God of the bible created the world
Debate Rounds (3)
I conclude that Genesis, which is the account of God creating the world, is grossly false due to its lack of coming up with any correct prediction of what the natural world was actually like. There was never a "first" human the way the bible talks about Adam. Adam himself is a mistranslation from I word adam (pronunciation: uh-dom) from I believe the Arabic religion meaning mankind. I believe all religion is man made and had human fingerprints all over it. What other idea would paint earth as the center of the all mighty gods interest, now knowing how vast the universe is, if it wasn't one made up by humans?
There was not first human? So humans always existed?
Give us the Hebrew that is "mistranslated" as Adam and the nature of the mistranslation.
Prove the Christian religion is man-made?
Where does the Bible paint the earth as the center of all of God's interest?
What makes you think the vastness of the universe has anything to do with God's interest?
Through uranium lead dating we can track the radioactive decay of uranium into lead with a minuscule margin of error is how we figure out how the age of the earth. If you doubt that process, I ask why.
The age of the universe is figured by calculating the current speed of galaxy clusters with the current acceleration of the expanding universe and if you work backwards you get a number close to 14 billion years ago. Simple d/t graph. Again if you doubt this process I ask why.
Now to there never being a first human. I'm not sure how well you understand evolution but humans are part of the great ape family. We evolved from Africa from apes into humanoid beings. A common one you might be familiar with "homo-errectus" there couldn't of been a first human because evolution works over a longer time line than we can easily imagine. There were gradual improvement over time and the changes at each step are almost indistinguishable. There was no simple change from apes to humans or a "black to white" type of change but more of a slow shade change resulting into white eventually.
Now to the mistranslation. 'ha-adam' translates into "the man" or is a reference to mankind as a whole. If the 'ha' is missing then it translates into someone named Adam. In the original Hebrew there was an 'ha' before Adam so boom there you go it actually means man kind.
I will now wrap your last three question up into one paragraph. When it comes to showing Christianity is man made I ask you, can you prove that it isn't? Since the Hebrew text was translated into English for any ruler to use. It has been reinterpreted many times over. Everyone and their mothers had a chance to come up with their own "flavor" of Christianity, which is why there are so many different kinds today. Not only is the bible historically inaccurate in the vast majority of cases, it cannot reproduce any prediction about the future or natural world that was found true. If the bible was the holy word of God shouldn't God be right every now and then? It makes more sense that some humans in the Middle East had some ideas that they tried passing on to everyone else and no body could say if they were wrong so everyone just went with it.
The entire bible takes place in the Middle East. There aren't any mention of kangaroos or any animal that can't be found in a 100 mile radius of Jerusalem. It's quite obvious they just wrote a collection of stories and put them into a single book to me. God only talks about the human race on earth when there is probably life else where no matter how simple. Pretty important omission don't you think?
Tell us how uranium dating works, and tell us if you know a runner's speed and location, you can tell how long he has been running.
Tell us how the speed of the expanding universe proves the earth is old?
If there was no first human, we are left with two choices: either humans always existed or there are no human's now. And prove humans are part of the great ape family? Oh wait, you said you are not here to prove anything. We just have to accept everything you say as true. That is one way to "win" a debate.
And actually the Hebrew word translated as Adam is transliterated as adam and is means, a proper name, a single man mankind.. So, we can put your knowledge of Scripture (i.e., this and the other bogus claims you made) in the "don't know what I am talking about" category.
And nice try at shifting the burden of proof, but I am too clever for that. You made the claim that Christianity is man-made, you prove it. It appears that it is not the Bible that is wrong about reality, but your knowledge of the Bible.
Are you a credentialed scientist or are you just parroting others?
And in what sense is the Bible historically inaccurate?
The difference between me just believing in these scientific processes is that they can make a prediction and reproduce it on command. Has the bible ever done that? The best you can hope for is a stale mate. I never said I believe this as fact. All I did was present my EVIDENCE to why I believe it to be true. So we can try and figure out what it means to know something or we can make some progress and we can try to give points of reasoning.
"I go with God and his word" is the first time you said anything that wasn't just trying belittle what I was saying.
So now you claim to be an expert on scripture? I was merely stating information that anyone can find if they look. Do you believe in he virgin birth as well? That is also a mistranslation. If you are a Hebrew major you would know that. If you aren't then who are you to question me?
Wow it is also clear you have no true understanding of evolution. Me saying there was no first human doesn't lead to those to conclusions. That's just a logical shortcoming on your behalf. It is a concept that is counter intuitive. Each generation is different from the last. Whatever the "first" human was it wasn't exactly what humans are today. So the first human depends on your definition of a human.
So our galaxy is in location B. If we know the speed of the galaxy then we can figure out how long it took to get to location B from location A. Pretty simple in my opinion.
Are you referencing the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? It states we can never be 100% certain on the location AND acceleration of anything, not location and acceleration separately. So sure I am not certain about anything and all of this could be wrong, I'm not denying that. But you have failed at providing a reason to which we should have "faith" I'm your God. That's all it is, "faith" at least I can make predictions about the world and be confident those predictions are correct.
The Old Testament is a bunch of stories. You really believe in Noah's arc? Is that historically accurate?
No I don't have any scientific credentials at the moment, but I am a student of physics and biology, I haven't decided specifically which one yet, they're both interesting. I'm not trying to MAKE anyone atheist. But what I do want is a debate, and you sir haven't given one.
You want me to explain uranium-lead dating? I already have. Any other attempt would be futile because it seems I would have to define each term to you. I urge you to do some research.
I'm waiting for you to not look so close minded, give me some evidence sir. Otherwise you wasted both of our time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FlammableX 10 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: This is a clear victory for the Con side. First, the con presented his argument, that the Bible contains inaccuracies. Then, he went on to provide evidence given by uranium dating and the suchlike, as well as evidence for evolution. The pro's only refutation of this was "If you don't know anything to 100% certainty, you do not know anything." Through his fallacious logic, it is clear that the con had better arguments. Conduct goes to con because Pro kept calling con ignorant or something like that. Pro also states that Con admits he does not know anything. Clearly that does not have veracity - con simply stated that he cannot know 100%. In effect, the pro seemed to be more interested in arguing without evidence, rather than debating. In fact, he never presented a clear logical argument. Easily, con wins this debate. Pro kept asking questions that the con already answered, such as "what are the inaccuracies of the Bible"? Con wins, no doubt.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.