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

The Book of Genesis is literal and accurate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 789 times Debate No: 63769
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)




In this debate i will be defending the position that the biblical book of genesis is not literal and/or accurate. I am doing this debate because a lot of people still disregard science just because the bible says something contradictory. Good luck to whoever i might be debating against. The BoP is shared. First round is acceptance.


accurate: correct in all details; exact

literal: taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.



You start, since you claim it is not literal and accurate.Do you claim none of it is accurate. Some of it.I will answer. You may not, in fact I am sure, you will not like the answers.
Debate Round No. 1


By definition you must argue that it is correct in all details. I' m arguing that it is not. It may be correct in some aspects but 
it is not accurate.

Many aspects of the book of genesis contradicts facts of today. By summing the age all men from Adam to Jesus we get
around 4000 years,and we know this isn't right. By using multiple dating methods we can confirm it is more than that.
Carbon dating confirms that the earth is billions of years old,but even if it was wrong we can use other methods to show
is older than that. The oldest non-clonal tree alive is 9.550 years old[1] and the oldest clonal tree system alive is around
80000 years old. We can see stars that are millions of light years away,what
wouldn't be possible if we were only thousands of years old. Potassium-Argon dating also confirms that the earth is over
6000 years old. Not only the age but a lot of other things aren't consistent with what we know. According to the book of
genesis,everyone came from only 2 people. Lack of variation in the gene pool would cause genetic disorders,and they
wouldn't be able to populate the entire earth. The Norte Chico civilization is dated to be from 3200 B.C[3],this means that
in only 800 years Adam would populate get to the Americas and populate them. The book of genesis also says that
humans lived hundreds of years,like Adam,that according to the bible lived 930 years(what means that Adam,according
to the bible,was still alive when his family populated the Americas).The oldest age recorded is only 122[4],and
even if he did live that much he wouldn't be able to have sons and daughters anymore like the bible says because
he would be incredibly old and Eve would be too,not being able to have babies anymore. The book of genesis also
says that there was a giant worldwide flood that covered the earth for 40 days and rested in mount Ararat. Mount Ararat
is over 5000m tall and the earth is has 510.1 million km². That means that according to the bible,in only 40 days
it would rain enough to cover a volume of 2550.5 km³ in 40 days. It would need to rain around 63.7 km³ of water
per day. Where did all that water come from and where did it go after the flood? It also says that an 8 people were able
to carry 2 of all animals of the earth to populate it and to make them all fit into the Ark. There are 950,000 species

of insects[5],how Noah found them all and put them in the Ark and how he convinced the the 4740 species of frog[6]
not to eat them?There are 2 species of elephant,meaning there would be 4 elephants in the ark. On average an elephant
eats 200-250kg of food a day and produces 50kg of dung[7].This means Noah would need to have 8000-10000kg of
food for the elephants and clean 2000kg of dung. There are about 250 species of carnivores[8].How would Noah put

all these animals in the Ark without any problem and how would he make sure none of them would kill any of the
herbivores? Also,how would certain animals survive out of their habitat?How would Noah carry penguins and polar bears
to the Ark through deserts?And after the flood we would have the same inbreeding problem as before,and how would
all these animals get back to their habitat,and how would herbivores survive without plants to eat? There are also
other problems,like how the water life wouldn't be able to live. Many fishes are not able to live in salt water and
turbulence and the sediment would cause a lot of problems,with with that many water the water pressure would
increase,making it impossible to live for a lot of fishes. I will end my argument here,i will address the tower of Babel
in the next one.



First. We do not know how much time expands Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2.

And since I have not seen man having any problem populating anything.8 people could easily produce the population we have today over 5000 years.If they just doubled every 15 years the number would be artronomical.Just do the checker board test. Put 2 on the 1st square and double every one after that. Do the math.

There was an water/ice canopy around this planet before the flood. That kept everything an even temperature Like a greenhouse. When the fountains of the deep exploded, that brought that canopy down and flooded the earth. And as the rotation of the earth pulled this water to the caps and froze, then appeared dry land.All Noah had to do was bring one of each species on the ark. And that did not have to be full grown animals. It could have been eggs. There have been found trees through several layers of sediment. How could that be but a massive flood.

Now remember, we are dealing with our creator. It was he that rounded up the animals. And each species had all the DNA for all the differences we see today.

Science has finally come to the conclusion that "LIGHT" ( not illumination) is the basic building block of all matter." LET THERE BE LIGHT" God was further ahead technologically then than we are today.He has a craft that travels light speed.

All your conjectures about what happened are just that nothing you have said proves it did not happen just like Geneses said it did.And another thing. You and evolutionists believe we came from lower to higher. I contend and so does geneses that we started at the top. Man was in full capacity of his mental state. Nothing was impossible for him. And when that got twisted by sin, great destruction was also available. As it is today.

You are making great assumptions about things that happened 6000 years ago. When it doesn't take but a couple of generations to completely obscure what actually happens in history. And you make conclusions about what you say happened millions of years ago with dead animal bones.How accurate is carbon dating really. Has anyone done research over a couple thousand years to see what actually is accurate. No.

You and I are in the same boat. We have to take by faith to believe what we think happened respectively.Since neither of us have been around when these things occurred.
Debate Round No. 2


FMAlchemist forfeited this round.


cheyennebodie forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
cheyennebodie "walks in faith" consistently.
The result of using faith consistently is the complete inability to think. Without any criteria for accepting a statement as true, every random idea, whether true or false, would be just as likely to be accepted. Contradictions would exist. No higher level abstractions could be made. Faith nullifies the mind. To the degree ideas are taken on faith, the process of thinking is subverted.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
Cheyenne doesn't generally come across as very well-educated, but who knows. There was that one time when they said, "Heil Hitler." and nothing else. What was up with that?

Anyway, I just don't think they have a firm grasp on logic or reason. They are entertaining though.
Posted by DJ-Gold 2 years ago
Not sure if cheyennebodie actually even read the Con counter-argument there...
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
Mightypretzel.....carry on.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
Confidence is not a virtue when you're dumber than a pretzel.

Just pointing that out.

Carry on.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
miss.... I understand it .because it makes perfect sense to me.Life and death are the keys to the bible. If you understand those two things you will understand all mysteries. Life is the real test whether there is a god or not.All unbelievers have to do is create life and put this to rest once and for all.But they never will do that . All life has been created. And everything alive today can be traced back to the original creation. Nothing new under the sun.

mightymessedup... Not smug, confident in what I believe and who I am.
Posted by FMAlchemist 2 years ago
What happened? The text is all messed up,what the hell?
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
Cheyennebodie is not here on this earth to make sense. He's here to act smug.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
how do you know it's literal and accurate. if it is not understood?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
I say it is literal and accurate. Just because a person does not understand what was going on there does not disqualify its accuracy and truth.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JayConar 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro starts out with an imperious attitude that lost him conduct points. Whereas Con backs up his argument with facts, cheyenne backs his up with conjecture (maybe carbon dating isn't accurate is conjecture and opinion). Neither Pro nor Con used sources, so that is tied, however Con's grammar was slightly better than Pro's
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't offer any evidence for his claims, so arguments and sources to con