The bible has no credibility.
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 3: debate
Also, finding two of every animal back then was plausible. Today, with the number of animals it would not be. Of course, creationists do not believe in the extensive evolution that non creationists believe in. However, we do believe in evolution to a certain point. It is proven that animals will change based on there environment. We believe that closely related animals are a form of evolution. For example, there are thousands of different types of worms. So in that case, having two of each animal on a boat was plausible
Speaking of Noah's ark, a boat that matches the size descriptions in the bible show that the Ark has been found in turkey
I believe to prove the bible is credible, it would be wise to prove anti creationism not credible.
If the Big Bang theory was true, all planets would be spinning clockwise. However, a few planets are spinning counter clockwise. The Big Bang says that energy was spinning rapidly clockwise, which means if that were the case, all planets would be spinning clockwise.
Also, it is believed that the first living organism was created when it began raining on Earth, and a pool of the rain and volcanic rocks created a single celled organism. However, it is proven that life is never created by a non living thing.
It is true that having only two of every animal may cause deformations due to inbreeding. However, not all animal newborns that are created through inbreeding are deformed. For example, wolf packs, if isolated, may start inbreeding. Even during the middle ages, kings who wanted there descendant to have parents who are both part of the same genetic family would often have a child with a cousin or a sister.
Also, could you please refute my arguments about the big bang and evolution?
I would also like to mention Near Death Experiences. I know that it is easy to say that they are fake, but many people have reported seeing heaven, and almost all of them report seeing the exact same thing
(Since it is a youtube video, I would recommend watching sermons and videos of those who were interviewed for some proof. But this video just about sums it up)
Also, there is a phenomenon right now where people will just fall down during a sermon. This is called being "slain in the spirit." You can simply search up videos of this
Healings are also something that is occuring
Proving you god exists so that doesn't make your point any better. Near death experiences are a reaction of the brain not a supernatural event. The United States Air Force triggered near death experiences with a centrifuge test multiple times.
Now for evolution you said than it only goes with environment which is only somewhat true. Animals do adapt to certain environments but it's a long slow process that takes millions of years to have any significant change and if it's a long enough time that animal becomes a new species. Like how apes ( not apes as we know them today) became humans. That's the best summarized explanation of how evolution works.
Now the Big Bang which you never elaborated on when you said that bit about planets spinning clockwise. The Big Bang theory says that the universe began and expanded farther and farther and the energy and matter that was the early universe started to become things like stars and planets. That has nothing to do with planets spinning clockwise. Your point about inbreeding does not apply to all animal most of the time incest results in deformed offspring plus if a large portion of the animals only had one offspring that would cease their blood line which would in turn doom their species if it was really an all knowing god a flood wouldn't have been nessisary. This doesn't look good for the bibles credibility.
harrisondw forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years 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:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. As to arguments, Pro gave some attacks on the credibility, but of specific things and not the bible as a whole, and Con gave some specific things, most of which seemed not to really support credibility. Still, Pro had the BoP. The arguments on both sides were just so lacking in completeness that I can't really decide either way--though I generally award a tie to the side without BoP, in this case I think that enough of the debate sailed past the debaters that it's hard to say that with certainty. So I'm going with the definite point: Conduct. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
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.