The Instigator
FuzzyCatPotato
Pro (for)
Winning
64 Points
The Contender
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Biblical Creationism is Incorrect

Do you like this debate?NoYes+13
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 10 votes the winner is...
FuzzyCatPotato
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,151 times Debate No: 54927
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (578)
Votes (10)

 

FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

Biblical Creationism is false. It has effectively no scientific backing, multiple contradictions, and moreover is not found in the Bible.

Rounds:
1st: Acceptance only.
2nd: Opening arguments only.
3rd: Both rebuttals and new arguments.
4th: Rebuttals only.
5th: Summaries only.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

I accept. By making opening statements in Round 1 while establishing a rule that forbids me from making opening statemts in round 1, you have violated your own rule. Your Round 1 opening statements are !) Biblical Creationism is false, 2) it has effectively no scientific backing, 3) it has multiple contradictions, and 4) is not found in the Bible. That's 4 statements in violation of your rule against me posting a debate argument for round 1. While I think it would be fair for mt to not waste a round and put up rebuttals to these 4 statements, I will honor your rule and let you expound in round two on the opening statements you made in Round 1. I will not discuss any further about whether or not you have been unfair in making an opening arguements in round 1 and adding a rule you would claim I violated if I did the same.
Debate Round No. 1
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

---

I apologize if my statement, "Biblical Creationism is false. It has effectively no scientific backing, multiple contradictions, and moreover is not found in the Bible," appeared to be an opening statement.

I placed this statement not to open my case, as the points below do, but to help my opponent and readers know what this debate is actually about. This is because the topic, "Biblical Creationism is Incorrect" could mean many things, but my statement above is rather less imprecise.

Effectively, the statement was a definition of "Biblical Creationism is Incorrect".

Regardless of my own conduct, I thank my opponent for following my rules.

---

21PA: Falsifiability

Biblical Creationism is not science, but religion; if it has no basis in science and fact, then there is no reason to believe it (outside of faith, which is also flawed).

Biblical Creationism is unfalsifiable. Why? Because whenever an evolutionist proves that an aspect of creationism is scientifically impossible, incredibly improbable, or contradictory, a Biblical Creationist can just say that "God did it using magic, so, uhm, that makes it possible!" This can never be disproven, because God will always make creationism appear possible, making it impossible to find a disproof of creationism.

It's like this: Say I tell you that there's a gigantic pink elephant sitting next to you. You doubt me, noticing a distinct lack of elephant, pink or otherwise. I tell you that it's there, but it's just invisible to you and me, because the Flying Spaghetti Monster gave it an invisibility + nonmateriality cloak. There is no way that you can prove me wrong -- and no way that I can prove myself correct.

As such, either my opponent must accept that Biblical Creationism is NOT science because if is unfalsifiable, or that God cannot intervene outside of where mentioned by the Bible, because that would make it unfalsifiable and fit the former reason.

---

2P1B: Timescale

Biblical Creationism argues that the world is below 6,000 years old [01]. If the world is proven to be older than 6,000 years, then the Bible is not inerrant, and Biblical Creationism is false. Clearly, the world is older than 6,000 years, because many artifacts have been dated to older than 6,000 years old. Let me provide a few samples:

5,063 years - Currently unnamed tree [02]. This tree is too old for Biblical Creationism not because it would be older than the world but because it would have had to been alive since before the flood began.

11,750 years - King Clone creosote bush ring [03][04][05]. Dated both through known creosote growth rates and through carbon 14 dating, this bush ring is 5,750 years too old for Biblical Creationism.

160,000 years - Ice cores [06]. Using multiple dating methods, this ice sheet is too old both for the existence of the Earth and for a global flood. The only way to account for this level of ice core development within 6,000 years would be to have 27 layers of ice fall each year, every year, on the polar ice caps, which has not een documented ever and would need a mechanism.

8,550,000 years - Magnetic reversals [07]. The change of polarity of the earth occurs once about every 50,000 to 800,000 years, and very very very rarely much more frequently than that. About 171 reversals are currently documented, which places the Earth at a minimum of 8.55 million years old, or 8,544,000 years too old for Biblical Creationism.

13,000,000,000 years - SDSS 1306+0356 [08][09]. This quasar is 13 billion light-years away from earth; consequently, if the speed of light has not changed, then the universe must be a minimum of 13 billion years old. 12,999,994,000 years too old for Biblical Creationism.

Biblical Creationism cannot be true, because it predicts a false age of the Earth; given that its entire theory is based on the inerrancy of the literal Bible, which is now errant, it falls.

---

2P1C. the Global Flood

If the entire world was flooded, then certainly there must be evidence of it. I ask my opponent to provide this evidence, because otherwise there is no reason to believe that it is true.

Moreover, there's simply not enough water on Earth to cause a global flood, as one should realize when one realizes that water sinks to the lowest location. Flooding the world up to Mount Everest (as the Bible dictates) would require 4,530,000,000 km^3 of water, or about 3 times as much water is present on Earth [10]. Where did the water come from? Where did it go? Why?

Some might argue that the flood created the mountains. This is unfeasible -- a flood that created both the Sahara (noted for flatness) and Mount Everest (noted for lack of flatness) could not occur, simply because a great enough to flatten a desert has plenty to quickly erode a mountain, leaving us only with the possibility that God preserved the landscape of the world, which would also be required for Noah to land back into his native Middle East. (Think sand castles -- how often does a wave roll in and create both a flat area and a nonflat area?)

Moreover, the Ark simply would not float. Aside from the fact that the Ark is not large enough [11], the Ark could never have survived multiple-mile-high waves [12] formed by the winds sweeping water around without any ground to break them up. No land animals could possibly have survived.

This is not to mention what the sediment would do to sea creatures or how viruses and bacteria were transported.

Biblical Creationism cannot be true, because it predicts an impossible global flood of the Earth; given that its entire theory is based on the inerrancy of the literal Bible, which is now errant, it falls.

---

2P2. Errancy

Only one contradiction or error is enough to prove the Bible errant, Biblical inerrancy wrong, and Biblical Creationism totally unbased. I've provided three.

1: God the frenemy
Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27: Love God.
Deuteronomy 6:13, Psalms 33:8, 34:9, 111:10, 115:13, 128:1, 147:11, Proverbs 8:13, 16:6, 19:23, 22:4, Isaiah 8:13, Luke 12:5, 1st Peter 2:17: Fear God.
1st John 4:18: There is no fear in love.

2. Death waits not
Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27: Jesus says to his listeners that some of them will not taste death before he comes again in his kingdom. Jesus said this a little under 2000 years ago. I leave it an exercise to the reader to tell whether or not his promise held true.

3. Identity crisis
2nd Corinthians 13:11, 14, 1st John 4:8, 16: God is love.
Genesis 4:15, Deuteronomy 32:19-27, Isaiah 34:8: God is a vengeful god.

Biblical Creationism cannot be true, because the Bible is contradictory and/or false; given that its entire theory is based on the inerrancy of the literal Bible, which is now errant, it falls.

---

2P3. Where's the Inerrancy?

To quote Jesus, "I speak to them in parables..."[13]

The Bible makes use of stories and parables, metaphor and allegory.[14] Why should these stories be taken literally? Genesis, too is one of these stories [15][16][17]. This is why there are two Genesis accounts -- they are not a literal telling of the creation of the world, but a creation myth created by priests for the Jewish people to believe so that their religion sounds good.

Why take a story literally, ever, especially when it was neither meant nor possible to be taken literally?

Biblical Creationism cannot be true, because the Bible not supposed to be inerrant; given that its entire theory is based on the inerrancy of the literal Bible, which is now errant, it falls.

---

References:

[01] http://www.creationtoday.org...
[02] http://www.rmtrr.org...
[03] http://www.nps.gov...
[04] http://www.oldearth.org...
[05] http://azdailysun.com...
[06] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[07] Laurie R. Godfrey (1983). "Scientists Confront Creationism". W. W. Norton & Company, Canada. Pages 35-36. ISBN 0393301540.
[08] http://chandra.harvard.edu...
[09] http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
[10] http://www.epicidiot.com...
[11] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[12] Meyer, Nathan M. 1977. Noah's Ark-Pitched and Parked. Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books.
[13] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[14] http://www.christianbiblereference.org...
[15] http://www.biblegateway.com...;(See title.)
[16] http://christianity.about.com...
[17] http://www.usccb.org...
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

It is agreed on all sides that there are only two possible solutions to the riddle of origins. Either Someone made the world, or the world made itself. A third option, the world is eternal and without origin, contradicts Natural Laws such as Thermodynamics and has been disproved with mathematical certainty in the 20th century. As the universe is obviously complex and seemingly well-designed, a Designer should be the scientific default. In everything we observe today, concept and design are the result of a Mind. Furthermore, Natural Laws such as Gravity, Inverse Squares, Cause and Effect, and Thermodynamics imply a Law-giver.

Unless a natural mechanism constrained by Natural Law, by which the entire universe could come into existence and further develop through random process, is found, a Creator must be the theoretical default. It doesn't matter whether an individual scientist has difficulty accepting it or not. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle so eloquently stated in his Sherlock Holmes series, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Time Constraints. Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree that if evolution is at all possible, there needs to be an excessive (if not infinite) amount of time. For much of the 20th century, it was thought evolutionists had all the time they needed. If the earth ever looked too young for certain evolutionary developments to have occurred, the age was pushed back in the textbooks. In 1905, the earth was declared to be two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was determined to be 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth had become 4.6 billion years old. However, Young Earth advocates have identified quite a few Young Earth chronometers in recent years. Currently, there are approximately five times more natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" than an "Old Earth." Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth. Each Limiting Factor is distinct. If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest. Furthermore, there are Limiting Factors constraining the possible age of the universe, such as spiral galaxies where they're maintaining their spiral shapes despite their centers spinning faster than their extremities.

Age of the Earth: Limiting Factors
The answer to the Age of the Earth question is found in "Limiting Factors." While it may be impossible to be certain when the Earth formed, we may determine when the Earth did not form. Limiting Factors are best explained with this illustration: A boat sinks. On board is a chest full of gold coins. As time passes, the wreck is forgotten. Centuries later, the boat is discovered, and the chest full of coins is recovered. How can we determine when the boat sank? We may not be able to pinpoint the date, but we are able to determine when it did not sink by looking at the dates on the coins. If a coin is marked with 1756, we know the boat did not sink in 1755 or 1730 or 1610, etc. It must have sunk after the coin was minted. The coin is a "Limiting Factor."

Age of the Earth: Factors Pointing to a Young Earth
There are many Limiting Factors limiting the possible Age of the Earth. Here are a few:

Magnetic Field. The Earth's magnetic field is essential to life on Earth for many reasons. One reason is that it deflects much of the cosmic radiation that destroys life. Precise measurements of the Earth's magnetic field have been made since 1829, all over the world. During that time, it has deteriorated exponentially -- that is, it has followed a predictable curve. By graphing this curve, we extrapolate that life would have been impossible before 20,000 BC (the field would be as strong as the Sun's at that point) and will cease to exist after 10,000 AD (there will be, for all practical purposes, no field left, and the Earth will be fried by cosmic radiation).

Earth Rotation. The Earth's spin is slowing down. We experience a "leap second" every year and a half. If it is slowing down, at one time it was going much faster. A faster spin would create a stronger Coriolis Effect, and life would be impossible as we know it.

Moon Drift. The moon is drifting slowly away from the Earth. If it is getting further away, then at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law in physics states that if the moon was half the distance away, its gravitational effect on our tides would be quadrupled. One third the distance and it would be 9 times stronger. We would all drown twice a day. 1.2 billion (1,200 million) years ago, the moon would have been touching the Earth.

Age of the Earth: Young is Not Unreasonable
There are a number of additional Limiting Factors regarding the Age of the Earth that scientists are discovering on a more and more frequent basis. Interestingly, they all seem to indicate a Young Earth, or certainly, not one that is millions or billions of years old. Contrary to the general thinking of the last century, many scientists now accept that it is reasonable to view the Earth as fairly young.
Radiometric Dating - A Brief Explanation
Radiometric dating is the primary dating scheme employed by scientists to determine the age of the earth. Radiometric dating techniques take advantage of the natural decay of radioisotopes. An isotope is one of two or more atoms which have the same number of protons in their nuclei, but a different number of neutrons. Radioisotopes are unstable isotopes: they spontaneously decay (emitting radiation in the process -- thus making them radioactive). They continue to decay going through various transitional states until they finally reach stability. For example, Uranium-238 (U238) is a radioisotope. It will spontaneously decay until it transitions into Lead-206 (Pb206). The numbers 238 and 206 represent these isotopes' atomic mass. The Uranium-238 radioisotope goes through 13 transitional stages before stabilizing into Lead-206 (U238 > Th234 > Pa234 > U234 > Th230 > Ra226 > Rn222 > Po218 > Pb214 > Bi214 > Po214 > Pb210 > Bi210 > Po210 > Pb206). In this instance, Uranium-238 is called the "parent" and Lead-206 is called the "daughter". By measuring how long it takes for an unstable element to decay into a stable element and by measuring how much daughter element has been produced by the parent element within a specimen of rock, scientists believe they are able to determine the age of the rock. This belief is based upon three significant assumptions.

Radiometric Dating - The Assumptions
Many of the ages derived by radiometric dating techniques are highly publicized. Nevertheless, the fundamental assumptions employed are not. Here are the three major assumptions for your consideration:

"The rate of decay remains constant.
"There has been no contamination (that is, no daughter or intermediate elements have been introduced or leeched from the specimen of rock).
"We can determine how much daughter there was to begin with (if we assume there was no daughter to begin with, yet there was daughter at the formation of the rock, the rock would have a superficial appearance of age).
Are these foundational assumptions reasonable? Recent findings seem to indicate that though we ourselves have not been able to vary the decay rates by much in the laboratory, the decay rates may have been accelerated in the unobservable past [1]. If this were the case, the first assumption would be deemed unreasonable. This would completely upset our current standardized view of earth's history. Dr Carl Wieland summarizes the recent findings: "When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas which readily escapes from rock. Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead. By measuring the amount of uranium and 'radiogenic lead' in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic 'age' assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.) There is a significant amount of helium from that '1.5 billion years of decay' still inside the zircons. This is at first glance surprising, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should hardly be any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating. Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the recent RATE [2] papers reports on. The samples were sent" to a world-class expert to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years' worth (at today's rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data has since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 ( /- 2000) years." (3)
Footnotes:
1.D. Russel Humphreys, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, Andrew A. Snelling, Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay; Article available online at http://www.icr.org....
2.The "RATE" project stands for, "Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth"
3.Carl Wieland, RATE Group Reveal Exciting
Debate Round No. 2
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

Responses:

2C1A. "It is agreed ... that there are only two possible solutions to the riddle of origins. Either Someone made the world, or the world made itself. A third option, the world is eternal ... contradicts ... Thermodynamics and has been disproved with mathematical certainty in the 20th century."

I'll accept this dichotomy -- with one change. The choice should be: Either some mechanism created the universe or the universe created itself. This is because scientific theories such as the Zero-Energy Universe and universe as a large-scale quantum fluctuation allow (if they end up being correct) for a purely mechanical creation of the universe by external causes, with no need for a sentient Creator.

Furthermore, why wouldn’t a Creator need a Creator?

---

2C1B. "As the universe is ... seemingly well-designed, a Designer should be the scientific default. In everything we observe ... design [is] the result of a Mind. Furthermore, Natural Laws ... imply a Law-giver."

Please provide an objective standard of measurement that could be used by, say, a computer program, to determine whether or not something is designed. If you can do so, and if the universe fits, then perhaps a Designer would be the scientific default. Otherwise, it would just be an illusion, much as chemically-induced "beauty" or "love" is.

Please explain why the existence of rules governing the universe implies that somebody must have created it that way.

---

2C1C. "Unless a natural mechanism ... by which the entire universe could come into existence ... is found, a Creator must be the ... default. .... As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle so eloquently stated ... 'Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.' "

Please see my response to 2C1A for the creation of the universe, and 2C1B for the complexity of the universe.

---

2C2A.“ Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree that if evolution is ... possible, there needs to be an excessive ... amount of time. .... If the earth ever looked too young for certain evolutionary developments ... the age was pushed back[.] ... In 1905, the earth was ... two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was ... 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth [was] ... 4.6 billion years old.”

I would like to point out that my opponent accuses scientists of being ideologically- (rather than data-) driven in their research without any evidence to support this statement.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that significant proof of creation theory would provide a scientist massive amounts of fame, money, and accolade, because it would disprove so much of scientific work elsewhere. The question is not why the age has been revised, but why creationism has not yet been proven.

Furthermore, I would like to point out the fact that the ability of science to become more accurate in response to more data is one of its strongest defenses and is what allows it to so accurately describe so much of the universe. This contrasts with Biblical Creationism, which starts with the conclusion that the Bible is correct, will never change or become more accurate, and will never add to the predictive power of human reason.

---

2C2B.“However, Young Earth advocates have identified quite a few Young Earth chronometers in recent years. Currently, there are approximately five times more natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" than an "Old Earth."

I would love to see that meta-analysis. Please, do provide.

---

2C2C. “Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth. Each Limiting Factor is distinct. If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest.”

My opponent mentions half a dozen nouns that he purports to be proof of a young (less than ~6,000 year old) earth. I cannot respond to each those points that he does not explain, both because of character limits and because he does not provide any reason why any of these would promote a young earth – as such, I cannot attack his methodology or results, and it would be unfair to ask me to research my opponent’s own positions just to disprove them.

---

2C2D. “Furthermore, there are Limiting Factors constraining the possible age of the universe, such as spiral galaxies where they're maintaining their spiral shapes despite their centers spinning faster than their extremities.”

Two words: Dark matter.

It stays on the outsides of galaxies to due to the compressibility of gas and the noncompressibility of dark matter, causing those sections to both spin slower than would be expected and to have higher gravity than would be expected.

A quick reading of [ http://en.wikipedia.org... ] or a Google search of “dark matter spiral galaxies” will give you a similar result.

Furthermore, how does a 6,000-year-old universe deal with the incredibly long times associated with galaxy formation?

Furthermore, how does a 6,000-year-old universe deal with the Starlight problem?

---

2C2E. “The answer to the Age of the Earth question is found in ‘Limiting Factors.’ While it may be impossible to be certain when the Earth formed, we may determine when the Earth did not form. Limiting Factors are best explained with this illustration: A boat sinks. .... If a coin is marked with 1756, we know the boat did not sink in 1755 or 1730 or 1610, etc. It must have sunk after the coin was minted. The coin is a ‘Limiting Factor.’

Sure, if counterfeiters don’t exist.

But I digress.

---

2C2F. The Earth's magnetic field is essential to life on Earth ... it deflects much of the cosmic radiation that destroys life. Precise measurements of the Earth's magnetic field have been made since 1829.... During that time, it has deteriorated .... By graphing this curve, we extrapolate that life would have been impossible before 20,000 BC (the field would be as strong as the Sun's at that point) and will cease to exist after 10,000 AD (there will be, for all practical purposes, no field left, and the Earth will be fried by cosmic radiation).

First off, please provide a source.

Second off, the strength of Earth’s magnetic field does not exponentially decline. It decreases and increases as the magnetic field reverses polarity. For example, about 41,000 years ago, the Earth’s magnetic field very rapidly reversed, (read: 250-500 years) and dropped to about 5% of its original strength during this time. [http://www.sciencedaily.com... ] My opponent needs to prove that, if it’s actually being observed, whatever current decline of Earth’s magnetic is occurring is both not a part of a long-term reversal and that it fits his trend.

Third off, please tell us how a strong magnetic field would kill life.

Fourth off, even if this is true, this does not prove that only Biblical Creationism could be correct, merely that the Earth cannot be older than 22,000 years. This would allow another Creator (Flying Spaghetti Monster, anyone?) to have created the world 22,000 years ago, while the Bible would still be incorrect about both the correct Creator and the age of the earth.

---

2C2G. “The Earth's spin is slowing down. We experience a "leap second" every year and a half. If it is slowing down, at one time it was going much faster. A faster spin would create a stronger Coriolis Effect, and life would be impossible as we know it.”

First off, please provide a source.

Second off, if I remember correctly, and my sources do, the Earth is now spinning 1.7 milliseconds slower than 100 years ago, which gives a rate of 0.000017 seconds per year, or 0.0000255 seconds per 1.5 years. [ McCarthy, D.D. & Seidelmann, P.K. TIME: From Earth Rotation to Atomic Physics. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. (2009). pp. 88–89 ]

Third off, why would a faster spin both create a stronger Coriolis Effect and kill life?

Fourth off, what is the maximum timeframe for life surviving the Coriolis Effect? If it’s over 6,000, then it’s clear that another Creator is possible.

---

2C2H. “The moon is drifting slowly away from the Earth. If it is getting further away, then at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law in physics states that if the moon was half the distance away, its gravitational effect on our tides would be quadrupled. One third the distance and it would be 9 times stronger. We would all drown twice a day. 1.2 billion (1,200 million) years ago, the moon would have been touching the Earth.”

First off, please provide a source.

Second off, according to George E. Williams, who reviewed sedimentary deposits related to each rotation of the moon, 2.45 billion years ago the moon was 10% closer to the earth than it is today, which would give (by your no-touchy-logic) a maximum age of the earth of 24.5 billion years, more than the age of the universe. [ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... ]

---

The remainder of my response can be found in the comments section, because I am nearing the 10,000 character limit.

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

Con states with reasoning that ignores science while claiming all scientific backing for theories which contradict the laws of nature. Con also asserts that scientific methodology progressively disproves creation. Con ignores the fact that advances in science tend to support the young earth history as recorded in the Bible. Con stated "I would like to point out the fact that the ability of science to become more accurate in response to more data is one of its strongest defenses and is what allows it to so accurately describe so much of the universe. This contrasts with Biblical Creationism, which starts with the conclusion that the Bible is correct, will never change or become more accurate, and will never add to the predictive power of human reason."

Con ignores scientific evidence that is indisputably contrary to his position. This is typical for people who claim they are practicing science but in reality are practicing a pseudo-science that attempts to deny God's right to rule over them. This is also why people who erringly use science to attempt to disprove God's ownership over His creation tend to make multitudes of insults and slanders against common sense by equating God with flying spaghettti monsters. Bill Nye uses this same approach when he cannot answer the findings of his fellow scientists which point out the error of science that tries to prove origins and the rise of life contray to the laws of physics. The last statment so ignored by Con which directly shows Con's error in claiming science becomes more accurate in supporting his postitions was at the end of my round two statement........results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years' worth (at today's rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data has since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 ( /- 2000) years." (3)
Footnotes:
1.D. Russel Humphreys, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, Andrew A. Snelling, Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay; Article available online at http://www.icr.org.......
2.The "RATE" project stands for, "Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth"
3.Carl Wieland, RATE Group Reveal Exciting.

Because Con throws out more and more arguments while ignoring principals of logical deductive reasoning as I posted in the beginning of round two, and then ignores the fact that improvements in science support the young earth story as told in the Bible (another contradiction of Con's, claiming in his opening statements that Creation is Biblical but it's not in tht Bible, and then spending the whole time of the debate attmepting to discredit the Bible......this is again typical of the nonsensical reasoning of people who are putting their faith in the belief that they will never have reason to fear God)

Evolution teaches that as species evolve they eventually reach ideal population levels. As species advance, superior species eliminate inferior species -- "survival of the fittest." Weak and inferior members of a species should be eliminated for the preservation of superior bloodlines and for the conservation of essential resources. "Nature" doesn't desire "the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow." [1] "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows." [2] And as humans are merely a species of animal, we have no intrinsic value and are therefore by no means exempt from "the war of nature." Thus, we have Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) asking the rhetorical question, "should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?" [3] Hitler, of course, is remembered for murdering more than 6,000,000 individual human beings, all of whom he deemed to be inferior members of the species. Was Hitler wrong? Did he misinterpret and misrepresent the theory he claimed to cherish so much? Apparently not. Renowned British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955), who was knighted in 1921, came to Hitler's defense, "Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions" [4] Keith reassured us, "The German F"hrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." [5] Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), another ardent evolutionist, surpassed even Hitler in zeal, murdering at least ten times as many "inferiors" (estimates range from 60,000,000 to 100,000,000 people). Was Stalin wrong? What about Pol Pot? Well, not if you subscribe to the evolutionary worldview. In fact, to the philosophically consistent, uncompromised evolutionist, Hitler and Stalin ought to be considered role models.

This is where evolutionary teaching leads.......it's own theory of survival of the fittest as the catalyst for improvement and advancement of species would hold whoever obtains the most power in the world to be the improvers of their kind.
Most evolutionary scientists will claim to be good moral people of course, but the truth is nobody is perfect and all have broken the perfect law of God which forbids oppression and deceit even in the tiniest inner thoughts of our hearts as imperfection is offensive to God. In vengence againt His enemies. ( those He created who sought to elevate themselves to be independant of Him) He will purge His creation of the pride which denies His power, and give the rebells what they deserve....fire for the fire of their passions of pride against their Creator, and it's good no know He will not tolerate evil forever but He will confine it all to the fire of hell. Biblical Creationism is correct, as is the Judgement of God is also correct , and His mercy i giving his human enemies time to change their minds and be saved from the fire of hell which was created for the devil and his angels. God Himself took on a body to pay for mankind's sin so He could be satisfied that the death man deserves was paid for when He took it on HImself, and He rose from the grave to justify all who believe and put their trust in Him. People put faith in evolution simply because they don't want to admit that they do not deserve to live.

Catastrophism -- Empirical Evidence
Catastrophism is supported by actual, recorded history. Nearly 300 ancient flood legends have survived the ravishment of time. Legends of a worldwide deluge, commonly known as the "Noachian Flood," are found in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, North American and South America. Furthermore, earth's sedimentary layers with the fossil record seem to suggest a past marine cataclysm. Sedimentary rock (sandstone, siltstone, shale, limestone, etc) is primarily the result of moving water, laid down layer upon layer by hydrologic sorting. Animals whose fossil remains are found within those layers must have been caught in this running water appear to have been buried and preserved. The remains, as well as the rocks, would be sorted according to density or specific gravity. Otherwise, the carcasses would rot or be scavenged. Approximately 95% of all earth's fossil remains discovered thus far are marine invertebrates. Of the remainder, approximately 4.74% are plant fossils, 0.25% are land invertebrates (including insects), and 0.0125% are vertebrates (the majority of which are fish). Roughly 95% of all land vertebrates discovered and recorded to date consist of less than one bone. The overwhelming majority of the plant fossils found appear to demonstrate an instantaneous burial. The leaves are pressed in fine sediment as if placed between the pages of a book and show no signs of decay or rot.

Catastrophism -- The Noachian Flood
Catastrophism is supported by the evidential data. Catastrophism supports the Noachian Flood. Dramatic evidence is everywhere except in the popular press. For instance, who is aware that fossil remains of clams (found in the closed position, indicating they were buried alive) have been found atop Mt. Everest? What about whale fossils and petrified trees that stand upright through multiple sedimentary layers supposedly separated by millions of years? It is a remarkable time to reinvestigate the facts and determine your own position.

In 1999, the human population passed six billion. In 1985, it passed five billion. In 1962, it passed three billion. In 1800, it passed one billion. In 1 AD, the world's population, according to the censuses taken by the governments of that time, was only 250 million. At the current human population growth rate, considering wars and famines and all such variables, it would take approximately 5,000 years to get the current population from two original.

Age of Earth: Be Wary of Unreasonable Conclusions
Age of Earth: Perhaps a better question is not "What is the Age of the Earth?", but rather, "Are we being educated or indoctrinated?" Our children are not being taught what the evidence is and how to think about it, they are being taught to memorize a small portion of inconsequential data and to believe an unreasonable conclusions.

I'm trying to keep the focus on the Biblical creation story as correct in it's teaching of a young earth, approzimately 6000 years from the day it was created. I have addressed philosiphical arguements agaisnt God because Con has thrown those things out as reasons to reject the Biblical creationism which Con says is not in the Bible.
Debate Round No. 3
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

Responses:

Note: My opponent uses “Con” to represent me, while I am in fact Pro. Please mentally revise when reading these comments.

---

3C1A. “Con states with reasoning that ignores science while claiming all scientific backing for theories which contradict the laws of nature.”

If you're stating that I support evolution, then you'd be correct. However, you have not proven that evolution contradicts natural laws and as such I have not ignored science in response to your point; I didn't respond to a point that didn't exist yet, for reasons that should be obvious.

---

3C1B. “Con also asserts that scientific methodology progressively disproves creation. Con ignores the fact that advances in science tend to support the young earth history as recorded in the Bible. Con states: ‘I would like to point out the fact that the ability of science to become more accurate in response to more data is one of its strongest defenses and is what allows it to so accurately describe so much of the universe. This contrasts with Biblical Creationism, which starts with the conclusion that the Bible is correct, will never change or become more accurate, and will never add to the predictive power of human reason.’”

Your quote of my statements does not match your claims. I merely stated that science can change and that that is good, while Biblical Creationism relies on an unchanging Bible and that that is bad, not that science progressively will disprove Biblical Creationism.

So where have I said this? Those closest that I have come to this statement s, "[Biblical Creationism] has effectively no scientific backing" and "Biblical Creationism is NOT science because i[t] is unfalsifiable", which does not state that science will progressively disprove Biblical Creationism.

---

3C1C. “Con ignores scientific evidence that is indisputably contrary to his position. This is typical for people who claim they are practicing science but in reality are practicing a pseudo-science[.]”

*cough*

---

3C1D. This is also why people who erringly use science to attempt to disprove God's ownership over His creation tend to make multitudes of insults and slanders against common sense by equating God with [F]lying [S]paghettti [M]onsters.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pastafarianism was invented to point out the stupidity of blind adherence and unwillingness to accept scientific evidence against one’s own position, especially when one has no scientific evidence to back said position.

I advise you to think about this for a moment.

---

3C1E. “Bill Nye uses this same approach when he cannot answer the findings of his fellow scientists which point out the error of science that tries to prove origins and the rise of life contra[r]y to the laws of physics.”

I’m not Bill Nye. I don’t care about what Bill Nye says, or if you can refute it.

You’re not Kent Hovind. Do you care about what Kent Hovind says, or if I can refute it? Nope.

---

3C1F. “The last stat[e]ment so ignored by Con which directly shows Con's error in claiming science becomes more accurate in supporting his postitions was at the end of my round two statement........results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years' worth (at today's rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data has since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 ( /- 2000) years." (3) Footnotes: 1.D. Russel Humphreys, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, Andrew A. Snelling, Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay; Article available online at http://www.icr.org.......... 2.The "RATE" project stands for, "Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth" 3.Carl Wieland, RATE Group Reveal Exciting.”

I did not, in fact, ignore your point. I labelled it 2C4B and responded to it in the comments, due to character restrictions, as I pointed out at the end of my previous rebuttal. It’s currently on page 2.

---

3C2A. “Con throws out more and more arguments while ignoring principals of logical deductive reasoning as I posted in the beginning of round two[.]”

If you’ll notice, I only added two more arguments in the last round. The vast majority of my statements were refuting your points with scientific evidence that invalidates your own claims, which are notably unsourced. See responses to 2C2C, 2C2D, 2C2F, 2C2G, and 2C2H.

Furthermore, I attacked the “logical deductive reasoning” that you “posted in the beginning of round two”. See responses to 2C1A, 2C1B, and 2C1C.

---

3C2B. “[A]nd then ignores the fact that improvements in science support the young earth story[.]”

I did not ignore it. You have cited no meta-analysis about any supposed increasing level of scientific support for creationism, while I have pointed out that the vast, vast majority of qualified scientists rejects creationism. See response to 2C2B.

---

3C2C. “[A]s told in the Bible (another contradiction of Con's, claiming in his opening statements that Creation is Biblical but it's not in tht Bible, and then spending the whole time of the debate attmepting to discredit the Bible......this is again typical of the nonsensical reasoning of people who are putting their faith in the belief that they will never have reason to fear God)[.]”

First off, I spent perhaps 10% of 1 of 5 speeches pointing out that the Bible is flawed, not “the whole time of the debate”.

Second off, you have not responded to my points that the Bible is errant, so I have “attmept”-ed and succeeded.

Third off, I have a two-level argument against Biblical Creationism on this point. (A) The Bible is flawed, so it shouldn’t be consulted as authoritative anyways. (B) Even if the Bible isn’t flawed, then Biblical Creationism is not found in the Bible. So to prove Biblical Creationism true, you must both prove that the Bible is authoritative and that Biblical Creationism is part of the Bible. This is not nonsensical at all, as much as you don’t like it.

---

3C3A. “Evolution teaches that as species evolve they eventually reach ideal population levels. .... Most evolutionary scientists will claim to be good moral people of course, but the truth is nobody is perfect and all have broken the perfect law of God which forbids oppression and deceit even in the tiniest inner thoughts of our hearts as imperfection is offensive to God.”

First off, you didn’t post your sources, so I can’t check them.

Second off, this is a blatant argument from consequences and has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of Darwinian evolution. Hypothetical: Telling kids that Santa isn’t real turns them into delinquents. Does the fact that kids might turn into delinquents change the fact that Santa is fake? Nope. Neither does the supposed death toll of evolution.

Third off, evolution is a scientific theory, not a moral one. It does not teach humans how to act, nor should it. It simply describes how species change over time as natural selection plays on their genes. This is like claiming that gravity is fake because it tells us that we should drop people out of windows.

Fourth off, even if it was a moral theory, this is not how it would be applied. Killing millions is not natural selection, which the harshness of society does anyways without any genocide necessary. If anything, this would support a crude Malthusianism and removal of welfare, not of killing people.

Fifth off, Hitler did his actions for the idea of racial purity and for his views of a God, not because he thought that he was furthering the evolution of the human race. (Hitler, in fact, questioned common descent and certain ideas of Darwinian evolution.)

Sixth off, Stalin probably killed 6-9 million people outside of World War II, not 60-100 million, which would be about 1/2 of the population of the USSR at that time. While perhaps 20 million Soviet citizens died fighting in World War II, this isn’t exactly genociding them, now is it? Additionally, Stalin and Pol Pot were fervent Communists, and killed for that purpose rather than for “furthering evolution”.

---

3C3B. “In vengence againt His enemies. ( those He created who sought to elevate themselves to be independant of Him) He will purge His creation of the pride which denies His power, and give the rebells what they deserve....fire for the fire of their passions of pride against their Creator, and it's good no know He will not tolerate evil forever but He will confine it all to the fire of hell. Biblical Creationism is correct, as is the Judgement of God is also correct , and His mercy i giving his human enemies time to change their minds and be saved from the fire of hell which was created for the devil and his angels. God Himself took on a body to pay for mankind's sin so He could be satisfied that the death man deserves was paid for when He took it on HImself, and He rose from the grave to justify all who believe and put their trust in Him. People put faith in evolution simply because they don't want to admit that they do not deserve to live.”

Dude. Way to get all preachy about being moral, and then literally damning your enemies to eternal torture.

---

Again, the rest of my response will be in the comments due to character restrictions.

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, He that believed not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. He that believes on him( on the Son of God) has everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation. He that believes not the Son is condemned already. It's not me who is damning you, it's your own sin pulling you down in death all the way to the fire of hell and Jesus Christ who took your death will be your Judge if not your Saviour. It's on you. I'm only telling you where you stand, and you are standing on thin ice melting over the fire of hell. Are you going to tell God he is not there after you are forever separated from Him in the fire as you are now separated from Him in your death by sin? You have let a lot of death-defying fools brainwash you into thinking you have the right to live and you have nothing but death for sure as you stand in your anti-Christ self rightousness.
Your very argument is preachy fom the start in defiance of God's rule over you, trying to make yourself god to yourself and trying to convince others to do the same thing.......for what? assurance of death in false hope that death will be the end of trouble for you? You are preachy and religious though you insist you are not. People who deny the biblical record of history just go on and on building rhetorical ideas that ignore anything contradictory. You won't be able to defy God for ever. And your argument that you never saw a reason to submit to him will not be an excuse for finalizing your death in defiance of God if that's the way you must have it.
if you don't like a preachy rebuttal to your stupid pink elephant and flying spaghetti monster arguments while you insist life arose out of non-life and order out of chaos and systematic improvement of universal order and life forms, all contrary to the laws of physics, you shoudl have made the debate exclusively about the pink spaghetting flying elephant monster and not against God's design and rule over His creation of which you are a part.

I'll continue to call you con because you are con to me........and you are trying to con other people to teach them for whatever you get out of it that they are god to themselves the same as you are to yourself in your futile imagination......and you certainly are being con to God......and God won't buy it. You have bought death and are condemned on death row and you are fooling yourself allowing yourself to be fooled by fools to follow a belief system contrary to the laws of physics and pro to death. Stop being con to God, admit you deserve to die for your sins, believe on the resurrection of Lord Jesus Christ, call on Him to save you and He will come in to your heart and give you a new heart like His heart, born of His Spirit, to make you a new creation for eternal life to the glory of God your Creator who died to save you from hell.

Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. If you won't take sides with God against your sin, He will always be against you. If you finalize your death in your sin refusing to believe He loved you so much that He took your place in death on the cross and rose from the grave to give you His eternal life, if you refuse to accept Him as your Saviour, your death is on you and on you alone. It's not me damning you, it's your own sin. I'm trying to warn you so maybe you'll wake up and get saved before you wake up on the fire of hell.
Debate Round No. 4
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

Summary and Voting Issues:



5P1: My opponent, the Neg/Con/Against, has effectively ignored 2P1A, which points out that Biblical Creationism is unfalsifiable unless only actions of God written in the Bible are accepted.



My opponent neither accepted nor denied 2P1A and did not attack it, except to state that it is “preachy”. I fail to see how it is “preachy”, if it is, how my opponent refrains from being “preachy” themselves.



If my opponent does not accept 2P1A, then my opponent believes in something as unfalsifiable (and thus also provable) as a non-material invisible elephant. There is no way for my opponent to win or lose the debate if they do not accept 2P1A. If my opponent does accept 2P1A, then the Aff/Pro/For can disprove Biblical Creationism, which I have done in my following points.



This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For because (a) my opponent effectively ignored it and (b) it proves that Biblical Creationism is unfalsifiable if no constraints are placed on it, and quite falsifiable if constraints are placed on it.



---



5P2: My opponent, the Neg/Con/Against, has effectively ignored 2P1B, which points out that many aspects of our universe are far older than Biblical Creationism's maximum of 6,000 years.



My opponent did not respond directly to any of these points, but instead claimed that there are limits to how old the universe could be, which I disproved. (See 5P7.)



In 2P1B I brought up 5 examples, none of which rely solely on radiometric dating (which my opponent did attack), that prove that the universe must be older than 6,000 years and thus too old for Biblical Creationism to be true. (Or at least that Biblical Creationism’s ability to predict dates is 0.999999538% (minimum) incorrect.)



This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, because it proves that the a literal view of the Bible is flawed and inconsistent with reality, which makes believing in a literally true Bible incorrect, and in turn makes believing in Biblical Creationism incorrect. Furthermore, it disproves Biblical Creationism’s claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old.



---



5P3: My opponent, the Neg/Con/Against, has effectively ignored 2P1C, which points out that the Global Flood predicted by Biblical Creationism has no evidence for it and would be physically impossible.



My opponent’s only later mentions of the Global Flood was to the existence of clam fossils on Mount Everest, which I pointed out would be predicted in a non-Biblical-Creationist world due to the rise of the Indian subcontinent, and of the existence of flood mythology in many cultures, which I pointed out was neither evidence for a Global Flood nor remarkable due to the prevalence of floods.



In 2P1C I pointed out that (a) that no physical evidence for the Global Flood exists and that plenty of evidence exists against it, (b) the amount of water required for the Global Flood would be more than 3 times the amount on earth, and (c) that it would be impossible for Noah’s Ark (and thus any life) to survive the Global Flood.



This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, because it proves that the a literal view of the Bible is flawed and inconsistent with reality, which makes believing in a literally true Bible incorrect, and in turn makes believing in Biblical Creationism incorrect. Furthermore, it disproves Biblical Creationism’s claim that the Earth underwent a Global Flood. Furthermore, it disproves Biblical Creationism’s claim that an Ark carrying enough life to repopulate the Earth survived the Global Flood.



---



5P4: My opponent, the Neg/Con/Against, has effectively ignored 2P2, which points out that the Bible is both internally contradictory and factually incorrect.



My opponent’s only response is to claim that 2P2 and 2P3 are contradictory, which they are not. 2P2 points out that the Bible is flawed, and 2P3 points out that, even if the Bible was not flawed, it should not be read in a literal sense, as I pointed out in my response to 3C2C.



In 2P2 I pointed out that (a) we must both love and fear God, yet it is not possible to both love and fear God, (b) Jesus’s followers are now dead, contradictory to the Bible, and (c) God is both vengeful and loving simultaneously, somehow.



This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, because it proves that the Bible is errant, which makes believing in a literally true Bible incorrect, and in turn makes believing in Biblical Creationism incorrect.



---



5P5: My opponent, the Neg/Con/Against, has effectively ignored 2P3, which points out that the Bible is not meant to be read literally.



My opponent’s only response is to claim that 2P2 and 2P3 are contradictory, which they are not. 2P2 points out that the Bible is flawed, and 2P3 points out that, even if the Bible was not flawed, it should not be read in a literal sense, as I pointed out in my response to 3C2C.



In 2P3 I pointed out that the Bible is written largely in parables, metaphors, and allegories, which would make taking it literally a flawed view of the Bible.



This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, because it proves that the a literal view of the Bible is inconsistent with the Bible, which makes believing in a literally true Bible incorrect, and in turn makes believing in Biblical Creationism incorrect.



---



5P5: I have sufficiently refuted my opponent’s claim that Biblical Creationism should be the default scientific position.



My opponent claims that the designed nature of the universe and apparent lack of alternate explanation should force one into defaulting to Biblical Creationism.



In responses to 2C1A, 2C1B, and 2C1C I pointed out that “designed-ness” is not objective, which my opponent did not refute, that alternate explanations do exist, which my opponent did not refute, and that if my opponent’s arguments were true then the Creator would similarly need a Creator, which my opponent did not refute. Furthermore, I advanced argument 3P2 to point out that negative atheism i, in fact, the default (and actual) scientific position.



This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, both because I have rebutted my opponent’s point while he has failed to rebut my rebuttal and because I have turned this point against the Neg/Con/Against.



---



5P6: I have sufficiently refuted my opponent’s claim that the revised age of the Earth is proof of ideologically-driven research.



My opponent claims that the revised age of the Earth is proof that scientists expanded the age of the Earth to make time for evolution to occur.



In response to 2C2A I pointed out that my opponent brings no evidence that this is true, that it would be much more likely for a scientist to be driven to find evidence for creationism, and that the increasing accuracy of science is a welcome contrast to Biblical Creationism. Furthermore, my opponent has not refuted 2P1B, which proves that an old age of the earth is justified.



This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, both because I have rebutted my opponent’s point while he has failed to rebut my rebuttal and because I have turned this point against the Neg/Con/Against.



---



5P7: I have sufficiently refuted my opponent’s claim that the there are maximum limits on the Earth’s age of under 20,000 years.



My opponent has four claims: that spiral galaxies have limited lifespans, that magnetic field decay exists and that magnetic fields could kill life, that the earth’s spin is slowing down and that a slower spin could kill life, and that the moon would have been touching the Earth 1.2 billion years ago.



In responses to 2C2C, 2C2D, 2C2E, 2C2F, and 2C2H I provide scientific sources to prove that my opponent is incorrect on all of these claims, and that most of these claims don’t support Biblical Creationism anyways.



This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, both because I have rebutted my opponent’s point while he has failed to rebut my rebuttal and because I have turned this point against the Neg/Con/Against.



---



5P8: I have sufficiently refuted my opponent’s claim that evolutionary theory is false and/or unethical because it leads to mass death.



My opponent claims that evolutionists kill millions, because “Weak and inferior members of a species should be eliminated for the preservation of superior bloodlines and for the conservation of essential resources.”



In responses 3C3A and 3C3B I point out both that (a) my opponent provides no sources, (b) the consequences of knowing the truth don’t change the truth, (c) evolution is a scientific, not an ethical, theory, (d) even if it was an ethical theory, evolution would not support targeted selection, but mere Malthusianism, (e) Hitler killed for notions of racial purity unsupported by evolution that he found in his religious and pseudoscientific beliefs, (f) Stalin and Pol Pot were fervent Communists who killed for purposes of ideology and power, (g) my opponent believes in a God who killed more than 99% of all living beings because of “imperfection” and (h) my opponent supports the eternal torture of people who don’t follow his views.



This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, both because I have rebutted my opponent’s point while he has failed to rebut my rebuttal and because I have turned this point against the Neg/Con/Against.



---



5P9: My opponent’s last speech consists entirely of new arguments in the 4th round, which was agreed illegal in the 1st round. Furthermore, my opponent’s last speech consists entirely of threatening nonbelievers with Hell, insulting evolutionist scientists, and minorly insulting me, rather than any actual arguments in favor of Biblical Creationism.



This is a minor reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, because my opponent broke our accepted rules.



---



Thanks to my opponent for debating and to my judges for reading.

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

You have been brainwashed probably from tv, public schools, in internet where many ignorant people proclaim themselves to be wise and qualified to lead you. Are you aware that our calendar is based on the life of Jesus Christ and the reason He gained such an honor was the miracles he was reknowned for? Only modern mumbo jumbo combined with concerted efforts to lead you to serve a system of lies telling you that you are your own God is able to blur history to the point that you can't tell the difference between the truth and lie You don't know who you are talking about (God the Son, the Son of God) so of course you agree with the ignoramouses who love the pleasures of their sin and pride against God all the way to death and hell fire and they take pleasure in your holding to the same doomed mindse. You will see Jesus Chrsit and you will say willingly or against your will that He is LORD. God createed you for Himself and He will not be denied the honor of his creatures even if it must be in eternal torments of the penalty that is on your sin, the fire of hell. I am threating you with nothing, I'm warning you of the danger you are in. Saying you don't believe it will not be an excuse, saying you didn't have enough evidence won't be an excuse. You are willfully rejecting your own salvation. You don't know whare you are going I guess, but I know where I am going and by your own words I know where you are going and it's not good as you stand now on thin ice melting over the fire of hell. It won't hold long, enjoy while you can if you think it's worth it. The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.
Debate Round No. 5
578 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
LMGiG isn't stupid, he's just not the best debater on DDO.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
@ numberwang, writing "lord" in all caps isn't a spelling mistake if it refers to God.
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 2 years ago
Shadow-Dragon
May I suggest no more comment-wars? How about LifeMeansGodIsGood and Sagey have a debate on the side about whether or not Sagey made bad comments.

This war will not be resolved. The debate is over. Please act more mature. This is an argument between two polar opposite members on this site. Thanks.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Yes, but Sagey has been asserting about your intelligence, not your sexual pursuits.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
I'm done here, thanks for the great debate and all the fun I had with it.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Sagey has been asserting negative things about me non stop and I want him to leave me alone. There is proof. I really don't want to go that far. I found him interestiing for the debate challenge and looked at some of his other activities. I was shocked by what I saw and really wish I never saw it. After repeated character attacks by sagey, I shot back.........his attacks were unfounded, the things I said are documented. He knows it. I want this to end, that's all. I'm really trying to ignore the guy but he keeps attacking me every time he sees I'm around.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
LMGIG, it would be nice if you didn't stop asserting negative things about Sagey without proof.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
I might copy and paste your comments, but I myself would not repeat the dirty things you said to a young woman
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
how about if I tell your daughter about how you boasted of your guitar playing abilities?
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pagey, did you tell your daughter how you play your guitar the way you told women on this site?
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Stalin_Mario 2 years ago
Stalin_Mario
FuzzyCatPotatoLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided great arguments and many reliable sources. Con realizing that he lost, started to drift away from the main topic of the debate and started to mildly insult Pro.
Vote Placed by AdamKG 2 years ago
AdamKG
FuzzyCatPotatoLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro clearly was the more knowledgeable person and had more skill at debate overall. Pro had more reliable sources and more sources. Con used very few sources and they were biased. I suggest that con look up less biased sources that actually have correct information.
Vote Placed by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
FuzzyCatPotatoLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never really proved Creationism is correct, failed to resolve any holes Pro put in his argument. Con got preachy at the end so he loses conduct. Pro had more reliable, less biased sources. Con loses grammar for incorrectly writing "lord" in all caps.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
FuzzyCatPotatoLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the proseletiing at the end; Arguments because CON never answered PRO's argument, he challenged facts which PRO supported; Sources to PRO because he used sources to back up his own claims instead of copy/pasting his way through a debate.
Vote Placed by MB17 2 years ago
MB17
FuzzyCatPotatoLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con tried to make a big scene in round 1, which will never help you win a debate. Con also tried to argue against old earth and evelution that went against the evidence and logical reasoning. Pro successfully showed that the earth was older than the bible states by using many examples backed up by scientific evidence with sources, while con failed to state his sources on many "facts" and "statistics" that he claimed were true. Therefore I have chosen to vote Pro.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
FuzzyCatPotatoLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was not well contended by Con. Con's arguments were attacking Objective evidence with Subjective ideas which had no tangible evidence. Con's sources were non-scientific (pseudo-scientific) sources which fail to demonstrate any real knowledge against the science presented by Pro. Pro's sources were far more authoritative than Con's will ever be.
Vote Placed by Cygnus 2 years ago
Cygnus
FuzzyCatPotatoLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: As I said in the comment section, I couldn't wait to vote on this debate. This is a landslide win for Pro because Con plagiarized most of his argument. The only time he actually wrote any truly original material original was when he was proselytizing. He lifted *all* of his material from the following site: http://www.allaboutcreation.org/creation-evidence.htm Also, his ICR link is dead. Not only did he plagiarize his entire argument, but he then cited sources that were also copied verbatim from the following site: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/city-beat-city-talk/blog/2008/07/02/of-monkeys-and-men-who-are-we-and-where-did-we-come-from Con is here only to evangelize, not pursue intellectual discussion. Seven *easy* points for Pro.
Vote Placed by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
FuzzyCatPotatoLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided no sources for the "data" that he presented (sources for Pro). He also refused to address the arguments made by Pro. Rather than trying to prove Creationism true, he merely attempts to prove that the Earth cannot be older. Proving that the Earth is young does not make Creationism correct, it merely makes less improbable at best (arguments for Pro). By round 4, Con throws away any attempt at a reasonable debate and begins preaching and personally attacking Pro's views, based on what seems to be offense taken at the use of the term Flying Spaghetti Monster (conduct to Pro). Well done by Pro to not get roped into a battle of words, to stay on point and to provide very useful evidence and sources for the argument at hand. I also enjoyed seeing Pro's spell checking when quoting Con's statements (spelling & grammar to Pro).
Vote Placed by MartinKauai 2 years ago
MartinKauai
FuzzyCatPotatoLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. Very entertaining. CON did nothing but dish out sad creationist arguments that have been debunked for years. CON never seemed interested in rebutting PRO's arguments or providing lucid counter-arguments. For example, CON claims that magnetic field decay proves the earth must be no older than 6,000 years. When PRO clearly refutes this, and cites a source as to why that claim is false, does CON address this? Nope. He decides to blame the holocaust on Darwin. Lolz. So... Argument points for PRO. CON never quoted a decent source (sorry, ICR is not reliable), sources to PRO for obvious reasons. CON basically began making bare-assertions without providing an ounce of justification for any of them, then resorted to moral homilies when he couldn't make a single coherent counter-argument, and then finally started preaching at the end. So... conduct to PRO. A dark day for creationism.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
FuzzyCatPotatoLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: "You have been brainwashed probably from tv, public schools, in internet where many ignorant people proclaim themselves to be wise and qualified to lead you." Ya... (Conduct Pro). Con also made many logical fallacies in his arguments, he failed to properly refute Pro's arguments (arguments Pro). Pro also used quite a few sources compared to Con, and Con did not use very reliable sources (sources Pro).