The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Origin of Life | Biblical 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ReasonMinistries has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/10/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,091 times Debate No: 118125
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (0)




I believe that the God of the Bible created the universe about 6, 000 years ago, Just as it was accounted in the Book of Genesis.

Con, L' like for you to pose the first argument.


How can the universe be 6, 000 years old if:

The oldest tree in the world is 9, 550 years old.

The civilization of Mesopotamia is 8, 000 years old.
(We also have writings from them.

The Nahal Mishar Hoard Crown is 6, 500 years old.

The Tower of Jericho is 11, 000 years old.

The Chinchorro Mummies are 7, 050 years old.

The Fort Rock Shoes are 11, 000 years old.

The G"bekli Tepe is 11, 300 years old.

The El Castillo Cave Paintings are 40, 800 years old.

The Bone Flute is 43, 000 years old.

The Krapina Eagle Talon Jewelry is a whopping 130, 000 years old.

So yes, Please explain to me how the hell the universe is only 6, 000 years old when we have pieces of jewelry that are 130, 000 years old.
Debate Round No. 1


Does this post?


So I take it that I have won this debate?
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago

I have a question i want you to answer, How much would you have to change a cat for it to no longer be a cat? Remove the tail? Add some wings, Etc? At what point would it not simply be different but still as you would say the cat kind.

I find it amusing that people think micro and macro evolution are separate rather then just different intervals of time, We have measured the mutation rates, They cross confirm the fossil record and genetic evidence and match up perfectly with the rate of change we currently see, But let me guess, This doesn't work past a certain point because of either "a non-discovered DNA code barrier" or a "WERE U DARE? " argument?

Il leave you with this.
You would believe that all dogs came from a single common ancestor right? You think your worldview and what you call "micro-evolution" perfectly supports that right? Well then you may find it interesting that we have mapped the genomes of modern dogs, And you know whats very interesting, Some of them are more genetically diverse then humans and chimpanzees, So by the same logic with evidence to support, I can say humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor and that humans are still the ape kind by the same standard of evidence and logic you provide for micro-evolution.

Interested in your response :)
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
"The theory of evolution is the same thing as believing in a deity, Its all biased on belief and faith. "
Why is it that scientific "knowledge" is the same the world over and religious "beliefs" are not?
A person need not own beliefs of any kind to establish scientific facts, Observe and enjoy nature, Or live a productive, Moral, And useful life.
Religion will denounce science when it disagrees with its superstitious claims, But then uses science to prove its superstitious claims, You can't have it both ways. Science never uses religion to prove anything. Religious faith is both arrogant and ignorant. Because of it's certainty
Far from being arrogant the scientific method is one of humility. It acknowledges the limits of our current knowledge. It doesn't provide explanations or answers from a position of ignorance, But investigates the unknown in an attempt to reach understanding based on empirical evidence. Surely it is the superstitious or religious approach which claims to know the answers without any evidence except "faith" that is the arrogant approach. You do not acquire knowledge from faith.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
"Faith is the reason people give when they don"t have evidence. " Matt Dillahunty

"Faith can be very very dangerous, And deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong. " Richard Dawkins

"Pain, Suffering, And where everything is how it was originally supposed to be. " Well you are the ONLY person I've ever met in my 43+ years that I've been doing this and have talked to roughly 22, 000. Your God is supposed to be about peace and love, Harmony, Care, Kindness etc etc etc and after all that's what the Garden of Eden was. Now this God of yours could have kept that, But nah he chose evil, Anger, Wrath, Vengeance, Rage, Fury, Jealousy all in which he freely admitted to. Yeah - ever so befitting of a supreme deity right? Especially that jealousy on in which jealousy is nothing but anger as disguised fear. Even worse is this supposed God passed down those emotions to man so in turn man could learn to hate with at least 1 billion dead on the battlefields alone. Great going God. Great going for those who worship this - who knows whatever.
"He loves s enough to die a horrible death on the cross" Terrible analogy. Um no your God simply according to your vanquished bible simply loves pain and suffering especially among children in which he truly hates. Now what can children possibly learn from suffering? If you've answered "nothing" you've answered correctly.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
Sin is hypocritical and contradictory in your bible. Thus sin does not exist.
Does every man sin? Yes. There is no man who does not sin (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810) No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, Because they are the children of God. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God. . (I John 5:1). We should be called children of God; and so we are (I John 3: 1). He who loves is born of God (I John 4:7). No one born of God commits sin; for Gods nature abides in him, And he cannot sin because he is born of God (I John 3:9). But, Then again, Yes! If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, And the truth is not in us (I John 1:8)

Then you discuss hell. Hell is also a preconceived notion just like heaven that you cannot prove. I mean every religion known has an above world myth - a heaven if you will and a below world - a hell if you will and a creation myth. So how do you prove that the God that you believe in is not only the true God to believe in and ---every--- other god is false? Faith? Why would YOUR God of supreme ego demand faith and not blab himself to everybody? That would be evidence. The bible and faith is not in any way evidence.
"Why would you believe anything on faith? Faith isn"t a pathway to truth. Every religion has some sort of faith. If faith is your pathway you can"t distinguish between Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Any of these others. How is it that you use ---reason--- in every of the other endeavor in your life and then when it comes to the ultimate truth, The most important truth your"re saying that faith is required and how is that supposed to reflect on a god? What kind of a god requires faith instead of evidence? " Matt Dillahunty

"Faith is the great cop-out, The great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, Even perhaps because of, The lack of evidence. " Richard Dawkins
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
@ReasonMinistries - Um no sorry, Nice try. I get it, YOUR God murdered pregnant women, Babies and children because they were sinning? Would you care to try to rephrase your statement? See that's the problem with you Christians is when you are backed into a wall with no outs, You invent excuses from something in which you know absolutely nothing about.

Matt Dillahunty "What is sin and why should I care about it? (That"s a very good question. ) I don"t give a damn about sin. And that"s because I am not stupid enough nor ignorant enough to believe in a selfish self centered god so I have to look over my should every second of every day and worry about something that is completely meaningless such as sin) I understand why I should live an ethical life and treating people in certain ways, We have secular foundations for moral systems. But sin from the christian perspective is a crime against god or god"s nature itself - right? If god makes the rules and you violate it, That"s a sin. Well what if god makes a rule that you should kill your child, Does that make it good? Caller " Yeah that"s where I do things that are not aligned in what the bible says. " Matt "Yeah. But are they good things? Do you have good reasons to have that the things you are doing are not immoral? Like do you have an example? Like don"t confess to a crime or anything. For example the bible is opposed to homosexuality. Do you think there"s something immoral about those who are homosexuals? " Caller "Uh there"s none that I can think of. " Matt "Yeah me neither. And so if the bible"s opposed to it add the bible is the word of god, And the Koran is opposed to it as well and the Koran is supposed to be the word of god as well, And there are two holy books and let them argue over who god is and what god thinks and until they can come up with a sound secular justification for homosexualiy being immoral then I don"t need to pay their views any money because its just an opinion at that point. "
Posted by ReasonMinistries 3 years ago

All of those things you said God is going to punish are just examples of man sinning, And because God is just He requires that sins must be paid for, And that is through Hell. But because God doesn't wish for anyone to perish He gave us the option of eternal life with Him where there is no more sin, Pain, Suffering, And where everything is how it was originally supposed to be. Lets put it this way. If a magistrate's son were to steal a car, And was put on trial for stealing that car. The judge would sentence his son to be punished for the crimes that he committed. If the judge were just to drop the charges when the jury found him guilty just because it was his son he would be considered a corrupt judge. But what if that judge were to post his son's bail with his own money. It would show that he loved his son enough to post the huge amount of money for his son to give him another chance. The same with God, He loves s enough to die a horrible death on the cross to legally take away our sins and let us live eternally with Him with our sins forgotten.
Posted by ReasonMinistries 3 years ago
"in which 100% showed that behaviors completely changed once domesticated? That's irrefutable evolution. "

You are correct that it is evolution, Its called micro evolution also known as inner-speciation, That is completely different than Darwinian macro-evolution. Speciation (going from species to species) again those foxes didn't go from foxes to cats, Which would take an increase in genetic information, They went from wild foxes to domesticated foxes which takes no gain of genetic information and most likely a loss of genetic information. That is not an example of Darwinian Macro-evolution just inner-speciation and micro-evolution.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
You are inventing excuses. Please don't do that. I really hate it when people do that. Did you even go into the Scientific American article and read it? What about the Wikipedia article? Did you watch the videos from the Scientific American Article in which 100% showed that behaviors completely changed once domesticated? That's irrefutable evolution.

You obviously didn't even read the articles on the parrot fish either. Never mind. Stay in your own corner. Continue to be blind. You flatly invented excuses that YOUR brought up in which had 0% of nothing in which was originally brought up in previous posts.

And yet you believe in the God according to the bible in which you cannot even prove even exists in which is all faith based oriented which requires belief. To make matters worse YOUR God murdered 2, 821, 364 according to his bible for no reason at all in one little splatch of land which included pregnant women (abortions = a massive contradiction on your part), Children and babies. Naturally you are perfectly fine with that. Also your bible is based solely on a superior ego god complex and nothing more. Your bible is not evidence of any kind. Hmmmmm strangely your God would not be stupid enough to use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible, That is if and only if reasonably intelligent. In this bible of yours, Your God hates children, Wants the death of gays, Wants the death of those that work on the sabbath, Wants the death of those that blaspheme, Wants the death of those that curse at their parents, Wants the death of those that commit adultery, Wants the death of those that do not worship him. Yeah its all right there in YOUR bible. What a great God in this fabled storybook he is - right? And you cannot even give one reason, Just one, Legitimate reason why you believe.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
Watch the videos. Regardless there is no adaptation, None, Otherwise this issue would be long dead and forgotten. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics. There's no "cure", Not even close, Just like there's no cure for cancer, For those antibiotic resistant microbes as they keep getting stronger and stronger thus evolving every second of every day to become more resistant to antibiotics.
I just googled "yearly deaths from Antibiotic resistant microbes"
"Each year in the United States, At least 2 million people become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and at least 23, 000 people die each year as a direct result of these infections. Many more people die from other conditions that were complicated by an antibiotic-resistant infection. Apr 9, 2018" That's the very first thing that came up. That's in the U. S. Alone! Think of how many cases there are worldwide? ! ? ! ? It is ab-so-lu-te evolution and nothing but. These little critters are changing to become more resistant to antibiotics.
Posted by ReasonMinistries 3 years ago
"Another form of observable AND created evolution is foxes. . . "

If you notice its still a fox, It is just domesticated! It didn't suddenly turn into a Siamese Cat or an oak tree. Not an example of evolution just inner-speciation.

"This is me saying this. . . That's proof of evolution. Without parrot fish no pristine beaches, No ecosystems, No possibility for growth and change simply by this one creature. Its solid evolution. "

It's amazing that 'nothing' and 'random selection' could figure that one out. But my question to that is. Was the parrotfish the fist thing to evolve so that sand could be formed, And the rest of the eco system could start evolving things like coral? Its impossible! The parrotfish poops sand after eating away at the coral. It's a symbiotic relationship, One can't survive without the other. The parrotfish can't eat without the coral, And the coral can't survive without the sand. So that whole argument is all circular reasoning. It can't happen unless everything was created in a short amount of time, Like accounted in Genesis. Also sounds very complicated to be created by random chance.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.