The Bible Qualifies as a Collection of Fairy Tales - E

As I had already mentioned the source for the definition of collection, I thought it unnecessary to specify that further definitions might come from the same source (http://dictionary.reference.com... via the Random House Unabridged). Thus, my opponent's attempt to change the definition of Fairy Tale to suit his own purposes is null and void... Furthermore, there are three definitions of Fairy Tale in the source I presented in the first round. Others include: 1. A fanciful tale of legendary deeds and creatures, usually intended for children. (American Heritage) 2. A fictitious, highly fanciful story or explanation. (American Heritage) 3. A story about fairies; told to amuse children (Princeton Wordnet) 4. An interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse (Princeton Wordnet) As we can see, the definitions of Fairy Tale are fairly specific in that they are incredible beliefs, and not merely stories intended to mislead. Stories intended to mislead are lies ( a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. - Dictionary.com). My opponent's attempt to disqualify the stories concerning magical creatures is indeed a weak one. He pretends that simply because a magical creature is mentioned in a story, that it is not a fairy tale unless the story is ABOUT the creature.Then he attempts to state that the dictionary would be a fairy tale because it defines these magical creatures. This is truly laughable, as the dictionary contains NO stories... Let us examine the stories in the Bible... ******************** 1. Giants In Genesis, the Giants are interacting with mankind. In 1 Samuel 17, David fights one of the last Giants. How are these stories not about Giants? 2. Dragons In Revelation 12, Michael the Archangel fights a dragon. How is this not about a dragon? 3. Cockatrices In Jeremiah 8, God sends cockatrices and serpents out among the people. How is this not about a cockatrice? 4. Unicorns In Job 39, he asks if a unicorn will serve and stay by someone. How is this not about a unicorn? 5. The Cheldean's Horses Habbakuk 1 DESCRIBES the horses!! This is clearly ABOUT the horses!! 6. Sorcers/Witches In Acts 13, Paul essentially battles the sorcerer Elymas. How is this not about a sorcerer? 7. Other Gods Time and time again, there are stories of the Israelites turning away from God and to these false Gods. How are these stories not about the false gods? As one can clearly see these stories do not "simply mention the magical creature" but they are "about the magical creature," thus completely satisfying my opponent's claim that a mere passing mention is not enough to qualify the story. ***************************** 8. The Creation of Earth and Man My opponent obviously did not read the source he sites. A quote from the study on the purpose of the study: "In this contribution, I present new data on anti-evolutionism in Germany, which document that the situation has not changed much over the past 50 years—at least in the western part of this country." This study is the result of a poll concerning religious socialization in Germany, not any sort of scientific or philosophical inquiry into creationism. Furthermore, fossil records are incapable of showing creationism as a plausible theory, because God could have simply created misleading fossils. Also, simply because dust contains carbon does not mean it can create carbon-based life forms. Humans are 75% water - and there's no water in dirt. 9. The Temptation/Fall of Adam/Eve God gave Adam/Eve the power to chose their fate by eating from a magical tree. Then the two of them breed a race of beings that numbers in the billions today. Forgetting that 2 people are not a genetically viable population, that cannot account for the vast multitude of genetic diversity in the world. 10. Life Spans "AGE IS SUBJECTIVE" ?!?! Are you kidding?! The bible is very clear about the ages of these characters. Man did NOT live longer ages ago - we have scientific data going back 1.4 MILLION years on the lifespan of the human race. Man lived for LESS time two and three millennia ago (http://en.wikipedia.org...). 11. Plagues of Egypt It is highly unlikely that the same locale in Egypt would suffer plagues of blood, frogs, gnats, bees, pestilence, boils, hail, locusts, darkness, AND the death of all firstborns in a short time span. This story clearly qualifies as having incredible content. My opponent tries to weasel his way out of the point by explaining one of the plagues away as being a city-wide case of schistosomiasis that happened to infect the entire city at the same time... His theory also depends on all the infected Egyptians peeing into the river they drink from when they can obviously tell there is something seriously wrong with them. 12. Parting of the Red Sea I'm confused at my opponents argument here. He states that a geologic split would have presented this... but the source he presents state: "But in September of LAST YEAR they split apart along a 37-mile (60-kilometer) section in Afar, Ethiopia (Ethiopia map), near the southern end of the Red Sea." This gives no evidence for a split 3000 years ago. Furthermore, such a split would have only caused a temporary disturbance of the sea, not nearly long enough for the Israelites to cross. 13. Jonah and the Great Fish My opponent states that Jonah could have been swallowed unharmed, but does nothing to explain why the fish would, once it realized there was a foreign object inside itself, return to the beach to spit it out, and not simply spit it out where it was... the middle of the sea or under water, usually. ************************************* A few responses: >> "As pro, my opponent has the inherent burden to prove that the events are not possible, were never possible, and were purposefully misleading." False - PRO has the burden of showing that these stories are one of the following: 1. About or containing references to magical creatures. 2. Containing incredible content. 3. Misleading by effect or design. >> "God is omnipotent. He wants it to happen, it does. My opponent probably does not believe in God, but to prove that all the events were impossible occurrences, he must also prove that God is not all powerful." Very well. In Judges 1, Judah is doing battle with a foe while this omnipotent God is assisting him, yet, "he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron" (1 Judges 1:19). Seems like God is not omnipotent if he could not drive out some people riding some metal carriages. An omnipotent God would have been able to quash the chariots like flies. Also, an omnipotent God would be capable of telling a lie. Yet, according to Hebrews 6:18, "...it was impossible for God to lie...' And in Mark 6:5, Jesus (who by extension is God, assuming a trinity) "...could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them." Three things an omnipotent god could to that the Judeo-Christian God could not do. Ergo, the Judeo-Christian God is NOT omnipotent. >> "So for my opponent to win, he must prove, without a doubt, that 1) my evidence is all wrong. 2) God does not exist. 3) the events are still impossible. If my opponent fails one of these three, he loses the debate." False - read the resolution. PRO must simply prove that two or more of these stories qualify as fairy tales. CON must prove that all, or all but one do not qualify.