The Instigator
CountCheechula
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnMaynardKeynes
Con (against)
Winning
47 Points

According to the Bible, Adam and Eve are about 12,000 years old.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 600 times Debate No: 59366
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (9)

 

CountCheechula

Pro

I have read about 2/3 of the Holy Bible, Children Catholic, Southern Baptist, and of course KJV. I have had many mentors, Crazed-Conservative history teacher, Super-commie Teacher, 3rd generation immigrant. My views on church are grim, I think I use the WWJD not like most. They use against the wrong people. Church must be a family gathering with a daily Eucharist.
I've read some of the Qur'an about a little surface on his book. I know the Old Testament well and the New Testament better. I also love learning about science, and physics, and evolution, and space. I know not believe know that God created the world NOT in seven days. Symbolic. He would but Moses to sleep with the lengthy science answer. God needed a story to explain a secret deal. Sabbath. Why do we have seven days? Sabbath day is a gift from God and he got us to love the story. The seventh day he "rested". Who does not love the weekends?
I kind of fits too. Light 1st, Heaven, Plants 2nd, Day and Night, Calendar etc. 3rd, Sea-life and winged things 4th, Bugs and land beasts and humans with authority over all things (intelligence is what we call it in America) He rested on our day. According to most this is direct coronation with Darwin believe values.
I researched some for about a day and estimate the real ages to Adam and Eve 12,535- 12,850 years old
I used the ages of all of Jesus' genealogy & Noah's as well. I "ASSUME" that Adam & Eve lived in the garden for about 0-315 years respectably.
If you think it is Longer? Earlier? or think I am a crazy Christian because yeah if you are religious that religion is the most important thing, "truth, was is truth?" - Pontus Pilate.
But thank you for reading so long God bless you and peace be with friend or foe.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

I accept. I only have a half hour to post my argument, but there isn't much to say.

My opponent, obviously, has the burden of proof -- he has to affirm the resolution conclusively. However, he hasn't done that. He hasn't referenced his figures nor explained the research he claims to have done or math he claims to have found. Everything is speculation at this point. Thus, the debate is already over. I will however respond to the relevant portions of his argument, as most of it is irrelevant to him fulfilling his burden of proof.

"I researched some for about a day and estimate the real ages to Adam and Eve 12,535- 12,850 years old."

There are a number of problems with this.

First of all, where is his source? Where did he find this number? Why should we believe merely by virtue of his asserting it? We have no reason to fall it, so we should be able to drop it immediately.

Second, my opponent says that Adam and Eve ARE X years old. However, how is this possible when Adam and Eve, even if they existed (by the way, there is no evidence for their actual, literal existence), they would be MUCH older than the amount of years PRO has offered. According to Genesis 5:5- "So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died" (1). The Bible postulates that the Earth is only 6,000 years old (2). Therefore, it isn't even possible for PRO's number to hold.

Now, PRO has claimed that the "seven day" figure the Bible has offered was symbolic, not metaphorical. However, this itself would negate the resolution. The resolution begins with "according to the Bible," not "according to Pro." If PRO considers a metaphorical interpretation, he is moving beyond the confines of Scripture and thus beyond the confines of this resolution. Again, according to the Bible, the Earth is 6,000 years old.

And, of course, he hasn't even provided us with the math of how he tabulated that figure. I am not responsible, nor is our audience, to figure out how in the world PRO came to that number or to check his math. HE needs to provide us with his calculations. I could make a claim that is equally as credible as PRO's and say that, according to the math I just did in my notebook, Adam and Eve were 13,000 years old. But that's meaningless unless I provide you with the methodology so that my claim is actually falsifiable.

The most troubling argument I could put forward, tohugh, is that even if PRO's number were true, it negates the resolution. For PRO to uphold his BOP, he needs to demonstrate that Adam and Eve are "about" -- "about" means "almost or nearly" (3) -- 12,000 years old. 12,850 years is NOT "about" 12,000 years. So even if PRO's number actually held -- mind you, we have NO reason to think that it does because he hasn't provided us with any reason to think as much by not showing his work (every math teacher I know won't give any credit for an answer if you don't show you work, FYI) -- it wouldn't bear out this resolution.

The next flaw in PRO's argument, which actually demonstrates to us that his math is completely wrong, is when he says this: "I "ASSUME" that Adam & Eve lived in the garden for about 0-315 years respectably." This assumption, however, is farfetched and inaccurate. According to Christianlibrary.org, "We do not know how long Adam lived in Garden of Eden. It would simply be a matter of speculation" (1). We have no reason to accept this assumption, which means that we can conclude just from this that PRO's math is wildly off and there is no way that his number can be accurate.

Conclusion

PRO has not fulfilled his burden of proof and we have no reason to accept his number or his math as correct or in accordance with the Scriptures.

Vote CON.


(1) http://www.christianlibrary.org...;
(2) http://creation.com...;
(3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by ben671176 2 years ago
ben671176
CountCheechulaJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Really? No BoP.
Vote Placed by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
CountCheechulaJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has no evidence to back his claims and his arguments are hard to follow. Con's arguments were understandable and mostly accurate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
CountCheechulaJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Terrible Pro argument.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
CountCheechulaJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: "Con provided sources, discredited PROS arguments, and showed pro didn't meet BOP"- Preston. MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY
Vote Placed by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
CountCheechulaJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided sources, discredited PROS arguments, and showed pro didn't meet BOP
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
CountCheechulaJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con offered better arguments and backed his with sources.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
CountCheechulaJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not meet bop. He offered no evidence to support his claim. His post was in large part incoherent. He also offered no sources.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
CountCheechulaJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never offered any counter rebuttals and had self defeating arguments.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
CountCheechulaJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not uphold his BoP and Con was able to refute all of his arguments adequately.