The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Bible Disproves Young Earth Creation

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 477 times Debate No: 64600
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Round 1 is just for acceptance. The following rounds are for debating.

This is not a debate over the legitimacy of the Bible or a debate over YEC vs. evolution, but a debate regarding if the Bible actually teaches YEC. Any quotes of the Bible should be from the standard KJV translation, for the sake of consistency.

My goal will be to support the claim that the Bible has verses contrary to the beliefs and assumptions of YEC doctrines.


Thank you for the opportunity to debate. Its been a while since I had a chance to debate and hopefully will make a good challenger.

I do have a 2 favors to ask. The first, can you source a single website for the KJV so we have a common reference and don"t start firing ""My KJV" arguments. Also can we use ken ham as a young earth creationist, his views, his museum (I was there) as a source for young earth creationist. There is so many different YEC"s I want to keep it to just a few people whom are authorities in their field.
Debate Round No. 1


This website has a reliable KJV Bible: Feel free to quote Ken Ham or any other respected YECist if it would support your argument.

My first objection to the teaching of YEC in the Bible is that the Bible never explicitly teaches that the universe was created in 6 literal 24-hour days. To the contrary, the Bible contains passages which seem to support the notion that the days of creation are to be interpreted as undefined periods of time.

Anyone familiar with the Genesis account of the origin of the universe would know the concluding phrase to each day, for example, at the end of the first day it reads: "And the evening and the morning were the first day." YECists have taken this to mean that each of the six periods of creation are 24 hours days. As evidence, many say that adding an ordinal number to the word "day", and mentioning the evening and morning, both signify that the day must be interpreted as a 24 hour period. Such a view does not withstand a careful analysis of the chapter.

Firstly, we see that the 7th day of creation, no ending is given in scripture as with the other 6 days. Only two verses in Genesis 2 mention a 7th day, and they read: "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."

This implies that the 7th day never had an ending, making it (by YEC timelines) a 6000+ year long "day." If the 7th day is not a literal day, then why would the first 6 have to be?

Secondly, a common reason for why the 6 days are 24 hour periods is the mention of morning and evening. Morning and evening occur based on the Earth's motion around the sun. This creates a problem for YECists because, as we can read in verses 14-19 of Genesis 1, "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

God created the sun and moon in these verses, which take place during the fourth day. This means that for the first 3 days, there was no sun to determine what morning and evening were. Considering a literal morning and evening cannot logically exist without the sun, the first three days of creation must not have been literal mornings and evenings. If the first three days were not literal, then why would the remaining three be literal? They wouldn't, and therefore the 6 days of creation seem to be allegorical days of indefinite periods of time rather than literal 24 hour days.


Dear Pro

Thank you again for the debate. My response is very simple and straight forward. As CON I do not have to show or prove the bible supports YEC, I just have to show that Pro’s premise is false. I Have 4 arguments again Pro’s claim. There straight forward and very simple.

1) The burden of proof.
Your claim is The Bible Disproves YEC. However in any debate you make a claim and prove it. You are not making a claim, your making an anti-claim. You cannot disprove something. You question is invalid on its face, because the question your asking is faulty.

2) Appeal to authority
The second assumption you make is that the bible is a book designed to show a scientific theory. At best its poetry, and not even good poetry. It’s not comparable to “a brief history of time” or “evolution of the universe” or any other scientific book. You assumption that the bible is a authority text on creation of universe as a scientific process is false, just like anyone reading “there is nothing as lovely as a tree” would assume it’s an authoritative text evolution.

3) Interpretative
The 3rd assumption is that also based on the interpretation of the poetry. If you and I look at a brief history of time, we both know what the book says, there is no interpretation. So if you and I can interpret the book in different ways, you and I can come to vastly different conclusions. So, if it’s interpretive, you can’t ever prove your statement as you may have interpreted it differently.

4) Narrow history
The 4th and final assumption in the debate. There is no evidence for a historical jesus, the history of the bible and its evolution shows that it went through many updates. The king james bible which you insisted on using has changed vastly from the original text. The books “misquoting jesus” goes in to how the intention, words, meaning and even phrases of the King James bible are not as you or me would use it today. So to use a book that is out of context, does not move the conversation forward or hold your claim (anti claim) to be valid. Taking something out of context, in a narrow field, in a language that’s poetic (not scientific) to prove it doesn’t say something is not rational to accept.

So you assumption of the debate is to point out a question. One that I claim is about as valid as “what is north of north?” or ‘can god make a rock he himself not lift”. These question and the one by which you have framed your debate is invalid.

Even if you have pointed to a dozen things in your opening arguments you really haven’t done anything to present a logical argument for you claim. However after looking at the way I have framed it, you'll have to present something more valid then a bible verse to support a question that isn't really a question.

I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to remind Con that this debate is not about the validity of the Bible, but about what the Bible teaches regarding the origins of life. The question of if the Bible is correct in its teachings or historical claims is therefore completely irrelevant to this debate. I am not claiming in this debate that the Bible is accurate or a reliable source of truth. My only claim is that the contents of the Bible contradict the beliefs of YECists.

With that out of the way, I would like to present my second argument. YEC teaches that "Death was brought about as a result of Adam"s disobedience to the command of God in Genesis 2:17 [1]." This can be seen in the Bible verse Romans 5:12, which states that "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." The YEC interprets this verse to mean that all death, both the physical death of cells and the spiritual death of being spiritually separated from God, entered into the world because of sin. Such an interpretation is inconsistent with other passages in the Bible, which imply that physical death existed before sin.

Genesis 2:9 says "And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."
Regardless of how you interpret this verse, it is plain that it says that God wanted trees to provide food. We all know that trees are organisms, and that when an organism is consumed by another organism, it dies. Because this verse in Genesis is regarding the time period before sin entered into the world, it implies that cellular death did exist before sin. Many people who try to reconcile their YEC beliefs with the Bible by saying that trees are not real life forms in terms of scripture. There are three areas where such a reconciliation falls short.
The first is that trees are described in the Bible in a way which implies that they are just as living as animals. In Genesis 1, plants were said to have been "made" "after their kind." The only other entities that such a terminology is applied to are animals. The stars were not "made" after their kind. The land was not "made" after its kind. Only living entities were recorded using that terminology. Furthermore, verses like Jeremiah 17:8, Psalm 1:3, Job 14:7, and Daniel 4:10-12 imply that plants grow, develop, and die. Therefore, the view that the Bible does not view plants as being physically alive is contrary to the text.

The second problem with the YEC viewpoint is that animals before sin were eating at all. As we all know, if you were immortal, you wouldn"t need to eat. Only mortal things need to eat. Because the Bible mentions animals eating before sin entered the world, either God is not omniscient (completely contrary to the Bible"s teachings [Psalm 145:5]), or there was a reason for animals to eat before the fall, implying the reality of physical death before sin.

A third inconsistency is that, in Genesis 2:17, when God "told Adam" (let"s assume a literal interpretation right now for hypothetical purposes) that he would die if he ate from the forbidden tree, it seems as if Adam understood God completely. If there was no death, then Adam couldn"t possibly have understood God. If I tell someone that chemicals can undergo redox reactions, they can"t possibly understand what I mean unless they know what that word means, and they know what electrons and atoms are. In the same way, someone can"t understand what death is if it didn"t exist, as they would have never heard of it before.

[1] -


Thank you for the very quick response. I like the fact that we are moving forward in the discussion and narrowing your flawed premise. And your response, though not as poetic as the bible is enlightening and interesting. However I would like to point out you’re not really debating. I put a number of challenges to you that under cut your position. You have not really refuted them but instead just quoted more bible quotes, that you interpret in a particular way. From a book that is not a science text book. To refute a science claim. On a premise that is not to prove a claim, but to claim something is untrue.

You claim - I would like to remind Con that this debate is not about the validity of the Bible, but about what the Bible teaches regarding the origins of life.

The bible is poetry and fiction. At no point does it claim a scientific theory of the universe. It’s a 2000 year old book that some people believe is true, that doesn’t mean it is. To equate it with a science book is faulty. The bible tells a creation story, the fact that some people interpret it a particular way (including you) does not mean your interpreting it correctly. If one person can interpret it a different way and see it as valid or poetry, your argument falls apart.

You claim - The question of if the Bible is correct in its teachings or historical claims is therefore completely irrelevant to this debate.

Then why are you claiming that your interpretation of a book that is not true is true from your perspective. It doesn’t go in to bio-genesis, or anything else scientific that makes a claim, not even dates.

You Claim - I am not claiming in this debate that the Bible is accurate or a reliable source of truth.

If it’s up for interpretation your argument falls apart. Thank you for proving your premise is faulty.

Your claim - My only claim is that the contents of the Bible contradict the beliefs of YECists.

My claim – Its poetry, bad poetry. I see a creation story the has a beginning, the start of life, and change from life to death, and then an awareness of “who am I”. Though overly long, and a bit long in the tooth, a sort of lord of the rings kind of wandering in geology, it’s a pretty poem. It is not a science book, nor does it claim to be. As such its passages are poetic and speak to prettiness and wonder.

You can quote the bible all you want, however you would first have to prove the authors were actually writing a book of scientific claims with proof, examples and predictions. However as they clearly were not doing that (prophecy is not a science prediction) you argument that it’s a science book makes your original premise a faulty argument. Example. . .

“Yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife yet?“

This question is completely stupid. It presumes I have a wife, I beat her, and that after the first punch she didn’t kill me, have me arrested or that she shot me. Your question the bible disproves YEC is similar. It presumes that the bible is a book that is making a scientific claim.

Back to you . . . . .

Debate Round No. 3


You said, regarding my arguments, "you interpret [the Bible] in a particular way. From a book that is not a science text book. To refute a science claim." There is a fundamental error in this statement. YEC is, although regarding the origins of life, a claim based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Thus, if one could show that the Bible does not support YEC dogma, said person would discredit the entire theory.

"Then why are you claiming that your interpretation of a book that is not true is true from your perspective. "
I never said that the Bible was true, nor have I said that it isn't true. I will not make a claim regarding the validity of the Bible, either for or against it. I find that such a claim would only take the focus away from where it is important: on the validity of the interpretation that the YEC make. My past two arguments were dedicated to showing why the YEC interpretation is not a valid interpretation of the Bible, due to the fact that the Bible says things contrary to those interpretations. You have failed to defend the YEC interpretations or directly discredit my arguments, but have only claimed your opinion that the Bible is not a science book but rather poetry. My arguments do not rely on the Bible speaking of anything scientific. If a play by Shakespeare claimed birds were aliens, and someone believed that the play claimed birds were not aliens, the scientific validity of the play is irrelevant as to if that person is right. In the same way, if the Bible says things contrary to YEC, even if the Bible contains no scientific truth, someone who believes that the Bible supports YEC is wrong. My arguments show that the parts of the Bible quoted by YEC in support of their dogmas were not intended to be taken as literal truth as they are in YEC, and logically cannot be taken as literal truth without the literal interpretations contradicting themselves. Your arguments in no way contradict mine. In essence, your argument could be reworded as the following: "It doesn't matter if the Bible supports or contradicts YEC beliefs, because the Bible isn't true, and it makes no scientific claims." Such an argument is irrelevant to the question of this debate, which is if the Bible disproves/contradicts YEC beliefs.


Dear Pro

Thank you again. And for the audience as well. As this is the conclusion I’ll just go over some things for reference. You put forth a claim. Specifically that the bible refutes YEC. I have yet to see any valid argument. Also I don’t have to prove my side of the argument, the bop is on PRO.

I think looking at this with Shakespeare point of view is valid. So I’ll go with Pro’s comparison in the conclusion.

The Claim put forth by Pro is laughable. Imagine if the Hamlet Crowd suddenly found truth in Shakespeare for a 6000 year old earth. The Macbeth crowd goes, no it doesn’t, and clearly “Romeo and Juliet” shows a big bang based universe. This is the argument that Pro is trying to have with me as a Macbeth point of view. And saying I need to prove that hamlet crowd is right as clearly its “loves not loves” means Big Bang.

I refuse to play your game of “he said, he said”. I say “a pox on both your houses”. I don’t care what Shakespeare says about the creation of the universe, he is a poet. I don’t care what his plays say “there poetry.” I don’t care what the hamlet or Macbeth crowd draw from the tempest in French, as it’s not a book on science and using it makes your argument faulty to start with.

Your original claim, is “that x does not support y.” However unable to prove your point, you have shifted ever so slightly to “YEC belief in x is not supported by y. “And that I cannot prove the reverse is true. That’s not the original argument nor is it valid argument as well.

Your original question, claim, statement I say is faulty on its face. And if you re-read my conclusion with the word Bible instead of Shakespeare in the 3rd paragraph you can see that my comparison is as true as Pro’s claim false. The bible doesn’t make claims, and the YEC claims are not valid is a different argument that “the bible doesn’t support YEC”. A separate argument that Pro has missed.


1) The question is faulty and not valid, regardless of what Pro says.

2) The bible is not a science text book and cannot be used as such

3) YEC may point to their interpretations as true, but pro pointing to other interpretation are about as valid.

4) The question presumes a number of falsehoods. Aka Have you stopped beating your wife assumes I beat her, and I’m married.

5) BOP is on pro, no me, and I hope to show he has not met it.

Thank you for your reading this. . I really enjoyed it and has made me think and I hope you enjoyed it as well.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by NathanDuclos 1 year ago
no votes eh?
Posted by NathanDuclos 1 year ago
Pro - Sorry, life came up it will be in the last few hours I get to your responce, but i will get there. . .
Posted by yoshidino 1 year ago
Science is only the study of the way things work. No scientific law of nature contradicts the scripture. It is stupid scientific THEORIES that contradict and remain improvable. God does not need a sun or moon to tell him how much time has passed. There was still time without the hosts of heaven the first three days, and God told us how many days passed by. The sun and moon are for us, not God. For you to say that this passage is allegorical is saying God is a liar and can not be trusted. And the Earth does not move around the sun; you have no concrete proof of this and the Scriptures say contrary. The phrase, "Evening and morning were the x day" does not speak to represent a 24 hour period. It simply marks the end of one day, and the beginning of the next. He didn't say "the evening and the morning were the seventh day" because he was done creating things and so thus the list was over. Stop trying to make evolution fit the scriptures. evolution is a lie from Satan and there is no evidence to prove it. Carbon dating doesn't work.
Posted by calvansea 1 year ago
obviously, everything in the bible is completely true, and correct about everything and science is completely wrong
No votes have been placed for this debate.