The Instigator
Sui_Generis
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

Old Earth Creationism Is Philosophically Incompatible With Sound Biblical Theology & Hermeneutics

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 4 votes the winner is...
Sui_Generis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,077 times Debate No: 32609
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Sui_Generis

Con

Hello, this is my first debate challenge. I hope this will be a good debate.

The resolution is as follows: "Old Earth Creationism Is Philosophically Incompatible With Sound Biblical Theology & Hermeneutics" I will be taking the Con position, and my opponent will argue that Old Earth Creationism is either philosophically incompatible with the Christian faith, or that it is contrary to sound Biblical interpretation.

Definitions:

Old Earth Creationism (OEC) - The idea that God created the Earth significantly more than 10,000 years ago. (often thought to be millions of years.

Philosophically Incompatible - Contrary to accepted principles of logic and rationality, whether blatantly or through conflicting implications or conflicting necessary inferrences.

Sound Biblical Theology & Hermeneutics - Interpretation of the Bible without distorting or skewing any of it for any purpose, whether personal intent, or to conform to scientific thought of the day.

BoP lies with my opponent. Note that my opponent need only prove that OEC is EITHER incompatible philosophically with the Genesis account OR a product of interpreting the Bible fallaciously or subjecting interpretation to societal influences.

For the purposes of this debate, we will assume that the Bible is inerrant and true, and Adam was real and was the first man.

Opponent may choose version of Bible from KJV, NKJV, or ESV (preferred). (I cannot read original language texts)

Accepting this debate is accepting the terms. If you would like to change any of the definitions or rules, or clarify anything, please comment first and I will edit the debate if necessary. Also, this if the first debate I have written, please comment if I am violating any conventions or best practices of the site. (Thank you! =] )

5000 char. limit.

Round 1: Acceptance & opening arguments by Pro
Round 2: Rebuttals / Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals / Arguments
Round 4: Conclusions - No new arguments
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the only text im aware of to base the earth being a mere few thousand years old, is the geneology lists from Adam to Jesus. if you do the math, a human life span for each listed person puts earth around six or so thousand years.
problem is that no one said these lists were exhaustive, and it was not uncommon for people to leave people out, just hit the high marks. plus it's possible adam didn't come along until later in man's progress, so even if the earth is really old, itdon't mean man is.
and why must 'sound' biblical interpretation always lie with radical Christian views and not science? it's not like science and the bible are incompatible. rock layers, carbon dating, etc etc.... it all shows earth is billions of years old. what is more "sound" is tying to reconcile one with the other, bible and science. truth is truth.
I would say why must we be "fundamentalist" but it isn't even fundamentalism that is being literal and all, it's picking a strain of Christianity that is radical and assuming it must be true. there's false dichotomies going on here, and all the time w "fundamentalism".
Debate Round No. 1
Sui_Generis

Con

I thank my opponent for taking the time to accept this debate. However, I'd like to remind my opponent that their burden is to prove that Old Earth Creationism is INCOMPATIBLE with sound biblical interpretation.

As an aside, irrelevant to the debate, literal creationism, or the "24-Hour Day View" of creationism is not radical, it IS fundamentalist, and is held by the vast majority of current Christians and historical Christian thinkers--philosophers and theologians.

I assert that there is nothing in the genesis account that necessarily requires that we interpret each of the six days of creation as literal 24-hour periods, especially when for the first three days there were no sun and earth by which to judge hours or days!

Again, I'd like to remind my opponent that their position is that ANY other view OTHER THAN so-called "Young Earth Creationism" is NOT compatible with the Bible.
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

I apologize for not seeing that you were con in this debate.

I would point out though, that I think Christians are seeing that old earth creationism isn't imcompatiable with the bible. I would guess most go with science, and the bible. they aren't all these radical Christians. this is from my own experience.
this site says less than fifty percent of Christians believe what you say...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

and that study is including folks since 1982, averaging it out. since then, science has come a long way, internet has spread the truth, and people just are not as likely culturally to think earth must be so young.
Debate Round No. 2
Sui_Generis

Con

Do you not intend to attempt to defend your accepted position, then? Keep in mind that you do not have to agree with it or believe it to do so. If you do not, I believe the votes should default to Con.

As for the linked Wikipedia article, I don't see the study referenced that you mentioned in your argument. Regardless, your anecdotal evidence does not prove that only radical Christians adhere to the 24-hour day model. I don't see any reason why the 24-hour day model is any MORE incompatible with scripture, either. And regardless of how many decades the study goes back, the fact remains that virtually all significant Christian thinkers and theologians adhered to the 24-hour day model.

I do not believe in the infallibility of science. People cite the geological revolution of the 70s which began the scientific discoveries we now use to disprove young earth creationism. How are we to know that another geological revolution will not happen? How do we know that the observed rates of the past 200 years are the same rates as they have been for thousands of years, or millions of years? There's only so much science can extrapolate from current data. There's really no way to test how many of today's tests remain valid over millions of years.
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i concede the debate as i didnt notice debate initiator took the con position.

i just wanted to make some notes, and no reason to bicker about em
Debate Round No. 3
Sui_Generis

Con

Opponent has conceded. Vote Con !
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Sui_Generis 4 years ago
Sui_Generis
Controverter, to have received grammar/punctuation point in future debates, is capitalization improper, then? Are italics to be used when I want to emphasize words? I didn't use them here because I'm so used to facebook where rich text isn't permitted.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Controverter 4 years ago
Controverter
Sui_Generisdairygirl4u2cTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources because con had none whilst pro had one. While pro had errors in punctuation and grammar, con had severe one in randomly capitalising words mid-sentence. The convincing arguments vote because pro conceded.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
Sui_Generisdairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: asd
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 4 years ago
Misterscruffles
Sui_Generisdairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by Enji 4 years ago
Enji
Sui_Generisdairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession