Christianity has more evidence than Islam

2. As for evolution, the dominant – if not consensus – viewpoint among scholars is that it is in direct contradiction of the primary texts affirming an original and direct creation for Adam who was the first human being. These texts, such as Qur’an 38:71-76, indicate that Adam did not arise from a prior species. This was not because God could not have created humans through an evolutionary process but because He willed not to do so and informed us of this through revelation.
The Qur’an, however, does not state the same regarding non-human species. Consequently, some scholars have differentiated between human evolution and non-human evolution stating that the primary texts only affirm an original creation for humans, namely Adam, not non-humans. Therefore, the theory of evolution in relation to the latter poses no intrinsic problem whether at the level of macro-evolution or micro-evolution.

Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.

Most people think of science and religion as polar opposites. A person can be religious, or they can believe science. Someone can follow Christ or believe Darwin. There is no in between. Despite this general attitude, many people do believe in both the Bible and modern scientific findings. Is this possible or are such people picking and choosing from each side? Can a person believe in both science and Genesis without ludicrously complex justifications or does holding to both faith and science require mental gymnastics that would stun even an Olympian? 
The answer depends on how a person defines “mental gymnastics” as well as how literally a person takes the Genesis creation account. If a person takes Genesis completely literally, then science is not compatible. Science refutes that the world was formed in six days. Genesis states that explicitly. If one is willing to view each with a grain of salt, however, one could fit science and Genesis together rather easily for the most part. 

The Quran’s depictions of the great Flood of Noah’s day contain oddities that cause one who is familiar with the Bible to question the Quran’s reliability. For example, in Surah 11:36-40 the Quran describes Noah’s conflict with his contemporaries and, in the process, makes a puzzling remark pertaining to the condition of the Flood waters:

Two geologists at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory have offered a new theory of what happened next. William Ryan and Walter Pitman, in Noah's Flood (Simon & Schuster), postulate that as time went on, the world warmed, the glaciers retreated and meltwater from the European glaciers began to flow north into the North Sea, depriving the Black Sea of its main source of replenishment. The level of the Black Sea began to drop, and most of the area around its northern boundary — the area adjacent to present-day Crimea and the Sea of Azov — became dry land. At this point, the level of the Black Sea was several hundred feet below that of the Mediterranean, and the two were separated by the barrier of the Bosporus, then dry land. This situation, with the world ocean rising while the Black Sea was falling, could not last forever. Eventually, like a bathtub overflowing, the Mediterranean had to pour through into the Black Sea basin.

The idea that ocean basins can flood catastrophically during periods of rising sea levels is nothing new in geology. Five million years ago, long before there were any humans around, just such an event occurred. The level of the Atlantic Ocean had dropped, or some tectonic event had occurred, with the result that water could no longer get through, and the Mediterranean gradually shrank down to a desert spotted with a few salty bits of ocean. Subsequently, when either the Atlantic rose again or another geological change took place, ocean water began pouring back into the former sea. The basin filled, and the present-day Mediterranean was created.

This claim is that in ancient Hebrew (Paleo-Hebrew) there is an idiographic or pictographic meaning assigned to each letter of the alphabet. These are symbols that depict an idea and because of this, the idea of Jesus as Creator and Savior can be seen in the words themselves. Now, I am no Hebraist so I did some research online from various sources to see if the claim about the first two words in the Bible really did hold up and as far as I can tell (and to my surprise), the claim is true (but with a very important caveat; the process used to come to this conclusion is not consistent and is very vague). Since it’s not a perfect science where hermetically you could apply the same rules to all Biblical texts, this idea at best might be said to be used as a shadow of Christ (in my opinion) but as mentioned in the warning above, this is too abstract a process to be good evidence for that.
A few things to keep in mind; Hebrew reads from right to left in case anyone looks this up themselves (which I encourage everyone to do with all claims like these) so don’t let this confuse you. Also, when translated from the Hebrew to English the first verse in Genesis reads: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” While this is accurate for the English sentence structure, the proper reading of the verse in the original Hebrew would be “In the beginning created God the heavens and the earth.” So here is a breakdown of the first two words in Genesis;
The 1st word Barasheet translated as “In the beginning”
The letters in order are: Beyt Resh Aleph Shin Yud Tav
Beyt + Resh together form the word Bar meaning “Son of” (in Aramaic, in Hebrew it is Ben)
Aleph = Ox head meaning Power, Authority, Strength; said to be used by the Hebrews to represent “God”
Shin = Two front teeth meaning Sharp, Press, Eat… (the function of the teeth when chewing; consume/destroy)
Yud = Arm meaning work, make and deed; the functions of the hand
Tav = Crossed Sticks meaning Mark, Sign, Signal, MonumentSo the first word in the Bible, in the beginning, holds this idea (according to the claim);
The Son of God (will be) destroyed (by His own) work on a cross. Even from the beginning, the Son of God was to die on a cross for us by His own hand to save us from our sins.

Arguably, the first person to have used the alleged Bible Code to decipher seemingly valid information was a thirteenth-century rabbi, biblical commentator, and philosopher named Bachya Ben Asher. Using ELS methods—in this instance, he would highlight four letters before skipping the next 42 and then highlighting four more, and so on—Rabbi Bachya made some remarkable revelations about the moon.
Along with information about how the moon was formed and settled into its rotation, the most fascinating detail was his offering that the Bible Code had revealed to him that the exact length of the cycle of the moon was 29.53 days. While this information meant little to many people at the time, when this was confirmed by modern science in 1996, it made many look at the possibility that the Bible Code could be more accurate than many people wished to believe.
While many people found this confirmation mind-blowing, it was an event that happened several years earlier that perhaps first brought the Bible Code to the attention of the wider world population. And that is the subject of the next point on our list.[1]

• Jesus’s historical existence is generally accepted among scholars. 
  
• The evidence for the reality of Jesus Christ includes writings by historians, artifacts and eyewitness accounts.
  

Sulkowski found two things astounding about this sample. First, the Communion wafer, which contains only flour and water, did not decompose after 18 days of submersion in water. Second, the bread and cardiac muscle tissues were intricately interwoven in a way that would be impossible to accomplish through human manipulation.

Transmission electron microscopy can be used to visualize incredibly small details, including viral particles and atoms. After using this exquisitely sensitive tool, Sobaniec-Łotowska agreed with Sulkowski’s assessment of the interwoven fibers. This integration could not have been achieved by any human craft. She also affirmed that the cardiac tissue should have decomposed in water, yet it remained intact without any signs of degradation.

In my opening round I have shown the authenticity of the Islamic claim; That the source of the message of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is authentic. & the truth of Islamic claim; that ‘There is no god but Allah’, & that ’Muhammed is His Messenger’.

This alone is sufficient to establish that Islam has more evidence than Christianity, for Pro has yet to prove the claim of Christianity beyond ad hoc evidence & bare assertions

First, there is no unbroken chain of transmission tracing back to eye witnesses to beloved Jesus (pbuh) himself. 

The current 4 Gospels are merely an enforced consensus which happened 4 centuries later

It is impossible to verify the authenticity of these texts. 

 Further, the differences between these different codexes are not just words & passages, but often entire books.

we have factually countless instances in which the text was altered. Most notably the Trinity “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”,  aka the Comma Johanneum was added later to the text. This is significant, for it is the sole passage in the NT which directly mentions the Trinity as a scriptural doctrine, which is of utmost relevancy to our debate here. This is also the case for the Pericope Adulterae: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”. This story does not figure in the earliest manuscripts.

Fourth, regardless of all this, the content of the NT including the Four Gospels itself defies credibility. When compared side by side, they all tell different stories about Jesus (pbuh) as if about different beings. Even regarding the most important events such as the Baptism, the Resurrection & the Crucifixion, in almost all aspects; different places, different times of the day, different number of days, different times of the year, different people involved, different things said…etc. 

In the Islamic Tradition, 5 mediums of data transfer of textual historical records are recognized, in order of credibility:

i. Entrustment – Munawala: record written by the author himself & transferred to another. 

Ii. Transcription – Mukataba: record copied from the original either by the author or by his authorization.

Iii. Publication – I’lam: record publicly authorized by the author.

iv. Will – Wisaya: record left in a will by the author after their death.

v. Finding – Wijada: found record. This is the case for all NT manuscripts.

Contrastingly, the Quran text (Uthmanic Codex) is Quranic inscriptions dictated by the Prophet (pbuh) compiled into the Bakri Codex by entrustment, & later into the Uthmanic Codex by facsimile transcription, all while satisfying the Sihha (sound transmission) & Tawatur (through consensus) conditions.

In effect, God is man is a self-contradiction, for man or body is a contingent being, whereas God in a non-contingent necessary being. This is akin to saying God is not God, which violates non-contradiction. Absurd! Similarly, the Trinity, to be God but also contingent on another is equally absurd!

Further, there is no logical or natural or any whatsoever connection between resurrection & godhood! Ironically, all human souls will resurrect in the day of judgment anyways according to this same doctrine Pro is postulating.

As we have established in the previous round that beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is a true messenger of God.

unitarian Christians - thus deemed heretics (eg. Nasoreans & Nestorians) were persecuted or expelled. It is among these Christians that we find this expectancy of the advent of the Prophet.

Given the aforementioned accounts regarding this ‘Prophet’ anticipation among the Biblical peoples (Jews & Christians), th question arises over basis for such strong expectations.

Muslims have made the claim for a long time that the coming of Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible namely the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament), and the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). Why do Muslims make this claim?

 The claim rests on the assertion in the Qur’an that Muhammad’s coming is described in the Scriptures of the ahl al-kitab, i.e., the People of the Book, a title given to Jews and Christians. It states, “Those who followed the Apostle the unlettered Prophet [Muhammad], whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) in the Law and the Gospel” (Qur’an 7:157). The Law and the Gospel refer of course to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures respectively. An inconsistency emerges at this point when the Bible is brought into the discussion by Islam. Many Muslims charge that the Bible is:

1)  Corrupted and unreliable.

2)  Some parts of it are true.

3)  Some parts of it are false.

If (1) is true, then the argument that Muhammad is predicted in the Bible is moot and irrelevant because the Bible cannot be trusted. Both (2) and (3) essentially amount to saying the same thing and most Muslims opt for either (2) or (3). The reason for doing so however is not based on any consistent criterion but rather an ad hoc approach, it is contrived from the beginning. How do Muslims argue what parts of the Bible are true and reliable and which ones are not? They do so by using the Qur’an as their reference guide. When the Bible agrees with the Qur’an, it is right, when it does not, it is flat out in error. This is the exact same methodology that cults use in judging the Bible, if it does not conform with their “new” revelation or scripture, it is in error. The same methodology is employed by Islam in its treatment of the Bible.

 the position of the Islamic tradition (Sunni) is that deductive knowledge is an object of pure reason, that inductive knowledge is an object of experience, & that of reprobative knowledge is an object of faithful transmission of information. Revelation falls under the latter, therefore matters of real world experience do not & should not conflict with Revelation.

That said, Evolution theory itself was invented by Muslims. 

Not only has Pro not objected to any of my stated miracles & prophecies, which constitutes a concession

As stated in my opening round, these conditions are required to identify miracles

All you have proven is that the Qur'an probably comes from Muhammad (although he may have had help making it up) and that the Qur'an is likely to have not been altered. This isn't sufficient to prove that Islam is true.

Con is dropping and in doing so conceding every single argument I made in round one by responding to them with nothing but a brief word salad. You have not demonstrated how these are "ad hoc" or "bare assertions".

It doesn't matter that Christian scripture's authenticity can be called into question

unless it is proven to actually contradict itself or known reality in light of the fact that if the following statements are true then Islam has 0 evidence by virtue of the fact that it is rendered impossible by them and Christianity does have evidence.

1: Humans evolved, Islamic scripture does not leave room for the interpretation that humans evolved but Christianity does.

2: The Creation story in genesis mirrors how our planet actually formed, the bible contains a code that describes the formation of the moon and the lunar cycle, Islam doesn't have similar "scientific miracles" as it claims (there is even a verse in the Qur'an that semen comes from the ribs and spinal fluid, which is scientifically inaccurate.)

3: Qur'an depiction of Noah's flood isn't possible as geology contradicts it, Bible depiction of flood is possible because it could have been a local flood in mesopotamia.

4: The very first sentence in the Bible written centuries before the new testament predicts Jesus Christ dying for our sins.

5: The Shroud of Turin hasn't been proven to be a hoax, Islam doesn't have any solid evidence which rivals the shroud.

6: Christianity has more impressive and more numerous miracles.

7: Even if Islam has miracles, they could be from demons and not God.

8: The Qur'an confuses the virgin Mary with Miriam, Moses and Aaron's sister.

9: Jesus was supposed to be a prophet of Allah, how embarrassing is it that right after his death he ended up being worshipped and it became the world's largest religion. This would be Allah's biggest failure if Islam was true, the very existence of Christianity disproves Islam. You mean to tell me that all of Jesus's apostles and the church fathers who were directly taught by the apostles ALL got it wrong and thought Jesus was God even though his entire message was to worship only Allah? There is a clear record of the early church believing Jesus was God, there is nothing in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd century that indicates that the apostles or church fathers were Muslim and not Christian.

10: The Qur'an says you can verify it by looking at previous scripture and says that God's word can't be altered. Great, so the Qur'an admits that Christianity is true.

There is actually, it's called apostollic succession. Every true bishop was ordained by bishops who were ordained by bishops going all the way back to the bishops ordained by the apostles who were ordained by Jesus. To this day there is an unbroken line of people connected to Jesus through the apostles.

The gospel itself may not be direct evidence for Christianity, but the Qur'an is direct evidence against Islam. So given both that and the greater amount of evidence for Christianity in general, it holds that Christianity has more evidence than Islam.

I would like to see the basis for this. I would recommend voters don't take con's word for it.

This is a reddit atheist armchair philosopher tier argument. There are explanations for all of these supposed contradictions, would you like to go through them one by one?

So you think God isn't all powerful? You think God can't manifest himself in human form? Thanks for contradicting your own religion that says God is all powerful.