Macro-evolution is absolutely incompatible with Christian Doctrine

1 – Six Days My opponent heavily appeals to one of two strategies. The first strategy is to discredit face-value Genesis. The second strategy is to deny the reality of established and currently accepted scientific records of the history of the planet. I will attempt to dispose of these two strategies under this point and, where necessary, address any particulars under the remaining points. The second strategy is the easiest to dispose of so I will start there. We note that the thesis states "macro-evolution, as currently understood and accepted," therefore any manipulation of macro-evolution that my opponent employs that alters it from the "currently understood and accepted" state, necessarily fails. This might be a disputable point if it were applied to an unsettled or disputable aspect of the scientific record but my opponent has used this strategy in attempts to suggest drastic alterations of reality. Under point 2 my opponent suggests that the order of events is not important to macro-evolution. The problem is that the fossil record is used as evidence to prove the validity of macro-evolution precisely because of the order of events it is purported to show. The fossil record cannot be changed no matter what my opponent speculates. Additionally if the fossil record were changed in a manner that fit Genesis, macro-evolution would cease to be "as currently understood and accepted" or valid at all. Under point 3 my opponent suggests that death is not required for macro-evolution to produce complex creatures like men. The problem is that the fossil record, as applied to macro-evolution, dictates hundreds of millions of years of stuff getting dead. The fossil record cannot be changed no matter what my opponent speculates. If his speculations don't match with reality then they are not valid. To dispose of my opponent's strategy of attacking face-value Genesis will apparently require a more thorough development. He attacks my statement "Christian doctrine represents an objective reality and absolute truth" as being unsubstantiated but the statement is actually self evident in terms of this debate. It is a simple logical progression. Once we assume the Christian God, which we must to have this debate, we necessarily assume that God is the author of the objective reality in which we operate and is also necessarily the author of Christian doctrine. It is also a necessary assumption that God, objective reality and Christian doctrine are true and non-contradictory. If we change any of these assumptions then we change the nature of what is being discussed and it is no longer of the Christian God. Furthermore, when we assume the Christian God, we must necessarily assume the scripture of the Holy Bible is God's revelation to man. Why? Because it is the chief source of what is known about the Christian God. One cannot assume the Christian God but deny the source from where the knowledge of the Christian God is found. To do so would change the nature of God. If we assume the Bible then we must assume that the Bible is true and non-contradictory with objective reality and Christian doctrine. In short, if we assume the Christian God, which we must to have this debate, then God, objective reality, Christian doctrine and the Bible must necessarily be non-contradictory and true. Therefore anything that is contradictory with one of these things must necessarily be false. My opponent points out that there are those who operate under the label "Christian" but hold a variety of often contradictory beliefs. This is of no consequence. Objective reality, God, Christian doctrine and absolute truth remain unchanged. These things and their nature are not contingent on belief or on consensus. The final authority on objective reality and Christian doctrine is God. Not men. Where do we learn about God's objective reality and Christian doctrine? God's Word, the Bible. My opponent points out that some, who claim the label "Christian," do not believe that the Bible should be taken at face value. Should it be? Is the Bible the absolute authority of God? My opponent wishes that we had God's testimony on the matter. We do. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Furthermore we have the Biblical record of Jesus Christ habitually quoting and referencing scripture and Christ believed that scripture is the Word of God (Matt 22:31,32) The Bible is God's revelation to man. Is it logical to think that God's revelation should be taken figuratively or that it could be disregarded? If your boss gave you instructions in a memo, would it be reasonable to disregard the face value meaning in exchange for one foreign to what was written? If the supreme creator-god of the universe gave you instructions would it be reasonable to disregard its meaning for a wildly different interpretation? The face value meaning of Genesis is very clear and specific. There must be some compelling scriptural reason to justify disregarding the face value meaning for one that is foreign to what is written. No such compelling scriptural reason exists. Without a compelling scriptural reason, any departure from face value scripture must be regarded as heresy, not Christian doctrine. 2 – Order of Events See point #1 Here my opponent relies on his objections to face value scripture cataloged in his point #1. I address those objections in my point #1. We are not dealing with theoretical musings of what may be possible in the framework of macro-evolution but with matters of scientific record held to be a true account of how macro-evolution operated on earth and deposited a fossil record. This isn't about "what might happen if" but about what the scientific community says did indeed happen. My opponent does not enjoy the privilege to manipulate the order of the scientific record to fit speculation. Either the scientific record of what is accepted as macro-evolution on earth is consistent with Christian doctrine or it is not. I say that it is not. My opponent would reconcile the two by either destroying the integrity of the Bible or the integrity of the fossil record. 3 – Death See point #1 Additionally: I am puzzled about my opponent's assertion that I ignored the spiritual aspect of death as consequence of the fall of man. My opponent actually discussed this in his 4th point of round 1 and I dealt with it in my 4th point of round 2. I ask my opponent to review those points. If he still finds that I have ignored an aspect of his argument, I will strive to atone. 4 – Sacrifice on the Cross My opponent continues to hold to the notion that the penalty for sin is only spiritual death. He fails to address the fact that Christ's death on the cross was a physical death as well as a spiritual death. Furthermore, and more importantly, Christ's resurrection was a physical resurrection. This gives ample support to the fact that the penalty of sin is both spiritual and physical. 5 – Ark My opponent holds three possible ways to reconcile Genesis with macro-evolution in regard to the flood. This first is to say Genesis isn't true – see point #1. The second - accelerated micro-evolution and third – sufficient biodiversity do not create a conflict between Christian doctrine and macro-evolution but neither do they confirm a harmony between the two because there is no necessary intersection. Nevertheless, I will concede point # 5 to my opponent. I conclude that my first four points stand and as such represent irreconcilable conflicts between macro-evolution and Christian doctrine. I concede my 5th point to my opponent but note that the 5th point holds no bearing on the first four nor does it confirm a positive, harmonious interworking of macro-evolution and Christian doctrine. I await my opponent's response.