The Biblical God Created Earthly Life

I reject the resolution that the biblical god created earthly life, because earthly life's origin was naturally caused, and the bible's creation account is inaccurate, contradictory, and shouldn't be considered authoritative on matters of the origins of earthly life. However, this seems irrelevant to Pro. Pro asserts: "The book of Genesis clearly states that God (the biblical one) created the heaven, earth plants animals and man over a period of days. Whether this account is real in an empirical sense is irrelevant. " My response: Nope. In fact, it's the only relevant thing in regards to this debate. Earth and earthly life are both empirical concepts, rooted in reality, irrespective of references to them in works of fiction. Claiming that these empirical concepts were created by an imaginary character from a childishly written story becomes an empirical truth claim. Empirical claims require empirical evidence, not an internally confirming fictional work. Pro continues: "The position of the argument (that a non-material being did or didn't do something) presupposes the validity of non-material beings. " My response: Nope. If the non-material being doesn't exist, then by definition that being didn't do something. In this debate, god is the creator of the universe. Well, the universe wasn't created, in any fashion, because creation is a temporal process, and, when there was no universe, there was neither stative time nor the passage thereof to allow for a temporal process to occur. Therefore, there can't be a creator of a universe that wasn't created; god doesn't exist, so god could not have created earthly life, which, unlike god, exists outside of the bible. Pro had mentioned: "The non-material [entity's] existence can only be substantiated/verified via the bible (the source of Christian belief) and the belief in the truth of the bible. " My response: Can the same thing be said of earth or earthly life's existence? Can we only substantiate the existence of earthly life via the bible? If not, then explaining earthly life's origin requires more than a belief in the bible. Also, why should we consider the bible to be authoritative on matters of truth claims? Pro keeps at it: "You can only refute the substantiating source (existence of the bible) or within the source (find a biblical conflict), or the belief in the truth of that source (one believer validates it). " My response: Ok, so what Pro is trying to say is (correct me if I'm wrong here). .. since the bible mentions that god created earthly life, therefore, within the bible, "god created earthly life" is true. The problem is that earthly life doesn't exist only within the bible, and god does. Also, the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic matter exists completely outside of the bible. In Dragon Ball Z, Goku blows up the earth. Of course, this is not the planet on which we live. This is just a reference to the earth we actually live on, within a fictional Dragon Ball Z story, and this referenced earth was blown up by Goku; this referenced earth is not the empirical, real earth. This is how I view Pro's reasoning that the bible says god created earthly life, therefore "god created earthly life" is true. The earthly life that god created in the bible is not the actual condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic matter, rather it is a reference to life in a fictional work, the bible. Pro has to demonstrate the the god of the bible created the empirically verifiable condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic matter; that the bible tells us so does not affirm the resolution. Pro has neither shown a creator of the universe's existence nor this creator's involvement in the creation of earthly life. I await Pro's actual case. ..