Is theistic evolution biblical?

The big bang is obviously not repeatable, but its effects are very much observed and measured, just like our scientific knowledge regarding stars and early earth. To refute the big bang one would have to show any evidence of inconsistencies such us ununiform expansion or an alternative explanation that can challenge it. As i said previously, no scientifically established theory has ever been debunked, only expanded.

Life is complicated, we cant even say for sure what life is. Things like viruses seem to demonstrate an inbetween step of life. Thus between non life and life there is probably several steps of quasi life, like loose DNA, or viruses. You could simplify my answer to "yes", but that will create confusion. Fully formed complex life can never come from non life, but some fundamental prelife can. Bacteria are pretty much a loose mess of organ chunks in a membrane completely disorganized, and they are far more complex then viruses or what we would expect protolife to be like.

Re: big bang
Again, I am not disputing that there is supporting evidence for the big bang. We can make scientific observations about current conditions that support the hypothesis, but the event of the big bang itself is purely theoretical and cannot be observed, measured, or repeated. Do you have a different scientific method that does not require something to be observable, measurable, or repeatable? And you did not answer my question about how to disprove something of this nature.

Re: biogenesis
Perhaps we should take a step back from categorizations and deal with general principles first. Do you believe that life can be derived from non-life or non-living material?

So your abiogenesis conflict is not with evolution, since evolution didnt kick in until after life already existed. Your concern is with chemistry, not biology. Maybe some biochemistry, but still no mutation, no selection, no evolution.

Certainly nothing in this world is perfect, but as i demonstrated with my stationary earth analogy, being proven is not that big of a deal as someone can simply disprove it later on. This is the highest standard we as humans can hope to acheive, and certainly better then a system based simply on faith.

Re: big bang
I did say the logic part with the balloon analogy; when we first discovered the universe was actually expanding, that was the logical, and mind blowing, hypothesis... but after that we sought evidence to support it. That evidence was the cosmic background radiation and the universe's baby picture. Both of which were also mentioned in my post.

Another aspect of a good theory is that all observations, including future ones, fit perfectly in, as has happened with both evolution and the big bang. We dont know what happened at the moment of the big bang, but as soon as it started to cool and expand, we can draw a straight line through every single one of our observations and get straight to today.

Abiogenesis states that fully formed life comes from non life, like maggots from old meat. Chemistry details how molecules increased in complexity in natural configurations to build fundamental blocks of life. Your abiogenesis concern is different from the original concept, and also has roots in chemistry, not evolution or most biology. Evolution is how life changes from life to life. Mutation and natrual selection have zero to do with formation of dna, membranes, etc. Thats pure chemistry.

As for your statements about the Big Bang being scientific, you said that we can logically assume that it happened a certain way. Logical assumptions like this are not observable, measurable, repeatable science. You have just stepped into the realm of philosophy. I am not disagreeing that the assumption makes sense or that support can be drawn from scientific observation of current conditions in the universe (the light of the star can be observed because it exists in the present). But you cannot observe the Big Bang event, nor can it be repeated. So perhaps a good question would be, if a hypothesis (in this case, the Big Bang) cannot be directly observed, measured, or repeated, how can you disprove it scientifically?

As far as failed scientific assertions, it’s interesting that you mentioned abiogenesis as discarded. I can disprove one of two theories quite easily. You cannot hold to both the theory of evolution and the theory of biogenesis (as opposed to abiogenesis). Evolution requires abiogenesis. Unless space dust is somehow alive.

My statement that science is about “a hypothesis that hasn’t been disproven” and your statement that it is an “undisproven hypothesis” seem to be the same thing to me. My point is that even if the hypothesis has been subjected to an international peer review community, the ability to test it is only as good as the tools we have to do so. Think about astronomy. Peoples’ understanding changed dramatically after Galileo came onto the scene with his telescope. Then the Hubble telescope shattered even more limitations on our power of observation, allowing us to become more accurate in our understanding of the physical universe. However, we still have limitations on what we can be confident about, and we cannot say for sure what future technology and events will reveal to us. When it comes to maintaining an “undisproven hypothesis,” unless you can say with 100% certainty that no amount of observation and no future technology will disprove it, then it is not proven. We just have a varying degrees of certainty that it is true.

who did what? wtf?

I have challenged many to show me these "failed scientific assertions" with a caveat. Show me anything disproven that was attained using the scientific method (whether experimentation, observation, or mathematics). I know things like the aether and abiogenesis were discarded, but those were assumptions from pre science days.

My real conclusion is that god would put his commands into an unadultered state, such as our minds with a conscience, as well as free will to defy our conscience. I believe any semi intelligent being would not leave their instructions in the hands of fallible men for millenia, including during christianity's darkest times of both corrupt church and government (the middle ages). That is a bit of my overall opinion but as i said, ive moved away from arguing against faith and towards simply defending science.

Im not saying your an immature child saying its magic, nor i absolutely dont know that it isnt your answer. It very well.might be. But it also very well.might not. Religion is simply a matter of faith. We wont be building divine detectors any time soon so we will not know if your answer is right or wrong probably ever. The only honest thing i can say about the big bang is "we dont know". Maybe it is a god, but im not gonna assume that blindly. And pascals wager isnt a 50/50, im assuming youve covered that argument with others.

The big bang is a theory in a scientific sense, meaning it definitely happened in some sense, although we openly dont know many details. If you see a balloon being inflated, its logical to assume it was at some point deflated, even if you never saw it. The echo of the big bang that we see uniformly acorss the universe and analysis of the universes baby picture proved the big bang. Experimentation is a major aspect of science, but it isnt the only one. Observation is also commonly used. We cant build a star in a lab, but by comparing the spectrum of the light via microscope we can determine what its made off, how old it is, how far it is, how bright it is, how long it has, and much more. These are facts attained from observation and they are indisputed.

Re: science
Science is not the end of all knowledge, it is the most supreme method of acquiring knowledge objectively. And i didnt say science is about unproven hypothesis, but *undisproven* hypothesis. Meaning that no matter how many tries it takes amongst the entire international peer review community, noone was able to disprove the hypothesis.

I can logically prove that the earth is stationary. I place a round object on a flat surface and it doesnt move. Stationary earth proven! This should show you that proving something is FAR easier then having something that cannot be disproven. Because with a different experiment, a stationary earth can be very much disproven.

Re: God
You have gone straight to the conclusion that the biblical account is just a “simplified narrative…dumbing things down for immature children.”
Have you actually taken the time to look into the arguments of scholarly creationists? Can you name any scholarly literature you have read arguing from the creationist perspective that you haven’t immediately dismissed as childish? If you think that the arguments from this perspective are simply, “Well, we can’t explain that so it must have been God via magic,” that shows a serious misrepresentation of people with different views than you.

Your explanation for the beginning of the universe in comment #24 was this:

“The big bang is the beginning of everything we know of, but any legitimate source will tell you we have zero clue what was before, during, and for a few fractions of a second just after the big bang…Me, i believe the universe always came and went, in an infinite regression. I know, infinite regression is not a satisfying answer…”

To summarize your explanation: the best guess right now is the Big Bang theory, which is the current contender in a long line of failed theories that science has given us. “We have zero clue what was before, during and for a few fractions of a second just after,” with your best guess being the unsatisfactory answer of infinite regression. But, you know for sure that it isn’t my thing because I’m just an immature child who has to resort to saying God did it via magic.

The problem with this argument is that it isn’t actually scientific. It is a philosophical argument based on mathematics and reason. The scientific method involves that which is observable, measurable, and repeatable.

Observable: Can we observe the events of the Big Bang Theory happening? Nope
Measurable: Can we quantify anything about the Big Bang Theory through experimentation? Nope
Repeatable: Can we repeat the Big Bang Theory? Only if you buy all the seasons on DVD, otherwise nope

Re: Science
It seems as though you believe that science is the end of all knowledge, and that it is superior to all other forms of knowledge/logic/etc. Would you say that is an accurate description of your belief? Or perhaps you could clarify what preeminence you give to science.

Also, the fact still remains that science is about a hypothesis that hasn’t been disproven, just as you stated. This is different than it being proven. You seem to downplay the fallibility of human knowledge. A survey of failed “scientific” assertions throughout history should give us a very humbling view about what we can be certain about.

Re: God
Absolutely. IF it was proven, it would be a revolution. that is a big IF however.
And certainly, god did via magic, is an explanation for everything, however an explanation that fits everything isn't very compelling. Ultimately, if god does exist, it is most logical that he created the universe as discovered by science, and this simplified narrative is him dumbing things down for immature children.

Furthermore, if science is wrong, then rather then a benevolent god, you have a trickster god (depending on the degree of unscientific magic used).
If it trully is a full literal reading with the young earth and all, then all those fossils and carbon dating of million year old life forms are lies. The tests and results are real, it must have been planted as false evidence by god... and a benevolent god would not play such deceptions. If anything that sounds like satan's work. So if it was the magical and incomprensible work of an all powerful, then you must reconcile genesis with some scientific findings (like the age of the universe) in order to avoid a trickster god.

Re: Science
I think you misunderstand what i meant by proving something or not disproving something.

I can make a hypothesis about an effect that is not real, but can happen under some circumstances, make an experiment that demonstrates that effect... but then someone else tries to replicate it under different conditions, and it fails.

You proved your hypothesis, your experiment showed the effect. but proving something happens to be a very low bar, as was shown above.
Instead, science requires one to make a hypothesis that cannot be disproven by yourself, and more importantly, your world wide peers. This is a MUCH higher bar, and thus better source for knowledge. Its not about uncertainty, its actually about certainty.

The knowledge being subject to change is of course obvious due to us being human and not perfect, however no scientific thoery established via the scientific method has ever been refuted. By modern standards, most of the observations of ancients are not science. Even today simply collecting records is not science unless its systemic cataloging for the purpose of science.

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nemiroff // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources

>Reason for Decision: Con successfully redefined the meaning of verse cited by pro, while also expanding it using the context that surrounded it. After that pro seemed to have gone on defense as con made successful arguments, backing them up when challenged.

>Reason for Mod Action:To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. None of this is properly done
************************************************************************

As far as a literal creation account, it would be hard to argue it from a purely scientific standpoint. If God was involved by working supernaturally to bring about the world and everything in it, He would be working outside the realm of natural laws as we understand them. That doesn't mean creationists just get a free pass at having to deal with any issues, but it means that if God could do the impossible by creating something out of nothing, He would also be capable of keeping plants alive for a day before He created the sun if He so chose. So He did leave a lot of details out, He didn't include a peer-reviewed article on classifications of species, but I do not believe that He misled us or gave us false information just to keep us happy.

Now I would say that if the Bible is true, it is actually a huge contribution to various fields of science. We would understand such things as these:

The origin of the universe
That all humans had a single common ancestor, Adam
Geological impacts of a global flood
Impact of sin on psychology
Distinction between material and immaterial side of humans
Unnatural phenomenon of disease and death (effects of the fall)

Admittedly, some of these would be difficult to test using the scientific method, but they could still be viewed as empirical data involving observations about the natural world. I'm not asking you to concede the validity of the Bible but I would like to ask a hypothetical question: IF we somehow found out that the Bible was true in its claims that I listed above, wouldn't that revolutionize our understanding of science?

Sorry for the delayed response. I had a particularly extensive argument due in a debate and I was busy with other stuff. I actually don't have a problem with bias in experiments, as long as you try to not let it affect your results. As far as science proving anything, I think it would be better to say that science helps us more accurately observe and explain the world around us. We have varying degrees of certainty about what we know from a scientific standpoint. However, that knowledge is always subject to change based on new evidence. If something is subject to change, it is not really proven. We just have a greater degree of certainty for that which we accept or reject based on our findings.

You're right, the creation account is written with the assumption of "this is how it happened." Genesis 1:1 is a simple statement and then chapters 1-2 provide more details on that. You're also right that the creation account doesn't come with a full analysis of chemical processes or mathematical equations to make it technical or "scientific" as we would use the word today. However, we should be careful not to force our contemporary ideas of science to say that ancient observations and explanations do not even count as science.

Re purpose
Im glad we agree that the bible had a very clear purpose, guidance on how to live. And it was not contested that the bible has no mention of very vital scientific information on disease and medicine, as well as other fields like physics. I would understand the reasoning behind, that is up to us to discover with our hands, not questioning god, but i am building up to the terribly untechnical 7 days of creation. Along with some chronological contradictions, can we at best say that god didnt give them the full story, as that was not why he came.

He told them he did it, he told them it was good, then he got them to shut up and listen. Why would he get into details of atoms and energy with people who couldn't even get along properly? He is many things, he is not a public library. His focus was on law and morality. The science is non existent. The history was probably not spoken by god, why would he dictate that? And as my purpose, it is that the bible should not be used as a source to contradict the findings of science.

Re: science

You are wrong that science cannot prove stuff. What you are referrencing are 2 notions. 1) science does not seek proof, because if you seek to prove something, you will. Coincidence can be seen anywhere, and poor experiment design can confirm anything. Instead, you make a hypothesis, and do your darndest to *disprove* it, with repeated failure by yourself and your peers being a success. And 2) some wiggle room to acknowledge our ignorance and refusing to declare closed case incase of new evidence.

Science has proven the existence of atoms, cells, particles, many many many new forms of life. As well as the mechanisms behind a significant portion of creation.

We do not know it had a beginning. The big bang is the beginning of everything we know of, but any legitamete source will tell you we have zero clue what was before, during, and for a few fractions of a second just after the big bang. The idea that it is a definitive nothing is a layman misconception. Also... its a 50/50. Personally i have my money on ever existence, just like you. Because before the universe there was god, and he simply always was. No? Me, i believe the universe always came and went, in an infinite regression. I know, infinite regression is not a satisfying answer, but neither is eternal existence, nor ex nihilo.

I will just mention that the Old Testament contains an extensive history of the nation of Israel, including ancestral records. Those portions do actually claim to be historical records and can be cross-referenced with extra-biblical sources. But since the historical aspect doesn't interest you, let's move on.

I think we at least have some common ground on the point of the Bible being primarily, in a general sense, a moral guide or a book on how to live. *digital high-five* let's move on.

Since science is where your interest is, let me make two comments that you may be more inclined to interact with. First, science cannot "prove" anything. The mere notion is an impossibility. So if your primary source of belief and truth is from science, then you are basing your belief and truth on a system that has no way of definitively proving anything, no absolutes, and is in a constant state of change. I would genuinely like to hear any thoughts that you have on this idea, or clarification on what informs your beliefs in addition to science.

Here is a point that may pique your interest and show a biblical contribution to science. Many people believed that the universe had no beginning until the early 1900's. However, the discovery that the universe was expanding was evidence that the universe did have a beginning. Was there anyone who hypothesized this theory? "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." While you may not find the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 very convincing, it is at least interesting that the Bible has made the bold claim that the universe has a beginning, even when "science" disagreed.

I think i may have been a bit unclear. When i said it was incomplete, i meant it wasnt even trying to be complete. The explanation for creation simply involved "i did it, it was good." Thats a sad excuse for an explanation. My point was that even high school textbooks have more information on the science then the bible, and even they are incomplete and dumbed down significantly. This is not meant to be a jab at the bible as explaining scientific principles was not its purpose. So rather then not being complete knowledge, i will change that to the bible provides zero scientific knowledge. Many books, including fiction and historical.documentaries do not contradict science, while at the same time.explaining exactly zero science. Those 2 positions are not exclusive.

I accept both versions of "how to live". Both direct dos and donts, and plea for redemptions due to sin by default are both instructing you to take action rather then just miscellanious knowledge that can be used as a tool.

The book about the battle of Gettysburg is likely comprehensive of the battle of gettysburg to its desired level of detail. The bible is an inadequate history of even jesus and christians as we are.missing most of his formative years. To be honest, i dont care about the history angle. I believe ive said it before (perhaps not here) i have no desire to debate religion unless it is to defend science. I will say tho that mentioning real events and corresponding to history doesnt make it a history text. Not to say (or deny) the bible is fiction, many works of fiction mention real dates, events and people. They are still fiction. The titanic for example, or most war movies.

No problem.

No worries. I know there are far more important things in life than posting debate arguments online so sorry if I seemed like I was getting on your case! You definitely made me have to think through my position and I hope you consider looking at any of those resources I recommended. Thanks for the debate!

That was a good debate. I will try better next time.

I can also address the science and history issue, but I just need some clarification. You seem to be implying that the Bible should not be viewed as historical if it does not contain a comprehensive record of the history of ancient Rome for instance. If so, I think that is an unfair standard that would not be placed on any other book. For example, a book about the Battle of Gettysburg would not have to have a comprehensive history of American politics, slavery, and a list of all Civil War battles. You would only expect it to list pertinent people and events, and that those events accurately correspond with that time period.

In the same way, the Bible is in agreement with historical records. Many people, places, and events accurately correspond with the historical record of those time periods. I can definitely make a case for its agreement with history and science, but you would be correct if you said that the Bible is not intended to deal with those topics comprehensively. So, before I address the issue of history and science, let me ask this. Does the Bible have to give a comprehensive detailing of science and history to be taken seriously? If so, how much science and history must be explained before it can be taken seriously?

If you are saying that you don't think the Bible is God giving complete knowledge to the world, I would agree with you. Only God has complete knowledge. If we could obtain complete knowledge, then we would also be omniscient as God is. However, just because we do not have complete knowledge of something does not mean we cannot understand it. I don't have a complete knowledge of an internal combustion engine, but that doesn't mean I can't have any understanding of what a car is or how it works.

I would also agree that the Bible was not intended to reveal the secrets of creation. We can see this in Job 38-41 where God gives a scathing rebuke to Job to show that God has an infinite knowledge of the world He created, and Job knows next to nothing compared to Him. Again, God knows all, we know some.

I think I could also agree with you in a general sense that the Bible could be summed up as a book about how to live properly and why, but I think we would mean two different things. The way you describe it would actually be a better fit for the Mosaic Law than the entire Bible. God gave Israel the law to show them how to live. Much of it was a form of "do this" or "don't do that." But giving us a perfect moral standard doesn't fix the problem. The problem is that every one of us has broken the Law and will be punished on Judgment Day. So if you stop at just being a list of "do this" and "don't do that," then we'd all be justly condemned to hell. It has to go one step further.

So to sum up, I would agree that it is a moral guide that actually shows us our absolute inability to live up to God's standard, and points us to our utter need to trust in Jesus to pay our fine so that we can escape hell.

I think we are talking about different layers. While you are saying the books were on different subjects (sins and redemption, praise of god, how to interact with your neighbors), i am saying they are all of the same genre, how to live properly, and why. I think this is indisuptable.

But as far as science and history, you have not contested my claims of its lack of focus. There is almost no science, and sporadic incomplete history.

With that i would like to add to this by asking: when did god declare that he was giving people the entire truth of the world? It seems to me he focused mostly on his law and often mentions a *message*, not complete knowledge. He wanted to instruct them on proper conduct, not the secrets of his creation. Like a 5 year old asking his 12th why, God probably gave them the perfect answer to promptly shut them up and make them focus.

-They all provide a firsthand account of His life, death, and resurrection. Why? For the specific purpose of conveying the message of “the gospel” to mankind:

“but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:31)

-The Bible is intended to draw a response from the hearer:

“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:17)

First and foremost, the Bible is God revealing to us our problem (“sin”), and pointing us to our solution (repent and believe in Jesus, or “faith”). After a person does that, it does serve as a sort of moral guide, but more so than just a book of rules. It has little value as a moral guide to those who are “unsaved” because our natural tendency as humans is toward evil (lying, cheating, stealing, envy, etc.), so we wouldn’t want to follow it anyway. Therefore, I don’t think we can simply classify it as a moral guide, at least according to its own claims. Therefore, I don’t think it fits into an either/or categorization like that.

You’re right. I see in trying to be somewhat brief, I did not clearly answer the question. It is also hard to summarize the purpose of the Bible in a short time because it actually has many, even strictly according to its own claims. I think we need to start by making a distinction between “the Bible” and the “books” in the Bible. The Bible as a whole is simply a collection of ancient documents. Some even refer to it as a library rather than a book. The “books” of the Bible are the individual documents written over the course of about 1,500 years by about 40 different authors. Each book has an individual purpose for being written. For example, Psalms was the written record of the songs of Israel. However, each book and its individual purpose also points to the main purpose of the Bible as a whole. In a general sense, it is God’s revelation to humans about who He is and who we are. It reveals a personal God who can be known because He chooses to reveal Himself to us.

With that distinction, let’s just focus on the Jesus narrative to define a specific purpose. This narrative is most clearly found in the four gospel accounts, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They each give a unique perspective on the life of Christ. In Luke 1:1-4, Luke clearly states he is carefully recording eyewitness accounts. A later letter by John also states he proclaims an eyewitness testimony about Jesus (1 John 1:1-2).

The narrarive of the bible that you describe doesnt seem to answer the question of the purpose of the bible. Or in other words, what is the purpose of the jesus narrative you described. It certainly does give an answer to those question but i doubt those questions were answered just to satisfy our curiosity. It was meant to change behavior and to guide people in the way they act and live is my opinion. Thus i am certain god intended the bible to first and foremost (and possibly nothing more than) be a moral guide.

Stating that it is in agreement with science and history does not mean it is an adequate description of either. Assuming it doesnt contradict science (although creating the earth before the stars is quite the contradiction), it certainly doesnt describe any physics, chemistry, or biology. There is no mention of atoms, bonding, cells, germs (which would have been very helpful back in thise days). No explanation of how to create medicine or predicting storms. No mention of the amazing potential of electricity.

Similarly when it comes to history, it occasionally names a ruler or 2, but only state his actions when they intersect with jesus or his followers. You dont know when the ruler came to power, when he left, any important dates not directly related to jesus. No actions, policies or battles that happened between other nations. Rome has a rich history with many power struggles, battles, controversies. However rome is only mentioned when they captured and killed jesus, and when they converted to christianity. There is much more to the story of rome, just as there was much more to the story of the nations around judah besides that one time David killed their goliath. Its pretty bare bones history from a very limited perspective.

If the bible was meant to be a history/science book, it is a terrible history/science book. But thats ok if that was never its intended purpose. The best science books are terrible moral guides.

It certainly won't shut off debate. I enjoy a good logical discussion. I just find it helpful to have a general idea of the viewpoint people are arguing from to give a more meaningful answer.

The Bible was not intended to be either of those. I would argue that the Bible is in agreement with history, archaeology, and even science (outside of the recorded supernatural events, which by definition defy natural laws as we understand them). I would also argue that it contains a better standard for interpersonal relationships than any other religion/worldview/etc.

However, the Bible has one central message. It all points to the person, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Now don't lose me here because this is usually where people tune out, but I'll try to briefly sum up the main purpose that the entire Bible points to:
Jesus, the Son of God, became a man and died on a cross to pay the penalty we deserve for all the evil things that we do. He was resurrected from the dead and will judge all mankind. Those who recognize they have committed evil acts against God, ask for forgiveness and mercy, and trust that it is only Jesus of the Bible who can save them will spend eternity in heaven. All others will spend eternity in hell. At least, that's what it says.

To put it another way, it gives answers to those four nagging questions:
Where did we come from? --> We were created by God somewhere between 6,000 and 4.6 billion years ago, depending on who you ask

Why are we here? --> We were created to worship and glorify God

What is wrong with the world? --> Through Adam's evil committed against God, humanity "fell" and everyone became inclined toward evil and is under the wrath of God

Where are we going? --> Heaven or hell on judgment day

Let me know if you were trying to go in a different direction with that question, but I think that is the best answer for the purpose of the Bible.

I hope it wont shut off debate if i say i am an atheist. However when discussing god i tend to assume god, as debating his existence is friutless not only due to stubbernness, but the impossibility of definitive proof.

I see no logical contradiction to a creator a priori, i simply find it unlikely posteori. However it is not impossible, and worth considering.

I agree any god is likely unknowable by humans, but we do presume to know some things about the biblical god. His omni characterics, particularly omnibenevolence.

With that in mind i will ask you a question. Was the bible intended to be a comprehensive testament of science and history? Or was it primarily a guide on how to live and how to treat one another, along with a handful of lines to describe creation.

Sorry, turned into 2 questions.

I try not to debate religion itself too much, but what i do believe in are the findings of science. If there is a god, he created and moves this world via the processes discovered by science.

Thank you for commenting. I would be interested to know if you have a religious background that informs your explanation to maybe get a better idea of your thought.

If that is the case, what defines a human? At what point between apes and modern man did Adam receive a soul? This is of vital importance because humans have a higher intrinsic value than animals. If we cannot see someone's soul, we have to be able to distinguish between them. This is easy to do now, but what happens when humans evolve into something else? At what point will they no longer be considered human and stop receiving souls?

A soul has nothing to do with evolution. When a human is born, god actively (or via some automated process) selects a soul to enter it. When a different animal is born, he doesn't.

God planned and kicked off the process of evolution (likely all the way back with the establishment of physics) with the intent to wait for man to inevitably evolve (as planned), to begin putting souls onto the earth. Its not like time has meaning for him.

You might as well since Dynasty seems to be afk

I can totally explain the soul conundrum if its ok. Not sure with the semi ongoing debate and all.

Good to see two new members debating.

Yes

Ok.

You can edit your debate and add that thing you missed.

Oh l, didn't realise 3 was incomplete. 3 actually says "Give your opponent evidence, And not feelings."

Why are you not allowing logical fallacies in the debate? This is rather counter-intuitive to debates.

Also, 3. seems to be incomplete.