Creation

RebuttalsNotice how my opponent utilizes the Bible as an often recurring source in his round two responses. He assumes the Bible is accurate and factual. He assumes that it is the word of God. I did not intend to debate this, but I will establish my opposition to the notion now. The Bible is an unreliable source. Please view my debate on this issue: http://www.debate.org...; The Bible is an unreliable source because of the numerous distortions and edits it has had. It is an unreliable source because the authors of it cannot be identified and there is no scientific evidence to support it. My opponent's round three statements are excessively religious. Most of the sources he used in that round were from the Bible. I will now respond to my opponent's most crucial statements and then I will conclude the debate with a summary. My opponent says, "God could have created in six microseconds, but the Bible, in Genesis 1, is presenting what God did, not surmising about what He "could have done." His six day creation work and Sabbath rest are for His people (Exodus 6:10-11), our 7 day week is derived from God's creation week. He does not need to "rest," the text implies simply that He ceased from His work of creation. Yes, His strength is unlimited (Revelation 1:8, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:3, Isaiah 26:4)." My opponent's only source here is the Bible itself, which is most unfortunate. There is no scientific evidence provided here. This statement is invalid until proven with more evidence other than the Bible. He says, "What evidence do you propose that shows dinosaurs indeed lived millions of years before humans? Dinosaurs coexisted with man, these were the dragons, monsters, thunderbirds, and behemoths of times past. Extant dinosaur tissues seem to indicate very strongly a more recent existence. Also your cartoon is not biblical, dinosaurs would have been on board the ark along with the rest of the then extant animal species." My opponent's argument, again, uses a pro-Creation source in order to "prove" his point. I wonder why he cannot simply use sources that are all about science. I believe the evidence of dinosaurs living millions of years before us was implied and evident, but my opponent shows the opposite. I now intend to present this evidence to him. My source says, "The particular problem with human-dinosaur coexistence is the same problem presented by all flood geology. Namely, that in the fossil record there is absolutely no trace of human remains found in the layers where dinosaur fossils are found. There are no modern animals mixed in with dinosaur remains; there are no dinosaur remains mixed in with more modern animals. In fact, the fossil record is remarkably well-ordered for being supposedly, according to creationists, put down by a devastating and chaotic flood." As you can see, there is simply no fossil and/or DNA evidence in any way suggesting or supporting the notion of dinosaur-human coexistence. Now, descendants of the dinosaurs live with us today, which are bird. Birds can, in a sense, be referred to as "modern dinosaurs." We do coexist with them, obviously, but evidence shows we did not coexist with the real giant lizards from millions and millions of years ago. He says, "God did not originate from anything/anywhere/anytime. He is the eternal Father whose going forth has been from everlasting times (Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 45:17, Jeremiah 10:10, Habakkuk 1:12). This is not a paradox, the fact that you can't wrap your brain around the everlasting existence of God does not disprove it. Most people cannot wrap there brain around E^2=M^2C^4+(PC)^2 but this does not make it impossible. Your "arguments" here are moot." The only "evidence" here is the Bible. The reason I - and many, many other people - cannot comprehend te notion of God existing outside of time is because it doesn't work. You cannot compare E^2=M^2C^4+(PC)^2 to an all-powerful being creating everything. My opponent's only source here is the Bible. In order to prove these claims, he will need to provide further evidence from a wider selection of sources, not only creation.com and the Bible itself. It is rather annoying. He says, "The Bible is an entirely accurate source, prophetically, historically, scientifically, philosophically, theologically, and practically." I have already refuted this. We shall now move on. He says, "How so? You should study creation science more. Evolution is supported by people not facts." Creation is not supported by science. It is only supported by a book written thousands of years ago by people nobody knows the names of, that has been edited numerous times, that has been distorted, and that does not utilize any science at all. Evolution, my friend, is supported by facts. Creation is supported by the Bible and the foolish people that follow it. He says, "I think an argument can be made that bio-complexity "suggests" creation, but it does not ultimately prove it. To say they had to evolve though, I think is statement made out of ignorance. How did DNA and consciousness HAVE to evolve? Of course they could have been created, don't be so na"ve." My opponent should take the time to review all of the evidence of Evolution. Then he will see that I am right. He should not simply assume the Bible is accurate. He says, "Some Christians might assume things about the Bible, but the Bible itself says to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Many Christians prove (test) the Bible historically, scientifically, etc. and then as the verse I just gave says, they hold fast to that which is good (true). There is plenty of evidence, I'm sorry you seem to be unaware of it all. I suggest you check out creation.com for starters to see some evidence for creation, every scientific claim they make is backed up by references and can (and should) be scrutinized." I will not waste my time responding to this hideous statement. All viewers that are, as I am, Evolutionists must agree with me. He says, "Your assumptions about be here are disconcerting. I would not assume that simply because you believe in evolution that you were a misotheist like Richard Dawkins. You should not assume things about your opponent. I was not raised Christian by the way. I came to know Christ as my Savior when I was 18, before then I was living a life against Him. In American society I was raised to think selfishly not scientifically. America is not scientifically minded, it is, as a whole, hedonistic. I began thinking scientifically after I became a Christian so your statement is moot. Disgusted? I am disgusted when I here professors teaching their students that they arose from pond scum millions of years ago and have developed through the animal kingdom to become what they are today. The truth of our Creator God who gave His own life (1 John 3:16) for us out of His great love toward man is just the opposite, it is beautiful. People all over the world are depressed, empty inside, lonely and feel unloved because they are unaware of the Creator God who loves and cares for them so much. They need to seek God, and God has promised that they will find Him, and those who come to Him will in wise be turned away (John 6:37)." The Bible is the only source in this statement. My opponent tries to spread the word of God in this statement, but fails. I am not lonely, I am loved, and I live a happy life because God is not a part of my life, and neither are the barbaric and childish beliefs of the Christian faith and, really, all faiths. He says, "No honest scientist would say God cannot exist, that is just ridiculous. Time is relative (i.e. Einstein's theory of relativity). We only have time because God set it in motion. God is outside of time. The "Big Bang" is a model riddled with problems, people choose to believe in it because they refuse to acknowledge their Creator. How can the origin of the universe be explained with science? Were we there at its beginning? Of course not, all we can do is make observations and guess about the origins of the universe. Genesis 1 was given by God so that you may know where you come from." The Big Bang theory is supported by a plethora of facts. Is my opponent even aware of the evidence of the Big Bang? My opponent lacks the imagination and the capacity to acknowledge that the Big Bang is fact. He says, "People go to hell because they reject the one true, living God. To reject God is to reject life, as all life comes from Him. People who believe things without seeking out the truth are without excuse because God gives every man the ability to come to Him for the forgiveness of sins. If, hypothetically, a person truly had no idea about the true God and never was given the opportunity to make a decision for Him, then because God is just, He would not condemn Him (Genesis 18:25). Babies and young children do not go to hell because they are not of the age of accountability wherein they are able to make a coherent decision for or against the one true God." If God is all-loving and all-powerful, why does crime occur? Why do people become the victims of horrific accidents? Tell me that. I will post further rebuttals in the comments section. Conclusion I would love to refute more, but my limit of characters has been reached. For my opponent to win this debate, he must provide more evidence, other than the Bible itself and creation.com. If there are any more refutations I should make, I will do so in the comments section.Works Cited 1. http://rationalwiki.org...2. http://rationalwiki.org...