The Instigator
Charliecdubs
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
gryephon
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Biblical Creation or Creationism is false

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 1 vote the winner is...
Charliecdubs
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 722 times Debate No: 56389
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Charliecdubs

Pro

I am arguing that the creation story in the Bible is false. Whoever accepts this debate will be arguing it is true or at least not proven false. Somebody debate me :)
gryephon

Con

I accept, state your case.
Debate Round No. 1
Charliecdubs

Pro

Than you for accepting!

I suppose to start I will address the issue of time. When working through the ages of the figures of the Bible the conclusion is that according to the Bible the earth was made, if I remember correctly, almost exactly 6000 years ago. This claim is obviously problematic because it contradicts just about everything we know of geology such as how long it takes for layers to form. Sources I will provide at the bottom but it is safe to say none of the mountains, canyons or continents took less that 6000 years to form and I challenge my opponent to find a published. peer reviewed scientific paper that says otherwise. Also we have dating methods (which I will provide) that can reliably tell us how old certain things are. Many of these dating methods reveal objects to be millions of years old. Now you can object to the accuracy of these but you will have to find a source that doesn't talk about the misapplication of carbon dating (such as the snail) and the similar error in other methods. You will have to find an actual scientific paper or source that shows a current dating method is unreliable when used in its intended frame. I dare say no such thing exists but if you really want to challenge the time scale you will have to find these not just something off "answers in genesis" or some rant about how carbon didn't date the snail or mt Everest right.

Now onto the issue of the diversity of life. Now I will say there is no point in the CON trying to disprove evolution because if the theory (theory not being the English slang for a guess but actual scientific theory, if you don't know the difference I suggest you return to middle school) is not true then that will not make creationism correct. You do have to give some reason it is true.

To continue. If the Ark was a real event then we would see (we can now even Ken Ham acknowledged this) that in every living species' past there would have been a bottle neck where only 2 individuals remained and all the bottle necks of 2 for every species would have been at the exact same time. If creationism is true this is something you will have found in the DNA, we would with out a doubt have this. Well first of all not every species has gone through a severe bottle neck in their history. Next the species that did have a bottle neck in their population did not have them at the exact same time, they would have all had this if creationism was true. Lastly no one of these bottle necks goes down to 2 individuals, not one when all of them should have this. Some of the smallest bottle necks go down to about 2000 to 10,000 individuals. In modern times we do have bottle necks of animals going down to less than 10 but lets be clear these are ones that happened within this century even due to hunting so not really useful huh? Now why is it that when these low populations should all have been at the same time, down to only 2 individuals and in every species we get not one of these criteria from even a single let alone all species? If the ark event happened we would see this there is no question we would not.

Also please keep in mind this debate really isn't evolution vs creation it is about whether creationism is true or not so I again advise leaving that alone unless you really want to because again if one is false it does not make the other true.

I think this is enough to chew on for now so here are some sources
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://juliamallen.com...
gryephon

Con

Sources I will provide at the bottom but it is safe to say none of the mountains, canyons or continents took less that 6000 years to form and I challenge my opponent to find a published. peer reviewed scientific paper that says otherwise.

When you want to find out why the earth is young, tell me, do you go to a person who believes the earth is old and ask “why is the earth young?”. No, you go to a person who believes the earth is young. Secular scientist presume that the earth is old, so I don’t go to them, but creationist. The people that peer review those secular science journals presume the earth to be old, which is why they let pass old earth research, if they did not presume the earth to be old, then it would not pass.

So I reject your challenge as i don't have faith like you do in your science.


I dare say no such thing exists but if you really want to challenge the time scale you will have to find these not just something off "answers in genesis" or some rant about how carbon didn't date the snail or mt Everest right.

If you reject the authorities of creationism why should I accept any of your authorities of what you call “scientist”. You’re basically saying “you can’t use creationist research, but you can use research that agree with my position” No I refuse to. This is like me telling you that you can’t use peer reviewed science journals and only use creationist research.


because it contradicts just about everything we know of geology

Not necessary “know”, more like imagined. No one observed the earth forming over billions of years, therefore we imagine that it happened that way. Also, it mainly contradicts popular uniformitarianism. So not necessary everything. But contradictions are allowed in science, take a look at absolute time and space, relativity and classical mechanics contradict each other here. Are they not both science? Yes they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Also we have dating methods (which I will provide) that can reliably tell us how old certain things are.

“Reliably”? Like what? Rock dating? It’s a fallible science.

http://www.icr.org...


that in every living species' past there would have been a bottle neck where only 2

I’m not a geneticist. I don’t understand the field well enough to speak of it from a creationist point of view. So I can’t respond to it, not without looking like an idiot. Science is very huge, and not all scientist are rigorously educated in all fields. Geneticist are not geologist, geologist are not astronomers.

Though if you do this topic again in the future, you should probably request someone who is familiar with some specific field of science. That way you don’t have a problem with writing up an argument that your opponent is not familiar with.


You will have to find an actual scientific paper or source that shows a current dating method is unreliable when used in its intended frame.

Well I hope there is nothing “current”. There’s trivial ones like uranium-helium, but I don’t think scientist use it any longer because over time it became unreliable through testing.

----------------

Your overall argument is that Science proves Creationism false. That’s not necessary true, as it assumes that science itself is true. The problem is that science is not always right. Obviously alchemy use to be science, but nobody uses it now. Science can be contradictive today as I pointed out in absolute time and space. Scientist do make mistakes, they’re human. Your resolution “Biblical Creation or Creationism is false” assumes that science is correct in how old the earth is, which is something I don’t think you can prove. Can you show say a dating method that you can prove that does not use science? No. There are dating methods in history, but the problem is that most of science old claims predate written history.


Debate Round No. 2
Charliecdubs

Pro

I almost thought you forgot about this lol thanks for responding :)

I will start in the reverse. You say my argument is that science proves creationism false. I would say this is true that evidence does in fact disprove the creation hypothesis but then you go off on a tangent about alchemy and trying to say it was science, alchemy never was a science just to let you know ;)

And I think you are trapped in this idea that "well science can be wrong and creation right". Science is evidence, the conclusions we make in science are evidence based. You make an assertion that scientists presume the earth is old, well they all thought it was relatively young until evidence cam about that it wasn't. Science is not a religion that has things you must believe it is people studying the world and making evidence based, testable conclusions off of them. If creation is true then scientists would have found evidence for this. Why does the scientific community agree the earth is old? Or that evolution is a fact of biology? It's because of evidence, loads of mutually supporting evidence. They didn't get together and say "you know what? I think the earth should be a few million or more years old" I mean do you really think they all are teamed up to create an imaginary model (as you say) where Adam and Eve aren't real?

Next you refuse to answer the bottle neck question. Now I understand you say you are not knowledgeable about the subject but never the less this is a scientific fact that should never had been discovered if the creation story is true. You will have to deal with this one day in your life unless you just shove things off that don't sound like they agree with creation as I know many creationists do.

As far as dating methods it is clear you have nothing to rebuke the multiple methods with. So I can say this is still a problem for you but again I suspect such things are shrugged off and ignored any way but let me bring another problem to you.
I will use the example of the multiple ice layers in the arctic. Now there are over 680,000 layers so far drilled through by scientists (there are way more but of course the arctic wasn't always the arctic so you don't need one for all 4.5 billion years do you). Each layer comes down as snow every winter once a year. Makes sense right? Well if the earth is only 6000 years old or even just 10,000 then you are dealing with a massive amount of summer-winter cycles every year to this day as in you would still be seeing it today. So fine if you really don't like testable evidence just take the kind you can grab a drill, pull out and look at for yourself and observe it, oh wait those are the same thing never mind! Now this point was brought up in a debate and the creationist then said "well what about times when you may have gotten 100ft of snow would that just add to it?" Well no actually it would not. No matter how deep the snow gets it only ever leaves one layer. whether its 2ft or 200ft still one layer and we see this today.

Now about your first complaint. If you seriously think I would take an objection to dating methods (all 20+ of them) that had no evidence and no backing by scientists you are out of your mind of course I want you to find an evidence based, peer reviewed source, did I stutter?

Lastly let me make this point. There is no faith in science at all. I have no faith in science. I need evidence to think something is true, faith is believing without evidence. I think evolution is true because of evidence, I think the earth is really old because of evidence, facts, yes I do need those to say something is true. I"m also willing to change my mind when new evidence comes about. I used to think global warming was nuts, now I don't.

Well let me add one more thing. Please explain Neanderthals and other cousins to us humans. Other creatures of the genus homo made fire, music, art, religion and clothing before us. If Adam and Eve were real where did the other intelligent species come from?
gryephon

Con

Alchemy never was a science just to let you know ;)

Alchemy was once science. It gave explanations, and they claimed knowledge. It’s the predecessor to chemistry. Check out heading “Relation to the science of chemistry” on wiki.

http://bit.ly...

testable conclusions off of them

Testable? How do you test the big bang in a lab?


"well science can be wrong and creation right".

I don’t think all of science is wrong, I just don’t think that it is always right. Just because something has “science” labeled on it, doesn’t mean it’s true. Cold Fusion was a pretty hot topic in its days.

Science is evidence, the conclusions we make in science are evidence based.

Just because something has “evidence” doesn't necessary follow the conclusions are true. Le Verrier made Vulcan sound convincing.

Why does the scientific community agree the earth is old?

The secular community of which I think you’re talking about bases its assessment from the assumption of uniformitarism, which is impossible to prove. An axiom I don't agree with.

you really think they all are teamed up to create an imaginary model (as you say) where Adam and Eve aren't real?

Richard Lewontin put it. “…Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.".

http://bit.ly...

If creation is true then scientists would have found evidence for this.

No that’s not necessary true, as it assumes that no scientist has, Biblical Creationist has the Bible, which gives account of creation (historical evidence), and they’re scientist. The evidence for a creator is all around you, from your body to the incredible design of our planet (truly remarkable how much order there is that lets the earth have vegetation, when all other known planets don’t).

I will use the example of the multiple ice layers in the arctic

Snow storms can deposit multiple layers that do look like annual layers, it is possible that a lot of those layers did come from snow storms. Some creationist thinkers thinks that there were a lot of evaporation that increased the moisture in the air from the hot water (ideally since the bible reads “fountains of the deep” in gen 7:11, the water was probably hot because it came from the earth’s interior) resulting in more snowfall in higher regions. You can read more on the subject at

http://www.icr.org...

http://bit.ly...



If you seriously think I would take an objection to dating methods...no evidence and no backing by scientists you are out of your mind

With similar reasoning if you seriously think I would accept an objection to creationism from uniformitarian based dating that have no backing from a YEC, you’re out of your mind. Young earth creationist (YEC) usually do peer review their own work with other YECs in creationist journals much like old earth scientist peer review with other old earth scientist in old earth journals (go figure!).


faith is believing without evidence.
You misunderstand faith. Faith is not “believing without evidence” that’s called baselessness, faith is believing in the evidence. How can you prove that what you see is real but just a figment of your imagination? You can’t, it’s impossible to get around solipsism for all this could be a dream. You have to have faith that what you see (the evidence) is real and not imagined. On evidence of creationism, we see that a body shows convincing signs of design, we don’t believe that the evidence for design is a figment of the imagination, but believe the evidence is real. Therefore creationism is not baseless, it has evidence.


Please explain Neanderthals

That’s a double loaded question there, for I disagree that Neanderthals were a different species.

They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate.

http://bit.ly...

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by joustfortheround 2 years ago
joustfortheround
Is the first round acceptance only or are we actually presenting arguments?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Charliecdubsgryephon
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was rational, Con's was not, as it was loaded with too many fallacies, such as calling Biblical Creationists scientist, when they are definitely not, as they fail to follow Scientific Methodology, instead they follow Platonic Ideology," because we believe or conceive it to be true, it is true" which is anti-scientific so they are anti-scientists! That was only one of several fallacies in Con's argument. Con's sources "icr.org" are also anti-scientific.