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

God of the bible created the world

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,263 times Debate No: 85422
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (56)
Votes (1)




God was made up What does the bible say about God creating the world? According to the bible the world is around 6,000 years old (that is also the age of the universe according to the bible). Which we know is not true, the earth was formed around 4 billion years ago and the universe before it around 14 billion years ago. Wrong by a large magnitude. If you doubt how science can produce that number please do some research.

I conclude that Genesis, which is the account of God creating the world, is grossly false due to its lack of coming up with any correct prediction of what the natural world was actually like. There was never a "first" human the way the bible talks about Adam. Adam himself is a mistranslation from I word adam (pronunciation: uh-dom) from I believe the Arabic religion meaning mankind. I believe all religion is man made and had human fingerprints all over it. What other idea would paint earth as the center of the all mighty gods interest, now knowing how vast the universe is, if it wasn't one made up by humans?


Wait, what? You KNOW the earth was formed around 4 billion years ago and the universe was formed around 14 billion years ago? Where did you get that crazy idea?

There was not first human? So humans always existed?

Give us the Hebrew that is "mistranslated" as Adam and the nature of the mistranslation.

Prove the Christian religion is man-made?

Where does the Bible paint the earth as the center of all of God's interest?

What makes you think the vastness of the universe has anything to do with God's interest?
Debate Round No. 1


Of course no one can KNOW anything to 100% certainty without looking dumb. I get that. But I am as near certain as you can be with such a topic that. I'm not looking to prove or disprove anything, you cannot prove God exists the same way I cannot disprove his existence.

Through uranium lead dating we can track the radioactive decay of uranium into lead with a minuscule margin of error is how we figure out how the age of the earth. If you doubt that process, I ask why.

The age of the universe is figured by calculating the current speed of galaxy clusters with the current acceleration of the expanding universe and if you work backwards you get a number close to 14 billion years ago. Simple d/t graph. Again if you doubt this process I ask why.

Now to there never being a first human. I'm not sure how well you understand evolution but humans are part of the great ape family. We evolved from Africa from apes into humanoid beings. A common one you might be familiar with "homo-errectus" there couldn't of been a first human because evolution works over a longer time line than we can easily imagine. There were gradual improvement over time and the changes at each step are almost indistinguishable. There was no simple change from apes to humans or a "black to white" type of change but more of a slow shade change resulting into white eventually.

Now to the mistranslation. 'ha-adam' translates into "the man" or is a reference to mankind as a whole. If the 'ha' is missing then it translates into someone named Adam. In the original Hebrew there was an 'ha' before Adam so boom there you go it actually means man kind.

I will now wrap your last three question up into one paragraph. When it comes to showing Christianity is man made I ask you, can you prove that it isn't? Since the Hebrew text was translated into English for any ruler to use. It has been reinterpreted many times over. Everyone and their mothers had a chance to come up with their own "flavor" of Christianity, which is why there are so many different kinds today. Not only is the bible historically inaccurate in the vast majority of cases, it cannot reproduce any prediction about the future or natural world that was found true. If the bible was the holy word of God shouldn't God be right every now and then? It makes more sense that some humans in the Middle East had some ideas that they tried passing on to everyone else and no body could say if they were wrong so everyone just went with it.

The entire bible takes place in the Middle East. There aren't any mention of kangaroos or any animal that can't be found in a 100 mile radius of Jerusalem. It's quite obvious they just wrote a collection of stories and put them into a single book to me. God only talks about the human race on earth when there is probably life else where no matter how simple. Pretty important omission don't you think?


If you don't know anything to 100% certainty, you do not know anything. And that really ends the debate, because you could be wrong about everything you claim is true. With you having nothing but uncertainty and me certainty, I go with God and His Word.

Tell us how uranium dating works, and tell us if you know a runner's speed and location, you can tell how long he has been running.

Tell us how the speed of the expanding universe proves the earth is old?

If there was no first human, we are left with two choices: either humans always existed or there are no human's now. And prove humans are part of the great ape family? Oh wait, you said you are not here to prove anything. We just have to accept everything you say as true. That is one way to "win" a debate.

And actually the Hebrew word translated as Adam is transliterated as adam and is means, a proper name, a single man mankind.. So, we can put your knowledge of Scripture (i.e., this and the other bogus claims you made) in the "don't know what I am talking about" category.

And nice try at shifting the burden of proof, but I am too clever for that. You made the claim that Christianity is man-made, you prove it. It appears that it is not the Bible that is wrong about reality, but your knowledge of the Bible.

Are you a credentialed scientist or are you just parroting others?

And in what sense is the Bible historically inaccurate?
Debate Round No. 2


we are having a debate, so you are suppose to give reasons to support your opinion regarding the motion. Why did you create an account here if you will not debate.

The difference between me just believing in these scientific processes is that they can make a prediction and reproduce it on command. Has the bible ever done that? The best you can hope for is a stale mate. I never said I believe this as fact. All I did was present my EVIDENCE to why I believe it to be true. So we can try and figure out what it means to know something or we can make some progress and we can try to give points of reasoning.

"I go with God and his word" is the first time you said anything that wasn't just trying belittle what I was saying.

So now you claim to be an expert on scripture? I was merely stating information that anyone can find if they look. Do you believe in he virgin birth as well? That is also a mistranslation. If you are a Hebrew major you would know that. If you aren't then who are you to question me?

Wow it is also clear you have no true understanding of evolution. Me saying there was no first human doesn't lead to those to conclusions. That's just a logical shortcoming on your behalf. It is a concept that is counter intuitive. Each generation is different from the last. Whatever the "first" human was it wasn't exactly what humans are today. So the first human depends on your definition of a human.

So our galaxy is in location B. If we know the speed of the galaxy then we can figure out how long it took to get to location B from location A. Pretty simple in my opinion.

Are you referencing the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? It states we can never be 100% certain on the location AND acceleration of anything, not location and acceleration separately. So sure I am not certain about anything and all of this could be wrong, I'm not denying that. But you have failed at providing a reason to which we should have "faith" I'm your God. That's all it is, "faith" at least I can make predictions about the world and be confident those predictions are correct.

The Old Testament is a bunch of stories. You really believe in Noah's arc? Is that historically accurate?

No I don't have any scientific credentials at the moment, but I am a student of physics and biology, I haven't decided specifically which one yet, they're both interesting. I'm not trying to MAKE anyone atheist. But what I do want is a debate, and you sir haven't given one.

You want me to explain uranium-lead dating? I already have. Any other attempt would be futile because it seems I would have to define each term to you. I urge you to do some research.

I'm waiting for you to not look so close minded, give me some evidence sir. Otherwise you wasted both of our time.


Yes, we are having a debate which you already lost by admitting you know nothing and avoiding my Qs. You have proved nothing, but made more claims. And then you dodged my Qs rather than expose your ignorance. You have provided no reason to reject Scripture.
Debate Round No. 3
56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: harrytruman// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: The Bible has many historic accuracies.

[*Reason for removal*] This is not an RFD, only a statement.
Posted by Jtp23 2 years ago
I hear what you're saying sciguy. I am not fully aware of the protocol of a debate. Seeing as how this was my first debate here, practice will help aiding towards less gobble-di-goop. I was trying to get thoughts out. Science credentials would help for finding the ultimate truth since they do have the best grip around the the science behind my points. I don't think it takes a PhD to understand at least some what of the science behind my points. There is no point trying to disprove God's existence, nor is there a point for him to try and prove God's existence. No one can do so fully. We both are stating opinions because that is all that is possible to state.
Posted by Sciguy 2 years ago
I can't agree with either pro or con for they are not proving any of the claims they are presenting. There are no links, hardly if any passages from the bible or tora, and further more I must say they were unethical with their presentations. Really it is just Pro going on how "He follows Gods word" and Con litterly contradicts himself when he says "All I did was present my EVIDENCE to why I believe it to be true." You don't have evidence if you are using an opinion! and contradicts himself once more by stating "I don't have any scientific credentials" which you would need for a debate such as this. To me, this is a whole bunch of Gobble-di-Goop of oppinions that does not explain nor delve on which is true.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
Creation is and can be Scientifically proven.
Posted by Jtp23 2 years ago
There's one vote bro haha damn, would your lord appreciate all your name calling?
Posted by ViceRegent 2 years ago
And the tool irrationally commits several logical fallacies and runs away. Debate over. The tool loses. Who is next?
Posted by Jtp23 2 years ago
Unless you become one with the force of course.
Posted by Jtp23 2 years ago
you are so absurd it's comical. Let me guess, you probably believe the world is flat right? Your book implies that it is. There are people in space this moment looking at a round earth. Faith is belief without any evidence. I have evidence and you do not. Why are you on this site other than to waste time? Enjoy your time on earth, it's all you got ;)
Posted by ViceRegent 2 years ago
Yea, all the money these days is going to those who disagree with evolutionary heterodoxy. Where do these tools get this nonsense?
Posted by Jtp23 2 years ago
Religion says it has all the answers because it's holy book says so. In the scientific community, the best way to become an influential scientist is to disprove your colleagues theories. Especially theories as grand as evolution. Science looks at the evidence, religion looks at a holy book.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FlammableX 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: This is a clear victory for the Con side. First, the con presented his argument, that the Bible contains inaccuracies. Then, he went on to provide evidence given by uranium dating and the suchlike, as well as evidence for evolution. The pro's only refutation of this was "If you don't know anything to 100% certainty, you do not know anything." Through his fallacious logic, it is clear that the con had better arguments. Conduct goes to con because Pro kept calling con ignorant or something like that. Pro also states that Con admits he does not know anything. Clearly that does not have veracity - con simply stated that he cannot know 100%. In effect, the pro seemed to be more interested in arguing without evidence, rather than debating. In fact, he never presented a clear logical argument. Easily, con wins this debate. Pro kept asking questions that the con already answered, such as "what are the inaccuracies of the Bible"? Con wins, no doubt.