God Created Existence In Six Days
Proposal: The Genesis account of Creation does not contradict the current scientific understanding of universal origins; nor does scientific theory effectively disprove that G-d performed His work for six days and then took to rest on the seventh.
The person who accepts this challenge will be arguing against the point.
EDIT: The first contender has been removed due to inobjectivity and the first challenger instated despite this topic's restrictions.
In order to keep the number of rounds fair, I assume that this first round is acceptance. My opponent has allowed me to contain arguments that not only prove that the world was not created by God in 6 days but I am allowed to disprove their claim by disproving God's existence.
I will allow my opponent to begin their argument and look forward to an interesting debate with a shared burden of proof.
I was on the University of California Riverside's library archives researching an astrophysics paper written in 1997 by Philip Gibbs concerning the matter of a black hole residing at the center of the universe. Data had surfaced indicating that the universal singularity (the moment of infinite mass that preceded the Big Bang) was not "bending spacetime" as it should have been given the apparent rapid expansion and then progressive deceleration of the universal model.
According to Schwarzschild's radii equation, and as afforded by Newton's gravitational constant (G); spacetime is being observed at the alleged "beginning of time" as being in a "flat" state, not possessing the drastic bend the BBT (Big Bang Theory) calls for. This has given rise to speculation that what we perceive as being the universe is in all actuality an illusion.
I will address my opponent's argument in the next round. This round is for arguments. I will note that in the first round my opponent states that the creation story does not contradict the scientific theories for the creation of the universe however I would like to see how exactly this is true in his rebuttal.
The Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
Current instruments don't allow astronomers to peer back at the universe's birth, much of what we understand about the Big Bang Theory comes from mathematical theory and models. Astronomers can, however, see the "echo" of the expansion through a phenomenon known as the cosmic microwave background.
In the first seconds after the universe began, the surrounding temperature was roughly 5.5 billion Celsius, according to NASA. The cosmos contained an array of fundamental particles such as neutrons, electrons and protons. These decayed or combined as the universe cooled
This would have been impossible to look at, because light could not carry inside of it. "The free electrons would have caused light (photons) to scatter the way sunlight scatters from the water droplets in clouds," NASA stated. Over time, however, the free electrons met up with nuclei and created neutral atoms. This allowed light to shine through about 380,000 years after the Big Bang occured.
This early light — sometimes called the "afterglow" of the Big Bang — is more properly known as the cosmic microwave background (CMB). It was first predicted by Ralph Alpher and other scientists in 1948, but was found out almost 20 years later.
Astronomers said they had found evidence in the CMB concerning "B-modes," a polarization generated as the universe got bigger and created gravitational waves. The team spotted evidence of this using an Antarctic telescope.
"We're very confident that the signal that we're seeing is real, and it's on the sky," lead researcher John Kovac, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, told Space.com in March 2014.
The same team later revealed that their findings could have been altered by galactic dust getting in the way of their view.
"The basic takeaway has not changed; we have high confidence in our results," Kovac said in a press conference reported by the New York Times. "New information from Planck makes it look like pre-Planckian predictions of dust were too low," he added.
The results from Planck were put online in pre-published form in September. By January 2015, researchers from both teams working together "confirmed that the Bicep signal was mostly, if not all, stardust," the New York Times said in another article.
Whilst I admit that the Big Bang is not proven to be true, my examples show that the Big Bang has scientific proof to have happened whereras the story of creation - whether it was 6 or 7 days has no scientific evidence to be even considered true. The Big Bang is possible and science has proven this. The creation story is possible (because nothing is impossible). Its evidence is from a book that was orally transmitted for 1500 years and could have been drastically altered.
Evolution are the changes that occur in a populus over time. A “populus” is a group of the same species that share a specific habitat. Evolutionary changes occur on the genetic level. Results are inherited from generations.
When successful, these genetic adaptations, which happen when genes mutate and/or combine in different ways during reproduction, help organisms survive, reproduce, and raise offspring. Some individuals inherit characteristics that make them more successful at surviving and having babies. These advantageous characteristics tend to appear more frequently in the population (because those individuals with less advantageous characteristics are more likely to die without reproducing), and over time these changes become common throughout that population, ultimately leading to new species.
Biological evolution explains the way all living things evolved over billions of years from a single common ancestor. This concept is often illustrated by the so-called tree of life. Every branch on the tree represents a species. The fork separating one species from another represents the common ancestor that each pair of species shared. So ultimately, all life is interconnected, but any two species may be separated by millions or even billions of years of evolution.
Some people have been stunned to learn that about 98.5% of the genes in people and chimpanzees are identical. This finding means chimps are the closest living biological relatives to humans. What it does indicate is that humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, making us distant cousins. We are related to these other living primates, but we did not descend from them.
Human brains are larger and more complex; people have better forms of communication; people walk upright, can manipulate very small objects, and can speak.
Most scientists believe our common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Then two species broke off into separate lineages, one ultimately evolving into gorillas and chimps, the other evolving into early humans called hominids. In the millions of years that followed, at least a dozen different species of humanlike creatures have existed, reflected in the fossil discoveries of paleoanthropologists, although many of these species are close relatives but not actual ancestors of modern humans.
The fossil record does not show a straight line of ancestry; many of these early hominids left no descendents and died out. Others are most likely direct ancestors of modern humans or Homo sapiens. Scientists still do not know the total number of hominid species that existed, because fossils are discovered every decade, the story of human evolution is becoming clearer.
All living organisms have not been preserved in the fossils; most have not because very specific conditions must exist in order to create fossils. The fossil record provides a good outline of human evolutionary history.
The earliest humans were found in Africa, which is where a lot of human evolution occurred. The fossils of these early hominids, which lived 2 to 6 million years ago, all come from that continent. Scientists believe early humans migrated out of Africa into Asia 2 million years ago, entering Europe within the past 1 million years. Here are some of the early human species discovered:
An African apelike species evolved probably around 6 million years ago with two skeletal characteristics that set it apart from apes: small canine teeth (the teeth on either side of the four front teeth) compared to the long canines found in almost all other primates, and, most importantly, bipedalism or walking on two legs as the primary mode of locomotion.
The very early years of the transition from ape to human, from 6 million to 4 million years ago, is poorly documented in the fossil record, but those fossils that have been discovered document the most primitive combinations of ape and human features.
Fossils from different early australopith species that lived between 4 million and 2 million years ago show a variety of adaptations that mark this transition much more clearly. Among the genera that are included in early australopith species are Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, and Aripithecus; a species of the genus Kenyanthropus; and four species of the genusAustralopithecus.
An example specimin, “Lucy,” the partial skeleton of a female discovered in 1974. Lucy belongs to a species, Australopithicus afarensis, which lived in eastern Africa between 3.9 million and 3 million years ago. Scientists have found several hundred A. afarensis fossils in Hadar. Lucy lived 3.2 million years ago.
By about 2.7 million years ago, so-called robust australopiths had evolved, with wide molars and premolars and a facial structure that indicate that these robust australopiths chewed their food, primarily tough, fibrous plants, powerfully and for long periods. Several robust species have been identified, and the last robust australopiths died out about 1.4 million years ago.
Scientists have dated the oldest fossils with skeletal features of modern humans from 195,000 years ago. Early modern Homo sapiens fossils have come from sites in Sudan, Ethiopia, South Africa, and Israel. Many scientists have therefore concluded that modern Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and began spreading to other parts of the world 90,000 years ago or a little earlier, although whether, how, why, and when this happened is still in dispute. And it was not until about 40,000 years ago that anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, emerged. Since that time, human evolution has been primarily cultural as opposed to biological.
Scientists believe Earth itself is roughly 4.55 billion years old. The oldest fossils are close to 3.5 billion years old; some scientists have discovered evidence that life may have begun 4 billion years ago. The oldest known humanlike fossil has been dated at 4.4 million years old, although another species, not yet confirmed as a hominid, has been dated at about 6 million years old. As mentioned earlier, scientists estimate that the earliest hominid species diverged from the ape lineage between 5 and 8 million years ago. The species to which we belong, Homo sapiens, is only 40,000 years old.
Let it be known that Con does not understand that I do not intend to disprove science's understanding of the Big Bang, nor do I intend to disprove of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin and is understood by modern scientists today.
It is my intention to prove that the Genesis account of Creation is a simplified, albeit metaphoric, generational narrative of universal origins, and is not predisposed to stand as a source subjected to mankind's accepted scientific method of analytical inquiry. Simply put, mathematicians will just have to become English teachers for a while. This is the paradox that exists between mankind's understanding of the physical and spiritual condition of things.
"For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." - (Galatians 5:17)
I am willing to accept Con's terms and sources as they relate to The Big Bang universal model and evolution as defined by general science to be true within the scope they continue to remain wholly unchanged by their respective definitions.
Again, for clarification;
Day, by order of magnitude can be defined as being a particular period of the past or an era.
And on the sixth day he formed Man from the ground, but not before creating beasts first. A distinct and unique species of H. sapiens., but not like those (animals) that existed prior to the advent of modern humanity 200,000 years ago. This is made apparent with unexplainably rapid leaps in evolution, virtually discounting a nominal link between modern H. Sapien and its accepted ancestors. This has happened twice according to simple sources (Google the age of humans) and is why we have different kinds of animals but only one kind of human being. Only one human-type would be able to survive on the planet at the same time.
Can you imagine having to compete with another class of homo sapien equivalent to or greater than ours on the evolutionary timescale? That would have catastrophic consequences. :)
Sources: Googled simple keywords, Wikipedia, a dictionary and reason.
I will refute my opponent's R2 arguments now.
The first paragraph relates to personal research however I am willing to accept this as a valid source. This first paragraph makes a claim but offers no evidence so I will now refute the arguments.
Okay, now the main problem I have with my opponent's quotes is that they are from the Bible. While certain elements may coincide with the Big Bang theory however did the Big Bang theory take 6 days to happen? No. Was it necessary for a God to have started it? No. The Big Bang theory could have happened on its own and since my opponent is arguing for the Genesis account of creation, this means that he believes that 2 humans were made and life was made within the first week of the world's existence. My opponent must then also believe that we are roughly the same age as the Sun and other stars in our solar system. Even if I did concede that the Big Bang was created from God (which I'm not doing), this does not mean that you have met your burden of proof since you haven't considered evolution. You haven't considered the age of the Earth in comparison to stars. If they were all made in the same week, then why do we know for a fact that the Earth isn't as old as the Sun and many other stars.
I will now refute R3 since there is no debate structure.
I understand that you aren't trying to disprove sciences understanding of the Big Bang nor evolution. Okay, even if God did refer to days as a different period of time to how we see days. Science also clearly tells us that it is impossible to make a female out of a male's rib. Adam and Eve could not have been the first people because there never was a first person. The changes that occured during evolution were so gradual, that the being before the human would have been almost identical. The fact that it says that God put Adam on the Earth also suggests that he didn't allow the animals to evolve into other animals. It shows that Adam was put on the Earth by God.
I will now provide some more arguments since my opponent has not specified otherwise.
Scientists [know] that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old while the universe is somewhere from 10 to 20 billion years old.
This is a fact known by scientists and it is propostourous that you can believe that everything was created in 7 periods of time because even if you do assume that when God refers to days he means a different amount of time, due to the fact that he refers to them all as days means that each period of time must be equal. In the creation story it never says that God created the Universe and then decided to take a 15 billion year long rest before deciding to make the planets (including the Earth). You cannot say that this was just one of God's days because if it was just one of God's days that must mean that all of the days that God refers to go over the period of 15 billion years. This wouldn't make sense since that would mean that humans evolved from animals 15 billion years later.
Now I will show why the Bible is unreliable and show why it cannot be trusted. I will provide some of God's mistakes first and then show the Bible's inconsistencies:
Now I will show you the Bible inconsistencies and why you cannot trust them.
The Bible makes it clear that stars are tiny objects in the sky that will fall down when Jesus comes back:
[Con: "[...]since there is no debate structure."][Source: Age of the earth: 4.54 × 109 years ± 1%; sourced from Wiki][Source: Age of the moon: https://www.google.com...[NOTE: I would also like to point out that several sources are in conflict with each other in regards to science's understanding of the age of the aforementioned space objects. Given their general mystery and presence outside our realm of tangibility, the rounding of figures seems to be a common practice amongst more than several branches of science today. This is an open red ticket that leads to cause for speculation amongst mainstream Christians who cry foul when those scientists are actually presenting (and being truthful about) their findings.]
A: Con has made a true statement in regards to that there is no formal structure to this debate topic. This has been made apparent by my own inadequacy of failing to adhere to form expectations although I do not have any prior experience in a debate setting. If this is reason enough to justify a loss despite the numerous exceptions and allowances I have made in order to let this debate to proceed with my opponent; then I will accept this as part of the judge's decision. To further accommodate my opponent in this matter, I will adjust my post structure to that of "statement" and "response", as I am accustomed to in a online thread setting. This will allow me to address each of Con's arguments individually and hopefully make it easier for the reader.
That being said, however, let it also be made clear that I have provided to my opponent a simplified interpretation of the debate point in R2; which was then expanded upon in R3, but not before it was made evident that the Genesis account of creation should NOT be subjected to the chronology of the physical solar cycle. This is English class, not math. My opponent provided only definitions of terms in R2 and did not address the plea to science's understanding of word origins, and thus did not provide the debate with an original argument. I have been stressing the utmost importance that Con understand what order of magnitude time itself was subjected to as the truth of our origins were revealed and condensed into metaphor/parable of which the author of Genesis (Moses) could understand. As such we are not dealing with the magnitude of "a week". Only then after all other events of creation have been placed in their proper order could the succeeding events of Genesis be subcategorized in such a manner as to be reconciled with their own parent categories. But first we must establish a point in which both science and the interpretation of Genesis accept; which was done in part by myself in R3 with this statement;[...]
[Pro: "A distinct and unique species of H. sapiens., but NOT like those ANIMALS THAT EXISTED PRIOR to the advent of modern humanity 200,000 years ago.]
A: Animals existed before human beings. The study of modern humans leads science to two gaps in understanding the evolution of human-type animals. Two periods of rapid evolution; the first being 450,000 years ago (Homo sapiens) and the second; 200,000 years ago (Homo sapiens sapiens), or what we like to call "modern man" or "wise man" or "knowing man".
I need not provide evidence to this claim as mankind considers most of what I am writing about to be general knowledge taught in public schools, but for the sake of argument and the second classification of H. sapiens, Homo sapiens SAPIENS, I will in this case.
[Genesis 1:7, "And G-d said, Let there be a firmament in the midst (amongst) of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.]
A: This was the creation of water on earth. Since these great bodies were brought forth from the "waters of the deep", a presence attributed to the initial firmament construct seen in Genesis 1:2, one then can assume that our precious liquid water can be found everywhere in space. This is another fact that we know to be true by science as it seems that water CAN be found everywhere that it is thought to exist because it EXISTS in the fabric of spacetime. Molecules are floating everywhere it seems within this physical realm of which was born of Alpha Chaos; the very fabric of spacetime itself.
What is science's stance on the age of water? According to the Carnegie Institute of Science, the water on earth is OLDER than the sun. This fits right in line with the Genesis account of water appearing on the earth before the sun. Because it did.
[Genesis 1:9, "And G-d said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so."]
[Genesis 1:10, "And G-d called the dry land Earth; and the waters called he Seas: and G-d saw that it was good.]
A: These verses allude to that of the ground in which everything rests upon was at one point all together. The most famous of these supercontinents that is still in our minds today would be Pangaea; even though Pangaea was NOT the earth's first supercontinent. It just so happens to be the last one in a series of seven (there's that number again). We have concluded upon the following as being generally true:
Ur(Vaalbara(?)): ~3.6–2.8 Ga
Kenorland: ~2.7–2.1 Ga
Protopangea-Paleopangea: ~ 2.7 Ga-600 Ma
Columbia (Nuna): ~1.8–1.5 Ga
Rodinia: ~1.25–0.75 Ga
Pannotia: ~600 Ma
Pangaea: ~300 Ma
*I have left out the theorized Vaalbara supercontinent as its existence remains speculative and currently open to debate. Many argue whether or not it even existed or happened to be just a part of the larger Ur supercontinent. Or it may just simply be one in the same.
[Genesis 1:11, "And G-d said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.]
A: Here we see G-d bringing forth vegetation to the land upon the darkness of the earth. He is setting up to provide for this green vegetation with His next development on the next Day; the moon and our Sun.
[Genesis 1:14, "And G-d said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:]
[Genesis 1:15, "And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.]
[Genesis 1:16, "And G-d made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.]
[Genesis 1:17, "And G-d set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.]
[Genesis 1:18, "And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and G-d saw that it was good.]
A: G-d created the moon first with reflective properties that are designed to project the unborn Sun's luminescence onto the earth during the night. He then created our Sun and its relatives for the purpose of providing a mechanism of guidance (signs), and to sustain all life on earth (photosynthesis, etc.). It is written that he created the heavens for His glory, not ours, and as such what we see of the universe remains a mystery.
[Psalm 19:1, "[...]The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands."]
Now, since we are here at the birth of our moon, sun and stars; let's add in some of my opponent's arguments for fun.
[Con: "You haven't considered the age of the Earth in comparison to stars."]
[Con: My opponent must then also believe that we are roughly the same age as the Sun and other stars in our solar system.]
A: Thank you for pointing that out. Did you know that the earth is considered by science to be older than our sun? It's crazy I know.
A simple keyword search pertaining to the 'age of the earth', and the 'age of the sun' poses a very difficult question to answer: why is it that the earth is documented as being (4.543 billion) years old when our sun is only (4.5 billion) years old? To make matters worse, it then becomes an even harder question to answer when general science frequently practices the simplification of numbers and reverts to rounding as a means of remaining practical in its conclusions.
Have you ever considered just how a star is measured for its age? This process is called "Stellar Age Estimation" and bases its findings on increases in a star's luminosity and the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. But on the other hand it also seems that no individual method can provide accurate results for all types of stars. "Houston, we have a problem here."
[Con: "Creating Eve out of Adam's rib, rather than out of thin air like his omnipotent self. First, the poor guy's missing a rib for the rest of his life. Second, Eve was then made out of Adam, so all love from then on out was reduced to narcissism and all sex reduced to incest or self-gratification (i.e. sin).]
On the first point, do you remember what I said about the beginning and end part to written speech? For example, we capitalize the beginning letter of each sentence and place a punctuation mark at the end of every sentence. The first Six Days of Creation were a condensed chronology of the Creation of everything in the same respect a sentence requires a capital letter at the beginning and a punctuation mark to end the sentence. Chapter 2 focuses on reliving details seen in Chapter 1, but on a smaller scale. I don't know where you are getting your understanding from, but from what I understand is that Adam and Eve were created together on the sixth day. We see reaccounts of things created through out Chapter 2 so this is just not limited to the creation of H. sapiens sapiens.
Lastly, my opponent has also proposed that many Christians would argue against my interpretation of Genesis, so I will leave you with this:
[Con: "Whilst the Bible may fall in line with scientific theories does this really mean that we should jump to the conclusion that it is true and that the world really was created in 6 (or 7) days?"]
[Source in comments]
When I was referring to the debate structure, I didn't mean that it was a reason that I had won the debate. I meant that there is no structure so I can provide rebuttals and arguments in one round. Here is an example of a debate structure:
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Counter rebuttals
All I meant by that statement was that since you didn't provide a debate strucure there was no reason that the judges shouldn't vote me down based on the fact that I provided rebuttals and arguments in the same round. It isn't a reason to justify a loss, so don't worry about that.
Since the BOP lies on my opponent to prove that the world was in fact created in 6 days. I will respond to my opponent's rebuttals and counter refute them. My opponent is writing is a very large font size and in a strange font which makes it harder to read however I will do my best.
"Animals existed before human beings."
I never said that they didn't.
"water CAN be found everywhere that it is thought to exist"
I'm not sure you mean that because if you do then you are mistaken. Water cannot be found everywhere that it is thought to exist. Water cannot possibly form on the sun in solid or liquid form because it the solid would simply melt into a liquid and then evapourate. The liquid would just evapourate. Due to the fact that no water has ever existed on the sun because it requires a starting point and water evapourates due to the sun here on Earth. How could you possibly arrive at the sun with water without it evapourate before you even reach within 1 million miles of the sun.
"the water on earth is OLDER than the sun."
Whilst this is a valid point, if you are stating that the order is correct then you are very much mistaken. On day 1 of the creation story God created the Heavens and the Earth. How did God create Earth before the sun and the stars? The Earth is not older than the Sun. Due to the fact that the Earth was made on a separate day to the Sun (and a day isn't actually the equivalent of a day), this must mean that the Earth was around for millions and possibly billions of years before the Sun came into existence.
God waits until the 4th day to create the stars and therefore according to the creation story we had no stars up until the 4th day ( and each day could possibly represent over 1 billion years ).
"Here we see G-d bringing forth vegetation to the land upon the darkness of the earth. He is setting up to provide for this green vegetation with His next development on the next Day; the moon and our Sun. "
This is a major mistake by my opponent. He states that the vegation has been created before the Sun! Science has proven that plants need the Sun and its light and resources in order to survive. Without any Sun, none of these plants would live!
"he created the heavens for His glory, not ours"
I have two questions:
1) Why is this relevant?
2) Why would he do that? I thought that your God was omnibenevolent.
"and to sustain all life on earth (photosynthesis, etc.)."
No offense, but God must have been very confused if he decided to create plants and vegetation before he decided to create the Sun and the process of photosynthesis.
"Did you know that the earth is considered by science to be older than our sun? "
I wasn't necessarily referring to the Sun, I was referring to stars that have been deemed significantly older than the Sun and the Earth and yet apparently they were made 3 days (or time periods) after the Earth was created. My opponent cannot dismiss the ageing of stars just because he believes that the method is unreliable. If the method really is unreliable then my opponent has still ruined his argument since he is arguing that the Earth is in fact older than the Sun. The Sun is a star and if the measurment of stars is unreliable (as my opponent is claiming), then how do you know that the Sun is younger than the Earth (or vice versa)?
"let's add in some of my opponent's arguments for fun."
This is why I have won the debate. My opponent clearly has a burden to uphold and therefore must refute all of my arguments provided. He has conceded that he will only refute some of my arguments for 'fun'.
does this really mean that we should jump to the conclusion that it is true
This is a quote from my argument that my opponent has tried to use against me however I will prove them wrong. Firstly, I used the word: 'should'. Secondly, I was basing this argument on your perception of the creation story to avoid confusion. If you are using one argument for something, I cannot ignore your argument and refute the common belief used when discussing and debating that particular resolution. Even if my opponent still is unconvinced, different interpretations of Christianity still generally believe the same thing and it is still argued that the Bible does fall in line with scientific theories by many Christians that do not share you beliefs and interpretations of the Bible.
famousdebater, thank you for listing an example of how these debates are normally structured. I have devoted some of my personal time these past couple of days in order to become better acquainted with how things operate here on Debate.org. My debate structure will evolve over time in order to fit the standard, I promise.
[Con: “[...](and each day could possibly represent over 1 billion years ).]
Your literal interpretation of my statements despite a tried reference to the author’s frequent use of metaphor is bewildering. “A Day” could possibly represent over one billion years, or it could represent one thousand years; or five hundred years, or even just one second. Peter wrote;
[2 Peter 3:8, “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.]
No. Scientists are able to grow plants without sunlight AND water so why wouldn’t it be feasible that G-d wouldn’t have been able to sustain the plant life he placed on the third day in preparation for
[Scientific American, “[...]But tweak a few genes and those basic requirements can diminish or even disappear. ”]
[Geek.com, “The other side of that is that plants have evolved to control their development steps based on exposure to sunlight. Knowing this, researchers at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology have taken the first steps toward controlling plant development and creating plants that can grow in the dark.]
Plants had to evolve a development plan in order to survive exposure to sunlight and its varying degrees of intensity. They still have to and do a pretty darn good job at doing so. But that still doesn’t change the fact that it remains possible for plants to live, grow and thrive without photosynthesis.
From a Christian perspective, G-d initially created the world to be perfect. The earth did not need anything as everything was already provided unto it by G-d. It wasn’t until the Fall of Adam happened that sent all things spiraling into disarray, and the universe found itself “wanting”. Original sin effected all things; not just the lives of Adam.
[Con: “2) Why would he do that? I thought that your God was Omnibenevolent.)
I’m not sure why this question is pertinent to the debate. It seems as if my opponent is expressing a form of personal disdain of a concept rather than sticking to the topic at hand. Nonetheless, let’s first look at the definitions of “Omni-” and “benevolent”
Omni-: word-forming element meaning “all”, from Latin omni-, combining form ofomnis “all, every, the whole, of every kind,” of unknown origin[...]
Benevolent: characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings: a benevolent attitude; her benevolent smile.
What does creating the heavens for His glory have to do with being benevolent? The point to referencing this passage was to show that mankind was not designed for space exploration, cannot reside in space for extended periods of time or we will start experiencing physiological problems, and that our place is here on planet earth. The very same planet that has been described by many cultures around the world as a system designed to suit us. The great mystery and testament to His glory is not the fact that we know we cannot survive open space or the ocean, but that apparently were never intended to. Both science and the Bible contribute to this significant fact.
[Con: This is why I have won the debate. My opponent clearly has a burden to uphold and therefore must refute all of my arguments provided. He has conceded that he will only refute some of my arguments for 'fun'.]
When my opponent presents points that are repetitious or makes it inherently known that his understanding of simple explanations are indeed wanting, this really cuts down on what I am able to reasonably post given the character restrictions of this debate. This was made known in the comments pertaining to R4 as I literally had to chop out half of what I wrote in the last round. I have, nonetheless, attempted to appease my opponent by reasonably adjusting my language with the hope that something will click, but cannot afford to continue to revisit points after they have all been answered and “backed up” as necessary.
The burden of proof was met when the metaphorical interpretation of a Day had been established, and was backed up with evidence as to the word’s origins. The burden of proof was met when it was stated that Time exists within its' own order of magnitude; unmeasurable by historical standards as we cannot even conceive of a period of time larger than what was known to be recorded. Our recall to memory and life spans are not that priviledged. This is a scientific fact and completely relevant to tying the course of G-d's six Day creation cycle to that of the Big Bang. My opponent, however, never answered the question as to why the singularity contradicts the current BBT model? This very point should be severely warping spacetime, but it is not. This point is flat giving creedance to the theory that the center point to it all is either a black hole, a white hole, or even both at the same time.
"thank you for listing an example of how these debates are normally structured."
No problem, they don't have to be structured like that and if you want your opponent to follow a specific structure then you should put something like that in R1 so that you opponent must agree to the structure in the acceptance round (ie. R1).
"the earth is older than our sun."
My opponent is missing the point. They have provided inconsistencies, in the previous round they said that the Earth is older than the Sun and then went on to accuse the system of dating stars (inclusive of the Sun). He stated that we cannot trust the dating of stars because our system and techniques of doing so are unreliable and faulty. If this is the case, I will repeat my point again. You have stated the the Genesis account for creation is correct because the Earth was made before the Sun. You have then said that we cannot know how old stars are for certain - in an attempt to dismiss my point regarding stars being older than the Earth and this being an inconsistency within the account for creation.
“A Day” could possibly represent over one billion years, or it could represent one thousand years; or five hundred years, or even just one second. "
My opponent is missing my point. A unit of measurment cannot be different each time. If I measure a window and measure half of it as 5 centimeters and the other half as 10 millimeters. I cannot then claim that it is 15 centimeters long because I have been using different units of measurment. If a day does represent a different amount of time, this amount of time must remain the same. You cannot say that God created each thing after random periods of time because they were all referred to as days which are periods of time. We can tell that the accounts of different things being created weren't all made after the exact same period of time and my opponent has refused and dropped my argument regarding this completely.
"why wouldn’t it be feasible that G-d wouldn’t have been able to sustain the plant life he placed on the third day"
Right, the problem here is that it makes no sense and it is highly illogical to do this. Why would God decide to make plants before photosynthesis - assuming that God is omnipotent then he should be able to do this however what was the point? Also, if God was capable of doing this and he is omnipotent then what was the purpose of photosynthesis?
I will leave the omnibenevolence part out, not because I cannot respond to it but because it has no relevance to the resolution itself. I would be more than happy to discuss this with my opponent or anybody else separately however there is no purpose in responding to it since it never had any impact on the resolution.
"The burden of proof was met when the metaphorical interpretation of a Day had been established"
It hasn't been established. My opponent has only provided me with inconsistencies and has been avoiding the question of the actual time period a day holds. I know that it could be anything but it must be divided equally otherwise it wouldn't be given the measurment of a day.
"The burden of proof was met when it was stated that Time exists within its' own order of magnitude"
That didn't prove anything. Your burden of proof was to prove that the world was created in 6 days and showing that time exists within its own order of magnitude does not prove anything like what you have to prove. Yes, it may appear to prove the existence of God however it does not. God is a concept just because we cannot explain something, it does not mean that we should resort to God.
"creedance to the theory that the center point to it all is either a black hole, a white hole, or even both at the same time."
This has little or no impact upon the resolution of this debate. The fact that a black / white hole is at the ceter point does not imply or prove that a God exists and that the world was created in 6 days. Even if you buy the fact that God exists provided by my opponent is it likely that it was created in 6 days? No.
"My opponent lost this debate on the grounds that I have refuted every argument pertinent to this topic of discussion"
I will list all of the arguments that were dropped or insufficiently refuted:
- My opponent dropped my argument regarding the Sun's age. He claims that the creation story is consistent due to the fact that we know that the Earth is older than the Sun. He then claims that the dating method of stars is inaccurate.
- He has failed to sufficiently explain what the measurment of a day is and how it makes sense that the days don't happen in the same measurment.
- Therefore, he has also failed to explain how the creation story coincides with evolution
- He has also dropped my argument stating that there was no first human. He believes that the first humans were Adam and Eve, however if they were the first humans then there would be many other animals that were very similar to human beings.
It's evident that the stage before humans is extremely similar and therefore there would have been many other human like animals, this is another argument that was dropped by my opponent and that is why I am highlighting it here.
There are many other dropped arguments but the character limit is preventing me from doing so. I think that my point is proven that my opponent is incorrect in assuming that they have refuted all of my arguments. Since my opponent has not refuted all of my arguments this should be considered as a failure to meet their burden of proof. Since my opponent has failed to prove that evolution coincides with creation account of genesis it is evident that I have won this debate and I urge the judges to vote accordingly.