The Christian God Created Life On Earth

Very nice rebuttal. Although, however, even if the burden of proof in this debate is on the PRO, I still think the CON should at least have some sort of a constructive case. To argue CON's point, I'll start with the bare minimum and build up from there.god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme beingcreated - brought something into existenceI think these are the two most important definitions to keep in mind during this debate.Point/Rebuttal 1:So, we know that Genesis was never intended to be a detailed scientific handbook, describing how God created the universe. It imparts a theological, not a scientific, message. The prevalent theory of cosmic origins prior to the Big Bang theory was the “Steady State,” which argued that the universe has always existed, without a beginning that necessitated a cause. However, if the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent – separate and apart from the effect – that caused it. It adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused – or created – by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.Atheist-turned-agnostic astronomer Fred Hoyle, who coined the term “Big Bang", famously stated, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics." As Hoyle saw it, the Big Bang was not a chaotic explosion, but rather a very highly ordered event – one that could not have occurred by random chance. We also need to remember that God reveals himself both through scripture and creation. The challenge is in seeing how they fit together. A better understanding of each can inform our understanding of the other. It’s not just about cracking open the Bible and reading whatever we find there from a 21st-century American perspective. We have to study the context, the culture, the genre, the authorship and the original audience to understand the intent. We know that Genesis was never intended to be a detailed scientific handbook, describing how God created the universe. It imparts a theological, not a scientific, message. Imagine how confusing messages about gravity waves and dark matter might be to ancient Hebrew readers. That sounds a lot like Genesis 1:1 to me: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.” Point 2: As my opponent so famously stated, "...we stress that there is at present no experimental evidence for higher dimensions...". The funny thing is, my opponent didn't bother to paste the entire section; was he too tired to drag the cursor to the end? Anyways, here it is: "Do higher dimensions exist? Are there unseen worlds just beyond our reach, beyond the normal laws of physics? Although higher dimensions have historically been the exclusive realm of charlatans, mystics, and science fiction writers, many serious theoretical physicists now believe that higher dimensions not only exist, but may also explain some of the deepest secrets of nature. Although we stress that there is at present no experimental evidence for higher dimensions, in principle they may solve the ultimate problem in physics: the final unification of all physical knowledge at the fundamental level." This ties back to the reason why I stated "this debate is about the principle that God created life". Sure, the bible says God created humans, but we need to look at it from an ancient context-- they thought animals and humans were two different things! I presented a principle (multi-dimensions) that shows a mechanism (ie. Flatlander "theory"), which satisfies my opponent's thirst for knowledge and proof. Point 3: My original point about the Miller-Urey experiments (that produced amino acids using electricty) was that yes, amino acids were produced, but what then? We can't bond those acids to carbon, instead, we need proteins. Proteins from an organism. Who provided the first protein? In conclusion: The CON is very good at making factual statements and twisting it so that I seem to disagree with it. This is a childish way of debating (even more childish for starting a debate biased towards their side) and the CON should rebut to whole arguments instead of warping and distorting it. For example: "[PRO argument about the lack of ability to replicate abiogenesis, thus showing there must be a key intervener] The PRO is referring to abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a fact...Life can come from non-life, and the peer reviewed journals seem to indicate that an earlier earth's atmosphere allows for such. [so therefore God didn't create us]" In fact, I totally agree with that statement. My question was: if it happened in early Earth, why is it that the most we can make from scratch is a couple amino acids? We know how abiogenesis happened, why can't we replicate it? I mean, do you see us creating new life? No. Answer the question! It is the duty of the voters to see through this hodgepodge of wishy-washy sidestepping and vote for the better arguments. The CON uses cherry-picked biased evidence and quotes to prove their point. The PRO has gone through each point and covered, strengthened, and added to it from start to finish. Thank you, and may the better debater win.