Instigator / Pro
7
1619
rating
43
debates
67.44%
won
Topic

Genesis creation & Darwin’s evolution theory co-cooperate

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
2
0
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
0

With 1 vote and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...

fauxlaw
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Science
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
1
1544
rating
23
debates
56.52%
won
Description
~ 1,175 / 5,000

I contend that the Genesis creation text co-cooperates with Darwin’s evolution theory, as documented in On the Origin of Species, of natural selection. That is, the argument is not whether creation or evolution combat for the truth, as if two separate sides of a coin, but that both co-cooperate in the truth that creation and evolution both explain “…God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and fowl of the air, …and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” And “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers…” as if two features on the same side of one coin.

Definitions:
Creation: The earth and heaven are created by gods [plural, as designated by Genesis 1: 26], intelligent and purposeful, perfect beings. All plants and animals, as then developed in their kind, were created, but creation continues in the guise of evolution.

Evolution: the ongoing process of creation wherein, by natural selection [natural and random genetic varietal expression], both continuing varieties of life forms, and development of new life forms, is a constant, continuing process.

Round 1
Pro
Pro position
 
I contend that the Genesis creation text co-cooperates with Darwin’s evolution theory, as documented in the Holy Bible,and On the Origin of Species,by natural selection. That is, the argument is not whether creation or evolution combat for the truth, as if two separate sides of a coin, but that both co-cooperate in the truth that creation and evolution both explain “…God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and fowl of the air, …and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”[i] And “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers…”[ii] as if two features on the same side of one coin.
 
Definitions:
Creation: The earth and heaven are created by gods [plural, as designated by Genesis 1: 26], intelligent and purposeful, perfect beings. All plants and animals, as then developed in their kind, were created, but creation continues in the guise of evolution. Creation is an organization of random matter and energy, or matter and energy in chaos, not formulation of matter and energy out of nothing. 
 
Evolution: the ongoing process of creation wherein, by natural selection [natural and random genetic varietal expression], both continuing varieties of life forms, and development of new life forms, is a constant, continuing process. 
 
Creation / Evolution co-cooperate round 1
 
I will argue, first, that “God” is a title of a man, a holy man, and not His name; similar to “person” is a title of an animal, not its name, and whose specific name might be “Adam,” and “Eve.” What is God’s name? First, pick a culture that reveres “God.” What do they say, by variable cultures, His name is? Yes, it varies, just like creation and evolution. Fitting, isn’t it? 
 
Genesis 1 describes a creation, or organization of materials in six “days,” [I prefer the closer understanding of the Hebrew יום [yom], as not a 24-hour period, but as a “period” of undefined length.[iii] This understanding corresponds to the undefined period in evolution described by Darwin, from one genetic expression to another; it is not defined by specific numbers of generations, or even necessarily in one generation, or one “day.”
 
Further, we witness as evidence of Darwin’s evolution theory that species evolve within species by expressions of differing appearance, such as different scale, and feather, and fur, and skin colors and materials expressed in variant, successive generations; the “…grandeur of this view of life,”as eloquently expressed by Darwin.[iv]We have also observed species to differing species [“speciation”]; evolution over generations, such as flower to differing flower speciation.[v]
 
Witness this: In Genesis, Moses describes the creation of a man, and a woman; two distinct individual examples of Homo sapiens, “male” and “female.” “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”[vi] It is described as a surgical technique, but much of the Bible is allegory, or metaphor, and it may have been a simple expression of inter-species evolution on an accelerated schedule. Or, perhaps not accelerated at all. That singular act of the creation of male and female man, let alone other species, may have occupied a hundred, a thousand, a million years; a “yom.”  Using a bone? Why not? After all, bone marrow is a good source of stem cells, which exist as the building blocks, specialized, and ubiquitous, of tissue.[vii] And, as Adam said of the new female form of the species, Homo sapiens,“This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”[viii] It might as well have been read as a formula by the gods out of Scientific American,as per the last reference.
 
The point is, we now have one man and one woman, and from them spring the wide variety of men and woman we witness today, covering the earth on all continents, just as other creatures, animal and plant. Do we all look alike? Generally, yes. Specifically, no. We express a variety of skin colors, and hair colors, and feature varieties, just like we, and Darwin, observe in the speciation of animals and plants. All genotypes expressed originally as potential physical expressions in two forms, man and woman, expressed ultimately by a continuation of creation by evolution of varietal, random, natural, genetic selection. A “…grandeur of life,”indeed.
 
Witness this: In Darwin’s On the Origin of Species [editions 2 – 6],his concluding paragraph states: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into one;and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”[ix]
 
And this: “And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me [There is grandeur in this view of life?], for they are mine. And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works [whilst this planet has gone cycling on?], neither to my words. For behold, this is my work and my glory [from so simple a beginning to most beautiful and most wonderful have been?]– to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” [and are being, evolved, from mortal to immortal?][x]
 
You will note that this last reference, #10, is not out of the Holy Bible, and not, therefore, from Genesis, but is a separate body of holy writ. The author is still Moses, and is descriptive of the same creation revealed to him as recorded in Genesis, but is a bit more enlightening. 
 
Now, let’s look at both sources, Genesis, and Darwin, blended, or, as the debate title suggests, co-cooperate.
 
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers [by creation, and by evolutionary powers?], having been originally breathed [by the Creator – as stipulated by editions 2 – 6, over 12 years of publications] into a few forms, or into one [or two forms of one species];and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved [or, by extension, first created, and then evolved?].”[xi]
 
What we witness is a continuation of creation by evolutionary change, just as the Genesis charge was made, to “… be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”[xii] Thus, as God, Holy Writ, Scientific American, and Darwin have stated, the process continues with“this grandeur in this view of life,”and “with no end to [God’s] work.”


References:

Holy Bible, Genesis, 1: 26
Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 1st– 6theditions, 1859.
[iv]Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 1st– 6theditions, 1859.
Holy Bible, Genesis, 2: 22
Holy Bible, Genesis 2: 23
[ix]Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 1st– 6theditions, 1860 - 1872
[x]The Pearl of Great Price, Moses, 1: 37 - 39
Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 2nd– 6theditions, 1860 - 1872.
[xii]Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 28



Con
fauxlaw wrote...
God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and fowl of the air, …and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”[i] And “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers…”[ii] as if two features on the same side of one coin.
The first problem with my opponents contention arises in almost his first sentence, when he contaminates Scientific knowledge with Mesopotamian mythology and uses the words "God said".

Now i want to use a comparable, and compare what "God said", with what Darwinism said, in the quote below.

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution
And there is no mention of God. Only Charles Darwin, below.

developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin 
There also is no mention in the quote below of Charles Darwin saying that man was made in the image of God.

 all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce

Now even if we just look below at a standard evolution model, we clearly see that there is a complete lack of Mesopotamian mythology. Complete with Scientific thesises that the Holy Bible does not explain, beyond what "God said"..


Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutationgenetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation. Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules

Even the Scientific study of Quantum Mechanics, which deals with the properties of nature, cannot solve the problems of creation, and how solid material objects came in to existence, as i will show in links below.

Quantum Mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics describing the properties of nature

And the truest words ever spoken by any Scientist, below.

 Richard Feynman once said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

And just in case it is deemed objectionable that the Holy Bible is a mish-mash of earlier Mesopotamian myths, i will provide citations below, to show that the Holy Bible being a mish-mash of Mesopotamian myths, is indeed the contemporary understanding of Historians, as well as the only reasonable conclusion for any unreligious person to draw.

 Yahweh, creates Adam, the first man, from dust and places him in the Garden of Eden, where he is given dominion over the animals. Eve, the first woman, is created from Adam and as his companion.

It must be noted that my source was kind on this occasion, and did not go in to detail about talking serpents, nor eve being created from Adams rib. But talking serpents is indeed a good example of Mesopotamian mythology, and the Historians in my source below, are able to draw same conclusion.

Borrowing themes from Mesopotamian mythology, but adapting them to the Israelite people's belief in one God,
Now, on to my opponents first real argument 

fauxlaw wrote...
I will argue, first, that “God” is a title of a man, a holy man, and not His name; similar to “person” is a title of an animal, not its name, and whose specific name might be “Adam,” and “Eve.”
Now from above me see that my opponent is perhaps trying to imply that "God" was the name of a Scientist, in which case the Scientist would have been named, Elohim, as my source below reveals.

In the Hebrew Bible, the word elohim sometimes refers to a single deity, particularly (but not always) the Jewish God

And my opponent is correct. As my source reveals below. Elohim was also a name assumed by humans, that claimed to be the children of the deity Elohim.

The word is identical to the usual plural form of the word el, which means gods or magistrates, and it is cognate to the word 'l-h-m which is found in Ugaritic, where it is used as the pantheon for Canaanite gods, the children of El, 
However there is absolutely no doubting whatsoever regarding what form of Elohim is being spoken about in the Holy Bible, during the Genesis creation narrative, and that it is the creator. Just look below and see if you truelly believe in all honesty that the Elohim that is being discussed here, is supposed to be simply considered a shem.

3 And God said: 'Let there be light.
Also it needs to be added, that your theory of the creator being a group of individuals, or aliens, is not consistant with the Holy Bible which would consider your claims blasphemous. Your claims may be more consistant with some other Pagan book of that time, or may not be, but certainly not consistant with the Holy Bible, which as shown below, affirms monotheism and denies polytheism.

Genesis affirms monotheism and denies polytheism

With Monotheism (below) being a belief in one God

Monotheism is the belief in one god.

And Polytheism (below) a belief in multiple deities

is the worship of or belief in multiple deities
And just in case there are any objections that the Holy Bible has Elohim expressly outlawing a belief in any other deities, then i can categorically prove below that it is written in the ten commandments

The commandments include instructions to have no other gods before him
Now on to my opponents next claim

fauxlaw wrote...
Genesis 1 describes a creation, or organization of materials in six “days,” [I prefer the closer understanding of the Hebrew יום [yom], as not a 24-hour period, but as a “period” of undefined length.
I will actually support my opponents research methods here. 

Ultimately, due to the Jewish legend about the 72 Hebrew scholars that Christians often use to validate their interpretations of the Holy Bible, i am of the suspicion that the original Hebrew texts did not always say what the Hebrew scholars translated in to the Septuagint. And i am also of the suspicion, given the nature of "liberation acts" and Hellenisation during the Hellenstic empire, that the classic antiquians might have been a little more barbarous and less sophisticated in their methods than the great Greek philosophers would like to admit. I suspect that a good few Hebrew libraries were probably looted. And those 72 Hebrew scholars were probably more hostages, that were "made" to translate their texts, more than politely requested, and they came out with a highly sophisticated tactic of each and every one of them corroborating each others lie, and with the pen being mightier than the sword, they had the Greeks that had just became the latest empire to assume ownership of the vassal states of the Holy lands,write in to their Holy law book, and greatest Greek marvel of all time, that the holy land belongs to the Jews, according to the word of Elohim. And this blew up in the faces of the Greeks, for obvious reasons, as everyone that believes in their law book, must also believe they are not the rightful rulers of the Holy land.

King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher". God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.
But even if this legend is incorrect, and my thesis surrounding it is equally incorrect, then it is just yet more proof of the historical innacuracies and unreliability of everything surrounding the Holy Bible.

But i do agree that the bible, due to either misinterpretations, bad translations, or deliberate false-hoods, can be misread, and if not taken too literal, the bible "can" be used for Historical research

It can also be regarded as ancient history, "part of a broader spectrum of originally anonymous, history-like ancient Near Eastern narratives."
As well as Scientific analysis

Genesis 1–2 can be seen as ancient science: in the words of E.A. Speiser, "on the subject of creation biblical tradition aligned itself with the traditional tenets of Babylonian science."
But this is a long way off considering the Holy Bible as being a blueprint for evolution theory. In reality, it was an evolutionary work in progress, not quite as evolved as Darwinism.
Round 2
Pro
My opponent offered a few rebuttals to my first argument. I will address them before further argument:
 
God said:Con argues that “there is no mention of God.” I presume he means by the citation given, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DarwinismHowever, that very reference includes the statement, It is therefore considered the belief and acceptance of Darwin's and of his predecessors' work, in place of other theories, including divine design and extraterrestrial origins.”[bolding added for emphasis] I submit that phrase qualifies as “mention of God,” even though the intent is to distinguish and diminish a design by purposeful creation opposed to a random design of evolution. By definition, Genesis is as germane to the debate as Darwin’s Origin…and both more germane than a third party. Variations of “God said” exist in multiple examples in Genesis, alone, and it is irrelevant that a third party says otherwise.
 
In the image of God:Further, my opponent declares that a quote from his source [same as above], and not, take note, from Darwin, himself, says there is no mention of man being made in the image of God. First, there is a quote direct from Darwin acknowledging the action of God, which I quoted in my first round: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into one…; and are being, evolved.”[i]
 
Darwin, himself, acknowledges “the Creator,” and further describes his proposed evolutionary process by a singular image in his volume, the design of speciation represented by a tree; branching of species, already branched separately from a brief period of a single form [a “common ancestor”], and not progressing in a linear,scala natura as some interpret Darwin, before and after, such as Con’s sources.Multiple branches of forms, each expressing change by generational alteration in each branch.[ii]
 
The final, most elegant of both creation and evolution, in consideration of all branches, is man, the ultimate form [he appears, on the tree as the highest of all branches].[iii]It follows that by creation’s description, man is in the image of God as His last and most cherished created form, just as God said, and as Darwin graphically presented.
 
Mesopotamia:Con introduces Mesopotamian text, more ancient than Moses’ Genesis, as evidence that there is no acknowledgement of a scientific allowance for “the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.” 
 
I refer the reader to a discussion on the point of science and religion, and their relative, cooperative natures. To the extent that such questions provoke a constructive engagement of scientific and religious ideas, they are an expression of an interaction approach to science and religion.”[iv]  “Interaction.” According to the OED, this means, “Reciprocal action; action or influence of persons or things on each other. Also attributive.”[v]To the extent possible, this implies a cooperative effort, as the question of the debate imposes.
 
Quantum Mechanics:Quoting from Con’s source, he declares, “Quantum Mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics describing the properties of nature.” Fine; an acceptable commentary, for a theory. But why, then, does Con immediately argue, following the theory by another quote from the same source: “Richard Feynman once said, ‘I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.’”Seems the argument fails on these opposing quotes, alone.
 
The Name of God:That my opponent further parses the name of God is of no consequence. Con argues the name, Elohim. This is a name I did not bother to mention. I can argue that His name may be Jim; but it is singularly irrelevant to this debate.  Con argues further by quoting my argument, “I will argue, first, that “God” is the title of a man, a holy man, and not his name…” [bold added for emphasis] Then, Con argues “Now… my opponent is perhaps trying to imply that “God” was the name of a Scientist…” Note, dear readers, the contradictive argument.  I tried no such thing, as my original statement said, “God” is a title, not a name. 
 
I planted this first argument because I assumed my opponent would argue this very point as evidence that creation is a hoax, merely by the reference to God, by name or title, and that evolution is not a hoax by merely ignoring God, by name or title [only it doesn’t do that, either]. This attempt denies the point of the debate: co-cooperation, but it fails by declaring my argument as the reverse of what it is.
 
One God, or many:I find this argument is also irrelevant. Does it matter? No. But, to Con’s argument, “And God said, Let there be light”[vi]as if there is but one God. Con ignores the potential necessity of God saying anything at all. To whom was he speaking as He brought light? Himself? I will clarify: “And God said, Let usmake man in ourown image, after our likeness…”[vii]Again, why does God say anything at all if He is in solitary while conducting the Creation? No, He is clearly with an assembled body of creator and assistants, and because he says, “Let usmake man…” [bold for emphasis] He is acknowledging that those with Him have the same godly powers as He possesses. Of these gods, he is also in charge of the project. The whole of it refutes Con’s argument that “Genesis affirms monotheism and denies polytheism,” in spite of his later claim, “The commandments include instructions to have no other gods before him.” Of course. That is because the gods of creation are subordinate, with regard to Creation, to the project leader, and He continues in that leadership, as expressed by Exodus 20. “…no other gods before me” also had reference to the pattern of men to fashion idols.[viii]
 
So, let’s proceed with additive argument:
 
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil:“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”[ix] On first pass, this appears to be a firm command prohibiting the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge; an absolute prohibition with all the strength of the future command, “Thou shalt not kill.”[x]However, a careful read, grammatically, reveals a far different understanding: it is a test of free agency. The command begins, “Of every treethou mayest freely eat…” [bold for emphasis]. Only then is a condition set for just one tree; that of bearing fruit that gives knowledge, conditional on that knowledge leading to death, “in that day.”
 
Satan rightly later told Eve that “in that day”did not imply an immediate death. Was Satan implying that “day” was to be understood in the context presented in my round 1 that the Hebrew “yom” was to be the preferred understanding; an undetermined period of time? 
 
Regardless, our understanding is that Adam and Eve, prior to eating the fruit of knowledge, had no understanding of specific knowledge; that of good and evil. And now, having eaten, they did. 
 
One reference to why humans age and die states: “The more likely it is that you're dead, [or, I submit, in a dying process]the less your genes care about you… This has been going on throughout our evolutionary history… we've accumulated… weird malfunctions that kick in late in our lives. The human genome is riddled with them, and most of the genes involved are also part of normal development and reproduction. These malfunctions cluster around a certain age: the age when evolution stops caring about us.”[xi]These limitations generally occur beyond our ability to pass on genes in any event, so the general effect of generational evolution is also thwarted. Thus, both creation, and evolution acknowledge death, and even extinction, as eventual products of living. They are, by purpose and natural selection, a feature of life.
 
I contend that an evolutionary change occurred in Adam and Eve, perhaps one of limiting the length of telomeres, the tissue at each end of a DNA molecule that protect the DNA against mutation.[xii]Without telomeres, the DNA strand readily mutates, and can no longer resist aging.[xiii]The natural consequence of aging, in virtually all life forms, is death.[xiv]Biblically, we have no knowledge whatsoever regarding the length of time Adam and Eve spent in Eden, nor how long it was until they were banished from Eden after they partook of the fruit of knowledge. Evolutionary time? A “yom?” Within a literal 24 hours? Who knows? I contend that Genesis is cooperative with Evolution. We are told biblically that Adam endured 935 years,[xv]but it does not really matter. The effective evolution of Adam toward death was at least, by biblical reference, nearly 1,000 years. We have certainly seen natural evolution effect changes within that span of time.[xvi]


All references listed in comments for round 2

Con
fauxlaw wrote....
In the image of God: Further, my opponent declares that a quote from his source [same as above], and not, take note, from Darwin, himself, says there is no mention of man being made in the image of God. First, there is a quote direct from Darwin acknowledging the action of God, which I quoted in my first round: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into one…; and are being, evolved.”[i]
Darwin, himself, acknowledges “the Creator,”

My opponent appears to be under the false impression that Charles Darwin personally believes that evolution is evidence of Gods creation.
"But", to begin with, Charles Darwin was born in to a "noncomformist unitarian" household, as shown below.

Darwin's family tradition was nonconformist Unitarianism
Now i pretty much see noncomformist Unitarians as being a people that are devolving away from the religious fundamentalism of Catholicism. And officially a non comformist is someone that does not conform to the governance of the Church of England. As shown below.

In English church history, a Nonconformist was a Protestant who did not "conform" to the governance and usages of the established Church of England.
In reality, Charles Darwin was quietly a "freethinker", as my source below states.

Both families were largely Unitarian, though the Wedgwoods were adopting Anglicanism. Robert Darwin, himself quietly a freethinker,
And a freethinker is a person of a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed only on the basis of logicreason, and empiricism, rather than authoritytraditionrevelation, or dogma. According to the Oxford English Dictionary,, as stated below.

Freethought is an epistemological viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed only on the basis of logicreason, and empiricism, rather than authoritytraditionrevelation, or dogma. According to the Oxford English Dictionary

And freethinking is most closely linked with secularismatheismagnosticismanti-clericalism, and religious critique. As shown beneath

freethinking is most closely linked with secularismatheismagnosticismanti-clericalism, and religious critique
Now, it is true, that by the time Charles Darwin went to Cambridge university, he did not doubt the literal truth of the bible, as revealed below

When going to Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman, he did not doubt the literal truth of the Bible.



And up to this point, my opponent is correct, Charles Darwin did indeed see evolution as evidence of design. Shown beneath

He learned John Herschel's science which, like William Paley's natural theology, sought explanations in laws of nature rather than miracles and saw adaptation of species as evidence of design
It appears at one point Charles Darwin became quite orthodox, and may even give his sailing companions bible bashing lessons on morality, as shown below.

On board HMS Beagle, Darwin was quite orthodox and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality.

However, i have some terrible news for my opponent.
On Charles Darwins return journey from Australia, he had evolved to be critical of the bible, as shown underneath

By his return, he was critical of the Bible as history
After a few years of contemplation, citation beneath

 In the next few years, while intensively speculating on geology and the transmutation of species, he gave much thought to religion and openly discussed this with his wife Emma, whose beliefs also came from intensive study and questioning.
Charles Darwin removed the need of a divine creator from his natural design. As shown beneath

 To Darwin, natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design,
Charles Darwin began to bare this omnipotent deity, practically with an inverted cross. Blaming the deity for the pain and suffering of caterpillars. Or otherwise rejecting the deity. Source below.

and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering, such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.

He now viewed religion as purely a survival strategy. Source beneath

Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy,
Whilst Charles Darwin attempted to keep at the guise of being a Christian, probably to appease his Christian friends, such as John Brodie Innes, he later after 1949 began going for walks while the rest of his family was keeping up the pretence, and he now considered it "absurd" that a man could possibly be a theist at the same time as being an evolutionist. Proof below

Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Brodie Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church, but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church. He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"
Now, there is a glimmer of hope for my opponent. In 1915 a woman named Lady Hope wrote that Charles Darwin reverted to Christianity on his sickbed. As shown below

The "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted to Christianity on his sickbed. 

However her claims were refuted by Charles Darwins children, and declared false by historians.. As shown below

The claims were repudiated by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[



Now my opponents next argument

fauxlaw wrote....
Mesopotamia:Con introduces Mesopotamian text, more ancient than Moses’ Genesis, as evidence that there is no acknowledgement of a scientific allowance for “the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
And this is correct. Mesopotamian myths are even farther removed from Darwinism than the Holy Bible that improved upon them. Take one of the Mesopotamian creation myths for example. Atra-Hasis...beneath

The myth begins with humans being created by the mother goddess Mami to lighten the gods' workload. She made them out of a mixture of clay, flesh, and blood from a slain god. 


Now my opponents next argument

fauxlaw wrote...
But why, then, does Con immediately argue, following the theory by another quote from the same source: “Richard Feynman once said, ‘I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.’”Seems the argument fails on these opposing quotes, alone.
Admitting to not knowing the mechanics behind the nature of reality, is an improvement upon claiming to know that Mami created humans to lighten the gods workload, and made from the clay flesh and blood from a slain god.

Now my opponents next argument, which i actually agree with. It is completely irrelevant to whether or not Charles Darwin believes in intelligent design, which he did not.

fauxtlaw wrote....
That my opponent further parses the name of God is of no consequence. Con argues the name, Elohim. This is a name I did not bother to mention. I can argue that His name may be Jim; but it is singularly irrelevant to this debate.  Con argues further by quoting my argument, “I will argue, first, that “God” is the title of a man, a holy man, and not his name…”
Next argument

fauxlaw wrote...
I contend that an evolutionary change occurred in Adam and Eve
And i contend that the ancient egyptian Khormusan industry, between 42,000BC and 18,000BC, as shown below

Khormusan industry was a Paleolithic archeological industry in Egypt and Sudan dated at 42,000 to 18,000 BP
began whilst neanderthals were still roaming Iraq. As shown below

Between 65,000 BC and 35,000 BC northern Iraq was home to a Neanderthal culture,
And Garden of Eden was most likely in Iraq..below

there have been various suggestions for its location: at the head of the Persian Gulf, in southern Mesopotamia (now Iraq)
So, it appears the Adam and Eve narrative is not consistent with evolution theory, unless the goal posts shift to Mesopotamian mythology being derived from earlier Sudanese mythology.
Round 3
Pro
“My opponent appears to be under the false impression that Charles Darwin personally believes that evolution is evidence of Gods [sic] creation,” says Con from his second round argument. Again, Con argues by reversing what I’ve said. I’ve not said specifically that Darwin believed anything; just that he wrote 5 editions of Origin of the Species between 1860 to 1872, declaring, “…having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms…”[i] Isn’t it curious that, relative to what Darwin believed, or not, Con chooses to quote anyone but Charles Darwin, and has done so on numerous occasions. I’ve quoted him, now, going to his academic, credible authority, fully eight times in these arguments, with more to come.  
 
Readers, take note. Is it relevant to this debate whether Darwin was a nonconformist Unitarian, a Catholic, an Anglican, an Episcopal, a Protestant, a Freethinking gadabout, an ancient alien, an atheist, or an agnostic…? Not to the parameters of this debate. Yet my opponent seems fixed on the subject to the exclusion of debating the co-cooperation of Genesis and Evolution.
 
As if not satisfied that the several versions of Christianity are sufficient to prove whatever point is being argued [I’m left in the dust], Con opens a query into just what a Freethinker is, as if the term itself were not sufficiently expositive. Con concludes, near the end, that a Freethinker is really just someone who uses religion as a survival strategy. I suppose there’s an argument for evolution in there somewhere, but it is dashed when Con alleges, by sourcing, that, on his deathbed, Darwin becomes a Christian. Does this then demonstrate my point that Evolution and Creation do co-cooperate, and even Darwin agreed? I will not try to support that conclusion, but it appears Con is comfortable with it. Oh, but no, Darwin’s kids refute the whole story of Charles’ alleged deathbed conversion. So, never mind. Not relevant, I guess.
 
Then, to argue his own Mesopotamia, Con re-introduces it, and introduces us to Atra-Hasis; a creation myth. Not a Genesis creation story, but earlier. And as already argued, what relevance does Mesopotamia have with a debate of Genesis and Evolution co-cooperation? So what if Meso pre-dates Genesis, or Darwin? So do the sun, moon and stars. 
 
And then, Con digs deeper. We are further regaled by more of Mesopotamia, and Mami [whoever that is], and we are introduced to Khormusan [a title, not a name] more ancient than ancient Egypt, going back 18,000 to 42,000 BP, and then Neanderthals from 35,000 to 65,000 BP. Driver, where is this bus taking us? Reply: to the Garden of Eden, allegedly in Iraq. 
 
Does knowing the location of Eden, let alone anything to do with a non-transfer ride back 65,000 years tell us anything whatsoever to do with whether Genesis and Evolution co-cooperate? Perhaps we will be introduced to Lilith.[ii]
 
Adam and Eve are merely reference notes in this debate, not main characters. They will not help us in this construct other than to demonstrate that their presence in the story has exposition in creation, and evolution, as I’ve argued in round 2 with the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, which had both Genesis and Evolution significance.[iii] We’ll touch on them, again.
 
Staying on point, then, let’s explore more of Charles Darwin, directly from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, and see if there is, once again, cooperation with Genesis. 
 
Charles Darwin, from Origin of the Species,6thedition, Chapter One, page 1: 
“When we compare the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strikes us is, that they generally differ more from each other than do the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature. And if we reflect on the vast diversity of the plants and animals which have been cultivated, and which have varied during all ages under the most different climates and treatment, we are driven to conclude that our great variability is due to our domestic productions having been raised under conditions of life not so uniform as, and somewhat different from, those to which the parent species had been exposed under nature.”[iv]
 
So begins Darwin’s expository volume on evolution, shattering a previously held version known by many academics back to Aristotle as scala natura;a strictly linear progression of evolution from a non-complex form to the most complex: man. Compare: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”[v] This charge to Adam and Eve is curiously similar [cooperative?] with Darwin’s evidence of greater variety among human-cultivated creatures than their counterparts in nature. He, Charles Darwin, said it, wrote it, and Moses wrote his piece, all without comment as to Mesopotamia, or Egypt, to Egyptians or Neanderthals, to science or religion. It was just observed, and documented. By Darwin, not by Aristotle, or anyone following his straight-line theory of progression. Science learns, right along with religion.  



References to round 3 argument in comments.

Con
fauxlaw wrote...
Yet my opponent seems fixed on the subject to the exclusion of debating the co-cooperation of Genesis and Evolution.
Ok, so i guess my opponent wants me to focus on the Origin of Species as he believes this co-cooperates with Genesis.

However i can assure my opponent that the Origin of Species only co-cooperates with Genesis, because back in those days during the protestant reformation, there was too much fighting over religion, as shown beneath

The Protestant Reformation inspired a literal interpretation of the Bible, with concepts of creation that conflicted with the findings of an emerging science
And after a civil war, Scientists wanted to show that Science did not threaten religion nor politics, for obvious reasons, as this was a very brainwashed period and a lot of people were extremely devout believers. As shown below

After the turmoil of the English Civil War, the Royal Society wanted to show that science did not threaten religious and political stability.
And back then, before the evolution theory had evolved farther, even the naturists of that time were all Church clergymen, eager to prove their confirmation bias, by attempting to prove that the theory co-cooperates with the Holy Bible. As shown beneath

In Britain, William Paley's Natural Theology saw adaptation as evidence of beneficial "design" by the Creator acting through natural laws. All naturalists in the two English universities (Oxford and Cambridge) were Church of England clergymen, and science became a search for these laws.
However, whilst there may have been a "public guise" in order to keep religious people happy, the "freethinkers" of the time, would actually be more inclined to study the work Aristotle, than Moses. As shown below

In later editions of the book, Darwin traced evolutionary ideas as far back as Aristotle
And along with Plato, Aristotle is regarded as the Father of Western philosophy, as revealed beneath

 Along with his teacher Plato, he has been called the "Father of Western Philosophy".
Now i would argue, that as the Torah was not translated in to the Septuagint until 285–247 BCE...below

the Hebrew Torah was translated into Greek at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE)
And Aristotle is from the earlier time period of 384 – 322 BC, as below

Aristotle 384 – 322 BC
Then i would argue that Aristotle's beliefs are more representative of the times than that of the Holy bible.

It does have to be noted however, that even Aristotles Scientific practises are considered primitive by today's standards. Below

Note, however, that his use of the term science carries a different meaning than that covered by the term "scientific method". For Aristotle, "all science is either practical, poetical or theoretical"  His practical science includes ethics and politics; his poetical science means the study of fine arts including poetry; his theoretical science covers physics, mathematics and metaphysics.
Now there is also some differences between the views of Aristotle, and Darwin, as shown beneath

 Darwin, too, noted these sorts of differences between similar kinds of animal, but unlike Aristotle used the data to come to the theory of evolution.
Though Aristotles Science was definitely evolving in to an evolution theory, it was not quite there yet, as shown below

Aristotle's writings can seem to modern readers close to implying evolution, but while Aristotle was aware that new mutations or hybridizations could occur, he saw these as rare accidents.
And to sum it up, beneath

 To put his views into modern terms, he nowhere says that different species can have a common ancestor, or that one kind can change into another, or that kinds can become extinct.
Now we can even go back farther to Empedocles who Aristotle based his theories upon, as shown below

the text he cites is a summary by Aristotle of the ideas of the earlier Greek philosopher Empedocles.
And this takes us back to 494 – c. 434 BC, as revealed below

Empedocles 494 – c. 434 BC
And when i look for an example of how primitive Empedocles evolution example was, i simply cannot find it, as shown below

................
Now on to my opponents next argument. 
I must note, at the time of writing the above, i had not yet progressed to the end of my opponents argument, and it is purely coincidental that he actually referenced Aristotle as being nothing to do with Darwins evolution theory, as shown below

fauxlaw wrote
 It was just observed, and documented. By Darwin, not by Aristotle, or anyone following his straight-line theory of progression.
So my reply to this. Is see above.

Now i have 4457 characters going spare here, so i will use them to tackle my opponents other argument.

fauxlaw wrote
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Now, my opponent is citing here, what is known as "the cultural mandate". As shown below

The cultural mandate is the divine injunction found in Genesis 1:28, in which God, after having created the world and all in it, ascribes to humankind the tasks of filling, subduing, and ruling over the earth. The cultural mandate includes the sentence "Be fruitful and multiply".
Now my opponents version of the Cultural mandate comes straight out of the King James Bible, where it says, exactly what he says.

However, if my opponent were to use the New International version, below is what it would say. And it is not quite the same thing.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

And if my opponent were to use original version from Torah, it would say below

ויברך אתם אלהים ויאמר להם אלהים פרו ורבו ומלאו את־הארץ וכבשה ורדו בדגת הים ובעוף השמים ובכל־חיה הרמשת על־הארץ
Wayəḇāreḵ ’ōṯām ’ĕlōhîm, wayyō’mer lāhem ’ĕlōhîm, "Pərû, ûrəḇû, ûmilə’û ’eṯ-hā’āreṣ, wəḵiḇəšuhā; ûrəḏû biḏəg̱aṯ hayyām, ûḇə‘ôp̱ haššāmayim, ûḇəḵāl-ḥayyāh hārōmeśeṯ ‘al-hā’āreṣ."
And one can make that say, whatever they want it to say.

It is clear that the bible is always being updated, a tweek at a time, and is evolving to keep up with language progression, as well as current understanding, and it is unlikely, given what we actually do know about genuine Scientific understanding at that time, that the Torah was a blueprint for Darwinism.

It is more likely that what was said, was more along the lines of, below

Bless ye God, and say unto them, God prostrate and fill the earth, and conquer the rose of the sea, and of the fowl, and of every beast that rams in the earth.
But it does not matter what translation you use, it is clearly "not" a blueprint for evolution. Unless you want to make it say things it does not say.

Now if i "were" to argue in favour of my opponents argument, i think i would be looking more along the lines at the fifth day, below

 Fifth day
And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' 21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.' 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
And this is consistent with the Scientific abiogenesis theory of life evolving from the Oceans, as shown below

The earliest known life-forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms, found in hydrothermal vent precipitates, that may have lived as early as 4.28 billion years ago, relatively soon after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.
However there are still huge differences between Genesis, and Abiogenesis, and it seems Genesis would be an extremely primitive form of Abiogenesis, purely based upon Humans pre-Septuagint had the same brain capacity as they do today, and had the knowledge to know that Fish likely pre-dated Man, but lacked the Scientific education to be able to give a Scientific explanation for this. The explanation was still in the evolutionary stage.
Round 4
Pro
Well, having reached the final round, let us remark on the scholarship of the relative arguments my opponent has proposed. Con has seen fit to draw virtually exclusively from one source, Wikipedia, of which Wikipedia, itself, says the following: “Wikipedia does not consider itself to be a reliable source,”[i] because Wiki allows anyone to post anything to create, or edit a subject with little verification of information other than dependence on other posters, who, themselves, may not be credentialed. 
 
Nevertheless, by Con’s argument, we are led, once again, on an extended journey beyond the confines of the debate subject by an exhaustive review of the comparative differences in the Protestant Reformation, and its “literal interpretation of the Bible,” which did not allow Science to “threaten religion nor [sic] politics, for obvious reasons,” the which are further explained by a still more exhaustive discussion of Aristotle, and the relatively late translation of the Hebrew Torah into the Septuagint by request of Ptolemy II [in the throws of the end of the majestic Egyptian Empire, now fallen on hard times, the Torah is translated into Greek, not into Egyptian Demotic, itself, evolved from New Kingdom Egyptian hieroglyphics, in which I am fluent. Ptolemy II was Greek by ancestry, not Egyptian – and thus the Torah was not translated into Egyptian Demotic], and round again to Aristotle as a more correct interpretation of the Holy Bible, even though Aristotle’s “Science” did not match our current interpretation of it, even considering the 19th century’s view of science. And, finally, that Genesis is but a poor cousin to Abiogenesis, whatever that is. 
 
However, none of it is relevant to our poor subject at hand, to which my opponent generously agreed to discuss on the merit of my proposed definitions of “creation” and “evolution,” and has discussed everything but, to wit, that Genesis and Evolution co-cooperate, the latter proposed by Charles Darwin, who still appears to be a bit player according to Con, who will not quote him in favor of others who talk about him. 
 
In fact, Con even digresses into an argument offered entirely in Hebrew, and repeated phonetically, as if we readers are all fluent in the same. Would you appreciate an argument in hieroglyphs? Fun, maybe, to look at, but debate is not a graphic environment. However, Con’s argument is based on another foray into Wiki, so it is all okay, according to Con. Well, that whole argument of “cultural mandate,” the real subject of this version of Con’s argument, since Con is so devoted to time, and sequence, as a matter of pattern recognition, this “cultural mandate” dates from 1973 by its author, H.W. Mare. I perceive that post-dates both Genesis, and On the Origin of Species,and would, therefore, impose a type not reflective of either volume. Never mind, we are offered an English translation by Wiki, our faithful lap dog, although Con did not bother to offer it, and it is essentially Genesis 1: 28, however you wish to parse that in various English translations.
 
My opponent even generously offers, “…it is unlikely, given what we actually do know about genuine Scientific understanding at that time [which time – the Torah, or Darwinism, or “cultural mandate?”],that the Torah was a blueprint for Darwinism.” I agree, the Torah would represent a very poor blueprint, but we’re not debating the relative blueprints of creation and evolution, but merely their common ground, regardless of origin. We have, simply, a document alleged to be “the Word of God,” but we need not even debate its authenticity, but merely that it makes commentary on creation, and another document we are reasonably certain is the Word of Charles Darwin, but we need not debate its authenticity, either, but merely that it makes commentary on evolution. Now, are there intersections of two common roads such that they cross paths, so to speak, regardless of their relative origins or destinations? Hence, road trips of the nature taken by my opponent are completely irrelevant.
 
Let us take, as a final Pro argument of the co-cooperation of Creation and Evolution, in the respective examples of Moses’ Genesis and Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, passages from Genesis 3: 6, and from Darwin’s Origin Chapter 11, “Instinct,” and see, therein still another cooperative endeavor. Let’s call this one, after Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Basis Needs,”[ii]
 
Feed Me:
 
“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.”[iii ]If it is that good to body and soul - and what really great food is not? – why not eat it?
 
In this wise did Adam and Eve “fall;” that is, by transgression of one law among three, and they were forced out of Eden, into the dreary world where their lives would have suffering and pain, sorry and misery, but would also experience joy and fulfillment. Why? Note that a careful read of Genesis reveals that, all during their sojourn in Eden, they did not ever “multiply and replenish the earth;” they had no children until their banishment from the Garden. Considering that both creation and evolution kind of depend on the passing of genes from one generation to the next, the Fall presents a considerable necessity, a paradigm shift, and a favorable mutation in Adam and Eve, as discussed in hte previous round.

They could not keep the first commandment, to multiply, by keeping the second to eat of all trees, let alone the third commandment, to avoid the Tree of Knowledge. Thus, breaking the third was a means to eventually keep the first commandment, and this was apparently by design, given the apparent contradicting commands. But you see by greater understanding of the Genesis passage quoted above, that contradiction was not at all the consequence of the three commandments. As we read later in the Holy Bible, “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward… Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them…”[iv]
 
Considering the blessing of children as, later, Proverbs advises, was the lot of Adam and Eve truly a “Fall” from grace, or was it really an entry into it? The question poses a different observation than traditionally held by practitioners of the typical Christian view that Adam and Eve sinned, and that we bear their scar. Rather, I contend that “transgression” is not the equivalent of sin [and they are responsible for their sins, not ever us]; that it is an inferior infraction, a violation not of God’s commands, but a violation of natural law, such as violating the law of gravity by falling off a roof. But a greater law was served in the process: to “multiply and replenish the earth.” By just the later witness in Proverbs that children are the fulfillment of “multiply and replenish the earth,”and provide the means for the “Fall” to be, instead, “…identified as the ‘beginning of the rise of man.’”[v]
 
Did Darwin ever write about such reasoning as Eve considered in partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge? As it happens, he did, though he may have been unaware of it. We are, in his eighth chapter, “Instinct,” told the following observation:
 
“One of the strongest instances of an animal apparently performing an action for the sole good of another…, is that of aphides voluntarily yielding…, their sweet excretion to ants: that they do so voluntarily, the following facts show.”[vi] For brevity, Darwin proceeded to describe this aphides/ants phenomenon as instinctual, by both aphides and ants, wherein he decided to separate the two species by experiment, and discovered that, with the ants withdrawn, the aphides no longer excreted their sweet juice; “not one.” With a single ant allowed back into the company of aphides, they began, once again, to excrete with eager animation.
 
The parallel with the Genesis story, replacing the tree for the aphid, and the pleasure derived by Eve, replacing the ant, is unmistakable, though likely not envisioned by Darwin. Not to mention the purpose in providing a nourishing meal for both ant and Eve, for the ongoing survival of all species involved. The tree, in the Genesis story, having fulfilled its role in the “rise of man” to mortality by the gift of “the mother of all living,”[vii] we perceive that the tree performed its purpose, and was likely replaced with the “grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers [creation and evolution, in co-cooperation?]… from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”[viii] And are still evolving today, as evidenced in my small fruit tree orchard, two separate varieties of apricot, one nectarine, one apple and one cherry. Grand, indeed.



references for round 4 are posted in comments.

Con
fauxlaw wrote...
Con has seen fit to draw virtually exclusively from one source, Wikipedia, of which Wikipedia, itself, says the following: “Wikipedia does not consider itself to be a reliable source,” because Wiki allows anyone to post anything to create, or edit a subject with little verification of information other than dependence on other posters, who, themselves, may not be credentialed. 
 
This is actually a very good argument from my opponent, and he is correct, that the reliability of Wikipedia has been frequently questioned and often assessed, as stated below.

The reliability of Wikipedia has frequently been questioned and often assessed. 
And there has been instances of bad publicity, and concern, as said below.

Incidents of conflicted editing, and the use of Wikipedia for 'revenge editing' (inserting false, defamatory or biased statements into biographies) have attracted publicity.
However, even with those genuine concerns, Wikipedia reliability has been compared similar to that of Encyclopaedia Britannica, so that is not bad. As revealed below.

A study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia's scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".
Between 2008 and 2012, Wikipedia articles concerning certain subjects were rated of very high standard when compared to Scientific and Medical peer reviewed journals, as revealed below.

Between 2008 and 2012, Wikipedia articles on medical and scientific fields such as pathologytoxicologyoncologypharmaceuticals, and psychiatry were compared to professional and peer-reviewed sources and it was found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard
And as a person that has edited wikipedia, and wrote an article, i have actually found that it is not really true that "anyone" can edit wikipedia.
You can, but you will likely get your IP address blocked if you cause a nuisance, and most objectionable edits are actually fixed within seconds. And also getting a wikipedia article published can be a nightmare, and often requires a trip to the Wikipedia forum to get assistance on the project.
And my experience is actually backed up by the next claim below.

Because Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, assessments of its reliability often examine how quickly false or misleading information is removed. A study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003—two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects"
Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. And there has been rare occasions when even "blatant" disinformation has been allowed to remain on wikipedia for "months". As below.

False information has sometimes lasted for a long time on Wikipedia. In May 2005, an editor sparked controversy by creating an article about John Seigenthaler that included false and defamatory statements. The inaccurate information remained uncorrected for four months. A biographical article on French Wikipedia portrayed a "Léon-Robert de L'Astran" as an 18th-century anti-slavery ship owner, which led Ségolène Royal, a presidential candidate, to praise him. A student investigation determined that the article was a hoax and de L'Astran had never existed.
And yes, Wikipedia "is" extremely honest about not considering itself a reliable source, as revealed below

However this does not stop Academics from using Wikipedia as a valuable jumping off point for research. Use in assigned papers. And even for higher educational purposes, as stated below.

Many academics distrust Wikipedia, but may see it as a valuable jumping off point for research, with many of the reliable sources used in its articles generally seen as legitimate sources for more in-depth information and use in assigned papers. For this reason some academics suggest ‘Verifiability by respected sources’ as an indicator for assessing the quality of Wikipedia articles at the higher education level.
Ultimately, what Wikipedia is, is a free crowd sourced encyclopedia. Below

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now i just wish other outlets would show the same honesty, and fly the same disclaimer. Such as those MSM outlets that report on every and any rumour or speculation "live" as it happens that get taken literally by conspiracy theorists and turned in to right wing propaganda pieces.
The same goes for those fake news and alternative news sites.

And as much as i value the encylopaedia britannica, and always have it on stand-by should an opponent question the validity of a Wikipedia claim, which my opponent on this occasion did not once do, i think they should be utterly ashamed of themselves, for this below.

Encyclopædia Britannica disputed the Nature study, and Nature replied with a formal response and point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections.
Now this brings me to my opponents main source. Which is the Holy Bible.

My opponent repeatedly throughout this debate used passages from the Holy Bible that made no reference to any form of evolution, nor even remotely implied such, and he then compared it the works of Scientists, and then used psuedo-scientific explanations to try and explain just how the biblical scholars were actually talking about evolution.

But i disagree with this. Quite simply. If the biblical scholars were talking about evolution, then they should just have came out and said it.

There is absolutely no need for Riddles. Allegory. Cryptic messages that only the truelly gifted can decipher.

Now my opponent accuses me of talking about everyone else appart from Charles Darwin.


fauxlaw wrote...
 the latter proposed by Charles Darwin, who still appears to be a bit player according to Con, who will not quote him in favor of others who talk about him. 
But i am not a Darwinist any more than i am of any religious denomination.
I am speaking from "my own understandings" of the scientific community, and it just so happens that Charles Darwin is best known for his contributions towards the science of evolution, as seen below.

Charles Darwin was an English naturalistgeologist and biologist, best known for his contributions to the science of evolution.
And "my current understandings" of science, have it, that the scientific community would consider my opponents science, as being "psuedo-science", due to the fact that "theistic evolution", which is what my opponents "co-cooperation" "is", is non science, as seen below.

 God-guided evolution are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not in itself a scientific theory, but a range of views about how the science of general evolution relates to religious beliefs in contrast to special creation views.

Therefore i do not require to discuss Charles Darwin in order to show that texts in Genesis do not co-cooperate with our current understandings of evolution, regardless of who's evolution model it is.

Let us take a look at one example from my opponent.

fauxlaw wrote....
Let us take, as a final Pro argument of the co-cooperation of Creation and Evolution, in the respective examples of Moses’ Genesis and Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, passages from Genesis 3: 6, and from Darwin’s Origin Chapter 11, “Instinct,” and see, therein still another cooperative endeavor. Let’s call this one, after Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Basis Needs,”
 
“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.” If it is that good to body and soul - and what really great food is not? – why not eat it?

Does this look like it is co-cooperative with any 2020 evolution model? If it is, then i find the teaching method very objectionable.

Now i would like to go back to the start, and look at my opponents description.

fauxlaw wrote...
I contend that the Genesis creation text co-cooperates with Darwin’s evolution theory, as documented in On the Origin of Species, of natural selection. 
So please everyone. remember, this debate was not about whether or not "a God" (intelligent designer) is compatible with the evolution theory. I would actually argue that evolution theory neither proves intelligent design, nor disproves it.
However this debate was about whether or not the Genesis creation texts are compatible with any modern science book. And my opponent has completely failed to even remotely prove this.

But i thank my opponent for the debate.
I have enjoyed it.

Thanks