God Created Existence In Six Days

"thank you for listing an example of how these debates are normally structured."No problem, they don't have to be structured like that and if you want your opponent to follow a specific structure then you should put something like that in R1 so that you opponent must agree to the structure in the acceptance round (ie. R1)."the earth is older than our sun."My opponent is missing the point. They have provided inconsistencies, in the previous round they said that the Earth is older than the Sun and then went on to accuse the system of dating stars (inclusive of the Sun). He stated that we cannot trust the dating of stars because our system and techniques of doing so are unreliable and faulty. If this is the case, I will repeat my point again. You have stated the the Genesis account for creation is correct because the Earth was made before the Sun. You have then said that we cannot know how old stars are for certain - in an attempt to dismiss my point regarding stars being older than the Earth and this being an inconsistency within the account for creation. “A Day” could possibly represent over one billion years, or it could represent one thousand years; or five hundred years, or even just one second. " My opponent is missing my point. A unit of measurment cannot be different each time. If I measure a window and measure half of it as 5 centimeters and the other half as 10 millimeters. I cannot then claim that it is 15 centimeters long because I have been using different units of measurment. If a day does represent a different amount of time, this amount of time must remain the same. You cannot say that God created each thing after random periods of time because they were all referred to as days which are periods of time. We can tell that the accounts of different things being created weren't all made after the exact same period of time and my opponent has refused and dropped my argument regarding this completely. "why wouldn’t it be feasible that G-d wouldn’t have been able to sustain the plant life he placed on the third day" Right, the problem here is that it makes no sense and it is highly illogical to do this. Why would God decide to make plants before photosynthesis - assuming that God is omnipotent then he should be able to do this however what was the point? Also, if God was capable of doing this and he is omnipotent then what was the purpose of photosynthesis? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will leave the omnibenevolence part out, not because I cannot respond to it but because it has no relevance to the resolution itself. I would be more than happy to discuss this with my opponent or anybody else separately however there is no purpose in responding to it since it never had any impact on the resolution. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The burden of proof was met when the metaphorical interpretation of a Day had been established" It hasn't been established. My opponent has only provided me with inconsistencies and has been avoiding the question of the actual time period a day holds. I know that it could be anything but it must be divided equally otherwise it wouldn't be given the measurment of a day. "The burden of proof was met when it was stated that Time exists within its' own order of magnitude" That didn't prove anything. Your burden of proof was to prove that the world was created in 6 days and showing that time exists within its own order of magnitude does not prove anything like what you have to prove. Yes, it may appear to prove the existence of God however it does not. God is a concept just because we cannot explain something, it does not mean that we should resort to God. "creedance to the theory that the center point to it all is either a black hole, a white hole, or even both at the same time." This has little or no impact upon the resolution of this debate. The fact that a black / white hole is at the ceter point does not imply or prove that a God exists and that the world was created in 6 days. Even if you buy the fact that God exists provided by my opponent is it likely that it was created in 6 days? No. "My opponent lost this debate on the grounds that I have refuted every argument pertinent to this topic of discussion" I will list all of the arguments that were dropped or insufficiently refuted: - My opponent dropped my argument regarding the Sun's age. He claims that the creation story is consistent due to the fact that we know that the Earth is older than the Sun. He then claims that the dating method of stars is inaccurate. - He has failed to sufficiently explain what the measurment of a day is and how it makes sense that the days don't happen in the same measurment. - Therefore, he has also failed to explain how the creation story coincides with evolution - He has also dropped my argument stating that there was no first human. He believes that the first humans were Adam and Eve, however if they were the first humans then there would be many other animals that were very similar to human beings. It's evident that the stage before humans is extremely similar and therefore there would have been many other human like animals, this is another argument that was dropped by my opponent and that is why I am highlighting it here. There are many other dropped arguments but the character limit is preventing me from doing so. I think that my point is proven that my opponent is incorrect in assuming that they have refuted all of my arguments. Since my opponent has not refuted all of my arguments this should be considered as a failure to meet their burden of proof. Since my opponent has failed to prove that evolution coincides with creation account of genesis it is evident that I have won this debate and I urge the judges to vote accordingly. Sourceshttp://quotesgram.com...http://www.frontrangeforum.org...;