God Created Existence In Six Days

When I was referring to the debate structure, I didn't mean that it was a reason that I had won the debate. I meant that there is no structure so I can provide rebuttals and arguments in one round. Here is an example of a debate structure: Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Counter rebuttals All I meant by that statement was that since you didn't provide a debate strucure there was no reason that the judges shouldn't vote me down based on the fact that I provided rebuttals and arguments in the same round. It isn't a reason to justify a loss, so don't worry about that. Since the BOP lies on my opponent to prove that the world was in fact created in 6 days. I will respond to my opponent's rebuttals and counter refute them. My opponent is writing is a very large font size and in a strange font which makes it harder to read however I will do my best. "Animals existed before human beings." I never said that they didn't. "water CAN be found everywhere that it is thought to exist" I'm not sure you mean that because if you do then you are mistaken. Water cannot be found everywhere that it is thought to exist. Water cannot possibly form on the sun in solid or liquid form because it the solid would simply melt into a liquid and then evapourate. The liquid would just evapourate. Due to the fact that no water has ever existed on the sun because it requires a starting point and water evapourates due to the sun here on Earth. How could you possibly arrive at the sun with water without it evapourate before you even reach within 1 million miles of the sun. "the water on earth is OLDER than the sun." Whilst this is a valid point, if you are stating that the order is correct then you are very much mistaken. On day 1 of the creation story God created the Heavens and the Earth. How did God create Earth before the sun and the stars? The Earth is not older than the Sun. Due to the fact that the Earth was made on a separate day to the Sun (and a day isn't actually the equivalent of a day), this must mean that the Earth was around for millions and possibly billions of years before the Sun came into existence. God waits until the 4th day to create the stars and therefore according to the creation story we had no stars up until the 4th day ( and each day could possibly represent over 1 billion years ). "Here we see G-d bringing forth vegetation to the land upon the darkness of the earth. He is setting up to provide for this green vegetation with His next development on the next Day; the moon and our Sun. " This is a major mistake by my opponent. He states that the vegation has been created before the Sun! Science has proven that plants need the Sun and its light and resources in order to survive. Without any Sun, none of these plants would live! "he created the heavens for His glory, not ours" I have two questions: 1) Why is this relevant?2) Why would he do that? I thought that your God was omnibenevolent. "and to sustain all life on earth (photosynthesis, etc.)."No offense, but God must have been very confused if he decided to create plants and vegetation before he decided to create the Sun and the process of photosynthesis. "Did you know that the earth is considered by science to be older than our sun? " I wasn't necessarily referring to the Sun, I was referring to stars that have been deemed significantly older than the Sun and the Earth and yet apparently they were made 3 days (or time periods) after the Earth was created. My opponent cannot dismiss the ageing of stars just because he believes that the method is unreliable. If the method really is unreliable then my opponent has still ruined his argument since he is arguing that the Earth is in fact older than the Sun. The Sun is a star and if the measurment of stars is unreliable (as my opponent is claiming), then how do you know that the Sun is younger than the Earth (or vice versa)?"let's add in some of my opponent's arguments for fun." This is why I have won the debate. My opponent clearly has a burden to uphold and therefore must refute all of my arguments provided. He has conceded that he will only refute some of my arguments for 'fun'. does this really mean that we should jump to the conclusion that it is true This is a quote from my argument that my opponent has tried to use against me however I will prove them wrong. Firstly, I used the word: 'should'. Secondly, I was basing this argument on your perception of the creation story to avoid confusion. If you are using one argument for something, I cannot ignore your argument and refute the common belief used when discussing and debating that particular resolution. Even if my opponent still is unconvinced, different interpretations of Christianity still generally believe the same thing and it is still argued that the Bible does fall in line with scientific theories by many Christians that do not share you beliefs and interpretations of the Bible. Sourceshttp://www.gotquestions.org...http://solar-center.stanford.edu... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;