The Biblical God Created Earthly Life

Well, this just keeps getting more frustrating, doesn't it? Pro, you are killing me! I reject this resolution, because Pro has made no attempt, no wait, actually, Pro has made a negative attempt to show how the god of the bible created earthly life as defined in this debate. Pro has instead advanced the idea that because the word "god" is merely mentioned in the resolution, therefore god exists, and since the phrase "created life" was mentioned in the resolution and in the bible, therefore the biblical god created earthly life. Pro, statements can be said about agents without the agent existing AND without presupposition of the agent's existence. You have dropped this argument. If I took the Pro position of a debate with the resolution, "The Tooth Fairy Created Teeth," my opponent does not concede the existence of the tooth fairy by taking the Con position...actually the entire Con position could be that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, and THAT ALONE would negate the resolution that the tooth fairy created teeth. You would have to agree that while the tooth fairy is not real, teeth are, so if you found some fairy tale that claims that teeth were created by the tooth fairy, this would be an actual truth claim that would be negated by the tooth fairy's nonexistence. Furthermore, as Pro, I would have to SHOW with some explanation that 1) the tooth fairy exists and 2) it played a demonstrable role in the creation of teeth OUTSIDE of the fictional fairy tale; teeth exist outside of the fairy tale, but the tooth fairy does not. Pro's case is no different. Pro is claiming that the tooth fairy exists by its mention in the resolution AND that because Pro's fairy tale says "The tooth fairy created teeth" therefore within the fairy tale, the tooth fairy DID create teeth. The problem is that the teeth in the fairy tale are not actual teeth per the definitions of the debate. Hopefully that helps a little. On to Pro's incoherence... Pro is confused: "I don't know what makes you think that I am in disagreement with the definitions..." My response: Well, the definition of life is not the one mentioned in the bible, yet you claim that since the bible mentions the term, it therefore affirms its creation by god. You're ignoring the definition of life in this debate, because you know you can't demonstrate god's involvement with real life. Pro continues: "We both agreed to the definitons...so you cannot be selective in which terms to validate" My response: Pardon the tu quoque, but you are only validating the biblical part of it. If the biblical god did not create the actual universe, then it's not god in this debate, validated by the agreed definitions. I've pointed out that the universe wasn't created, which negates a creator, which negates god, which negates god's involvement in the creation of earthly life, which effectively negates the resolution. Pro advises: "You must deal with the entire claim and the presupposition inherent within and the expolations on those presupposition for each and every term within that claim." My response: Deal with the entire claim? The entire claim contains the actual planet on which we live, and the actual life of which we are a part, and all Pro has "dealt with" is fairy tale planet and fairy tale life. Demonstrate your god's role in the creation of life... Pro just says some words strung together: "Bear in mind that this is the subject of the claim and like any sentence is subject to the the logic of intelligibility (if you begin a claim with the subject "the woodland nymphs" don't be so sure that people will take at gave value, and if they do, anticipate the conditions under which that do accept it...because they are not empirical entities..." My response: This is called "proof by verbosity." When someone is intentionally trying to confound rather than persuade, it's called proof by verbosity; it's fallacious. https://www.google.com... Pro is trying to say that woodland nymphs are not real, but can be understood in a sentence. Understanding a subject in a sentence is not a proof of that subject's existence. The major league baseball team on Mars created martian life. You may understand that subject, but what MLB team is on Mars? Framing and wording do not a demonstration of earthly life's creation make.