God Created Existence In Six Days

famousdebater, thank you for listing an example of how these debates are normally structured. I have devoted some of my personal time these past couple of days in order to become better acquainted with how things operate here on Debate.org. My debate structure will evolve over time in order to fit the standard, I promise.[Con: 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.]Correction: the earth is older than our sun. As a matter of fact so is the moon. And so is water. I have provided my opponent reputable scientific sources in R3 regarding science’s understanding of those object’s respective ages. Maybe he missed them? [Con: “[...](and each day could possibly represent over 1 billion years ).] Your literal interpretation of my statements despite a tried reference to the author’s frequent use of metaphor is bewildering. “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. Peter wrote; [2 Peter 3:8, “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.][Con: “This is a major mistake by my opponent. He states that the vegetation 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!”] No. Scientists are able to grow plants without sunlight AND water so 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 in preparation for [1][Scientific American, “[...]But tweak a few genes and those basic requirements can diminish or even disappear. ”] [2][Geek.com, “The other side of that is that plants have evolved to control their development steps based on exposure to sunlight. Knowing this, researchers at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology have taken the first steps toward controlling plant development and creating plants that can grow in the dark.] Plants had to evolve a development plan in order to survive exposure to sunlight and its varying degrees of intensity. They still have to and do a pretty darn good job at doing so. But that still doesn’t change the fact that it remains possible for plants to live, grow and thrive without photosynthesis. From a Christian perspective, G-d initially created the world to be perfect. The earth did not need anything as everything was already provided unto it by G-d. It wasn’t until the Fall of Adam happened that sent all things spiraling into disarray, and the universe found itself “wanting”. Original sin effected all things; not just the lives of Adam. [Con: “2) Why would he do that? I thought that your God was Omnibenevolent.) I’m not sure why this question is pertinent to the debate. It seems as if my opponent is expressing a form of personal disdain of a concept rather than sticking to the topic at hand. Nonetheless, let’s first look at the definitions of “Omni-” and “benevolent” [3]Omni-: word-forming element meaning “all”, from Latin omni-, combining form ofomnis “all, every, the whole, of every kind,” of unknown origin[...] [4]Benevolent: characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings: a benevolent attitude; her benevolent smile. What does creating the heavens for His glory have to do with being benevolent? The point to referencing this passage was to show that mankind was not designed for space exploration, cannot reside in space for extended periods of time or we will start experiencing physiological problems, and that our place is here on planet earth. The very same planet that has been described by many cultures around the world as a system designed to suit us. The great mystery and testament to His glory is not the fact that we know we cannot survive open space or the ocean, but that apparently were never intended to. Both science and the Bible contribute to this significant fact. [Con: 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'.] When my opponent presents points that are repetitious or makes it inherently known that his understanding of simple explanations are indeed wanting, this really cuts down on what I am able to reasonably post given the character restrictions of this debate. This was made known in the comments pertaining to R4 as I literally had to chop out half of what I wrote in the last round. I have, nonetheless, attempted to appease my opponent by reasonably adjusting my language with the hope that something will click, but cannot afford to continue to revisit points after they have all been answered and “backed up” as necessary. The burden of proof was met when the metaphorical interpretation of a Day had been established, and was backed up with evidence as to the word’s origins. The burden of proof was met when it was stated that Time exists within its' own order of magnitude; unmeasurable by historical standards as we cannot even conceive of a period of time larger than what was known to be recorded. Our recall to memory and life spans are not that priviledged. This is a scientific fact and completely relevant to tying the course of G-d's six Day creation cycle to that of the Big Bang. My opponent, however, never answered the question as to why the singularity contradicts the current BBT model? This very point should be severely warping spacetime, but it is not. This point is flat giving 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. [5][Excerpt: There is one final twist in the answer to this question. It has been suggested by Stephen Hawking that once quantum effects are accounted for, the distinction between black holes and white holes might not be as clear as it first seems. This is due to "Hawking radiation", a mechanism by which black holes can lose matter. (See the relativity FAQ article on Hawking radiation.) A black hole in thermal equilibrium with surrounding radiation might have to be time symmetric, in which case it would be the same as a white hole. This idea is controversial, but if true it would mean that the universe could be both a white hole and a black hole at the same time. Perhaps the truth is even stranger. In other words, who knows?] My opponent lost this debate on the grounds that I have refuted every argument pertinent to this topic of discussion, as well conceding by own admission that it is plausible that G-d formed everything in six Days. He, however, attempted to lead the reader into a subjective state of mind by adding;[Con: "should (we) jump to the conclusion that it is true and that the world really was created in 6 (or 7) days?"] ...which is a clear attempt at misdirection. :) In conclusion, it is not my job to convince you. That is not why I am here. I am here because I have an onus to provide to all those who are willing to sit down with an open heart and listen to what I have to say. This is enough of a reward for me. I appreciate your time and diligence in this matter, young man, and I applaud your effort in providing this community with a good, strong debate. I am honored to have had this debate with you. You have definitely won some brownie points from me, and that is definitely a difficult thing to do. :)Cheers and G-d bless. Sources: [1]http://www.scientificamerican.com... [2]http://www.geek.com... [3]http://dictionary.reference.com...- [4]http://dictionary.reference.com...[5]http://math.ucr.edu...