Instigator / Pro
7
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#1822

Genesis creation & Darwin’s evolution theory co-cooperate

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1557
rating
35
debates
52.86%
won
Description

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.

-->
@Nevets

About three months downstream from the conclusion of this debate, I reviewed it and noted an interesting commentary that concluded my opponent's 4th and last round:

"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."

I will remind all that the claim that I failed to prove compatibility of Genesis to "any modern science book" is not only a fallacy of interpretation, but a violation of understanding the debate proposal which was, "Genesis creation & Darwin’s evolution theory co-cooperate." My opponent declared that he did not need to argue Darwin, and threw to us, instead, "modern science books." But the debate WAS about "Darwin's evolution" and not modern science. As the proposal defines the parameters of the debate, and it cannot be changed by the whim of either participant, it remains the subject on which the debate is waged.

This type of debates are really intriguing.

Fauxlaw's really energetic when it comes to biblical debates.

-->
@fauxlaw

Congratulations to fauxlaw

-->
@sigmaphil

Well, you hold onto your 24-hour day. It appears precious. But, you must remember it continues to expand in length, even as we speak...
I am not a Christian? News to me. But, thanks for your excommunication. Sorry, not recognized.

-->
@fauxlaw

If you look at Genesis 1:6, "God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." He continues to say, "And there was evening, and there was morning—the ______ day for the next days. I'm a simple man, its sounds to me like a day is governed by the Sun and Moon, 24 hours?

At any rate, it's not a "hill" I'm willing to die on, like some Doctrines such as Soteriology. I would like to debate it though, I think that would be fun, but it would have to be with another Christian.

-->
@sigmaphil

How do you define "a day?" It's relative scholastically, but, does it really matter in the end since I'll wager you believe God is omnipotent? Or, are there limitations, exceptions? Or, consider that, although omnipotent, God is not compelled to act on the power He has. So, maybe His "day" is not only a 24-hour period, but may be eons in the course of the sun across our sky. In fact, we already know that just 600M years ago, earth's "day" by our modern perspective, was just 21 hours long. Our day is increasing in time even as we speak, increasing by 0.007 seconds every century.

-->
@fauxlaw
@Nevets

This debate would have made more sense being debated between 2 Christians; one a 6-Day Creationist and the other a Theistic Evolutionist. As a 6-Day Young Earth Creationist, I would welcome a shot at this debate in the future.

-->
@DrSpy

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: DrSpy // Mod Action: Not removed

Reason: This vote is fine
*******************************************************************

-->
@blamonkey

I am actually going to raise another challenge here.
I cannot prove DrSpy does not genuinely believe Pro had the better argument.
But i do question his awarding my opponent on sources aswell. The reason his previous vote got removed was because he admitted that fauxlaws challenge on my use of wikipedia was equivalent to a "texas sharpshooter", and that fauxlaw did not actually challenge the validity of anything within the article, so i was never given the chance to find better sources. Yet DrSpy still managed to somehow award fauxlaw points for the sources. He then came back, changed his wording and rerewarded fauxlaw with points for sources. Yet most of fauxlaws sources are from books you have to go out and purchase. You cannot simply link to them. Therefore i actually believe i have the better sources. So more accurate reflection, based upon DrSpys own admission, and his inability to back his claim that fauxlaws sources are more indepth, is wrong. he is unable to view fauxlaws sources. Fauxlaw does not even list the page number on them. I even find the vote for argument contentious, based upon the amount of errors he previously claimed fauxlaw committed, without attributing one single error to myself. However i would accept if he genuinely believes fauxlaw has the better argument, i cannot prove he does not genuinely think that. But i do not genuinely believe that his points regarding sources is legitimate

-->
@fauxlaw

Please quit with slanderous and unprofessional allegations. And accept votes against like an adult, if possible. Or don't. I am not your keeper.

-->
@Nevets

No victory for either of us, yet. There's still 7+ days for voting Just don't continue vote bombing

-->
@fauxlaw

It is ok. I have already been in contact with the moderators to explain that i do not wish my opponents votes to be removed.
I only did this because it was becoming apparent that people are reporting my votes, and do not respect the opinions of others.
However my belief is without voters, there is no site.
So therefore i do not wish for my opponents votes to be removed.
Congratulations on your victory

-->
@Nevets

Really, dear opponent, you had your shot at argument in four rounds, per my designation in challenging the debate, and I believe the debate policy says, "When all arguments have been published, the debate goes into the next stage." That stage is voting. We are in voting stage. Your argument ability has passed, yet you have argued sufficient to have had a fifth round. I believe that is considered vote bombing. Would you like me to have my fifth round? No? The policy prevents it? Domage, mon vieux.

-->
@DrSpy

Thanks for voting again.

Source justification. Awarded to PRO as the debate was about Darwin and The Bible,. Pro references both and specified editions and versions for clarity. Reliable first source of the topic at hand. CON relied on Wikipedia, which is not a primary source. It is remarkable that CON did not references once either of the core documents for which the debate was about. My other reasons as set out in comments #23 and #24 below still apply.

I have not changed them, even with the please of Con.

-->
@DrSpy

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DrSpy // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro.

>Reason for Decision: My first large debate vote on this site. Please provide feedback to me on my approach, perceived accuracy and style.
ARGUMENTS (PRO) for the reasons see the comments.
SOURCES (PRO). for relevance and depth.
S&G (TIE) Con had some mistakes, however, nothing notable worthy of point reduction.
CONDUCT (PRO) - Cons arguments had significant relevance issues. Con also stated in RD4 that they did not need to focus on that actual topic of the debate. I had asked about the focus of Darwin in the comments prior to the debate. The focus was clear, and specifically ignored by Con.

>Reason for Mod Action: Arguments are sufficiently explained. Sources, however, need to be explained better. Per community guidelines:
In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
Conduct needs to be specifically attached to the debate, not the comments. There must be at least one incident quoted or explained that led to the conduct point allotment, and conduct needs to be compared between the two debaters.
************************************************************************

-->
@blamonkey

Please can you read my objections below, and tell me you actually agree that DrSpys own analysis supports his own conclusion

DrSpy round 5 - Con
"Con does a very detailed job at defending Wikipedias honour, and failing to see that Pro had no specific accusation. Con got easily sucked into a rabbit hole of irrelevance, something they should be aware of."

DrSpy again contradicts himself. In his round 4 analysis he was very critical of my opponents objections to my sourcing wikipedia.
Yet at the beginning of round 5, he is confused as to why i defend wikipedia, when my opponent apparently did not mention wikipedia.

DrSpy "And the final fatal admission made by Con was "Therefore i (sic) 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,"

Yet by DrSpys own admission, i had done a good job detailing Darwins lack of theistic belief.

So i find it questionable how DrSpy calculated this as a victory for my opponent. His very own analysis points to an overwhelming victory for me.

DrSpy round 4 "Pro does question the extensive use of Wikipedia as a source. Pro does not demonstrate any misquotes, or places where Cons arguments are misattributed, or taken out of context.".

So, i have never been accused "once" of misattribution, nor taking quotes out of context.

DrSpy actually continues to quite badly frown upon my opponent on this issue. " I think this was a case of screaming fire, without even smoke. I do not think this was a firecracker distraction and was based on genuine concern. The credibility of this concern would have been exponentially higher had a single reference related to Cons arguments been presented".

DrSpy literally said that my source was attacked, yet for no reason. There was no misattribution. No taking out of context. Yet DrSpy did still manage to conclude, somehow, that it was "a credible concern". Though my opponent failed to attack any of my statements. DrSpy still managed to find in favour of my opponent, quite simply, becaause "it may have been a credible concern".

DrSpy then continues to be skeptical regarding my opponets continuing to produce arguments made in the last round "Some may wonder if it is appropriate to leave such arguments to the last round. No restriction on new arguments was made at the onset. And considering the eclectic nature of Cons rebuttals, I see this as an attempt to ensure the corpus of the debate is maintained."

Yet DrSpy still continued to find in favour of my opponent due to the fact i did not raise an objection

DrSpy analysis round 2. "Con uses this round to attack the theistic tendencies and authenticity of Darwin. Con does a good job of this, however, I was left wondering what the overall value to the argument this would add, particularly when Con admits that the belief of Darwin is irrelevant."

I object to this on the grounds that DrSpy has contradicted his own statement. He says i did a good job attacking Darwins beliefs. Yet still upholds my opponents argument that i failed to include Darwin in my argument, which is proof right there my opponent was obviously misrepresenting what i had said, as DrSpy himself acknowledges i did a good job of this, whilst pooping in his own pie very next sentence

DrSpy - "Con concludes with "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." I see this as an illogical statement. The topic of the debate did not say a co-operation between the texts in question was exclusive."

I object that DrSpy takes statements from me he either misunderstands, or, disagrees with, to validate statements made by my opponent, he either misunderstands, or, disagrees with, to validate the statements of my opponent

I initially respected the voting results. However i did have some objections that i initially did not raise. However i now wish to raise them.
To begin with.
DrSpy RD 1 analysis... DrSpy begins by pointing out what he considers to be a logical fallacy and error my opponent made. "When I first started reading this, it appears as if Pro had opened up a logical flank to be brutally attacked on. The statement "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." I thought would be the home base for assault by Con. It was not."

DrSpy decides that my not attacking it means my error validates my opponents error. Even though i did state this in round 5 "There is absolutely no need for Riddles. Allegory. Cryptic messages that only the truelly gifted can decipher."

DrSpy then write "Pro produces another potential error when implying that stem cells are the source of evolution, which is why a "rib" was used. Pro provides no support for this premise, however, Con does not address this."

Again. He is claiming that "my" error validates my opponents error....Even though i had already established that i believe the Genesis to be mesopotamian mythology..This would include, the rib allegations. "The first problem with my opponents contention arises in almost his first sentence, when he contaminates Scientific knowledge with Mesopotamian mythology". This was from my opening in round 1.

-->
@fauxlaw
@Nevets

That is very sensible. I would be happy to have private feedback from both of you.

-->
@DrSpy

Thank you for voting. For the benefit of other voters before voting is finished, I shall make comments regarding your RFDs by private message.

-->
@DrSpy

Thank you for voting. Was wondering if any votes were ever going to come.

-->
@fauxlaw
@Nevets

RD - 3 (Winner PRO)

Pro quickly dismantles the relevance of Darwin's religious beliefs. Pro does an excellent job bringing the debate back to the roots, with solid references from the OOS, and a connection back to the original question.

Con demonstrates some interesting debate techniques. Con admits to not reading the totality of the argument before responding.
"at the time of writing the above, I had not yet progressed to the end of my opponent's argument," I find it a telling admission, and consistent with their style. Con also uses this round to question the accuracy of the Bible from a translated perspective, however, fails to demonstrate the relevance. The key objective of the debate was to show "co-operates". The inclusion of Hebrew was unnecessary, and appears to be a 'texas sharpshooter'.

In closing RD3. Con again appears to insist on upward compatibility, which I view as erroneous logic, as I addressed above.

RD 4 - (Winner PRO)

Pro does question the extensive use of Wikipedia as a source. Pro does not demonstrate any misquotes, or places where Cons arguments are misattributed, or taken out of context. I think this was a case of screaming fire, without even smoke. I do not think this was a firecracker distraction and was based on genuine concern. The credibility of this concern would have been exponentially higher had a single reference related to Cons arguments been presented

Pro state accurately "on an extended journey beyond the confines of the debate ". As seen in the previous entries, Pro is clearly very focused on the confines of the debate and this round is no exception. Pro made some compelling association defending the co-operative stance of the debate. Some may wonder if it is appropriate to leave such arguments to the last round. No restriction on new arguments was made at the onset. And considering the eclectic nature of Cons rebuttals, I see this as an attempt to ensure the corpus of the debate is maintained.

Con

Con does a very detailed job at defending Wikipedias honour, and failing to see that Pro had no specific accusation. Con got easily sucked into a rabbit hole of irrelevance, something they should be aware of.

Con lost sight of the topic of the debate. Even when they brought up a valid point, the topic was wrong. "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."

The topic was about the book of Genesis and a very large percentage of biblical references were from that book. That statement made by con could be considered an admission to the debate premise. This comes back to debate term co-operate. And the final fatal admission made by Con was "Therefore i (sic) 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,"

-->
@fauxlaw
@Nevets

RD1: (Winner PRO)

When I first started reading this, it appears as if Pro had opened up a logical flank to be brutally attacked on. The statement "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." I thought would be the home base for assault by Con. It was not.

Pro produces another potential error when implying that stem cells are the source of evolution, which is why a "rib" was used. Pro provides no support for this premise, however, Con does not address this.

Pro did a good job wrapping the architecture of Genesis, and the basic principals of Darwin's evolution and their RD1 was very consistent with the debate topic.

Con took time to try to redefine evolution, already set forth in the debate description. I find this behaviour perplexing. Con tried to use the complexity of quantum mechanics to show creationist problems cannot be solved.

Con interestingly delves into the origins of the book of Genesis, and rather than challenge the narrative, proceeds to challenge its reliability as an accurate historical representation. Con concludes that Genesis is not a blueprint for the evolution theory. I find this logic flawed, and not consistent with the original question. Con appears to say "Because you say that the two theories co-operate, you must prove that one was intended to influence the other". In summary, Con took the entire round one to say that the bible is not a book of science, which Pro had already established.

RD 2 - (Winner PRO)

Pro addresses Cons statements and addresses the relevance in a professional way. Pro does a great job on the majority of references being from OOS, and Genesis. Pro concluded RD2 by bringing the topic back around its original axis and postulates some scientific reasons why there may be a cooperation between the two narratives, Genesis and Darwinism.

Con uses this round to attack the theistic tendencies and authenticity of Darwin. Con does a good job of this, however, I was left wondering what the overall value to the argument this would add, particularly when Con admits that the belief of Darwin is irrelevant.

Con concludes with "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." I see this as an illogical statement. The topic of the debate did not say a co-operation between the texts in question was exclusive.

References for round 4:

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
2 https://www.thoughtco.com/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-4582571
3 Holy Bible, Genesis 3: 6
4 Holy Bible, Proverbs 127: 3, 5
5 Campbell, Beverley, Eve and the Choice Made in Eden, Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, 2003, page 35
6 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872, Chapter 8, page 213
7 Holy Bible, Genesis 3: 20
8 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872, Chapter 15, page 445

references for round 3

1 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 2nd – 6th editions, 1860 - 18722
2 https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/lilith-lady-flying-in-darkness/
3 Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 26, and https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/13/biologically-speaking-this-is-why-humans-are-born-to-die/#87a4a264a48b
4 Darwin, Charles, Origin of the Species, 1st – 6th editions, 1859 – 1872, Chapter One, page 1.
5 Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 28

references for round 2:

1 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 2nd – 6th editions, 1860 - 1872
2 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 1st – 6th editions, 1859 - 1872
3 Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 1st – 6th editions, 1859 – 1872, Genesis 1: 26
4 http://humanorigins.si.edu/about/broader-social-impacts-committee/science-religion-evolution-and-creationism-primer
5 O.E.D., “Interactive”
6 Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 3
7 Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 26
8 https://www.creators.com/read/kids-talk-about-god/09/14/what-is-the-meaning-of-the-first-commandment-you-shall-have-no-other-gods-before-me
9 Holy Bible, Genesis 2: 16, 171
10 Holy Bible, Exodus 20: 13
11 https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/13/biologically-speaking-this-is-why-humans-are-born-to-die/#87a4a264a48b
12 https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/telomeres
13 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842081/
14 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK100403/
15 Holy Bible, Genesis 5: 15
16 https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/telomeres

-->
@fauxlaw

I look forward to that as well!

-->
@fauxlaw

Ah very interesting ancestry you have. It sounds like you are walking in the footsteps of the "Fitz Flaad family".
My familial roots come out of Olduvai via Gaul, then to Scotland, where according to Robert Louis Stevenson The 'Pagans of North Berwick' had the worst of reputations. They were said to tie a horse's neck to its knee and attach a lantern to the rope, then drive the horse slowly along the cliffs, so that a vessel out at sea would think it a ship riding at anchor, and come in, only to be wrecked on the rocky reef known as the Great Car and be plundered by the ghoulish people. These tales gave Stevenson the idea for his story 'The Wreckers'. Stevenson also wrote in his novel 'Catriona' (sequel to Kidnapped) of the 'lights of "Hidden to protect my second name from public view"' and purposely put 'Tam Dale' in charge of the prisoners on the Bass Rock

Good luck with the debate

-->
@Nevets

Very good. Let's begin. I will be posting 1st round soon. Let's see, I understand this Sunday, you're implementing Daylight Savings, so I believe you will be seven hours ahead; I'm in US Mountain time zone, currently 16:56 [I've been to about 30 countries in my brief sojourn, but never Great Britain, even though my ancestry goes through Scotland to France. My immediate roots, however, are American. My first immigrant ancestor came from Scotland in 1625, and from France in 1066. I speak fluent French and have logged about three years there.

-->
@fauxlaw

Hi fauxlaw. This is your debate. I accept any rules you wish.

-->
@Nevets

Thanks for accepting this debate. Please advise before we begin if you're agreeable to the definitions as given. I will wait for your reply, but I have only two days to launch. Good luck!
I note you're new to the site. Welcome aboard. I'm not so experienced on the site, either, but feel free to ask. Navigating around is very easy. This is a great site for debate, and also the forum is stimulating. Have a look at that, too.

-->
@SkepticalOne

You're welcome. Will definitely have fun. Perhaps one day, we'll find a compatible debate. I look forward to that. Be well.

-->
@fauxlaw

Thanks for explaining! Good luck to you and have fun!

-->
@SkepticalOne

In many cases, in order to understand a concept, I invite the elimination of mirrors. What I mean by that is that all of us are our worst enemy in understanding another's perspective, and we tend to consult our own paradigms for verification, like looking in a mirror. Lose the mirror, i.e., lose the paradigm. In this case, I would recommend losing the clock, because it seems to be an impediment. I don't even believe that, beyond our earth perspective, time exists at all. So, lose it if that is a hangup. I use this "tool" whenever challenged in my perception of eternity, because many people hang onto a concept of a Big Bang, then an infinity ahead, only, that's not infinity, at all. There is not beginning, but that's a paradigm many have difficulty accepting. I am not so troubled by the idea. Ergo, does it matter relative to the debate? Yes, I acknowledge that we have moved on in understanding of both Genesis creation and Darwin evolution, but it is my choice of debate parameters. And, yes, I understand that it appears that I am, contrary to losing mirrors, that I am imposing one. It is simply to restrain the debate in the confines of brackets of time. Why? Because there are arguments with the brackets such that either Pro or Con can win the debate. Accept, or don't.

-->
@fauxlaw

I was actually hoping you would explain it so I can understand. I have no choice in that.

-->
@SkepticalOne

Then don't understand. Entirely your choice

-->
@fauxlaw

We've moved passed Darwin's understanding of evolution just as we've moved passed Newton's understanding of gravity. Why would we limit ourselves to a truncated version of modern knowledge?

Don't get me wrong, you can do whatever you like - I just don't understand it.

-->
@SkepticalOne

No, it is not like debating who will win WWII because that event had a definitive outcome it is not a matter of debate. Although "On the Origin of Species" is 161 years since it's original publication, and Genesis is roughly 3,500 years in existence, the outcome of that debate obviously is still engaged. But, you're missing the entire premise of my proposition. It is not a debate of whether Genesis or Darwin is correct, but whether or not they actually cooperate in separate descriptions of the fact of origin and diversity of life on earth.

-->
@fauxlaw

It seems you want to imagine evolution in a time when it was not as well understood and put that against the creation account in Genesis. It's like a historical recreation of a debate that might have happened in Darwin's time. I don't see the purpose - isn't that like debating 'who will win WWII?' While pretending we don't know the answer?

-->
@SkepticalOne

"It looks like you may be defining yourself to a win by with equating evolution to 'an ongoing process of creation.'"

So, that is my beginning argument. It is my burden of proof to demonstrate, isn't it? So, engage, and demonstrate by your arguments that I am wrong. Isn't that what debate is all about? However, may I remind you that when pasta is cooked, as is its intent, and has been for far longer than we've been alive, it is flexible.

-->
@DrSpy

I hesitate acceptance of an expansion of the discussion, both on the "Genesis" and the "Darwin" sides, because I obviously cannot commit to ubiquitous equivalence in advance. otherwise, we would have to agree that as the discussion might expand beyond my originally stated construct, that non-equivalence of design "intent," and random natural selection "intent," may occur. It is the equivalence of the two stated sources that I perceive, and have the burden of proof, to demonstrate. It is that aspect, burden of proof, that becomes endangered. I created the construct of Genesis vs. Darwin because that was the issue in the original debate that occurred immediately coincident with the publication of "On the Origin of Species." There were no other elements joining the debate. In effect, it is the definition of definitions that are virtually always a part of the debate format. The construct is not to weight the discussion in my favor because I can conceive of arguments that oppose my suggestion. Can you?
For example, below, SkepticalOne mentions Pastafarinianism as debatable construct. However, that belief post-dates the original discussion by over 140 years. Shall we also consider the universe construct of turtles, black holes, and Mickey Mouse as sorcerer? If you wish to engage such a debate, create it. This one is my debate; I define the construct, thank you very much.

Are you restricting the conversation of evolution to only Darwin, or the more general all-encompassing and further developed evolutionary model?
Are you restricting all biblical references to Genesis or can other passages in the bible that address the creation be used?

It appears as if this debate is so specific, and constructed to precisely, that it is engineered to be non-debatable. If you agree to the general principals of evolution, and other passages in the bible specifically about creation, then I will take this on as my first debate here.

"In 2005, Henderson founded the religion of Pastafarianism in response to the Kansas State Board of Education's decision to teach intelligent design alongside evolution in schools.[3] He requested that "Pastafarianism" be taught alongside intelligent design and "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence".After his protest letter to the board was ignored, he posted it online and the beliefs quickly gained traction."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Henderson_(activist)

@SkepticalOne
Definitions can change. I'm wiling to negotiate.
By the way, I like your avatar. Mickie is a favorite of mine, but note, even in your modified imagination of the Sistine Chapel ceiling fresco, Adam and God's fingers are still just not touching, whereas, who is that tucked into God's left shoulder, the redhead in his embrace who also lovingly caresses His left arm? Mickie told us: that is Eve, "the mother of all living." He said this is her creation, in God's embrace, as opposed to Adam's creation at finger-length, and more. Says something about creative priorities, doesn't it? And, by your illustrative editing, Adam get's it.
What's a Flying Spaghetti Monster?

-->
@fauxlaw

It looks like you may be defining yourself to a win by with equating evolution to "an ongoing process of creation".