The Instigator
DexterP
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
cartidge
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The synopsis of account of creation in Genesis are true scientifically and logically.

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 2 votes the winner is...
cartidge
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 418 times Debate No: 71897
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

DexterP

Pro

Synopsis means an outline, a brief summary of an event, etc.

In the first book of Moses, the Account of Creation was written in brief and concise. However very informative and easy to understand ( if you have understanding ). The word used by God is simple that a simple Human being can perceive. He didn't use such word like fusion, helium, etc. And for Moses part, he only use simple terms according to his knowledge at that time when jotted down while witnessing the creations in the beginning.

So, if we are going to read the explanations of the bible ( not my explanations ) and the explanations of true science about the process of how and when everything was made is very clear enough to comprehend the very knowledge that the Bible is true and reliable.

From the very first beginning that taught by Christ ( not the beginning written by Moses ) up to the last days of every physical shall end, the Bible made clear that every basic info that we needed to understand are all written down. Our job is to seek and search and discover of her Authenticity.

And I found out that when it comes to basic info of our solar system, universe, multiverse, stars, sun, moon, etc. From each every basic process up to their last day of existing, the Bible provide us very unique and easy to believed in.

To the person that will accept this argument, and to all that would like to put a comments here, are very welcome, and let me serve your doubt.
cartidge

Con

It is quite clear that, contrary to Pro's assertion, that the Genesis account of creation is nothing more than the primitive attempt by a bronze-age culture to explain the origins of both the universe, the Earth, and mankind. We can utilize several simple points in order to categorically disproves the Genesis creation myth.

Genesis vs Science

God created Heaven and the Earth, and light on day one. The earth, we learn, was created shortly before light (perhaps after lunch?). The consistency of the earth was (in something of a contradiction) both formless yet with form; apparently a vast ocean.

On the second day, God then separated this ocean from the sky, with oceans below, a layer of sky, and water above. On the third day, God then created land, and the various vegetation that exists on Earth. On the fourth day God created the wider celestial universe in which our solar-system and galaxy travel. However, prior to doing this, he created the sun and moon.

At this point we need not continue, it is already quite simple to debunk this narrative with the information available. But let's just quickly create a timeline of creation:

1. Heavens
2. Planet Earth
3. Water
4. Light
5. Sky
6. Land
7. Flora
8. The sun and moon
9. the wider universe (stars)

None of this fits with what we know about reality. First, at no point in the geological record is there any evidence that the earth was water. In fact, what we know is that the Earth began life as a molten ball of rock 4.54 billion years ago. it was not for another 1.7 billion years that oceans would form. So: 0/1

God also separated the oceans (the deep) from the sky, with water above and water below. This is also nonsense. There is no ocean above the earths atmosphere. This is simply the crude belief that because the sky is blue, and water often appears blue (because of the sky), that the distant blue of the sky is also a vast ocean. It is not. 0/2

We are also informed in Genesis that for at least some part of the first day, the earth existed in complete darkness and that light was created before the sky. This is an odd mind-bending idea. How, precisely, can light exist without a source? 0/3

God then proceeds to create land-masses, archipelagos, and islands, and fills them with flora, including various autotrophic plants. As all High School children learn in elementary biology, autotrophic plants photosynthesize, yet at this juncture, despite creating a source-less "light", the sun, which plants actually use to photosynthesize, has yet to be created. 0/4

At this juncture, God then created the Sun and moon. Of course, we know that the Sun is 4.6 billion years old. The Earth is several hundred million years younger than the Sun, and formed in the solar nebular that also generated the sun. But, Genesis clearly has the wrong order of events, because its authors had no understanding of the solar system. 0/5

We are also informed that the stars were then created, from the text of Genesis, apparently as something of an after thought. Yet, again, this is clearly untrue. The stars and universe which we see in the night's sky is vastly older than the sun, the moon, and of course, earth. The Andromeda Galaxy, visible to the naked eye, is 10 billion years old, nearly twice the age of our humble solar system. 0/6

Oh, Genesis contradicts itself:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

For a similar, though more detailed, point by point debunking of the creation myth, please look here:

http://www.huecotanks.com...
Debate Round No. 1
DexterP

Pro

DexterP forfeited this round.
cartidge

Con

Pro has failed to add a rebuttal, thus my existing argument stands.
Debate Round No. 2
DexterP

Pro

DexterP forfeited this round.
cartidge

Con

Pro has failed to make an argument or address my points - vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
DexterPcartidgeTied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
DexterPcartidgeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff