The Instigator
FuzzyCatPotato
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
nerf4sh
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Biblical Creationism is Incorrect

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 2 votes the winner is...
FuzzyCatPotato
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 643 times Debate No: 55184
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

Rounds:
1st: Acceptance only.
2nd: Opening arguments only.
3rd: Both rebuttals and new arguments.
4th: Rebuttals only.
5th: Summaries only.
nerf4sh

Con

I accept, and the funny thing is, my name is Samuel too lol
Debate Round No. 1
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

---

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.

---

2P2A. 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.

---

2P2B. 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://www.spaceref.com...

[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... (Look at title.)

[16] http://christianity.about.com...

[17] http://www.usccb.org...

nerf4sh

Con

Well, first off, the violin is an instrument where you have to find the correct note on the fingerboard, without any frets or indication of where the notes are. You have to get the notes in tune also, and that is not as easy as some other instruments. Most music for the violin is played extremely fast, with many notes being played within one beat. You have to shift your finger positions to play notes in high registers. And that's a whole different story with tuning. The right hand controls the bow, which needs to be played correctly and perpendicular to the length of the violin to make sound. The sound has to be warm, full, and clear, most of the time. There are various types of bow styles, including: legato, stacatto, spicatto, richochet, and many others. There is also vibrato, which is vibrating the notes you play to give them a good sound. I myself took time to get used to it. While you take time perfecting each hand's job, you have to play both simutaneously, and put the correct note down for each bow stroke. Violin players have to have good ears, to have good style and sense of music. A person playing guitar and a person playing violin is whole different story. The guitar is just chords, while violin is melodic notes. As a player who has won many scholarships at competitions, a player of five years, and currently at level 9, I can tell you violin is not an easy task. It requires talent, skill, and effort.
Debate Round No. 2
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

2P1: "Well, first off, the violin is an instrument where you have to find the correct note on the fingerboard, without any frets or indication of where the notes are. You have to get the notes in tune also, and that is not as easy as some other instruments. Most music for the violin is played extremely fast, with many notes being played within one beat. You have to shift your finger positions to play notes in high registers. And that's a whole different story with tuning. The right hand controls the bow, which needs to be played correctly and perpendicular to the length of the violin to make sound. The sound has to be warm, full, and clear, most of the time. There are various types of bow styles, including: legato, stacatto, spicatto, richochet, and many others. There is also vibrato, which is vibrating the notes you play to give them a good sound. I myself took time to get used to it. While you take time perfecting each hand's job, you have to play both simutaneously, and put the correct note down for each bow stroke. Violin players have to have good ears, to have good style and sense of music. A person playing guitar and a person playing violin is whole different story. The guitar is just chords, while violin is melodic notes. As a player who has won many scholarships at competitions, a player of five years, and currently at level 9, I can tell you violin is not an easy task. It requires talent, skill, and effort."

1st. Clearly trolling.

2nd. Non-topical.

---

Extend all my arguments.
nerf4sh

Con

Sorry man, I actually didn't mean to do that. I posted that in the wrong debate
Debate Round No. 3
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

My opponent, who is currently engaged in another debate about the difficulty of playing the violin, appears to have posted the wrong argument in this debate.

I won't hold it against him/her, and judges should not necessarily.

However, there still remains no argument for Biblical Creationism from the Negative, even when they had a chance to do so in Round Three, and they cannot post a new argument in Round Four.

However, I would love to see a rebuttal to my constructive in Round Four, and it is on the basis of that that judges should cast their vote in this debate.
nerf4sh

Con

nerf4sh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

My opponent forfeited the only round in which my opponent could have provided any evidence against my case. My case stands, my opponent's violin-playing skills not to the contrary. Vote Pro. Thank you.
nerf4sh

Con

nerf4sh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Hahahaha this debate is funny
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Ah, too late.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Click "Accept the Challenge".
Posted by Samael 2 years ago
Samael
I'd like to accept but I've never done this before, how do I accept?
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
The first round is just acceptance. If you, Samuel, would like to post acceptance, then I could post my opening argument and you could begin to respond to it.
Posted by Samael 2 years ago
Samael
Sure I can work with that I suppose.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Hmm.

Is "A literal belief in the Bible and the Biblical account of the Creation and the Global Flood as they appear in the Book of Genesis" accurate and fair enough?

I gotta sleep, so I can't respond, but I'll be back in 8 hours.
Posted by Samael 2 years ago
Samael
What is the definition of biblical creationism that we are using?
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
@Mrlowe

Yeah sorry, I made 3 of these. :P The first didn't respond, and the second was less than engaging.

It already has been settled, but often YECs don't realize that. :P
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
FuzzyCatPotatonerf4shTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
FuzzyCatPotatonerf4shTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con "posted in the wrong debate". Conduct to Pro for Con's latter round forfeits.