The Instigator
GoOrDin
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RetroRanter
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The sun came on the first day of creation.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 368 times Debate No: 89397
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

GoOrDin

Con

My opponent here was spamming the idea that, "The sun came on the first day of creation."

He can't remotely begin to support that clause with any amount of vigor, substance or support (criteria.

My opponent is defending his Clause ( regarding the Sun ), used to establish his theory of evolution that he is demonstrating against Chipmonk in another debate.

"You see on the fifth day of the bible God created the twilight (Stars) yet the sun on the first, let there be light came first. So the people who wrote this did not understand that the sun is indeed a star that gives off continues atoms that it produces for the creation of life. "
~ he is serving shitt on a table and calling it steak, while telling us to eat it with a smile. TheEn, rants a full blown crap spiel - which wouldn't have been bad, for what it was, if he presented it as not being True, or factual, or scientific, but simply a fiction model.

I repeat***
My opponent is defending that Clause ( regarding the Sun ), used to establish his theory of evolution that he is demonstrating against Chipmonk in another debate.

I am pro, that he is wrong.
He is pro for his assertion.
RetroRanter

Pro

http://www.pbs.org... This is a link I found to backup my star statement, and I hope you find Nova a reliable enough source. But as I also talked in educating myself about the bible through asking religious people, they have concluded that stars came on a day, but not on the first. So when I looked it up and found twilight on day four,(sorry for the wrong day), for day and the night, I figured it was like elementary school again, were I was shocked the sun was a star, yet I believed the sun light came first, since the universe and outer space is kinda a dark place without the sun. But without modern astronomy, no one would know that. And this was confirmed since I was religious and went to catholic school as a kid. And we learned that God created the sun on the first day. And when I started learning interesting Astronomy, It was after I was religious and would have said, well God works in mysterious ways. But not really. In the Genesis's though, one said God created the sun on the first, and in another one God created the sun on the fourth. So since I don't believe in the bible, and it contradicts itself, why not use what benefits me, because there's two sides to this in the bible, and I'm sure this might end in a tie. Genesis 1:3-5, and 1:14-19, you cant prove whats wrong in the bible.
Debate Round No. 1
GoOrDin

Con

You are unusually stupid (not an insult: determined using provided facts; Simply a statement ~ Not even a judgement)

You repeated the claim that you were 'taught' that the sun was create on the first day.

SUN does not = Light
Light does not = Sun

Light came on the first day of creation, according to the account,
The sun came on the 4th day of creation, according to that model.

You do not need modern astronomy to know that the sun distributes light into space. Nor did astronomers from long ago determine that stars were even remotely small ~ they had depth perception and had determined that if those stars were far away (because they knew that they were) then they would appear smaller. Like a messenger on a horse on a hill appearing small. - Common sense; and it is written as such throughout ancient astronomy for the past 4000 years in 4 cultures (Europe, middle east, India, Asia {and very notably America aswell}).

"yet I believed the sun light came first, since the universe and outer space is kinda a dark place without the sun. But without modern astronomy, no one would know that." ~ that wasn't a scripturally nor scientifically inspired thought. That was Refusing to acknowledge that thousands of years of recorded world history, studying, philosophy, math, and science exceeded your own ability to comprehend the situation.
It was also wrong, not (thus) not only for the scientific facts you ignored, as well as not referencing scriptures at all, BUt because you didn't even compare the Model of Creation to Science. Science proves the Model of Creation.
~ one can say perhaps it's time you started believing in aliens, so that you might believe an advance race told us how creation happened. AS to inspire you to properly assess the model of certain given in the bible & then prepare for an alien occupant to slaughter all of the Blasphemers who denied the word of God and promoted secular lifestyles, and neglected to worship the omnipresent Spirit God who loves the afflicted over the oppressor (ie. abused wife and child over the aggressor).

"And we learned that God created the sun on the first day." ~ I am going to call you a liar, and use that against you in the debate. The sun was created on the fourth day in every Bible and Torah.

You are not allowed to cherry-pick when interpreting or considering scripture, science, MATH (scripture is the ethical science ("math") of human behaviour) or Anything! so, NO, the Bible actually says many times in it that it is unforgiveable to Blasphemy against the Holy spirit and Cherry-pick (Priests allude to the full context** they don't cherry-pick).

So, I have in this Round, concluded that you were wrong: IN your conclusion; method of reaching such a conclusion; your approach of administering such an assertion; as well as having lied; attempted to disillusion the content of debate; gossiped / spammed false historical records; Misquoted the sources of your information (not misunderstood*, Misquoted); and had no support for your claim.

Thank you. I anticipate my next round.
If you wish to see how Creation can be proven accurate, search my Profile's Debate records.
RetroRanter

Pro

I believe science does not prove a model of creation, since its scientifically impossible, and that even if it says in small print in the bible that the sun coming first, which is scientifically impossible, it still says it in the bible, even when there is a contradiction. And I pointed out where. Now stars create planets that orbit around the sun, true. So other stars have other planets, but it is indeed much rarer then a normal lone star. So this philosopher made a good guess, but he was not on the 100 percent correct.

But if he says so, then he must have pin pointed the possibility of aliens, but God made Earth and humans in his own image. And chose to bear Earth with life. What makes us so special. If one thing in the bible is false, then how do you know once thing is true. I even recently also watched a bible cartoon that seemed like it came from the 80's that I watched in elementary school, and It said god created the sun and the earth, then the stars. Not saying that's accurate, but its to me another evidence to saying the sun came first in the bible.
Debate Round No. 2
GoOrDin

Con

I win. My opponent yielded facts for opinions,

"I believe science does not prove a model of creation," _ I win as this is the entire debate.

" since its scientifically impossible," _ he can't assert that because he is unaware, it is untrue.

" and that even if it says in small print in the bible that the sun coming first, which is scientifically impossible," _ he says this again. Which it doesn't.
~NO one ever thought the sun came first.**
That was just him rejecting the content and Context of the scriptures. He wasn't referencing scripture, he was referencing his own insolence*
{ Insolence: disobedience for self promotion
[ ie. saying his understanding and opinion is superior to those presenting authority]
(distinct from impudence - asserting what one has no ability to have knowledge to assert.
and arrogance - a suggestion to be opposed for delusional incentive)

" it still says it in the bible, even when there is a contradiction." - It didn't say it. So it isn't a contradiction.

The End.

Thank you. thanks for allowing me this opportunity to correct you. It was pleasure to be given the opportunity to reprove you.
RetroRanter

Pro

RetroRanter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
thnx for forfeiting. that is all I ask
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
Giordano Bruno

Philosopher

Giordano Bruno, born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician, poet, and astrologer. He is celebrated for his cosmological theories, which went even further than the then novel Copernican model. He proposed that the stars were just distant suns surrounded by their own exoplanets and raised the possibility that these planets could even foster life of their own. He also insisted that the universe is in fact infinite and could have no celestial body at its "center".

Born: 1548 " Nola, Italy
Died: Feb 17, 1600 " Rome, Italy

He was a radical Christian
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
stupid is an adjective. Adjectives typically are subjective. Don't be offended.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
Containing content you do not like, or neglect to ration, does not constitute a 'contradiction'. *** so if you would like to debate me regarding contradictions. Challenge me. There are none***
No votes have been placed for this debate.