Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

We are not energy waiting to happen, we are energy in motion.By this I presume you mean to display some knowledge of physics, but you fail miserably. We are composed of matter, which fits the description I gave it. It is more accurate to say that we are a platform of potential energy which manipulates other forms of energy. And you say I believe in "magic" but you believe an unknown energy created matter.There is nothing unknown about it. Matter consists of atoms, which consist of electrical charges held together by electromagnetic force. All that was required in the first place was energy in one form or another and time. If you find the idea of an extant God so credible, why you find the idea of extant energy so ridiculous is beyond me.I will always challenge your first cause, especially since you merely speculate an obscure theory.I am not speculating, and the theory is not obscure; it is accepted by the vast majority of Earth's scientists.That's where your wrong little one.Your condescension does not affect me at all, so you might as well save the CreateDebate servers a few bytes of memory and omit any further slanders.God is beyond space, time, and matter.And thus, you say "MAGIC".He is infinite and has always been.You have absolutely no evidence upon which to base that claim.And with your logic, if something did create him that would mean something would have to created his creator as well.As aforesaid, I was simulating your logic. You insist that the universe has to have a creator, yet for some reason fail to understand why this posits a creator of the creator. I've dealt with this confusion before on CreateDebate, and it never ends well. For some time hereafter, you will simply repeat your dogma, saying God is beyond space, matter and time, providing not one shred of evidence, and making a laughing stock of yourself in the process.So, by your logic it would be a never-ending cyclical creation. To you this would make more sense? As aforesaid, these are not my beliefs. They are the logical extrapolation of yours.That is as ridiculous as creating life by random processes.If you don't believe in evolution (I presume you speak of this, though you obviously mistake its meaning), and seek to refute it in this debate, I suggest you convert and abandon your course before you are annihilated by the sheer volume of evidence I am prepared to bring to bear.If you want to change your scientific beliefs for the origin of matter that is your dispute.The notion of a scientific belief is ludicrous. A scientist does not believe; he either knows or suspects.We will never agree on the origin of the universe.I am aware of how intransigent the religious are.To say it has always been is absurd.Why is that more absurd than saying God has always been?Theories are assumptionsThat is incorrect. Faith and beliefs are assumptions, not scientific theories. A scientific theory is a model which explains or proves a law. It is the highest level of acceptance and veracity a scientific model can get.apparently your favorite word 'of course that is an assumption'My favourite word is actually a throwdown between VerisimilitudeIntransigencePerfidiousMacabreVidelicetIntrinsicBlastMalcontentAttackLunaticVivaciousEffervescentInterdictionPovertyMalevolentParamourInhibitBombardStrategicReservePaladinLibertyCamaraderieRomanceStalkStealthInsurmountableSuperiorBenediction HandsomeMajestyAlbionEtherealArcaneWizenedFringe (also my favourite television program)BadArithmeticPyramidalExteriorand numerous others which I do not have the time to list (in fact, the list is so long I cannot in one sitting complete it). The only statement you have made with any valid evidence, is the fact your are mad.If you are so versed in scientific literature, it would hardly be necessary to provide evidence for some very basic concepts, such as the composition of matter, the conservation of energy etc. It exists, of course, but you can simply Google it.