The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Is Genesis Fact?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,601 times Debate No: 80714
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)




I would like to use this first round for introductions and basic positions on the argument. I, as Pro, will be arguing for the truth of a literal translation of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. I hope that through this debate I can clear up some misconceptions people may have about Genesis. This includes Adam and Eve, Cain and Able, the flood, etc. I look forward to hearing your views!


Very well. I accept your challenge. I will be arguing that Genesis is not literal. Genesis is either metaphorical or false. I look forward to your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Let's start with the beginning of the universe.

1. Let there be light.
2. Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters. (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. And God called the expanse Heaven)
3. Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.
4. Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.
5. Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.
6. Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds[g] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.
(all of these are quotes from Genesis ch. 1)

This is how God created the world. In that order. It cannot be metaphorical because In the Bible it says, for example, "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." Genesis 1:3-5. When there is some kind of metaphor in the bible it says things like "He put another parable before them, saying," Matthew 13:24


1. It is a scientifically proven fact that anything that begins to exist has a cause. Since the universe began to exist it must have a cause. It doesn't matter if you believe in the big bang, or Christianity, (not that the two are mutually exclusive), or Hinduism, the universe had a beginning. Therefore it must have had an external cause. Something inside the universe could not create it. It is not logical or possible.

2. We have morals. This is proven by the fact that you and I know that killing is wrong. Because we have morals and those morals began to exist (because we began to exist) they must have a cause. That cause must be the one that created us to have the ability to give us those morals. In order to give us morals, our creator must be moral himself.

Other things in other books of the Bible prove to me that the God of the Bible created the universe, but let's stick to these so that we don't deviate from Genesis.


I will begin with my opening arguments.

My claim is that Genesis is either false, or is a metaphor. How people interpret it as a metaphor up to them.

I will begin with disproving the beginning of Genesis, and I will work my way through.

(1) The Beginning
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."
Clearly here, God created the earth before he created the star we orbit. The problem here is that it is backwards. It is proven that stars are what create planets.
You begin with your star, and around that star you have a solar nebula, which is like a disc around the star. In the solar nebula there are particles which begin to form inside this disk by gravity attracting them together. This continues over a long course of millions of years, forming a protoplanet, and then forming a full planet.
We have proven that stars come first, and the planets are formed after. Thus proving that the beginning of the bible is either false, or must be a metaphor.

The Big Bang is also proof that Genesis is either false or a metaphor. The evidence we have of The Big Bang is the observation of everything moving away from us. All the stars and planets are expanding away from us. This suggests that at one point, everything was compressed together, and thus the big bang happened, expanding everything, and starting the formation of the universe.

(2) Adam and Eve
This part of Genesis is proven untrue through evolution, fossils and genetics.
To begin, we have proven that humans have evolved. We have fossil evidence and DNA evidence. Example of fossils would be homo habilis, homo erectus, neanderthal, and ourselves. I will paste links to pictures below.

A better look at the transition -->

Transitional fossils are not rare. We have found transitional fossils for humans, whales, fish, etc.

Not only this but we also have the DNA evidence that traces us back to other primates. We see how closely related we are to other primates, and we are able to begin to trace back as to who our common ancestors are.
The bible claims that God made all the animals and plants that we see today yet evolution has proven that the plants and animals we see today have evolved from ancestors, and we have dated these fossils back millions of years. Ergo, Adam and Eve could not have existed.

You can argue that evolution is a theory and not a fact. However that can't be further from the truth. The definition of a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
Evolution has been observed. Evolution has been tested. Evolution is indeed a fact.

I understand if you are skeptical with it. You'd be right to say, "show me proof" and ask for perceptible evidence. I now present my evidence of what observations we have made in modern day.
The Peppered Moth
"Before the industrial revolution, a uniformly dark variant of the peppered moth made up 2% of the species. After the industrial revolution, 95% of peppered moths showed this dark coloration. The best explanation as to why this change in the species occurred is that the light moths lost their advantage of camouflage as light surfaces were darkened by pollution, and so light moths were eaten more frequently by birds."
This is an example of Natural Selection.
Not only this but there is the fact that 99% of species have gone extinct. Natural Selection is at work. Species change over time and evolve. Thus those who cannot adapt to their environment fail to continue to reproduce and eventually die out.
Also there's the fact that evolution has been tested and observed in labs, you can see this in my source.
You can see more examples of these in source I have provided for this evidence.

There is also simply too many genetic diversity's for it to have all come from 2 people. Today we have all the different races, from Asian, Hispanic, Caucasian, African, etc, and each person with their own set of genes. Could all of this have come from two people? No. That would be illogical. Genetic data shows no evidence of humanity starting from 2 people. In order to reach the genetic diversity we have today, there would have to be 10-15 thousand individuals, not 2, which is why it makes more sense that we would have such a large genetic diversity through evolution, through evolving over a period of time, rather than the illogical belief of literal Genesis saying we came from 2 individuals.

(3) Noah's Ark/Global Flood
Noah's Ark is proven false, or metaphorical, through the Water Cycle, fossils, and logic.
The Water Cycle is what keeps the earth from flooding. Simple as that. Evaporation, condensation, and precipitation. The water cycle isn't new. Its always been around. How much water is on earth now, is how much water has been on earth since its beginning.
Logic. Could Noah had gathered 2 of each animal? Penguins, all the way across the planet. Koalas and insects needing a specific diet. Prey vs Predator. Animals would would of traveled across the planet, and survived through climates that they cannot normally survive in, and the cycle of the food chain would have come to a halt.
The Ark logically would not possibly be able to hold all the animals. 2 of each animal, of each species, plus food to last a year, the feces that would be dropped, etc. The ark would have to be the size of America to hold all the animals. The ark would be holding thousands-not hundreds-thousands of different species.
Noah and his family would also have to control all these animals. Lions, tigers, bears, elephants, rhinos, etc, and keep the animals from attack him, his family, and each other.
Young Earth Creationists believe humans lived with Dinosaurs, so they must have boarded the ark as well.

(4) Fossils/Pangea/Dating Earth
Some small extra points.
Pangea took place millions of years ago.
Fossils are dated back millions of years.
The earths crust is dated billions of years old.
Young Earth Creation does not date back millions of years, only thousands.

I will now begin my rebuttals.
Pro starts with explaining his interpretation of Genesis, but doesn't give a reasonable explanation as to why Genesis cannot be metaphor.
Pro then makes 2 arguments.
1. Everything has a cause, ergo God made the universe.
2. We have morals, we get our morality from God.
While I could rebuttal these claims, they are irrelevant. The debate is not "Does God Exist". The debate is about if Genesis is literal or not. Genesis being metaphorical does not mean God doesn't exist. Genesis being false does not mean God doesn't exist. There could still be a creation, there could still be a God. People who take Genesis as metaphorical, and believe in God, are Old Earth Creationists.
Since Pro's claims are irrelevant, they are dismissed.

I await Pro's rebuttals and his defense.
Debate Round No. 2


(1) The Beginning
a. It doesn't matter if God created the earth then the sun. The universe had just begun. God could have created the earth first and then the sun, that doesn't necessarily mean that the system you mentioned couldn't be in action now. That is not proof that it couldn't have happened a different way originally.
b. I believe in the big bang as described in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. "the cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe according to the big bang theory" I use the word "explosion" very loosely, but I believe that at one finite point in time the universe was created very quickly. Also, just because things are moving away from us that doesn't mean that we weren't created. That is a significant leap.

(2) Adam and Eve
a. How many human transition fossils have we found? Nice pictures. They look very similar. Huh. (micro evolution) Next, sure we're closely (genetically) to other primates. We're very closely related to pigs, too. Does that mean we're descendants of pigs or share a common ancestor?
b. How do you know how old the fossils are?
c. I agree that micro evolution is well tested and has been proven. Macro has not been proven. (The peppered moth is only evidence of micro evolution.)
d. Different ethnicities is perfect evidence of adaptation. As far as genetics go there certainly have been enough generations since Adam and Eve to accommodate the amount of genetic mutations we have today. Just the fact that we have 7 billion people living on this planet proves that there is.

(3) The Flood
a. The Water Cycle: Yes, that is how much water there is and was. The question is where was it stored? Some theologians point to under ground and others to a protective outer ring in the earth's atmosphere, which I believe could have allowed people to remain alive for such a long time (Methuselah lived to be 936 years old). Both of these things could have gone into the flood.
b. Logic: It was a miracle like the parting of the red sea. Gathering the animals was not something that Noah had to do, that was God's doing just as the aggressiveness of the animals was. The size of America? That's ridiculous. If you look at the dimensions of the ark as described in Genesis you can see that it is clearly large enough for all species of land animals.
c. Regarding dinosaurs there are two theories.
Theory i. Dinosaurs could have gone extinct before the flood.
Theory ii. Certain lizards, given the proper amount of time might grow into certain dinosaurs given that humans, and arguably other animals, could have lived much longer than they do now.

(4) Other Points
There is barely any evidence for Pangea other than the continents kind of look like they might fit together. (please give me something outside of wiki)
Again, what are you using to date fossils?
What are you using to date the earth's crust?

In my opinion "Who Made the Earth" is a part of Genesis and therefore so is "Does God Exist," but I like where this is going so let's leave it alone after I air one thing out. The difference between God and god. I never said that those two points proved (the cosmological argument and the morals argument) "God's" existence, but rather a "god's."


(1) The Beginning
A. My evidence points that the star was created first, and then the earth. Not just through how planets are made, but the Big Bang as well. I am following logic.
There is no evidence saying that the laws of the universe were different in its beginning.
Show me counter evidence if I am wrong,.
Show me counter evidence that God created the earth first.
Prove that God created the universe in the way of literal Genesis.

B. "I believe in the big bang as described in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. "the cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe according to the big bang theory"
Pro is contradicting himself because he's arguing for literal Genesis, and Genesis doesn't say that there was any cosmic explosion that created the universe. If you accept the big bang, then you accept that Genesis as either false or metaphorical.
"but I believe that at one finite point in time the universe was created very quickly."
Belief is not what's important here. What is important is the facts.
"Also, just because things are moving away from us that doesn't mean that we weren't created. That is a significant leap."
Nowhere did I claim that the big bang means we weren't created. Pro is distorting my words.

(2) Adam and Eve
A & C. Pro claims that my pictures point toward micro-evolution. He is not wrong here! However, it does also point towards macro-evolution.
Each fossil was a different species of human. Homo habilis, homo erectus, neanderthal, and homo sapien. Looking at the skulls alone, it does look like only small changes. I now present pictures of the humans reconstructed.
Homo habilis -
Homo erectus -
Neanderthal -
Homo sapien -
Looking at the Homo habilis to Homo erectus, there doesn't seem to be a big change. However, looking at Homo habilis to Homo sapien, there is a big change.
Pro seems to misunderstand what micro and macro evolution is. To put is simply, micro evolution is changes over a short period of time, ranging to thousands of years. Macro evolution is changes over a long period of time, ranging to hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

Homo habilis is the earliest known of the Homo species. They retain some of their ape-like features.
Homo erectus is the earliest known human to have modern human-like features.
Neanderthal is our closest relative. They were much like Homo sapiens, wearing clothing, using tools, etc.
Homo sapiens is us today. We originated in Africa and were much like the other humans before us.

The evidence most creationists look for, is perceptible evidence in the sense that they can watch macro-evolution happen, like you can with micro-evolution in a way. Creationists ask for evidence where we observe a chicken becoming an ostrich, and the ostrich becoming a kangaroo, when that not what macro-evolution is. Macro-evolution, is made up of a bunch of micro-evolution. You can make your own model using a ruler alone.
The ruler itself is your timescale. The fraction marks, are your micro-evolution, and the inch marks are your macro-evolution.
They are not two different types of evolution. Micro-evolution is what makes macro-evolution. You cannot have one without the other. The terms "micro" and "macro" only deal with periods of time. Micro on a small scale, and macro on a long scale.

B. Pro asks how I know how old fossils are.
We have several ways of dating fossils. 2 of those ways are though radiometric and relative dating, or stratigraphy.
This is how we date fossils and rocks.
Relative dating cannot give us absolute age. So we cannot find a fossil and say how old the primate was, however we can find out how long ago it was around. With relative dating we date the fossil based on the rock layer it is in. The deeper the rock layer, the older it, that is how sedimentary rock layers are ordered. The rock layers are what tell us the period of time, telling us what period the fossil lived in, and how many years ago. Jurassic, Triassic, Cambrian, etc.

With radiometric dating, we can find out more of how long ago the fossil was formed. Get a more absolute age. When igneous rocks form, radioactive atoms get trapped inside. These atoms then begin to decay. When found, scientists can study these atoms and get more of an estimate of when the fossil was formed.

With these dating methods, we can prove macro-evolution, and prove how long ago a specific species was around.

D. Looking at each of these humans, you can see how it would make sense that we have evolved. If Genesis is literal, then we were indeed made in the image of God, however, is Homo-habilis the image of God, does God also evolve, or is it more likely that its a metaphor or just false as a whole?

"As far as genetics go there certainly have been enough generations since Adam and Eve to accommodate the amount of genetic mutations we have today."
Pro provides no perceptible evidence for this claim. It is conjecture.

"Just the fact that we have 7 billion people living on this planet proves that there is."
Pro fails to explain how it proves his claim. As far as anything goes, this is conjecture.

(3) The Flood
A. Pro is speculating. He has no evidence to confirm that water was stored anywhere. Once again, how much water is here, is how much has always been here. The water cycle has always been around, which Pro agrees, however since there is no evidence pointing towards a flood, it is more reasonable to say there never was one.
B. " Logic: It was a miracle like the parting of the red sea."
That could also have been a metaphor, or could be false.
"If you look at the dimensions of the ark as described in Genesis you can see that it is clearly large enough for all species of land animals."
Mammals: 4,629 species
Reptiles: 6,500 species
Birds: about 70,000 species
Beetles/insects: 300,000 species (that's right - 300,000!)
Elephants, rhinos, crocodiles, etc. + food + feces that'd be dropped + the water that would rain on the boat + maintaining the animals, etc. I ask the audience, does this sound logical? Does this sound viable?
Not only this but just a few unskilled men, built the massive ark, and contained all the animals on it, and took care of every single species on it. Does that sound viable? Is it reasonable?
Since there is no evidence to point that it happened, it is much more reasonable to say it never happened at all, ergo it must be a metaphor, or it must be false.
C. These are not scientific theories, ergo there is no evidence to support them. These theories are ideas, they are not scientific theories.

(4) Other points
Pro claims there is barely any evidence for pangea. That couldn't be farther from the truth.
Indeed continents tend to fit together, however there is also fossil evidence, climate, land features, continental drift/plate tectonics, etc.

Opinions are not important, the facts are what's important.
The arguments for Gods existence are indeed irrelevant because I am not making the claim that God doesn't exist. I am claiming that Genesis is a metaphor, or is false.
Again, if Genesis is a metaphor, that does not mean that the God of the bible is also a metaphor. I'm not even claiming that there is no God, ergo you don't even need to prove a god's existence in this debate. Arguing for Gods existence would only distort the debate. So indeed these arguments will be left alone.
Debate Round No. 3


Jgrepke forfeited this round.


Pro has forfeited the final round without giving notice, showing a lack of conduct.
Pro has failed to provide perceptible evidence to prove his claim that Genesis is literal, and true.
Pro has provided no arguments as for why Genesis is literal and true.
Pro's arguments were irrelevant and were dropped.
Pro's rebuttals do not prove that Genesis is literal and true, nor did he successfully refute my arguments.
Pro's rebuttals only distorted and gave conjecture.
Pro did not bring counter evidence as to why my arguments are wrong, ergo my arguments still stand.
Pro has presented very few sources. One of them just being a definition, which contradicted his own stance in the debate.
Pro's sources are also biased, and unreliable.

I have provided perceptible evidence to prove my claim that Genesis is either false, or is metaphorical.
My rebuttals pointed out Pro's arguments were irrelevant.
I have not distorted, I have not given any conjecture, I have only presented the facts.
I have successfully proven that Genesis is either false or is metaphorical, by disproving The Beginning, Adam and Eve, and The Flood, with perceptible evidence.
I have used several scientific and educational sources, which are reliable and unbiased.

Since I didn't distort or forfeit, I should be awarded conduct.
Since I presented relevant arguments, gave perceptible evidence to support them, and only kept to the facts, I should be awarded convincing arguments.
Since I used several scientific and educational sources, I should be awarded reliable sources.

I thank Pro for challenging me to this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Pro forfeited a round, conduct to Con. S&G was equal. The resolution was "Genesis is fact," but Pro added to the resolution that "the literal interpretation of Genesis is fact." This seems to be agreed on by both Pro and Con so I will go with that one, and it makes Pro's burden even more difficult. Pro explains the creation account from Genesis and admits that Genesis has stars being created AFTER earth, for which Con provides much counter evidence from credible sources; Con points out solar nebula and how planets form in such. Pro finds no issue with god creating earth BEFORE stars thus going against factual understanding, and admits that the big bang is correct. Con points out that Genesis doesn't mention a cosmological explosion as Pro even defined the big bang to be. Even without the Adam and Eve and the flood arguments, Pro has already conceded the debate by affirming the big bang is correct and is not mentioned in Genesis, and by admitting that genesis has planetary formation backwards counter to understood fact. This all points to an nonfactual literal interpretation of Genesis. Arguments to Con. Con's sources were credible, plentiful, and used effectively to support solid arguments while Pro only cited the bible, a dictionary, and, which seems to be less than credible. Sources to Con.
Posted by Jgrepke 2 years ago
Feel Free!
Posted by Blazzered 2 years ago
Shall I start my arguments in the first round?
Posted by Jgrepke 2 years ago
I look forward to our debate.
Posted by Blazzered 2 years ago
Could you change the subject of the debate then so I can argue for it to possibly still be metaphorical, and not just fiction?
Posted by Jgrepke 2 years ago
I'm fine with that.
Posted by Blazzered 2 years ago
If I accept this debate, I won't be debating that Genesis is fiction, I will be arguing that it isn't literal, ergo it could still be metaphorical, thus not fiction.
So my position would be that Genesis is either false, or metaphorical. Your position would be that Genesis is literal.
Posted by Jgrepke 2 years ago
I am definitely a Young Earth Creationist. How about start with the flood and we'll see what happens.
Posted by Blazzered 2 years ago
I'll have to think this over. It's hard to debate about Genesis when your opponent takes it all as a metaphor or some of it as a metaphor, because when I present my arguments they can just say "that's a metaphor" and make the entire debate pointless. I can argue that the beginning of the universe, Adam and Eve, and Noah's ark/flood are disproven, or not literal.
With so many interpretations people have of the bible, it's easier to debate someone who thinks it's either 100% literal (Young Earth Creationist) or thinks its 100% metaphorical. When they pick and choose what's literal and what's metaphorical, it makes it rather hard to debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD given in comments.