God Created Existence In Six Days

[Con: "[...]since there is no debate structure."]A: Con has made a true statement in regards to that there is no formal structure to this debate topic. This has been made apparent by my own inadequacy of failing to adhere to form expectations although I do not have any prior experience in a debate setting. If this is reason enough to justify a loss despite the numerous exceptions and allowances I have made in order to let this debate to proceed with my opponent; then I will accept this as part of the judge's decision. To further accommodate my opponent in this matter, I will adjust my post structure to that of "statement" and "response", as I am accustomed to in a online thread setting. This will allow me to address each of Con's arguments individually and hopefully make it easier for the reader. That being said, however, let it also be made clear that I have provided to my opponent a simplified interpretation of the debate point in R2; which was then expanded upon in R3, but not before it was made evident that the Genesis account of creation should NOT be subjected to the chronology of the physical solar cycle. This is English class, not math. My opponent provided only definitions of terms in R2 and did not address the plea to science's understanding of word origins, and thus did not provide the debate with an original argument. I have been stressing the utmost importance that Con understand what order of magnitude time itself was subjected to as the truth of our origins were revealed and condensed into metaphor/parable of which the author of Genesis (Moses) could understand. As such we are not dealing with the magnitude of "a week". Only then after all other events of creation have been placed in their proper order could the succeeding events of Genesis be subcategorized in such a manner as to be reconciled with their own parent categories. But first we must establish a point in which both science and the interpretation of Genesis accept; which was done in part by myself in R3 with this statement;[...] [Pro: "A distinct and unique species of H. sapiens., but NOT like those ANIMALS THAT EXISTED PRIOR to the advent of modern humanity 200,000 years ago.]A: Animals existed before human beings. The study of modern humans leads science to two gaps in understanding the evolution of human-type animals. Two periods of rapid evolution; the first being 450,000 years ago (Homo sapiens) and the second; 200,000 years ago (Homo sapiens sapiens), or what we like to call "modern man" or "wise man" or "knowing man". I need not provide evidence to this claim as mankind considers most of what I am writing about to be general knowledge taught in public schools, but for the sake of argument and the second classification of H. sapiens, Homo sapiens SAPIENS, I will in this case.[Genesis 1:7, "And G-d said, Let there be a firmament in the midst (amongst) of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.]A: This was the creation of water on earth. Since these great bodies were brought forth from the "waters of the deep", a presence attributed to the initial firmament construct seen in Genesis 1:2, one then can assume that our precious liquid water can be found everywhere in space. This is another fact that we know to be true by science as it seems that water CAN be found everywhere that it is thought to exist because it EXISTS in the fabric of spacetime. Molecules are floating everywhere it seems within this physical realm of which was born of Alpha Chaos; the very fabric of spacetime itself. What is science's stance on the age of water? According to the Carnegie Institute of Science, the water on earth is OLDER than the sun. This fits right in line with the Genesis account of water appearing on the earth before the sun. Because it did.[Genesis 1:9, "And G-d said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so."][Genesis 1:10, "And G-d called the dry land Earth; and the waters called he Seas: and G-d saw that it was good.]A: These verses allude to that of the ground in which everything rests upon was at one point all together. The most famous of these supercontinents that is still in our minds today would be Pangaea; even though Pangaea was NOT the earth's first supercontinent. It just so happens to be the last one in a series of seven (there's that number again). We have concluded upon the following as being generally true: Ur(Vaalbara(?)): ~3.6–2.8 Ga Kenorland: ~2.7–2.1 GaProtopangea-Paleopangea: ~ 2.7 Ga-600 MaColumbia (Nuna): ~1.8–1.5 GaRodinia: ~1.25–0.75 GaPannotia: ~600 MaPangaea: ~300 Ma*I have left out the theorized Vaalbara supercontinent as its existence remains speculative and currently open to debate. Many argue whether or not it even existed or happened to be just a part of the larger Ur supercontinent. Or it may just simply be one in the same. [Genesis 1:11, "And G-d said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.]A: 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. [Genesis 1:14, "And G-d said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:][Genesis 1:15, "And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.][Genesis 1:16, "And G-d made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.][Genesis 1:17, "And G-d set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.][Genesis 1:18, "And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and G-d saw that it was good.]A: G-d created the moon first with reflective properties that are designed to project the unborn Sun's luminescence onto the earth during the night. He then created our Sun and its relatives for the purpose of providing a mechanism of guidance (signs), and to sustain all life on earth (photosynthesis, etc.). It is written that he created the heavens for His glory, not ours, and as such what we see of the universe remains a mystery. [Psalm 19:1, "[...]The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands."]Now, since we are here at the birth of our moon, sun and stars; let's add in some of my opponent's arguments for fun. [Con: "You haven't considered the age of the Earth in comparison to stars."][Con: My opponent must then also believe that we are roughly the same age as the Sun and other stars in our solar system.]A: Thank you for pointing that out. Did you know that the earth is considered by science to be older than our sun? It's crazy I know.A simple keyword search pertaining to the 'age of the earth', and the 'age of the sun' poses a very difficult question to answer: why is it that the earth is documented as being (4.543 billion) years old when our sun is only (4.5 billion) years old? To make matters worse, it then becomes an even harder question to answer when general science frequently practices the simplification of numbers and reverts to rounding as a means of remaining practical in its conclusions.Have you ever considered just how a star is measured for its age? This process is called "Stellar Age Estimation" and bases its findings on increases in a star's luminosity and the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. But on the other hand it also seems that no individual method can provide accurate results for all types of stars. "Houston, we have a problem here." [Con: "Creating Eve out of Adam's rib, rather than out of thin air like his omnipotent self. First, the poor guy's missing a rib for the rest of his life. Second, Eve was then made out of Adam, so all love from then on out was reduced to narcissism and all sex reduced to incest or self-gratification (i.e. sin).] On the first point, do you remember what I said about the beginning and end part to written speech? For example, we capitalize the beginning letter of each sentence and place a punctuation mark at the end of every sentence. The first Six Days of Creation were a condensed chronology of the Creation of everything in the same respect a sentence requires a capital letter at the beginning and a punctuation mark to end the sentence. Chapter 2 focuses on reliving details seen in Chapter 1, but on a smaller scale. I don't know where you are getting your understanding from, but from what I understand is that Adam and Eve were created together on the sixth day. We see reaccounts of things created through out Chapter 2 so this is just not limited to the creation of H. sapiens sapiens. Lastly, my opponent has also proposed that many Christians would argue against my interpretation of Genesis, so I will leave you with this:[Con: "Whilst the Bible may fall in line with scientific theories does this really mean that we should jump to the conclusion that it is true and that the world really was created in 6 (or 7) days?"][Source in comments] [Source: Age of the earth: 4.54 × 109 years ± 1%; sourced from Wiki][Source: Age of the moon: https://www.google.com...[NOTE: I would also like to point out that several sources are in conflict with each other in regards to science's understanding of the age of the aforementioned space objects. Given their general mystery and presence outside our realm of tangibility, the rounding of figures seems to be a common practice amongst more than several branches of science today. This is an open red ticket that leads to cause for speculation amongst mainstream Christians who cry foul when those scientists are actually presenting (and being truthful about) their findings.]