The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
21 Points

The Bible is Infallible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 6 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,363 times Debate No: 56186
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (72)
Votes (6)




Greetings, everyone! I pray that we will have a wonderful debate.

I am pro, so I believe that the Bible is infallible. My opponent must try to argue that it is not.


1. When I refer to the Bible, I am talking about the 66-book Protestant canon of it (1). If you want to refer to a Bible verse to say it is fallible, then you must remember that you cannot use books that are not in the said canon. For example, you cannot use the Catholic Apocrypha, or the canon used by the Greek Orthodox faith. Simply put, all you can use (to point out the "errors" of the Bible) is the Protestant canon.

2. No trolling or profanity.

3. Do not accept this debate if your ELO is below 2700. You also must have completed at least five debates to accept this challenge.

4. The first round is NOT for acceptance. Make your arguments for the first round. However, you must stop arguing for your final round in order to balance the number of arguments out. So, all you must do is say, "As per the rules, I am not allowed to make an argument for this round. Goodbye."


1. The Bible - "The sacred book of Christianity, a collection of ancient writings including the books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament" (2).

2. Infallible - "not capable of being wrong or making mistakes : not fallible" (3).

Have fun!







So the resolution in question is

Resolved - The bible is infallible

or to break it down further

The bible is incapable of being wrong.

C1) The bible


" 1. When I refer to the Bible, I am talking about the 66-book Protestant canon of it (1). If you want to refer to a Bible verse to say it is fallible, then you must remember that you cannot use books that are not in the said canon. For example, you cannot use the Catholic Apocrypha, or the canon used by the Greek Orthodox faith. Simply put, all you can use (to point out the "errors" of the Bible) is the Protestant canon. "

The thing I want to note is that my adversary has picked a specific version. We also need to note the bible is a book. So any attempt to say the dead sea scrolls or anything that was used to make up the bible is not applicable to this debate. He has to defend that specific bible. The contents that were used to created the bible does not make the contents the bible. The bible is the book that was wrote upon the completion of compiling all the texts/letters from old.

Basically for my adversary to win, he must show that the bible is without error. If it contains any possible error, his BOP is not upheld.

C2) Metaphorical sense

When we debate a topic like this, we have to be very careful on how we use metaphors. This is surely the way my adversary is going to tackle this debate. Is prescriptive vs descriptive text, or that the bible is riddled with metaphors and concepts that are not to be taken literally. The issue is that what is a metaphor varies in every possible mind. What my adversary may take the text to mean and what someone else may take the text to mean could be two different things.

C3) Human Errors

Again the thing I want to note is that the bible is a specific book, it is not the texts and letters that were used to make up that book. The bible is the completed text and is a compilation of all that material. Humans compiled the bible, in fact the people that compiled the bible share varying beliefs, ideas, and cultures[1]

" The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and bigotry. "[1]

The fact is this is actually irrelevant in itself. There are a number of things my adversary would have to do to show the bible is infallible.

(a) He would have to show that God without a doubt exists, not that he possibility exists. If we are assuming it is infallible and God inspired, it can only be God inspired if God exists.
(b) Even if he is able to show that (a) exists he must then show that the people who compiled the bible ( not the people God inspired to write the original text) compiled the bible without any possible error. Remember these are humans who found the manuscripts and writings and compiled it into a singular book which is labeled the bible. The actual content that they were compiling were individual texts, not the bible ; Ex (2)

We can lay this out as a syllogism

[P1] If any possible error exists in the bible due to human error, the bible is not infallible but falsifiable.
[P2] There are human errors that exist in the bible
[C] The bible is falsifiable.

C4) Age of the earth

If we were to take the accounts of the bible literally, Genesis places the world at around 6,000 years old. For my adversary to argue the epoc theory or say each day was (x) amount of years, he would have to show this is objectively the case and not make a baseless assertion, without an evidence to support the claim we have to assume this was either

(a) human error
(b) to be taken literally

The fact is the bible says day, and seven days at that [3]

For day to be used in a metaphorical sense, by adversary would have to show how this is objectively true without making baseless assertions because if he says it "should be read", this way there would have to evidence to support that. If he is able to classify what qualities a day has

meaning a day could equal (x) amount of time, that quality could change with every possible person that reads the text

[P1] If my adversary can define a day as (x) time, any person can define a day as (x) time
[P2] Each person would define (x) time differently
[C] There exists an infinite number of possibilities as what a day could represent.

For my adversary to claim that this should not be taken literally , he has to show what amount of time ( specific to the exact second a minute), that a day represents or he has proven that the bible is subjective upon perception and there was an error in the compilation of the works. Until he is able to show the exact quantity of time that a day entails, we have to take it literally and take it at base value

A day = 24 hours.

Day - Also called mean solar day. a division of time equal to 24 hours and representing the average length of the period[4]

Now tracing the time line from that point until the end of the bible we arrive at the fact the earth is around 6k years old [5]

C4A) Why the earth is more than 6k years old

Through various methods in modern science such as carbon dating and radioactive dating, modern scientific techniques have placed the earth at around 4.5 billion years old [6]. In addition at face value, that would mean God created everything , not just the earth but the universe at the same time. We can clearly see using modern math and science the universe is around 12 - 14 billion years old [7]. This is observable due to things like CMBR and measurements that allow us to date and study the time at which the big bang occurred[8]

C5) Errors in the time line of Christ (Disclaimer : stole this idea from bluesteel in one of his past debates, I just recalled the arguments)

Different books in the bible give different accounts of the genealogy of Christ(Jesus)

" Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem--they are different. Luke's genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side?) and Solomon (Joseph's side). " [9]

C6) Moses parts the red sea

In a literal sense and how the bible shows it to be taken, Moses actually parted the entire red sea. After investigating this further even if it were possible the events in the bible happened, there was no chance he parted an entire sea. This is both physically impossible and not even valid

Chariots where however found in the "reed sea" a swampland near the red sea.

The bible portrayed him as parting an entire sea, when in reality if there was an exodus (which there is no evidence to support it. They only archaeological finds that were major where found in a swampland called the reed sea which would have been a translation error in the modern bible being it is not infallible. [10]

C6A) No proof of the exodus

Half a million Jews or more wandering around the wilderness for 40 years, would have left some type of valid or empirical evidence. none has ever been found[11]. Even the brief finds as I mentioned above, that is purely circumstantial only validate the fact the bible was translated wrong in human error

C7) Proof of God

For the bible to be infallible, My adversary must also in the same debate show that God exists. If he is not able to show that God exists, and that everything he commands is perfect the bible is not infallible. The pretext is that the bible is God inspired, thus it contains no error. For it to be God inspired there has to be a God. HE has the BOP to verify this before he can even start verifying the other content within the bible.

C8) Noahs Ark

Do I even need address this. It claimed he put one animal of every kind of a boat, and they sailed for 40 days and 40 nights.

(a) There is no evidence to support a global flood
(b) No way to carry that many animals

One scholar breaks it down like this

" "with one pair from each genera, living and fossil, he lists 7428 mammals, 4602 birds and 3724 reptiles on the ark. This totals to 15,754 animals on the ark"

It would take an ark the size of Texas to house every animal that was in existence in that time.

C8A) Timeline of the flood

Prior to the bible writing about the flood, the story of the flood had already been written. It was written in Mesopotamia and recorded in the epic of Gilgamesh which was the first novel ever written [12][13]

The accounts are exactly the same except Gilgamesh predates the flood story and timelines by a around a thousand years


The resolution is not upheld.


Debate Round No. 1


Thanks, Mikal. As pointed out by con, the resolution is "The Bible is incapable of being wrong" indeed.


Correct, I have to defend that specific Bible canon. Any content found OUTSIDE of the Protestant Bible cannot be used here.


While the issue is that what is a metaphor varies in every possible mind, we must still consider that some interpretations are right and some are wrong. In other words, con may take the Biblical text to mean something else, but the way he interprets it could be wrong.


(A) Now, I will move on to argue why the God of the Bible exists. First, I will explain why this universe has a Creator before moving on to why Biblical One exists.

Ask yourself the question, "Where did the universe come from?" Did it come from somewhere, or has it always existed? The answer is that it came from somewhere. To say that the universe is eternal is to apply the principles of infinity. For instance, if the universe is eternal, then that means it has an infinite amount of events in the past. However, the existence of an actual infinite number is problematic. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Mathematically, you would get self-contradictory answers. This is because subtracting infinite things away from a never-ending supply of things would simply result in the same never ending supply of things. (After all, it has no end, hence the term "never-ending".) Pretty much, this goes to show that infinity is simply an idea, and not an actual number. To further the argument, the events in the past are not ideas, but real things, so they must be finite and therefore cannot go back forever. Hence, the universe must have began to exist (1).

So, we already established that the universe had to come from somewhere. So, we have two options as of now:

The universe came from nothing, or it came from a creator. Logically put, nothing can only make nothing. Therefore, the only solution is that there DEFINITELY IS a creator.

Now, the only question is this: Which God made the universe? I answer that it is the God of the Bible. Unlike the deities of many other religions, the reality of God is shown through the historical accuracy and solidity of His Word.

Prophecies (and miracles)

As per Jeremiah 25:11-12, Babylon would rule Judah for 70 years. After that, God would punish the Chaldean nation, and the Chaldean lands would be perpetually desolate. This event occurred from about 609 B.C to 539 B.C, which was the time when Cyrus the Great freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity (2). His decree to free them was also prophesied 150 years prior to his birth as per several verses of Isaiah 45 (3). As for the Babylonian desolation, the Chaldean lands turned into swamplands, as prophesied by Isaiah 14:23. Hence, the website says, "Some parts of the city could not be dug up because they were under a water table that had risen over the years" (2).

Also, the Old Testament includes prophecies about Christ:

According to Isaiah 53:12, Jesus was "numbered with the transgressors", who were the thieves on His sides as mentioned on Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27-28. Moreover, Psalm 22:16 and Zechariah 12:10 specifically foretold that He would get pierce marks on his body. This was fulfilled on John 20:25-27.

Furthermore, Jesus Christ's resurrection also meets the criteria of historicity. From the perspective of an average person, this would most likely be impossible (and he may say it was somehow fake). On the contrary, this miracle was also prophesied in Psalm 16:10 (emphasis added), where David wrote, "For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay."

However, His tomb was empty (John 20:2), and His followers saw Him. As per Luke 24:36-43, the disciples thought He was a ghost. Then again, they saw Him eat, and He was touched by a man named Thomas.
If one combines Psalm 16:10 (which was written hundreds of years prior to the birth of Jesus) with the actual resurrection, then one can indeed see that God exists without a doubt. Combine this with the other said prophecies, and one can see how the Bible is historically solid.

Moreover, the triumph of modern Israel over its enemies were written in the Scriptures too (4). Of course, I would mention more, but I am running out of space.

Who could have known all this? Who could have done these things? Is it reasonable to doubt God's existence even though Israel defeated so many of its enemies at once? My opponent would have to explain how this book would have all this information if it is not inspired by God.

(B). "In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches" (5). At that time, people recognized that the Old Testament books came from the Jews (they were the ones who accepted and disregarded certain books). They were the ones who understood what the Scriptures were (6), and what was NOT part of them. After all, they were entrusted with the oracles of God (Romans 3:1-2). "In order for books to be considered New Testament Scripture, they had to be confirmed as the work of an inspired apostle or of a prophet so closely associated with the apostles as to imply apostolic approval of their writing" (7). The people examining the New Testament books recognized that the apostles referred to other books (of the New Testament) as Scripture ("The word "Scripture" is used about 50 times in the New Testament and always refers to the written record of the will of God. Thus, the word "Scripture" can be accurately applied to the things found in both the Old and New Testaments"), and how Paul said to receive messages from God (1 Cor. 11:23). Going back to the Council of Laodicea, I realize that they included the Apocrypha (not canon). In the Protestant Reformation, however, these seven books were removed and now the canon has 66 books (8). Ultimately, it's the Protestant reformers who finally compiled the canon without error, as they realized the Jews rejected the Apocrypha (6).


Right, the earth is literally 6K years old. So, I will just move on and argue against his contentions.


My opponent makes a fallacious argument in blindly resting on what the scientists say, instead of trying to understand how isotope decays actually work. Here is the formula for an isotope decay:

Since we don't know the initial amount of the earth (one of the things we need to plug into the formula), Con cannot say that the earth is 4.5 billion years old as per the carbon dating method nor the radioactive one (thus undermining Mikal's statement about everything being created at the same time). The Big Bang theory (as per its atheistic underpinnings) presupposes that matter ALWAYS existed, which would be problematic since that would mean there is an infinite amount of events that occurred in the past. This could not be, as I have already established it above.


1. Matthew used the term "begat", and Luke used the term "son of", hence his list was a complete reversal of Matthew's. Also, the lineages are parallel from Abraham to David.

2. Matthew traced the PATERNAL lineage via Solomon, and Luke traced the MATERNAL lineage via Solomon's brother, Nathan. "Here is the precise purpose of Matthew’s genealogy: it demonstrated Jesus’legal right to inherit the throne of David—a necessary prerequisite to authenticating His Messianic claim. However, an equally critical credential was His blood/physical descent from David . . . Both the blood of David and the throne of David were necessary variables to qualify and authenticate Jesus as the Messiah" (9).


There are archaeological finds in the actual Red Sea. The Bible was NOT referring to the "Reed Sea" (10). In the Red Sea, Bible enthusiasists found a pair of CORAL-ENCRUSTED chariot wheels (some with axles intact) along with the remnants of horses and humans (11). This makes sense, since the sea had to be deep enough as God drowned the Egyptian army. However, there is NO evidence that an Israelite drowned. So, I say that Moses did part an entire sea.


My arguments about the chariot wheels still apply, since they were in the RED sea, and not the REED sea as my opponent asserts. Plus, just because no evidence (I already presented the evidence, but I still wanted to say this anyway) as ever been found DOES NOT mean that there IS NO evidence. The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence. One major issue is that place (where the Exodus place) is fenced off by the Saudi Arabians, so it would delay archaeological pursuits (12).


I already answered this above as part of C3.


(A) Genesis 7:18-20 tells us that the mountains were covered with the flood waters. Marine fossils are found in the Grand Canyons, and shellfish remnants are in the Himalayas, and the Grand Canyons reveal that animals and plants were rapidly buried (13). There is more information about the flood, but I am running out of room.

(B). Notice the part, "animal of every kind". Mikal said, "It would take an ark the size of Texas to house every animal that was in existence in that time", but was that the case? No. In fact, the Bible saiys that he put one animal of every KIND, not EVERY species/every animal.


While the story was already written, the problem is that the Mesopotamian story has many significant differences compared the Noah's flood. One of the differences is that God wanted to kill people because of their wickedness (14). I wish I could say more, but I have no more room.


I believe I substantiated my points well, and I am now waiting for Con's response.




There a few things I would like to point out.

(1) My adversary has the BOP
(2) He has offered no contentions of his own but merely rebuttals

So even if he were to ( and he won't) refute every one of my contentions, he would still have no case for the bible being infallible. He would have just refuted contentions without solidifying his own case. In this regard, the only thing that is left is the assertion of the bible being infallible without any claims or contentions to back it up

RC1) The Bible

This is conceded so I will drop this from this point on. My adversary also notes that he is defending the protestant bible ( this is not the original texts or manuscripts), but the compilation of all the texts and manuscripts.

RC2) Metaphorical

This the burden on my adversary as he somewhats notes. If he is to use a specific text or defend a verse saying it is a metaphor he must show that was the authors intent when he wrote that specific verse. Other wise we can negate that defense or claim. Simply assuming a verse means something is not true, it is on him to show us what the author meant for the verse to mean, what the verse actually means, provide evidence to support the claim, and then show that is the only possible meaning there verse could have.

RC3) God exists

This is where this is going to turn into a debate within a debate. My adversary provides a bunch of verses to show that the creator is the Christian God and I will address that briefly because it is largely irrelevant. I am going to take out the starting premise of this and that is showing there has to be a God

Note : This is an affirmative statement.

This is not saying a God possibly exists, or that he could exist but saying that he in fact exists. A God must exist without question in order for the bible to be infallible. So let's start from here. My adversary pokes at the KCA saying the universe has a cause, and that cause as I pointed out is the Big Bang. The fallacy that lies behind the KCA

(p1) Everything that exists has a cuase
(p2) The universe began to exist
(c) The universe has a cause.

The first question this brings up is what caused God. Because if this statement is to hold true, and my adversary is defining and stating that God exists in some possible world, for this syllogism to remain intact he must then show that God has a cause.

In addition to this things can come from nothing. So I am going to stop my adversary there. It would take an entire debate to cover quantum fluctuations can cause something to come from nothing[1]. Essentially meaning given the right criteria a universe can literally pop into existence. We can even observe this with modern science. Energy and particles in between the quarks of an atom are constantly spawning and popping into existence faster than the eye can see due to quantum fluctuations. David Gross won a nobel prize for discovering this[2].

With that being said that negates the necessity for a God as well. A universe can come from nothing, and we do not need a creator to create it. My adversary has the BOP to show that God was that cause. I only have to show there are other viable means as to how the universe began and from there that would negate the KCA

So to recap my adversary has two flaws in his argument

(a) A universe can come from nothing
(b) If he is using the KCA as a syllogism to defend how the universe began, the same logic must be applied to God and he must show that God was not created under that same syllogism.

RC34A) Age of the earth and Unvierse

He concedes that the earth is 6k yearls old. Lets jump into that and show how this is factually wrong.

(1) The universe is constantly expanding.[3]

As I mentioned CMBR is the after glow of the big bang which was cooled down over billions of years[4]. Meaning if the earth and universe were actually 6k years old, the big bang would not be observable due to the reate of expansion and the amount of time it would require to cool it off to be visible. I will refute the isotope argument as we move along, but just some more facts to show the earth is greater than 6k years old

There have also been trees that have been found to be more than 6k years old. The bible says the earth is 6k years old. So I am not even getting into specifics, meaning if I can show the earth is > 6k years the debate is over. (My adversary concedes the bible states this). Dendrochronologist or Dendrochronology is the dating and study of annual rings in trees[5]. This is the way to trace the age of some trees. Scientists have found trees in sweeden nearly 10k years old [6].

There are even fossils that are found that are nearly 3.8 billion years old

" The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old!" [7]

The method of carbon dating. My adversary fails to understand the specifics of how carbon dating works. We can use the half life of Carbon 14 and the rate of decay to determine the age of the object in question. Since I Don't have a piece of paper to work out an example and I can't type equations in this chat thing, I am going to copy and post an example where you can use Carbon 14( and it's half life) with the rate of decay to determine the initial age of (x) ( a fossil in this case)

(2) Adam and Eve

(a) There are talking animals in the bible. This has never been observed nor can be verified empirically

(b) It is mathematically impossible for a man and women to be born 6k years ago and produce the amount of people we have in the world now. With 7 billion people in the world, even to this day currently we can say we are averaging around 35 million people yearly in growth. This is with 7 billion people. If we take this down the road and at the same rate we are currently at, in 6k years we are only able to produce 21 billion people. With 2 people starting and having to form 7 billion in 6k years. This is mathematically impossible even if the population growth was at a high end. [8]

(c) Evolution

Some of our chromosomes show that we had ancestors that existed nearly 15k years ago [9]

(d) Prophecies

This is an irrelevant point made by my adversary. Due to broad assumption, even if he were able to prove that all of those prophecies are true, it does not mean the bible is infallible. This does nothing for the resolution.

RC5A) Genealogy

My adversary claims the genealogies are true, but by definition this is linguistics and he drops a lot of the contents in the text

Matthew actually traces the lineage from Abraham to Jesus which is around 41 generations, and Luke records if from Adam to Jesus nearly 76 generations. My adversary is right when he says the account from Luke works backwards because it does start at Jesus and works in reverse from there. [10]

That however does not mean the timelines do not contradict

" Though nearly identical from Abraham to David, the two accounts are entirely different from David to Jesus. After David, only the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel appear on both lists. "[10]

RC6) Red Sea

The same evidence was found in the Reed sea, a swampland and it is much more plausible that it is a translation error.

The voter is left with 2 choices, as we have stated there are archaeological finds in the Red and Reed sea.

Is it more plausible a sea split open, or they crossed a swampland. Chariots have been found in both.

The most simple solution is generally the most logical until there is compelling evidence to make you believe a more complex theory.

Also my adversaries source has been labeled a hoax, by a great majority of people[11]

While the remains in the Reed sea are actually viable. The reed sea in hebrew is translated to Yam Suph or sea of reeds and archaeological finds are actually valid in this spot and have never been suspected of being a hoax[12]. Yam Suph is directly north of the Red sea and would provide a much more plausible explanation as to how Moses could have crossed over (If he actually did).

C7A) God

Dropping this point from now on because it ties in with the above. Both will be linked.

C8) Flood

The remains that were found , proved there was actually not a flood. Ironically enough this was addressed in the Bill Nye Vs Kim Ham debate. The way the fossils were found in most of these places showed they were not trying to escape a flood. They would have been found trying to swim up or out of the flood and not in the manner in which they did. [13]

In addition this is referring to the same thing. Every kind of animal is every species that is alive at that time.



The just shows that a Flood story has been portrayed through history constantly and that the Bible is far more likely to have copied the story (since gilgamesh predates it) than actually have had a flood. Here is a comparison of the floods. [14]


My adversary has an impossible BOP. He must show that there is no possible error in the bible and he has not even built a case yet

Resolution negated


Debate Round No. 2


Thank you, Mikal.

First, there is a problem with his opening statements on this round.

I included contentions within my rebuttals. The definition of the word "contention" is, "something (such as a belief, opinion, or idea) that is argued or stated" (15). They are not merely rebuttals, since they do more than just cancel out con's arguments. To list a few examples, I have contended that the Bible has prophecies and miracles that solidify its historical value, and I have asserted that there needs to be a creator. Once again, they're not just rebuttals, since I didn't just try to disprove the validity of con's arguments without any references solidifying the Bible. So, I still have a case for the Bible's infallibility.

(By the way, my opponent did not attempt to negate my argument about the Bible being compiled without any error.)


Yes, I have the burden to show what the author meant when I am saying that certain Bible verses are metaphorical.


(A) Since I said that God caused the universe to come into existence, Mikal asserts that the same logic must apply to God. The issue with this argument is that if God had a cause, then there is "an infinite regression of creators (prior causes), and we would never be able to find the first uncaused cause since by definition (the question says that "everything needs a creator") there wouldn't be any uncaused cause" (16). Unfortunately, this would imply that there is an infinite amount of events of creators being created. I have already established that this is not possible, since infinity is simply an idea.

(B) Due to quantum fluctuations, con says that a universe can come from nothing. This violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy. "Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another" (17). If something comes from nothing, then that means energy is created. As mentioned by the very website that con used, "Physics of the early Universe is at the boundary of astronomy and philosophy since we do not currently have a complete theory that unifies all the fundamental forces of Nature at the moment of Creation" (18, emphasis added). So, what he brought up was nothing more than an educated speculation, and this consequentially does not hold much water against a law(which is confirmed to be a fact) of science.

Now, one may ask, "How could God have created energy, then?" For this, I answer that this is the only logical exception where the law can be violated by God, because otherwise it would presuppose that energy has eternal qualities, which I already established to be wrong since infinity is just an idea and not a real number. Hence, the law cannot be violated apart from God, and Mikal erroneously relied on an educated speculation that contradicts what is already confirmed.


Con says that "CMBR is the after glow of the big bang", but he is simply begging the question here. His reasoning is circular since he treats the Big Bang theory as if it is pre-proven. He may attribute certain events of the universe to the Big Bang but he must prove that it happened to proceed with the rest of his arguments. Until he shows that the Big Bang actually occurred, his arguments won't mean anything. Plus, the universe is not constantly expanding (not in the sense that there is more matter being created), because that would still violate the Law of the Conservation of Energy.

Now, the source that Mikal used says, "ancient remnants of its [Norway Spruce's] roots were radiocarbon dated" (19, bracket and emphasis added). So, this Swedish tree (ironically called the Norway Spruce) was not dated via dendrochronology as con asserts. The same source says, "The most ancient recorded [Bristlecone Pine], from California's White Mountains, is dated to around 5,000 years ago" (bracket and emphasis added). Here, dendrochronology determines that the Bristlecone Pine's age range falls within the Biblical boundaries (since the world is 6000 years old). So, con's source helps my argument and undermines his. Besides, radiocarbon dating is not reliable, and I will explain that soon.

As for the cyanobacteria fossil, Mikal's source doesn't mention which method of radiometric dating was used to find the fossil's age. Otherwise, he is simply resting on what the sources say (without further corroboration of fossil's age). Until Mikal proves how the fossil is that old, what he said will remain as a bare assertion (a logical fallacy).

For the carbon dating method, you still need the initial amount of a fossil in order to know how much time has passed since the fossil died. So, this method is not reliable. Here is the formula again:

The difference between my formula and Mikal's formula is that I explained what each variable means. Mikal just posted a formula without explaining what those numbers and variables mean. So, until Mikal explains how each variable leads to finding the age of the fossil, his argument will remain ineffective. He is blindly resting on a piece of mathematical work.

Adam and Eve

A. The animals talked due to supernatural intervention. If the Bible said that they talked with their own abilities, then con's point would make sense.

B. Con's argument about the current population does not help him, but in fact helps me. As per Genesis 9:18-19, the world was repopulated by Noah's children. My opponent fails to understand how growth rates work. Here is the population growth formula (20):

Now, we don't know the growth rate in order for Noah's children to reach the current population. So, we must solve for r. (I used the "solve" command on my TI-nspire CAS.)

7,000,000,000 = 6e^r4500

*We have "4500" for time since it's been approximately 4500 years since the flood occurred.

After solving for r, we get:

r = 0.004639425893

Since the growth rate is supposed to be a percentage, we multiply r by 100. We get:

r = 0.4639425893

Now, we can use the rate to put it into a compound formula (the same thing we use for money):


*n = amount of time, which is 4500 years in this case

6(1+0.4639425893/100)^4500 = 6,670,066,345.47 people.

This is very close to the current population. All Mikal had done was merely assert that this was mathematically impossible without doing any math. He committed the bare assertion fallacy once again! So, this proves that the earth is young. If mankind existed for more than 6000 years, then the population would have been bigger.

C. As for evolution, con must show what kind of ancestors he is referring to. Also, how do they show that we had ancestors that existed 15K years ago? Con begs the question again. He tries argue that the earth is older than 6000 years, yet he tries to demonstrate this by saying that we had ancestors that existed 15k years ago. He has to explain the "how" part. So far, Mikal has been guilty of circular reasoning two times.

D. This is not irrelevant, since the successful fulfillments of the prophecies (along with miracles and historical solidity) exemplify Biblical infallibility.


Mikal failed to read my argument carefully. So, I repeat that the purpose of Matthew's genealogy is to show Jesus' legal right to inherit king David's throne whereas Luke showed Jesus' physical descent from the king (9). Once again, both the Davidic blood and the throne were necessary to authenticate Christ as the Messiah. Those two genealogies had different purposes, but that does not mean that they're contradictory. It would only be contradictory if they both had the same purpose and still had differences.


The Bible says that the Egyptian soldiers drowned. If they crossed a swampland, then how did the chariots end up there? Shouldn't they have been able to walk over the swampland safely, too? If there are chariot remains, then they may be there for reasons unrelated to the Exodus. However, if they drowned, then that matches the Biblical description. This proves that Moses did split the Red Sea. Mikal also uses a link to call my source a hoax, but his link seems to be coming from a biased person, judging by the fact that he called "Wing Nut Daily" (21). Not a reliable source, honestly.


If Con asserts that the remains proved there was not a flood, then he needs to explain how the marine fossils ended up in the mountains. How do creatures found at sea levels end up in very high places? Also, Con is doing everybody a disservice by citing a two hour YouTube video. He does not cite the specific time (of the video) he got his info from. So, his source is dismissed until he provides it next time.


Let's suppose there are two accounts for the Jewish Holocaust. One was written on 1946, and the other was written on 1950. They both describe the atrocities of the Holocaust, and they both have some differences. However, just because one was written earlier does not mean the other one copied from it. The reality is that both of the accounts would add on to the fact that the Holocaust was real (though one account may be more accurate than the other). In the same way, the Babylonian story of Gilgamesh would only support the global deluge even more. Just like the differences in the Holocaust, there are differences between the Biblical flood and Babylonian epic. However, the Biblical one is more accurate, since I have established that six Biblical characters are the reason why we have this many people. Moreover, the Bible says that the ark was made in a hundred years, whereas the Babylonian epic says that it took a week (14).


Mikal committed several logical fallacies here. He made bare assertions two times, and begged the question twice too. He erroneously dismissed a couple of my arguments as irrelevant, when they were meant to solidify Biblical infallibility. Overall, I believe that I have fulfilled my BOP adequately.




In response to the bible being compiled without error. There is no need to address this because it ties in with the God condition. For the bible to be compiled without error, it would have to be God inspired. If the bible is not God inspired, it cannot be compiled without error. If you negate the creator that entire contentions falls flat.

RC3 ) God

My adversary has refuted his own argument, so we can stick with that. He posts the KCA again which is this

(a) everything that exists has a cause
(b) the universe exists
(c) Therefore the universe has a cause.

As I stated the universe is it's own cause , but even if we were to assert that it is God that same logic in that syllogism must be applied to God. You cannot claim that is a valid syllogism and then say it does not apply to (x). The point to this is applying a logical and valid assertion that applies in all cases. If that syllogism is valid, then there is an infinite number of causes meaning there would never be a first cause. This negates his own point. Again for this syllogism to stand, everything that exists "must have a cause". God exists, therefore he must have a cause. If the Christian God must have a cause the bible is wrong, and he is not the first cause. Therefore the bible is fallible.

My adversary tries to assert that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Let's go straight into the next part because its complicated and it will require a great deal of the debate

To arrive at the fact energy cannot "pop" into existence, we have to address what is nothing and if there is energy out there that we cannot see or know about. We have to address what is observable and what is not observable and the types of nothing. All laws came into existence at the time of the big bang, so anything prior to that is not observable. In addition my adversary lacks the understanding of what something from nothing means. It is essentially saying confinement, causes a lack of stability and 1 can become 1+ 1. I will address this below.

The first thing we must look at in regards to the universe creating itself is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle .

" The position and momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrarily high precision. There is a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of these two measurements. There is likewise a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of the energy and time. " [2]

The statement itself is not questioning the accuracy of measuring instruments but stating that there will will always be uncertainty in nature. The next thing we need to address is confinement energy [3]. This is basically when you try to contain a particle into a smaller volume.

" If you compare the confinement energy for an electron in an atom to the energy required to hold it in a nucleus, you find that you can't hold an electron in a nucleus. "[3]

So basically when you try to think about trying to trap a particle into a smaller particle, the system is unstable. Via einsteins equation E= MC2, if you put enough energy into any given system it can produce particle-antiparticle pears. What that is basically asserting is that particle-antiparticle pairs can actually be created from "nothing" at least in some regards.

"So particle-antiparticle pairs can be created from "nothing", that is from no particles to two particles, but energy must be provided, so these particles can be viewed as having been created from the energy. And that required energy is not "nothing", so a vacuum that produced particles would nevertheless require available energy to convert into the particles."

Now touching on the fact that the entire universe can be created from nothing.

Note : Quantum Realm - [5]
Note : Quantum Mechanics - Operating below the scale of atoms [6]

The basic stance is that gravitational potential energy is 0, and as the universe expands it becomes less negative. With the case of our universe being flat or nearly perfectly flat, due to gravitational potential energy becoming negative upon expansion , with our universe being flat it will approach 0 flat. This would eventually cause confinement, and due to the lack of stablity meaning the 1 to 1+1 point would arise , and something could essentially come from nothing. Nothing again meaning 1 to 1+ 1

R34A) Age of the Univese/Earth

I'm kind of mind blown my adversary is questioning the validity of CMBR. I willBriefly touch on this

(a)The universe is constantly expanding. Edward Hubble made this discovery when he noted there was a relationship between the the speeds of distant galaxies and their distances from earth.[7]

(b) The big bang did happen it is not a theory. The after effects are observable and they directly linking the earth to being 15 billion years old due to the process of cooling and the rate of expansion in the universe. We are in a time where we can actually see the remnants of the big bang, this will not be the case in hundreds and thousands of years due to the rate of expansion.

He is telling me to prove the Big Bang happened, which I do not need to do anymore. I have shown the remnants are in the sky, and you can directly observable the after glow from it. That would be like me taking an plate and throwing it on the ground. My adversary is staring at the pieces of the plate and asking me to prove that the pieces came from a plate at some point. The CMBR is observable meaning the Big Bang happened. This is truism, and is a fact. There is no need to debate this point[8].

Carbon Dating

Briefly touching on this. When an organism dies it stops taking in new carbon. Carbon 14 decays and is not replaced, and has a half life of 5,700 years while carbon 12 remains constant. By looking at the ratio of C12 to C14 it is possible to determine the age of the object in question exactly.

There is actually a formula to get the original age.

t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2
t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2

If you had a a fossil with ten percent carbon 14 compared to a living sample it would work out like this

t = [ ln (0.10) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years
t = [ (-2.303) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years
t = [ 3.323 ] x 5,700 years
t = 18,940 years old

I have no idea what my adversary is trying to assert, but he is basically saying you need the initial age to determine the initial age. That is kind of self defeating to the purpose of dating. A more detailed version of the formula can be found here [9] and to see the example here [10]

Adam and Eve

1k characters so keeping it short. My adversary shows a formula where the growth rate is higher with a smaller amount of people than it is in today's modern society. He is basically saying the growth rate is higher in old times than it is now, which is again impossible. The growth rate would grow with the amount of people in the world, not be a higher amount with a lower number than it is today.

Evolution and Y chromosome dating 15k years


RC5A) Genealogy

This is where my adversary makes a mistake. He is now arguing the purpose of the timeline, but fails to address the part where they are contradictory. The discrepancies with different names being in different parts even if you were to compare them via chronological to reverse chronological is not touched on. As I stated when you look at it both ways the timeline does not add up and different names are in different places upon comparison. He just says the purpose was different and did not touch on this.

RC6) Exodus

The hoax itself was brought up because of the condition of the wheels. I will cite a few more sources that validate the fact this was probably staged. [11][12]. I'm dead on characters and the Google search will help you find any possible link to show that it is probably a hoax due to the condition. The pathos source was just for the pictures when it was excavated and the view of its wear and tear. It was obviously planted, view the images to confirm the state of the item and ask yourself why is the condition of it that good

After that my adversary says the reed sea is not a possibility because the bible says the drowned. That is the entire point. Even if were to occur it is more likely Moses just escaped through a swamp land and was followed. Thus the chariots that were excavated. When you have 2 samples in 2 different places, and are asked to use logic vs someone splitting a sea. Occams razor is applicable.

RC8) The Flood

Per the source. I will link him to the direct part that I was addressing. Nye explains why the flood is not probable because of how the fossils were found [13]


My adversary commits a fallacy with the holocaust comparison. He is using a story where 2 accounts are comparing the same event. The issue is that the bibles dating of the flood is not at the same time as the Epic of Glgamesh. The epic of Gilgamesh is written around 2750 bc (flood would have to have been before 3,000 BC), the bible puts the flood at around 2,500 to 2,750. Even in spite there were people alive besides noah and his family to write about it(if that were true). The bible is still fallible.


Resolution negated


Debate Round No. 3


So, I already established that humans compiled the canon without error. To support this contention, I will argue for the existence of God even further.


What Mikal is trying to say here is that the Kalam cosmological argument is self-contradictory, claiming that everything has a cause and then saying that God has to be included there also.

The entire beginning of Pro's argument was flawed here. First of all, notice that my opponent did not cite the source he got the KCA format from. The KCA does not say:

"(a) everything that exists has a cause
(b) the universe exists
(c) Therefore the universe has a cause."

Instead, the KCA actually says:

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause" (22, emphasis added) (23) (24).

My opponent used a distorted version of the KCA and then try to refute it. As per the KCA's theistic underpinnings, God did not BEGIN to exist. So, Mikal's rebuttal falls flat. To strengthen the KCA more, I will argue why something cannot come from nothing.

Con said, "Via einsteins equation E= MC2, if you put enough energy into any given system it can produce particle-antiparticle pears. What that is basically asserting is that particle-antiparticle pairs can actually be created from "nothing" at least in some regards" (emphasis added).

If we spell the equation E=MC^2 out, we would get "Energy = Mass X speed of light squared" (25). The key word there is "mass". "We use the word mass to talk about how much matter there is in something" (26).

Now, here is the problem:

As mentioned by the source that con used (which cancels out his previous arguments), Particle-antiparticles pairs are produced AS A RESULT of putting enough energy (27), which has MATTER IN IT. Energy is not "nothing". Ergo, particle-antipartcle pairs are not "created from nothing". This is not creating things from nothing. These are some changes of the energy's form. The First Law of Thermodynamics says, "Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another" (28, emphasis added).

The universe cannot be created from nothing:

Con implies that there is activity prior to the creation of matter from nothing. This is a self-defeating argument. How would there be activity prior to the existence of matter? If there is activity, then that would entail the existence of something. Also, my opponent mentions the universe expanding, even though matter has not existed yet (because confinement eventually occurs later and something comes from nothing according to con). If there is nothing yet, then there is no universe. After all, the definition of universe is, "All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos" (29). So, his point is contradictory and logically invalid.


(A). The constant expansion of the universe (that is, the spread of matter throughout the universe and not the creation of new matter) does not necessarily mean that the Big Bang occurred. Even when we presuppose that the current universe didn't come from the Big Bang, matter (which are composed of atoms) could still move around from place to place. In that sense, the universe would still be expanding since atoms are constantly moving (30). So, con just referred to a vague piece of "evidence" here. If con is referring to the creation of new matter today, that violates the Law of Conservation of Mass. The expansion of the universe (again, just the spread of matter) is supported by Isaiah 40:22, which says that God "stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." So, when you stretch out a rubberband, you're not creating new matter. The matter within the rubberband just spreads out. The same concept applies for the creationist view of universal expansion.

(B). The CMBR's data also supports the young earth creationist Humphrey's White hole cosmology (31). In fact, Humphrey's interpretation is stronger, since the Big Bang presupposes that the universe has no boundary (32). If the universe has no boundary, then there would be an infinite amount of space. Once again, infinity does not exist, so the basis of the Big Bang falls flat. The Bible also supports this view, because Isaiah 40:22 compares the heavens as a curtain, which is a finite item (hence it has boundaries). Again, his evidence for the Big Bang is vague.

Carbon Dating

Although Pro presented a fancy formula to get the original age, the issue is that the amount of carbon-14 varies in the atmosphere (33). This has been known to change since the Industrial Revolution (34). Ergo, determining the age of a fossil is hard. Hence, I emphasized the importance of the formula requiring the initial amount of an organism, because this is the only certain way to find out how much time has passed since its death. Out of courtesy, I will post the picture one more time:

If you have all the necessary information, then all you have to do is plug in the numbers into their respective places. However, we usually don't know the initial amount of a fossil. So, we would need to make assumptions in order to determine the age. However, we may end up getting inaccurate answers. Also, I never said that you need the initial age to determine the initial age. I said that you need the initial amount of the fossil to find the initial age.

Adam and Eve

Incorrect. The current growth rate is about 1.7% per year (35), which is bigger the rate of 0.4639425893. All Mikal had done was just claim my growth rate was higher than the current rate. He committed the bare assertion fallacy for the third time now.

Evolution and 15k year old Y chromosome

Mikal just dropped this argument after I pointed out his circular reasoning. So, his point still remains moot, and he abandoned it.


To clarify this, here's the quote that con used:

"Though nearly identical from Abraham to David, the two accounts are entirely different from David to Jesus. After David, only the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel appear on both lists" (36).

First, it's already established that Luke's genealogy refers to the maternal line, and Matthew refers to the paternal one. As I mentioned before, the reason why they're identical until David is that Jesus needed the legal right to David's throne and the physical descent from him. After that, there was no longer a need for the rest of names to be the same in both lineages. Shealtiel and Zerubbabel appeared on both lists only due to the intermarriage (9). Also, they would be different because each person is obviously unique. So, they would have ancestors (but have common ancestors if you go back earlier). This is common sense. I have no idea what con is trying to say, but I don't see any contradictions here.


Mikal's 11th source doesn't say this is a hoax. It says "unproven", not "fiction" (37). Moreover, the archaeological report on is not the same event as the one by archaelogist Ron Wyatt. In fact, the findings on occured in 2003 and Wyatt found the wheels before the 2000s. Trying to call this a hoax due to "good condition" would be a mistake. Maybe the conditions are bad, but we don't know that since " Egyptian government prohibits bringing any findings to the surface" (37, emphasis added). However, this doesn't change the fact that the wheels and the other remnants are still there in the same spot the Exodus began. Telling people to Google search this won't help con's case either, because it's not the readers' job to go out of their way to examine this on their own. The readers just have to evaluate the contents in the debate.

If Moses could cross the swampland (the Reed Sea) safely, then the Egyptians could have easily done it too. In fact, The Egyptians would have been able to easily follow the Israelites and kill them, and this would have left behind several skeletons of dead Jews and their belongings! However, this isn't the case, since the Bible says that Moses split the sea and had the entire army drowned. The evidence of absence (of dead Jews and their items) proves that the Exodus occurred if one combines this with the wheels found in the Red Sea. (Only Egyptian items were found there.) So, the logical conclusion is that objects under the Reed Sea are unrelated to the Exodus.


Con says:

"They [current fossils] would have been found trying to swim up or out of the flood" (38).

Although the animals would try to swim up out of the deluge, the thing is that they wouldn't remain in that "swimming position" permanently. In fact, the strong waves of the flood would surely change the body positions of the animals. So, it's logical to consider that they would look like the fossils of other dead animals in some ways.


Mikal doesn't cite the source that says the epic was written around 2750 B.C. The epic was written around 2000 B.C (39) (40) (41), which is about 500 years after the flood. So, the Holocaust comparison is still valid.

Points that con dropped:

My refutation of the "talking animals" argument

- The "15K year old Y Chromosome"

- Biblical prophecies, miracles and historical validity (I argued why they're relevant)

- The dendrochronology issue


Through my rebuttals, I have showed that the Bible successfully stands up to scrutiny. I explained how the things we discussed match the Biblical descriptions also. Thus, the Bible is infallible.


38. Mikal's argument on Round 2



The thing I hate about debates like this is that it is 4 debates within a debate. So you have to hit and miss key points.

1) KCA

so we will go with my adversaries definition of the kca and why it is flawed.

[P1] Everything that begins to exist has a cause
[P2] The universe began to exist
[c] The universe has a cause.

Again working this back to the point of singularity is the key. The cause of the universe is the big bang, the cause of the big bang begins at singularity, etc and so forth. My adversary is claiming we do this until there has to be a starting point that could have not been created, but that has always existed.

There are a few issues this will bring up

(a) He has to show that the Christian God has always existed or did not begin to exist. If a God prior to his God created his God, then the bible is infallible. The Christian God has to have always existed and must have no cause

(b) The universe can cause itself to exist .

We will work from here. My adversary concedes my point about sub particle and anti particle pairs. Meaning that given the right confinement, you can get 1+1 from an initial 1 factor. See my R 3 argument[1]. So he is essnetialy claiming, that something can come from nothing but now is stating that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So if we go back far enough his claim is that there had to be someone who made the first net amount of energy. This is faulty due to a few reasons

(a) He misunderstands the law of conservation of energy.

(b) He violates his own premise assuming that God created the first initial amount of energy. Working under his own pretense energy can never be created or destroyed it must be transferred, so under his own pretense energy is eternal.

Now I have to keep this brief, but I am going to touch on how this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. Like I said this is a debate inside a debate and some points I have to limit because of characters, and I usually assume some are mostly truisms. So back to a lesson in science and physics.

First we have to address to key terms

Kinetic energy - Kinetic energy is energy of motion [2]

Potential energy - Stored energy [3]

The key thing to remember is that gravitational potential energy is usually expressed in a negative amount.

An example of this would be satellites or something you can launch into space. If you launch a satellite into space it requires an enormous amount of fuel to overcome the negative gravitational potential energy of the satellite due to the earths attractive force. The same can be stated about rockets and other objectives that are launched.

So from here we arrive at the basis that we live in a flat universe, meaning that the negative energy cancels out the positive energy[4][5].

Now back to my previous round, and particle and anti particle pairs. Take this quote

"But what made the universe and all its mass come into being at all? The suggestion is that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum. It used to be thought that the vacuum was truly nothing, simply inert space. But we now know that it is actually a hive of activity with particle-antiparticle pairs being repeatedly produced out of the vacuum and almost immediately annihilating themselves into nothingness again. The creation of a particle-antiparticle pair out of the vacuum violates the law of conservation of energy but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows such violations for a very short time. This phenomenon has observable and measurable consequences, which have been tested and confirmed" [6]

Since I am running out of characters that quote puts it into perspective. The Heisenberg uncertainty principles, and the space time vacuum allows for a massive amount of energy to come forth. Anything prior to the big bang is non observable, but the best conclusion at the moment is that the universe literally fluctuated into existence from a small amount of matter.

"In the inflationary scenario, the mass-energy of matter was produced during that rapid initial inflation. The field responsible for inflation has negative pressure, allowing the universe to do work on itself as it expands. This is allowed by the first law of thermodynamics."[4][5][6]
In other words, no energy was required to "create" the universe. The zero total energy of the universe is an observational fact, within measured uncertainties, of course. What is more, this is also a prediction of inflationary cosmology, which we have seen has now been strongly supported by observations. Thus we can safely say,No violation of energy conservation occurred if the universe"[7]

I would go into singularity but that addressed my adversaries failed conception of the law of conservation of energy. In addition to this point singularity allows time to open as an infinite vacuum where any possible number of fluctuations could occur. Remember anything prior to the big bang is non observable as well. The BOP is on him to show that the universe did not fluctuate into existence, but that God created it. I have already show that it is high probably it did fluctuate due the the universe being flat, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

2) Big Bang

My adversary is just not understanding this point.

He has not addressed how the big bang did not occur, nor do I feel like debating a truism. The evidence is in the sky and can be seen with a powerful enough microscope. I will leave that point at that, again countless amounts of evidence support a big bang and CMBR being one of them [9]

I am going to touch briefly and I do mean briefly on how the big bang verifies a 10-15 billion year old universe. We can trace back the expanding universe, there are a few things that are evident. One being that the separation of galaxies become smaller while the density becomes higher[9]. This continue to a moment where all matter was compressed to the very precise moment of the big bang

" This continues until all matter is compacted into a completely shrunk volume of the universe with an incredible density—the moment of the big bang. We can estimate how long ago this was by dividing the distance to a galaxy by its recessional velocity. This way we estimate how long ago the distance between that galaxy and ours was essentially zero. Calculation shows that the big bang occurred as long as 10-15 billion years ago, which is about three times the age of the Earth."

Or you can work it out with a basic formula

It is because of this we can trace the age of the universe.

3) Carbon Dating

I have no idea what else to do with this.

My adversary is just not understanding the point of carbon dating. He is literally asserting that to get the age of a fossil, you need the initial age of the fossil. That defeats the entire purpose of the finding the age of the fossil or point of carbon dating itself. I even worked an example to show how you can arrive at the initial age using the decay of c14 vs the constant amount of c12. Remember when something dies the amount of C12 remains the same. See my formula and equation for how to calculate the initial age of a fossil[10]

He states I am quoting science in the first round, and then says it does not work this way in reality. I work out a formula on how to calculate the initial age of an object and then he says.

" Although Pro presented a fancy formula to get the original age, the issue is that the amount of carbon-14 varies in the atmosphere (33). This has been known to change since the Industrial Revolution (34). Ergo, determining the age of a fossil is hard "

He literally is stating because a variable can vary once in a while, every single time that a fossil has been predated prior to 6k years, it has been false. If one fossil is more than 6k years old he is wrong. There is nothing left to say on this point. There are over 1 million examples of carbon dating that have dated fossils prior to 6k years and he is stating every single one is wrong. That is his argument.

4) Epic of Gilgamesh and the flood

Most of the story was not uncovered to around 1,800 and 2,000 bc [11]. That is a monumental blunder on my adversaries part. He misses the point and context of what was stated. The story is about a king that ruled Sumeria around 2,700 bc, and the story is an *account* of what occurred. So for this to be an account of what had occurred, the flood would have had to have happened at the time of the king ruling or around that point, which is anywhere from 300-400 years before biblical historians date the flood (which is not that accurate either. Some historians put the flood at 900 bc)

Even in addition to that, the main point is the flood story was passed down from culture to culture. The writers of the bible did the same thing countless others did. Write about a fable.


Sadly I am not going to get to address all of his refutations to some of my contentions due to character space. Addressing some drastic misconceptions about his interpretation of quantum mechanics and carbon dating took up most of the debate. There are a great many flaws in his argument for ring dating, and the flood that I would like to address in detail but cannot because of the 10k limit.

The main thing I want to point out is the resolution, which is the bible is infallible. If any argument I made stands, Pro loses this debate. He must show there is no way for anything in the bible to be possibly wrong. If anything is possibly wrong his bop is not upheld


[1] R3 ; RC3
[4] A Brief History of Time Stephen Hawking
[5] Has Science Found God?, p. 148
[6] The Inflationary Universe, Alan Guth, 1997, p. 272
[8] ; Stenger (p 148)
[10] R3 ; carbon dating
Debate Round No. 4


1) KCA

(A) and (B). I will show that God always existed as I explain why the universe cannot cause itself to exist below.

Con says, "My adversary concedes my point about sub particle and anti particle pairs . . . So he is essnetialy claiming, that something can come from nothing but now is stating that energy cannot be created or destroyed."

Incorrect. I was not saying this. While I did say that energy cannot be created or destroyed, I still argued that particle-antiparticle pairs being made is just the change of energy's form. So, the fact that particle-antiparticle pairs are produced is simply the result of energy changing its form as per The First Law of Thermodynamics (28) (42).

(C). I will tell you how I correctly used the Law of Conservation of Energy argument.

(D). As I already mentioned in Round 3 , the only logical exception for the aforementioned law is when God creates the initial amount of energy (43). I already mentioned that if energy is eternal, then it would have an infinite amount of events in its past (44). Again, this is false because infinity is not a real number (1). Also, something cannot come from nothing (which I will explain below). So, the only logical conclusion is that God exists in an eternal sense. This is consistent with Psalm 93:2, which says that God is "from everlasting" (see Psalm 90:2 also).

Also, nothing is the absence of anything (45). So, when con says, "the best conclusion at the moment is that the universe literally fluctuated into existence from a small amount of matter", he is contradicting himself. This is not the same thing as the universe coming from nothing. He would still need to argue where this "small amount of matter" came from, and he failed to show that. If that "small amount of matter" just popped out of nothingness, then that would imply that there was activity IN the midst of nothingness. This is problematic, and I already mentioned that activity entails the existence of something (46).

  • The word "universe" means, "All existing matter and space considered as a whole" (29).
  • The existing matter and space above meets the criteria of "all existing matter" (since it refers to all the matter used to cause "fluctuation") and space (because "space" refers to the measure of distance between matter (46)) as a whole.
  • As per the dictionary, the starting materials make up the whole universe already (regardless of how small the amount of matter is)!

Now, if this were the case, then the universe would have ALWAYS stayed like that (would have ALWAYS had small amounts of matter only). After all, the First Law of Thermodynamics says, "The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant" (28). That's IT. There is no question. It's either constant or not.

If con says that things come out of nothing (implying that there's new matter being created), then he is implying that the First Law of Thermodynamics is false. However, the Bible says that God created HUGE amounts of matter in the FIRST place. He created the earth, light, sun, and so much more (see Genesis 1). So, in order to harmonize the First Law of Thermodynamics with Mikal's view of the universe's beginning, we would need to get rid of the "TOTAL amount of energy and matter in the universe remains constant" part. So, we would basically be rewriting its definition.

So, I correctly used the Law of Conservation of Energy, and the idea that something can come from nothing is baseless. I also explained why there needs to be a Creator, and I argued why God is not restricted by that law.

2) Big Bang

Con says, "He has not addressed how the big bang did not occur".

No, but I already argued how the Big Bang COULD NOT have occurred. So far, all Mikal had done was continue to refer to "evidences" that are supposedly the results of the Big Bang, but I previously argued against the VERY BASE of it. If the very base of it is disproven, then the entire theory falls flat. Just like how Mikal could disprove the infallibility of the Bible by trying to disprove the base of it (God) and win, I could disprove the very foundation of the Big Bang, making all the other "proofs" of it null. Unfortunately, Mikal did not respond to this, but I already said that the Big Bang is based on the assumption that the universe has no boundary (47). Therefore, this would mean that the universe would have an infinite amount of space. Again, this is impossible since infinity is not an actual number. Thus, the foundation of the Big Bang is flawed, meaning that it couldn't have happened. Also, I already mentioned that the CMBR data supports the White hole cosmology too, but Mikal still does not explain why the CMBR supports the Big bang more. So, his evidence still remains vague.

According to Mikal, another "evidence" of the Big Bang is that the "separation of galaxies become smaller while the density becomes higher" (48), but how are they able to figure out the density? After all, the equation for density is:

Density = Mass/Volume (49).

Now, how are they able to figure out the masses and the volumes of the galaxies? Even if they are somehow able to figure out the volumes, how could they find out the mass? Do they put a bunch of galaxies on a weighing scale to find out the mass to divide it by the volume? If con cannot answer this, then his argument about the "high density" is dismissed. Even though the galaxies may look closer, that does not mean they get more dense due to the fact that masses can vary.

Moreover, when Mikal argues about how we can calculate the age of the universe, the problem is that his equation entails light years. While we do see stars that are more than 6000 light years away (a light year is a measure of distance which tells us how long it took for light to travel) (50), we must keep in mind that the speed of the universe's expansion is constantly speeding up (51) as opposed to staying at a steady rate. What this means is that we cannot really incorporate light years, since light would consequentially move faster while the universe is expanding rapidly too. Thus, we would get faulty results, which would seem to make the universe look much older than it actually is. So, Mikal's formula involving the light years must also be dismissed.

3) Carbon Dating

Mikal says, "He is literally asserting that to get the age of a fossil, you need the initial age of the fossil."

Again, I never said this. I said that you need the initial AMOUNT of the fossil to get the age of it.

Con also says, "He literally is stating because a variable can vary once in a while, every single time that a fossil has been predated prior to 6k years, it has been false."

This is a straw man. This variable varies not just ONCE in a while, but several times. In fact, "Nuclear testing since the 1950s has resulted in a large increase in the amount of 14C in the atmosphere" (33). In other words, the variable varies MORE OFTEN because of the huge increase of the isotope. My point is that carbon dating is unreliable whether the years exceed the 6000 year range or fall within it.

"There are over 1 million examples of carbon dating that have dated fossils prior to 6k years and he is stating every single one is wrong."

See, here is the problem:

Wherever you go, the atmospheric variability of C-14 is practically everywhere, considering the facts that nuclear testing has been more common from country to country (52) and how the atmosphere is something that covers the ENTIRE world. Since the atmosphere (which covers the entire world) can interefere with the amount of C-14 in the fossils, it does not matter whether there are over a million examples or not. The fact is that scientists would need to make assumptions in order to find the age of the fossils. The carbon dating argument is based on a great deal of uncertainty, and a more certain alternative to find the earth's age (like dendrochronology [53]) fits the Bible's 6000 year frame.

Hence, I repeat that the only certain way to do carbon dating is by using the formula I used previously. If Mikal came up with just ONE example of a fossil that is proven to be greater than 6000 years old via the said formula, then this debate would have been over a long time ago.

4) Gilgamesh and Flood

All it does is just say that the King ruled Sumeria around 2,700 B.C. However, this doesn't change the fact that it was WRITTEN around 2000 B.C Again, I already mentioned that one historical account may be less accurate than the other, hence the differences in the time the flood occurred. The Biblical account of the flood is more accurate, since I have already given the mathematical proof of how six people ultimately caused the world to have seven billion people today.

Also, while there are many flood stories that got passed down from culture to culture, we must still keep in mind that people still had the SAME concept of the story despite geographic isolations. For example, the Mesoamerican people had their own version of the flood (54), even though the Americas are very far away from the Middle east. Even China (a country isolated due to its natural barriers [55]) had its own story of the flood (56). So, these stories prove that the flood actually occurred.


I think I replied to Mikal's arguments adequately, and he dropped many points that prove the Bible's infallibility. So, I urge the readers to vote for me.

To the voters:

I know you would have argued differently, but please vote based on the content OF the debate only.


43. My argument: Round 3 - RC3
44. My argument: Round 2 - C3
46. My argument: Round 4 - RC3

Note: To check the sources, you must copy and paste the links manually. For some reason, the hyperlnk is not working.



no argument
Debate Round No. 5
72 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
It's alright, bro. I respect your choice. :)
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Thanks for inviting me to vote on this, but it's too long winded, on a topic I do not find to be that interesting.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
I posted*
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
You already posted it there, though.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
post it back up in the DDO section lol
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Hoping this gets more votes
Posted by Ajab 3 years ago
I do not want to do more. Hai hai hai, there are still three and a half more argument -_-.
Posted by Ajab 3 years ago
RFD (9)
GOP did not prove it either. As GOP has the burden of proving the Biblical God this point falls in the favor of Mikal. I cannot stress how negative it is for GOP for being the Proposition and taking the BoP.
In any case let us now move on to the argument of Mikal's that GOP could not answer throughout the debate.
The CMBR, it is hard to argue against it. After all it is proven with telescopes and we have images of the light from the Early Universe which one cannot really argue against. For me the CMBR suffices to argue that the Universe is more than 6000 years old, and unless GOP can come up with some dazzling scientific proof this point shall win Mikal the debate, even if Mikal was Proposition. Mikal then talks about Carbon 14 dating and how we have fossils to show that the Earth is in fact older than it looks.
The next point is rather weak and it states that Adam and Eve could not have produced such an offspring, obviously Mikal has not visited India. :P In a more serious discussion I will address this later when GOP tackles this point o Mikal.
I will disregard the point of evolution because it is not sufficiently discussed and simply stating an outside source without providing evidence is not enough. Also when Mikal makes this statement he does have to show that evolution is a valid theory, since he does not do this I will ignore Mikal's statements on evolution.
His point of prophecies seems weak also, but he did make his point sufficiently. It is near impossible for GOP to prove his theories on prophecies historically but I disagree, that if GOP can show that the Biblical God exists he would have proved his BoP. That and of course he would have to prove that God did not lie, and that the Bible is preserved.
For me the point of genealogy went in GOP favor as Mikal could not prove his contention which was necessary. Since Mikal instigated this point and brought it into this debate it was his burden to prove it, he could not do this properly.
Posted by Ajab 3 years ago
RFD (8)
To add one thing though: had GOP been Opp this would have been a very close call, it is only because he was Prop that it was made this easy.
Now let us start with Mikal's remarks. Mikal instantly points out a major problem with GOP, that is: "He has offered no contentions of his own but merely rebuttals". This is important because it shows that as the Proposition he has done nothing to affirm the resolution, which means that his BoP will forever remain unfulfilled. By now it was clear to me that Mikal had won this debate. To reiterate this was because of three reasons: a. GOP showed probability or possibility but he did not show necessity, b. his method was wrong where he ended up arguing a sort of truism, c. he did not have any positive material but rebuttals which mean that while Mikal's case may have taken hits, GOP's own case was non-existent.
I will not talk about the Bible here being the Protestant Bible nor the metaphorical sense as I have already clarified my opinions on that. I do not find it necessary to reiterate so many times.
Mikal's objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument are in essence very weak. There are also some corrections needed. Quantum Fluctuation does not state something comes from nothing but rather there is no "cause" of that new thing. The photons are released for no apparent reason but they do not pop into existence as such, they have no cause but they do have an object the stem from. In any case however Mikal challenges the premise that an "infinite regress cannot occur" while his objections are, in my opinion, not very well we must remember that GOP was quite unclear when laying out the argument in the first place. Also GOP never argued that an infinite regress cannot occur in so many words. He provided no evidence for it. I will at this moment mostly disregard the contentions of Mikal for he did not elucidate his claims properly, I will however not hand Pro there being a God for even if Mikal did not contest it...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Ajab 3 years ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments soon.
Vote Placed by PeacefulChaos 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I believe Pro did an excellent job, considering the difficulty of defending the resolution, I recognize that at least one of Con's arguments managed to disprove the Bible's infallibility. That is, the possibility of the universe coming from nothing. Con successfully showed that positive & negative particle pairs coming into existence do not contradict the law of conservation of mass or energy (and though I don't think it was directly stated by Con, -1 + 1 = 0 after all). Pro attempted to refute this by saying that it must have come from a source of energy, but did not sufficiently address Con's arguments concerning the matter. Also, Pro should have explained why the syllogism is not specifically applicable to God. Though I already recognize why he is not bounded by the syllogism, Pro did not successfully explain this point to the audience.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro Failed in my books as soon as he started on the KCA, Essentially the Bible verses did not support a literal interpretation for the Creation myth, The KCA was destroyed by Con's argument and the point that Pro misunderstands the concept of conservation of energy, as is evident. Pro's sources are Biased and non-Scientific, William Lane Craig's arguments were full of naive fallacies. The other sources were little better. Though Pro's argument is more an argument for Creationism, which the Bible cannot support, it cannot be taken literally, as Con pointed out, if it was taken as Metaphor, Pro would have a better argument, though the argument about creation and carbon dating is non-sequitur to the Debate Statement.
Vote Placed by Defro 3 years ago
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to go Con because Pro has not met his BOP. Despite his rebuttals, at the end of the debate, there is still a possibility that the Bible is fallible from what is covered in the debate. Conduct also goes to Con because as the holder of BOP, Pro is obligated to present arguments, yet the opening arguments were from Con. Pro's arguments consisted mostly of rebuttals and few original points. Furthermore, Pro did not provide adequate rebuttals. In Pro's response to C2 in round 2, he states that others who interpret the bible differently could be wrong. But he doesn't give the correct interpretation, so he is implying his own interpretation is correct and infallible, giving him a larger BOP that he hasn't met. Sources go to Con because I do not find many of Pro's sources reliable. It is obvious that many of Pro's sources have a clear stance that supports the bible, making them biased sources.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I must respectfully disagree with my fellow voter. While admonishing a lack of evidence is not necessarily grounds to invalidate a claim of infallability, Con not only points out many discrepancies and empirical and scientific failings of certain bible passages, but pre-emptively eliminates the argument from metaphor, since something that confuses people over its meaning is clearly fallible by definition. Asking Pro to prove the existence of God is not entirely relevant, but to prove that the Bible has no errors, I suspect step one would be to confirm the existence of its protagonist. Impressive effort by both, but Con provided the best case.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: R1 - Pro states definitions, but does not give clear arguments for his position. Con has no clear points to refute so he argues issues of some specific interpretations of scripture (literal Creation account - age of earth, genealogy of Jesus by Joseph and Mary's line, . . .) Con also argues that "there is no physical proof" to back up eye witness reports of the exodus (like footprints?). This argument from silence is both bad science and bad historical study. CON goes further astray by trying to add that PRO must prove God exists as a minor part of this debate "My adversary must also in the same debate show that God exists. If he is not able to show that God exists, and that everything he commands is perfect the bible is not infallible." Expanding the debate in this way is not really helpful to the resolution. (Conduct point to PRO) PRO deals well with the genealogy question. PRO should have set a clear argument for CON to refute. CON tries to put the BOP on PRO, but BOP is