The Instigator
a_drumming_dog
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
smlburridge
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Genesis 1 is Consistent with Modern Scientific Discoveries

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
smlburridge
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,279 times Debate No: 66463
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

a_drumming_dog

Pro

In this debate I will attempt to demonstrate that Genesis 1 is consistent with modern scientific discoveries. Of course, I will present the interpretation of Genesis that I hold to, there are many other interpretations that I reject. My opponent will attempt to show how Genesis is not consistent with modern discoveries and will rebut my interpretation.

First round is for acceptance.
Second for presentations of our points.
Third and fourth are for rebuttals and clarification.

Good luck :)
smlburridge

Con

First of all, I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate.

I would like to present the following, which is my interpretation of Genesis 1.
My source is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and all excerpts come from the New American Bible:
(http://www.usccb.org...)

Genesis 1 is consistent with period writing of the time. During these ancient times, we did not know much about the world and since then have made immeasurable scientific discoveries, some of which the most controversial being the theory of evolution versus the theory of creationism. For the purposes of this debate, I will argue that Genesis 1 is NOT consistent with modern scientific evidence.

Genesis 1:1. In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth-
Let's stop here. According to the United States Geological Survey, the Earth is roughly 4.54 billion years old (http://pubs.usgs.gov...), while the Sun is also, according to this article from Berkley University, currently estimated at about 4.5 billion years old. So if the Earth and the Sun are about the same age, then why is it not mentioned here? Instead, the heavens are created. This is specific because according to Genesis 1:16, God made the Sun on the third day. And it gets even better- Genesis claims there were actual *days* before the Sun was created.

Let's continue to Genesis 1:2:
-and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters-
So apparently, before the earth even has a definite shape or atmosphere, there is a mighty wind? Sweeping over... waters? How'd the water get there? In 2013, geologists in Ontario, Canada, found the oldest yet known pocket of water. 2.6 billion years old. That's 2 billion years short. (http://www.livescience.com...)

And on we go to Genesis 1:3:
Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light.
So there is light before the Sun was even created, in Genesis 1:16 (Day 3 of Creation)? Where is this light coming from? The stars are nowhere near bright enough to simulate broad daylight, that's an obvious fact that could be observed at this very moment. Apparently, this "light" of an unknown source is what days are made out of, as we see in Genesis 1:5. Let's continue.

Genesis 1:4:
God saw that the light was good. God then separated the light from the darkness.
Now, I don't know if the Bible is figurative or literal here. If it is figurative, God could be dividing good from evil. But there is no figurative language in science, so we will interpret it literally. You can't just separate light from dark. They aren't substances in a mixture. Darkness is the absence of light. Light is, clearly, the presence of it.

Genesis 1:5:
God called the light "day" and the darkness he called "night." Evening came, and morning followed- the first day.
Again, back to the same explanation for Genesis 1:3. Where's the light coming from?

Genesis 1:6:
Then God said: Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other.
This was the common way of thinking in the Jewish community at the time. It was believed that rain came from an ocean above the sky ("the dome"). Also, remind yourself that the earth hasn't even had a definite shape at this point, and it's already getting an atmosphere.

Genesis 1:7:
God made the dome, and it separated the water below the dome from the water above the dome. And so it happened.
See my interpretation and rebuttal for Genesis 1:6.

Genesis 1:8:
God called the dome "sky." Evening came, and morning followed- the second day.
Again, without any hint of a Sun yet.

Genesis 1:9:
Then God said: Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin, so that the dry land may appear. And so it happened: the water under the sky was gathered into its basin, and the dry land appeared.
Yes, in the Hadean Era (the first formation of the Earth) we had liquid oceans. But guess what the atmosphere was mostly? CO2. The gas produced so much pressure that it kept water as liquid even though surface temperatures were somewhere around 446 degrees Fahrenheit (230 degrees Celsius). There was intense volcanic activity, and that gives the Hadean its name- Hades, the Greek god of the underworld, or their hell. This is the only time the Jewish writers had gotten it right, but given their track record so far, it was probably just by coincidence.

Genesis 1:10:
God called the dry land "earth," and the basin of water he called "sea." God saw that it was good.
Yep, same thing with Genesis 1:9.

Genesis 1:11:
Then God said: Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. And so it happened:
Okay, so there IS NO SUN AT THIS POINT. And we have plants. PLANTS. Plants are organisms that operate via photosynthesis. They are autotrophs (producers) who synthesize their own food using SUNLIGHT. This can't exist. It's impossible. End of story.

Genesis 1:12:
the earth brought forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw that it was good.
Still no sun. Somehow we get plants. I'm not quite sure how that works. That's right- it doesn't.
Physically impossible.

Genesis 1:13:
Evening came, and morning followed"the third day.
*again, without sunlight.

Genesis 1:14:
Then God said: Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the seasons, the days and the years,
Ah. Here we go. We get light, an entire planet without a gravitational body to orbit around, and even LIFE that depends on sunlight to even exist before we get the sun. Crazy.

Genesis 1:15:
and serve as lights in the dome of the sky, to illuminate the earth. And so it happened:
Just to make sure, I'll reiterate. We got plants, which need sunlight, before we got the sunlight itself.
And you know what's even more important? The existence of a sun is required for the Earth to be orbiting around. During the past three days of Creation, where has that gravitational force been? Nowhere. Hasn't existed yet. So somehow, there isn't even really a solar system until today. We get a planet illuminated by stars, with liquid water oceans, with plants, just floating through the void.

Genesis 1:16:
God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night, and the stars.
Just to nitpick even more here. The Moon doesn't generate it's own light. The moonlight is actually a reflection of the sunlight that has passed our horizon but because the Moon is over 200,000 miles away it still receives. This is also why it is less bright and thus considered lesser by Genesis.

Genesis 1:17:
God set them in the dome of the sky, to illuminate the earth,
You get the picture.

Genesis 1:18:
to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good.
Again, going back to my interpretation and rebuttal of Genesis 1:4, darkness is the absence of light. It's not actually a substance. Light is the presence, of, well, light.

Genesis 1:19:
Evening came, and morning followed"the fourth day.
The first "real" day.

Genesis 1:20:
Then God said: Let the water teem with an abundance of living creatures, and on the earth let birds fly beneath the dome of the sky.
So birds became the first animals, along with fish. It's not like most birds eat bugs or anything.

Genesis 1:21:
God created the great sea monsters and all kinds of crawling living creatures with which the water teems, and all kinds of winged birds. God saw that it was good,

Genesis 1:22:
and God blessed them, saying: Be fertile, multiply, and fill the water of the seas; and let the birds multiply on the earth.

Genesis 1:23:
Evening came, and morning followed"the fifth day.
The second real day.

Genesis 1:24:
Then God said: Let the earth bring forth every kind of living creature: tame animals, crawling things, and every kind of wild animal. And so it happened:
So before humans even exist, we have domesticated animals? Something's wrong with your clock, buddy.

Genesis 1:25:
God made every kind of wild animal, every kind of tame animal, and every kind of thing that crawls on the ground. God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:26:
Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.
Let us? Is he proposing the construction of Earth to a city council? He'll need a lot of red tape.

Genesis 1:27:
God created mankind in his image;
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Remember, we had already domesticated animals before we ourselves even existed.

Genesis 1:28:
God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth.
We've certainly been subduing it with air pollution, overpopulation, overfishing, and massive ecological change.

Genesis 1:29:
God also said: See, I give you every seed-bearing plant on all the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;
That's a lot of seeds. But then again, he is omnipotent.

Genesis 1:30:
and to all the wild animals, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the earth, I give all the green plants for food. And so it happened.

Genesis 1:31:
God looked at everything he had made, and found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed"the sixth day.
The third real day.

So really, the Bible made some serious mistakes, and I can't say I blame them. They were trying to make do with what they thought they knew about the universe Unfortunately for them, it wasn't right.
Debate Round No. 1
a_drumming_dog

Pro

Well, the first round as for acceptance only, but that's okay. Thanks Con for participating. I will now present my interpretation. I suppose I should say this first. The book of Genesis was originally written in Hebrew, therefore I will be using Hebrew words and their definitions often. Keep in mind that Genesis was also originally written for the ancient Jews, that's why is does not contain many specifics that we have come to know today.

First off, the days in Genesis are not like literal days. The Hebrew word for day is the word "yom." This word has a number of definitions. One of those definitions is an indefinite or very long period of time. It is very similar to the English for "day." For instance, when I say "In the day of the dinosaurs, giant lizards ruled the earth" it's pretty obvious that I am not talking about a literal day, but rather an age, or era. I take the word yom as used in genesis to mean a long period of time. http://judaism.stackexchange.com...

"1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

The Hebrew written here is "Bereisheet bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz." The phrase "hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz" was a Hebrew figure of speech meaning everything in the universe. It is similar to a compound word in English. The words "dragon" and "fly" take on a totally different meaning when put together. I believe that this verse is consistent with Big Bang Cosmology. In fact, I believe that this verse directly refers to the Big Bang itself. The whole universe comes into existence in this verse. The universe had a beginning; therefore something caused it to begin. That something may have been God.
http://en.wikipedia.org... (Its Wikipedia, I know, it is well cited though.)

"2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

Verse two takes a turn. The frame of reference dramatically shifts from the entire universe, to the surface of the earth, "the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." This frame of reference remains the same throughout the rest of the chapter. This verse also establishes the conditions of the earth. "[D]arkness is over the face of the deep." So, the earth was without form, dark, and God was hovering over the waters. Water is the most abundant compound in the universe, and the early earth could have had much more water than the present earth does (for reasons I will address in the next paragraph). Also, a newly formed Earth would have had a very thick atmosphere, due to the nature of planet formation. This would cause darkness over the entire surface. Job 38:8-9 biblically confirms this interpretation as well. It makes perfect sense to think of the very early earth as having these initial conditions described in Genesis 1:2
http://www.universetoday.com...
http://www.astrobio.net...
http://www.ecology.com... (Earth's early atmosphere most likely resembled that of Jupiter's)

Day 1

"3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."

How could light be suddenly seen when the earth's early atmosphere was so thick? Well, the moon impact event would explain this quite well. A mars sized object collided with the primordial earth. This blasted away much of it atmosphere and probably vaporized the water on the surface. This would allow light from the sun to be seen on the surface. Night and day were now distinguishable.
http://www.space.com...

Day 2

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day."

Water vapor condenses and falls to earth. The ocean and atmosphere are now separate and a stable water cycle has been formed. Many Bible translations, such as the NIV, translate the word "heaven" (Hebrew word "shamayim") as sky. Keep in mind that the Hebrew language does not have the large vocabulary that English does. Most Hebrew words have multiple meanings.
http://www.biblestudytools.com...

Day 3

"9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day."

Many skeptics point out that fossils animal life predate fossils of plant life. However, the Hebrew word used here for vegetation, "deshe," can refer to any green photosynthetic life on land. This would include ancient cyanobacteria which appear very early in the fossil record. The Hebrew words for seed, trees, and fruit (zera, es, and pri) can also resoectively mean "semen" or "the embryos of any plant species, " "any large plant containing woody fiber," and "the food and or embryos produced by any living thing." Keep in mind that genesis does not say that all plant life was created at this moment. These definitions are consistent with what we understand to be very early life on earth.
(Definitions for these Hebrew words can be found in the Theological Workbook of the Old Testament written in 1980 by R. Laird Harris and other authors. I can't find a copy on the internet, so this is the best citation I can give you)
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org...

For the sake of the character limit, I will not be showing the direct verses anymore. You can view them here https://www.biblegateway.com...

Day 4

Verses 14-19

During the fourth day the sun and moon appear in the sky as the photosynthetic life was consuming water vapor and carbon dioxide while volcanic activity on earth began to slow down and stabilize. They were now distinguishable from the surface of the earth. Genesis says God "made" the stars, sun and moon and the fourth day, (the Hebrew used for made is the word "asa") however, this verb does appear in an appropriate form for denoting a past action. Verses 17 and 18 say that God set them, past tense, in the sky. The first few verses of Genesis also imply that the sun moon and stars were made prior to the fourth day.

Day 5

Verses 20-23

God creates specific kinds of animals here, they are "nephesh" animals. The word nephesh denotes animals that have certain attributes, such as mind, will, and emotion. Examples of nephesh animals are dogs and cats. Most birds also fall into this category. Sea mammals and birds are created here. Many skeptics will point these verses out, saying that there is a discrepancy between them and the fossil record. Sea mammals are found in the fossil record after land mammals. But, this problem is easily cleared when you read the text carefully. These verses refer to sea mammals generically while later verses refer to 3 specific kinds of land mammals. We will explore that shortly. Now you may be thinking, what about the dinosaurs? Well, Genesis is only an account of the creation of what is important to humanity. Nobody in ancient Israel would have known about dinosaurs, dinosaurs did not really apply to them or have any significance, therefore God saw it unnecessary to but them into Genesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Day 6

Verses 24-31

On Day 6, God creates three specific kinds of animals: livestock, wild animals, and creatures that move along the ground. This kind of specificity indicates that this verse is not referring to land animals in general. The Hebrew words are b'hema (livestock), hayya (wild animals) and remes (this word most likely refers to short legged mammals like rodents). In light of this information, I think any apparent discrepancy is done away with. After this, God creates man. This is consistent with the fossil record. Man appears later than everything else created.
http://biblehub.com...

Now, you may be thinking, what about the theory of evolution? Well, I don't see why you couldn't some how fit evolution into the mix of this interpretation. God creates organisms, and then may or may not allow them to evolve. This would explain why we tend to see species and even whole phyla appear abruptly in the fossil record. To support this I turn to explosions like the Cambrian Explosion and the Avalon Explosion. Even the great Richard Dawkins acknowledges that the organisms in the Cambrian Explosion appear suprisingly quickly. In the Cambrian Explosion, we find most of the phyla (body types) that we know today. This is consistent with what we would see if there was a creator in action. I'm not saying that there is no evolution at all, I'm saying that God creates the animals, and then he may or may not allow them to evolve.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for your time. Sorry this is an incredibly long post. I'm looking forward to a nice discussion. :)
smlburridge

Con

Again, I apologize for posting my argument early. I misread.

I must remind the audience that Pro is here to argue that Genesis 1 is consistent with modern scientific discoveries. I am here to argue that it is not. All of my arguments will be made with this kept in mind.

Let's start with rebuttals.

1) Yes, but according to current hypotheses, the Big Bang was approximately 13 billion years ago. The Earth is only 4.54 billion years old. This is inconsistent. You also say, since this implies the entire universe, it implies that the sun and moon were also created. But the problem with this is that it is also inconsistent. The Sun was created, roughly, around the same time the Earth was. Still 9 billion years off.

2) Yes, the Hebrew vocabulary is significantly smaller than English, but the literal Hebrew earth model is an ocean above the sky. Not the water cycle. They didn't know what the water cycle was. Instead, they believed there were waters above the sky that occasionally opened and fell.

3) Saying that these days can mean ages is inconsistent with you trying to prove that Genesis is consistent. We have to get our chronological order right. How can photosynthesis exist without sunlight?

4) Yes, well the entire Bible was written in past tense because everything has already happened. Your point is moot, because by the time Genesis is written the sun already (obviously) exists, and thus it has to be in the past tense. But this does not imply that the sun was created alongside the Big Bang.

5) So the dinosaurs are not significant? You have to prove the Bible is consistent with our modern understanding. Saying that these bones aren't significant means you are invalidating your own argument. And here's the crux of the argument. Even you admit that the ancient Hebrews did not have all the information about the creation of the Universe. But by having this very argument, you are trying to prove they did.

6) After providing the Hebrew word b'hema for livestock, you say that it eliminates any discrepancy? That we had tamed animals before we ourselves even existed? That's not a discrepancy?

7) So God has no prescience? He just says "hey, this species didn't turn out the way I wanted it to" and causes its extinction?

Thank you for your time, and I urge you to vote against the resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
a_drumming_dog

Pro

Because of the missed acceptance thing, I suggest that you end the debate with a "Thank you" or some comments rather than rebuttals. I think that would make it more fair, so that we both have an equal amount of rounds to express our thoughts. Its not a big deal, though.

1) Okay, I may have made this unclear. The phrase "hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz" (the heavens and the earth) does not refer to the earth or the sky or heavens. Rather it refers to the universe itself. It is a Hebrew figure of speech for the universe, much like how the words rain and bow take a totally different meaning from their usually meanings when put together (rainbow). This verse refers to the creation moment, the Big Bang itself. Verse two then shifts to the surface of the earth. Verse 1 to verse 2 = from the Big Bang to the formation of the earth, which is about 9 billion years like you said. Verse two starts when the earth has mostly formed but is still evolving. I hope I have cleared up any misunderstanding.

2) I agree that the ancient Hebrews probably did not know about the water cycle. I was simply stating that this is when a stable water cycle would have been formed, after the moon impact event.

3) How is accepting the word "yom" to mean a long period of time inconsistent? I can use that definitions of yom, and everything falls into place chronologically. I see no problem with it. Here is some biblical eivdence to back up the long period interpretation of yom. (Its a short article. Read it if you'd like.)
http://www.reasons.org...
You seem to be mistaken about the light on the first day. When God said let there be light, the giant impact event took place, eventually forming the moon. It blasted away much of earth's atmosphere so that sunlight was visible on the surface (this is the light God is speaking of). Night and day were now distinguishable, but the sun was not clearly visible (much like how you can see on an overcast day, but the sun is not visible at all.) Photosynthetic life would fair in these kinds of conditions.

4) Verse two still implies that the earth was already formed. "2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." From this verse, we clearly know that the earth was already formed (mostly).The mention of "hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz" puts the creation of the universe before the first creation day. Also, the verb used in the phrase "Let there be light" is the verb "haya." This word can mean "to come to pass, to exist," or "to happen" among others. The verb usually used with God's creative powers is bara (this is used in verse one, and with the creation of creation of man. It's also used in some other places in Genesis, but I can't remember.) The word choice here is significant. If God had created the light at that moment, Genesis would use bara. But, it uses haya instead, denoting that the light was not being created by God at that moment. Its completely logical, for reasons above, to conclude that the sun was formed before Day 4.
http://biblehub.com...
http://biblehub.com...

5) "You have to prove the Bible is consistent with our modern understanding."
False, I said that it is consistent with modern discoveries, not with modern understanding. I know there's not really a big difference between the two, but we need to be wary of straw men here.
The book of Genesis was written for all generations. Since most people who read Genesis would have had no knowledge what so ever of dinosaurs, they simply didn't make it into the cut. Genesis largely deals with what is important to the history of humanity. It does not deal with the entire history of the universe, or even the entire history of the earth. The fact that Genesis makes no mention of dinosaurs does not take away from the remarkable coherence of Genesis with what we have discovered today.
"Even you admit that the ancient Hebrews did not have all the information about the creation of the Universe. But by having this very argument, you are trying to prove they did."
Again, I am not trying to prove that Hebrews had modern understanding. I and trying to show how Genesis is consistent with modern discoveries.

6) That part Genesis does not does not say that domesticated livestock were created haha, it says b'hema were created. B'hema refers to the animals that are known as livestock. This is where knowledge of the Hebrew language would come in handy to both of us I suppose. Meaning is lost in words when they are translated.

7)I'm not sure why extinction has anything to do with our debate, but I'll entertain the thought. My understanding is that God filled the earth with life (i.e. dinosuars, animals, a hell of a lot of plants, bugs, ocean life) in ancient times to create conditions that would be optimal for humanity later. For example, because God allowed for much plant life and bacteria life in the past, we now have huge oil and coal reserves. Oil is an important part of our lives as you probably can see. When these organisms had fulfilled God's plans, he let them go extinct.
http://www.adventuresinenergy.org...
smlburridge

Con

Alright. We'll use the last round for thanks.

Accepting the word "yom" to mean a long period of time is inconsistent because throughout Genesis 1 it is translated as "Evening came, and morning followed." The very fact there is a "night" means it has to be a standard 24-hour day, not an undefined period of time.

If "hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz" puts the creation of the universe before the first creation day, did God really create the universe? Or is Genesis only concerned with the earth and the creation of its existence, instead of the entire universe we see today? Is the universe we live in not significant?

But now we're beginning to run out of oil. Will God lead another species to extinction just so we can continue to sustain ourselves and ruin the ecosystem with global warming? Will He always be there to supply us with something when we run out?
Debate Round No. 3
a_drumming_dog

Pro

Yes, the first six days of the Genesis creation account end with "and there was evening and the morning, the Xth day." This indeed makes it seem reasonable to conclude that all of the days in Genesis are literal 24 hour days. However, lets take a look at the seventh day.

Genesis 2 "2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done."

Notice here that there is no evening or morning for the seventh day. This seems quite peculiar, but when we start to look at why the words "evening and morning" are there, its starts to make sense. Given the placement of those words, they seem to be marking the end of each day. The phrase is said after the events of each day in Genesis. The words "evening and morning" therefore act as short of bookmarks or chapter endings rather than literal evening and morning. Because the phrase does not appear in the seventh day, we can conclude that they are metaphorical rather than literal (why wouldn't Genesis say evening and morning on the seventh day if it was a literal day?). This also implies that the seventh creation day is still happening (God's is resting, and that's why we haven't seen any of his creative powers at work).
http://www.reasons.org...
http://www.reasons.org...
http://www.reasons.org...

Genesis 1;1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." So we can safely say that the Bible does in fact conclude that God created the universe. But perhaps you could consider the first few verses apart of creation day 1. I don't think it makes a difference either way. Genesis seems to be concerned with what is most important to humans. The beginning of the universe is definitely important to the existence of humanity, so it was pout into Genesis.

We are beginning to run on a bit of a tangent here on this last paragraph. You acknowledge that we are running out of oil. What will God do then for humanity? Well, according to Biblical prophecy and the events that I have seen going on in the world, I'd say that humanity won't be around on this earth much longer, therefore we wont need more oil. Just how long is hard to say though. But that's just my opinion.

It's been a good debate with you. I will give credit to where I am getting most of my information. It's from a man named Hugh Ross. I'm getting my interpretation of Genesis from his book "Navigating Genesis," which was released this year I think. Hugh Ross also has a ministry called Reasons To Believe (http://www.reasons.org...). You should look into it more. Its extremely interesting.
smlburridge

Con

Great debate. I won't make any rebuttals here, because my opponent won't be able to respond to them.
Anyway, thanks to my opponent for debating me and thanks to you for reading and voting.

I urge you to vote against this resolution.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
That crappy vote ways lol whatever lol
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
I normally just blocks you from voting. Not keeps you on 1/2 the day then removes you. Then lets you write another one for 1/2 then removes you and lets you do this several times. Each time I wrote something different basically that I think con won and some other comment to show I read it.

Now voted again just saying it think con made a better argument and there is no reason it should not stay on.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
gmoergcc: Maybe you do not have a good enough RFD?
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
WTF!!!! I have voted for con 4 or 5 times now.
I have checked the vote stay on for several hours. Next day they are gone.
Posted by ShadowHawk555 2 years ago
ShadowHawk555
Smlburrige are you in model UN? Vote against this resolution and thank you for your time is stuff we say in model UN and it sounded familiar.
Posted by a_drumming_dog 2 years ago
a_drumming_dog
lol first round was for acceptance haha. whatever its fine
Posted by smlburridge 2 years ago
smlburridge
Oh, and excuse me for posting my case in my first post. Forgot about that part.
That'll mess us up a little bit, but it gives a bit more time for rebuttal.
Posted by smlburridge 2 years ago
smlburridge
I am debating because I do not believe in Creationism personally.
Instead I believe in the interpretation that God created us indirectly, through processes such as the Big Bang and evolution.
Posted by a_drumming_dog 2 years ago
a_drumming_dog
lol its surprises me that you're a christian smlburridge. Why are you debating? Just wondering
Posted by a_drumming_dog 2 years ago
a_drumming_dog
@smlburridge

The burden of proof shall be on me. It only seems fair that way, since I am the one proposing my own interpretation.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
a_drumming_dogsmlburridgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I think con made a better agrument
Vote Placed by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
a_drumming_dogsmlburridgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave conduct to pro as con resorted to mockery and asking rhetorical questions. Con may have presented scientific evidence to discredit the claims of the Bible, but 1) He didn't attack an ancient interpretation of Genesis simply a modern one 2) He cited no sources to validate his claims, making his arguments weak against pro's sources which demonstrated that it is plausible for Genesis 1 to be consistent with modern scientific understanding. Pro wasted no time defending a modern interpretation, he simply went back to how Genesis 1 was originally intended to be interpreted and that is the basis to determine whether or not Scripture is reliable or not.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
a_drumming_dogsmlburridgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel that Con successfully rebutted the main arguments of Pro, but still had misconduct by posting arguments in the first round.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
a_drumming_dogsmlburridgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was supposed to show Genesis 1 is consistent with modern scientific discoveries. Instead, he focused on reconciling Genesis with modern scientific hypotheses. This alone was enough to make me unable to vote in his favor, but there's also the fact that it was never defined what it means for an account of supernatural intervention to be consistent with scientific discoveries. There are two possible ways of interpreting it. One, it is inherently incapable of being reconciled with scientific discoveries since supernatural acts violate scientific laws by definition. Or two, scientific evidence of the aftermath of past events is consistent with what would be expected had Genesis 1 actually occurred. I will remark that Pro's contorting of the text is only outdone by Con's double-standard, since as a self-described Catholic he considers it true when the Bible claims bread literally turns into the flesh of a God-Man yet not when it says Earth came before the sun.