grand Central Station of the New Atheist Movement and anti-Christian propeganda.


Nevertheless, I challenge Pro's assessment with my own findings from the LA Times and Pew Polls.

*Article snippet from the LA Times-

-According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.

Furthermore, scientists today are no less likely to believe in God than they were almost 100 years ago, when the scientific community was first polled on this issue. In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes "monkey" trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not. Scientists have unearthed many important fossils since then, but they are, if anything, more likely to believe in God today."


Science Minds At the Top-

Francis Collins-

*Physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes
*lead the Human Genome Project.
*Presidential Medal of Freedom *National Medal of Science.

"I believe God did intend in giving us intelligence, to give us the opportunity to investigate and appreciate the wonders of His creation."
-Francis Collins


James Gates-

*Science Advisor to Barack Obama

There are dual self error correcting adinkas being used somewhere to control our universe through complex equations somewhere outside of our reality.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by squonk 2 years ago
I did challenge several of the alleged "prophecies" in Round #3. My opponent didn't respond.
Posted by brontoraptor 2 years ago
Unless it's Trump. Then they pillage, get violent, attempt assassination, and attack cops...ahem...
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
"For ages, a deadly conflict has been waged between a few brave men and women of thought and genius upon the one side, and the great ignorant religious mass on the other. This is the war between Science and Faith. The few have appealed to reason, to honor, to law, to freedom, to the known, and to happiness here in this world. The many have appealed to prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to the unknown, and to misery hereafter. The few have said "Think" The many have said "Believe!"

--Robert Ingersoll
Posted by brontoraptor 2 years ago
Come on squonk. Make an argument. If you have time to play pocket poolin the comments section, you have time to make a rebuttal in the "Christians are Stupid" section below.
Posted by squonk 2 years ago
Berlinski has a PhD in Philosophy. When it says "Berlinski was a research ASSISTANT in molecular biology at Columbia University" it means he wrote a paper called "Philosophical Aspects of Molecular Biology." Like I said, even Christian biologists accept evolution: Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller. Even Michael Behe. Why do you think this is?

Furthermore, we know that species change over time. Even Creationists accept "microevolution" as they like to call it. But, they say that the changes can only go so far. If that's true, there must be some essential DNA for each "kind" of animal that is never affected by mutations.

What prevents these tiny biological changes from adding up into large changes, over millions of years?
Posted by brontoraptor 2 years ago
"Berlinski was a researcher in molecular biology at Columbia University, and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France."
Posted by squonk 2 years ago
I meant to say David Berlinski does NOT study biology
Posted by squonk 2 years ago
David Berlinski is not a biologist. He does study biology. He's a mathematician. Give me one example of a biologist (someone who has studied the relevant evidence) that rejects evolution wholesale. Even CHRISTIAN biologists accept evolution. Why do you think this is? Could it be a conspiracy?
Posted by brontoraptor 2 years ago
Yes. Reality. The burden of proof on this issue is on the darwinists who are yet to show us any example that is testable, measurable or witnessed which makes it not even meeting the bare minimum of the scientific method. Secular biologist David Berlinski says Darwinism is a fairytale being used by atheism to support a dogmatic agenda, and he himself is not a theist.
Posted by squonk 2 years ago
@ rolauus

If it's true that dogs mating with dogs will always produce dogs, then there must be some essential "dog DNA" that can never be affected by mutations. After all, DNA is what makes a dog a dog. If a dog had cat DNA, it would be a cat; not a dog.

So, you're hypothesizing that there's a certain core of "dog DNA" that carries on from generation to generation, that cannot change. These genes are what make the dog a dog. This essential "dog DNA" can never change in dogs, because the dog can never become anything other than a dog.

We should see this in all animals. There's essential "cat DNA" that is passed on generation to generation, never changing, ensuring that cats will always stay cats. Hamsters will always be hamsters. And chickens can never evolve into anything other than chickens.

Is there any evidence of this?
No votes have been placed for this debate.