The Instigator
FuzzyCatPotato
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Jacobi
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: 5/28/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 579 times Debate No: 55623
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

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

I apologize for generating many debates over this topic. However, due to lackluster rebuttals, forfeits, and accidents on the part of my opponents, I have not had a truly substantive debate on this topic, which I feel would be useful for my and my opponent's education.
Jacobi

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

---

2P1: Lack of Scientific Basis

Biblical Creationism is NOT based in science, and can be rejected on those grounds alone.

---

2P1A: 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 it 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 been 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: Biblical Problems

The Bible is not a good enough source for the information on the formation of the universe.

---

2P2A. Errancy

Only one contradiction or error is enough to prove the Bible errant, Biblical inerrancy wrong, and Biblical Creationism totally baseless. 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 unless the facts back it up, especially when it was neither meant nor possible to be taken literally?

Biblical Creationism cannot be true, because the entirety of 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...
Jacobi

Con

Jacobi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

My opponent forfeited Round 3, and thus cannot offer arguments FOR Biblical Creationism. However, my opponent can still offer rebuttals AGAINST my points, and I hope that they do.
Jacobi

Con

Jacobi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

My opponent forfeited, extend my arguments.
Jacobi

Con

Jacobi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

My opponent forfeited all rounds and failed to rebut my argument.
I fulfilled the BoP; my opponent did not.
Vote Pro.
Jacobi

Con

Jacobi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
In future debates, I will change the title.

Please explain OEC.
Posted by OrigenAdamantius 2 years ago
OrigenAdamantius
That is my point: the biblical account of creation makes no historical claims with respect to the age of the Earth--therefore you are arguing against a strawman. You are arguing instead against a particular interpretation of the biblical creation story, namely "Young Earth Creationism", but there is also "Old Earth Creationism" which equally falls under the broad interpretive umbrella of "Biblical Creationism" and affirms that both evolutionary theory and the biblical account of creation are compatible.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
If you want a definition, then the definition would be "the belief that the biblical account of Creation as it appears in the Book of Genesis literally true and occurred within the last 10,000 years."

Moreover, you main problem is that the genealogies are "selective". If that's so, then that means that all sorts of things could have occurred that the Bible doesn't mention, which makes it a terrible source to base your reasoning.
Posted by OrigenAdamantius 2 years ago
OrigenAdamantius
This argument is ill-conceived from its inception because the instigator has failed to define the terms properly, or at least failed to consider other common definitions of the principal term: "biblical creationism". For example, I am a bible-believing Christian and I also accept evolution theory (?!?!). The chronology offered in the Book of Genesis on which the instigator bases all his arguments is not meant to be either a historical or a literal creation account: it is a poetic and theological account of creation. The ~6000 year figure for the age of the Earth was calculated by a 2nd cent. AD Jewish scholar named Yose ben Halafta; however, in his calculations Halafta did not take into consideration that the genealogies listed in Genesis (Adam-Noah-Abraham, etc.) are SELECTIVE, not comprehensive. Therefore, the instigator is guilty of taking down a strawman.
Posted by Chest 2 years ago
Chest
I am sorry, I did not notice that someone had accepted. Disregard my previous post.
Posted by Chest 2 years ago
Chest
I am quite interested in the debate. Are there any qualifications for your opponent? If not, I may consider debating.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
FuzzyCatPotatoJacobiTied
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: Conduct for the forfeits. Arguments for the unrebuted case. Pro created a real argument and sourced it appropriately, winning source points. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by doomswatter 2 years ago
doomswatter
FuzzyCatPotatoJacobiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF