The Instigator
attrition
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
AEQUITAS
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points

The 'Young-earth' "theorists" take the bible literally and the earth is no older than 6,000yrs old

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,215 times Debate No: 4291
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (11)

 

attrition

Con

I fully know that people who think the earth is, at most, 6,000 years old are willfully deluding themselves. They are Bible literalists that are have been taught that the Bible gives a complete time line of all existence.

The Young Earth creationists contend, going back to Adam and Eve, the early time line can be pieced together in Genesis and in Genesis alone. The Young Earth believer must deny the evidence, the artifacts, and yes, even the actual provable facts. Please Mr or Ms. Young Earth creationist, please convince me that the earth is no where near as old as all of science say it is. Please try and convince me that the Bible's time line of events is accurate and is proof that the Earth can not be even 10,000 yrs old.

The burden of proof is on you. This debate will end one of three ways. You convince the community at Debate. com that your Young Earth beliefs are accurate and win. I provide an argument that is superior and win. Or, the most likely conclusion, you forfeit after one pathetic attempt and then everyone will KNOW you and your entire belief system is false and in the end, pathetic.

Good luck
AEQUITAS

Pro

First, you ask me to prove to you that the earth is no more than 6,000 yrs old. The only way for anyone to prove to anyone else something about the earth's origins is for the person trying to prove their point to be all knowing and the person whom they're trying to prove it to must accept that the other is all knowing. If I asked you to prove to me that George Washington was the first President of the United States you couldn't do it. (I believe Washington was the first President just for the record.) Since I wasn't there and didn't see it for myself the only way for you to prove to me that Washinton was the first President is for me to accept someone else's account of what happened. Since you were not there when the earth began (unless you accept someone else's account of things) it is impossible to prove to you that the earth is only 6,000 yrs old. So, what I am assuming you want to debate is which view has more evidence.
You say that people who believe in a young earth believe this despite all the evidence. You do not however, provide any evidence for your view of things. All you provide is that "all the science says that the earth is much older." I would very much like to read the evidence you have.
I believe in a young earth because that is what the Bible says. Plain and simple. I wasn't there. The only way for me to know what happened is to accept someone else's account of things. I can either put my faith in imperfect men doing science experiments or I can put my faith in A perfect GOD. I choose to accept GOD's account of things rather than imperfect men who weren't there.
Debate Round No. 1
attrition

Con

Thanks for taking the debate Aequitas.

I was actually giving you an opportunity to have the first argument but since you are swinging it back my way I will show that the earth and the universe, which was supposedly created at the same time are much, much older than 6,000 years old. Due to your status as a Young earth creationist, it will be hard to actually convince you of the facts, even with the facts staring you in the face. One debate is probably not going to overcome 22 years of conditioning, but I will give you the facts. Though you didn't explicitly say how old you thought the earth is, by taking this debate, I must assume you do believe the earth is at most 6,000 years old.

Genesis 1:
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

16: 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.
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18: 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.
19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The stars were created on the fourth day of existence. To some Bible apologists, they say, 'well, it's not literally 4 - 24 hour periods of time like we know it, four days is simply speaking metaphorically" Not so fast says the Young Earth Creationist (from now on is YCE). Bible says four days, then four days it is, the earth existed a full 3 days BEFORE stars. This ties the greater universe to the time line of the earth.

Only until about 500 years ago, most people thought the earth was the center of the universe. The sun, the other planets, the stars and the moon all revolved around the earth. Then Kepler came along. Kepler was able, through observation and calculation to create three physical laws:

Kepler's three laws of planetary motion can be described as follows:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us...
* The path of the planets about the sun are elliptical in shape, with the center of the sun being located at one focus. (The Law of Ellipses)

* An imaginary line drawn from the center of the sun to the center of the planet will sweep out equal areas in equal intervals of time. (The Law of Equal Areas)

* The ratio of the squares of the periods of any two planets is equal to the ratio of the cubes of their average distances from the sun. (The Law of Harmonies)

The distances to the planets can be computed and refined using Kepler's laws. The orbital period of the planets is proportional to the length of the semi-major axis of their orbits. Since we know this value for Earth, we can compute it for the other planets based on their orbital periods. In recent decades, more accurate values have been obtained by powerful radar signals and spacecraft flybys.

There are several methods used to measure interstellar distances. For nearer stars, we can use direct triangulation: The position of a star relative to more distant background stars is measured, and then is measured again six months later. Since the Earth is at the opposite side of its orbit than it was six months before, the minute shift in the star's apparant position (know as its "parallax") is a direct measure of its distance from our Solar System. This is where the term "parsec" comes from. It means "PARallax of one SECond"; in other words the distance at which a start will have a parallax of one second of arc (which is about 3.26 Light Years).

For more distant stars, the properties of their spectra can be used. Different spectral classes of stars have different known brightness ranges, so by comparing their apparent brightness with the known brightness range the distance can be estimated.

Certain types of stars have other properties that allow their distances to be measured very accurately. A type of star called a "Cepheid variable" gets brighter and dimmer in a fixed cycle. The maximum brightness correlates with the rate of the cycle. Thus, if you can see a Cepheid variable at all, you can know its distance just by measuring the cycle time of its brightness. This method has been used to measure the distance to nearby star clusters outside our galaxy.

Certain type of supernovae also have known brightness properties. They are so bright they can be seen when they flare up in nearby galaxies--and allow us to measure the distance to those galaxies.

For more distant galaxies we can determine their distance by their "redshift". Since the universe is expanding more or less uniformly on a large scale the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it appears to be receding from us. The light from these galaxies is doppler-shifted into the red by this apparent motion. This redshift can be measured on a spectrograph and, using the Hubble constant, this redshift can be converted into a distance.

The speed of light:
The approximate value of 3�108 m/s is commonly used in rough estimates. In imperial units, the speed of light is about 670,616,629.4 miles per hour or 983,571,056.4 feet per second (roughly one foot per nanosecond), which is about 186,282.397 miles per second.

Astronomical distances are sometimes measured in light years (the distance that light would travel in one Earth year, roughly 9.46�1012 kilometers or about 5.88�1012 miles). Because light travels at a large but finite speed, it takes time for light to cover large distances. Thus, the light we observe from distant objects in the universe was emitted from them long ago: in effect, we see their distant past. Even in terms of our own star we see into the past as well. Light from the sun takes around eight and one-third minutes to reach the earth.

The speed of light is of relevance to communications. For example, given the equatorial circumference of the Earth is about 40,075 km and c about 300,000 km/s, the theoretical shortest amount of time for a piece of information to travel half the globe along the surface is 0.0668 s.

The speed of light can also be of concern on very short distances. In supercomputers, the speed of light imposes a limit on how quickly data can be sent between processors. If a processor operates at 1 GHz, a signal can only travel a maximum of 300 mm in a single cycle. Processors must therefore be placed close to each other to minimize communication latencies. If clock frequencies continue to increase, the speed of light will eventually become a limiting factor for the internal design of single chips.

Hubble Telescope:
http://hubblesite.org...

Some of these galaxies are millions of light years away. LIGHT YEARS! As I have shown above, the light we see from these galaxies has been traveling for 300 million years to reach us.

So to simplify all of this. If the earth and the stars are less than 6,000 years old, we could only see a handful of stars in the sky. It would be mostly black, awaiting that distant light to get to us.

Good luck refuting math.
AEQUITAS

Pro

I actually already had a website ready to show how far away the stars are from the earth and how long it would take light from them to reach this planet. You did a fantastic job of explaining it. Much better than I would have done. Yes it would take millions of yrs, in some cases billions of yrs, for light to reach our planet from some stars. When GOD created Adam and Eve He created them fully grown. He created the Earth with fully grown trees, fully grown grass, and fully grown animals. When GOD said "let there be light" there was light immediately. Light from the sun takes roughly 8.3 hours to get here. The Bible doesn't say that GOD said "let there be light" and 8.3 hours later there was light. It happened immediately. It is perfectly logical to believe that it was the same with the stars. GOD created them "fully grown" for lack of a better term. He created them as if they had already been shining for millions or billions of yrs so that their light was already reaching Earth. This fits in perfectly with the Biblical time line.
Here's a link that provides other evidences that the Earth is around 6,000-10,000 yrs old.
http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Debate Round No. 2
attrition

Con

attrition forfeited this round.
AEQUITAS

Pro

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on the move and I hope the new home works out well for you.
You say "The crux of my opponent's argument is that the world is 6,000 yrs old because there is no other way it couldn't be." You act as if that is invalid. Remember, it is impossible to prove something of this nature to another person. I'm not trying to prove to you that the earth is no older than 6,000 yrs old, I'm presenting evidence that it could be. In your first argument you say that there are provable facts that the earth is much older. All I have to do is show that there is another reasonable explanation of the world's origins. The website I provided showed many reasons why the earth and the universe could not be billions of yrs old. If you have Theories A, B, C, D, and E, and you find reasonable evidence that theories B, C, D, and E are incorrect, then the evidence points towards theory A. Does it prove anything? Absolutely not. Does it supply reasonable evidence to back up theory A? Definitely. So, that type of argument is completely valid. Again, we're not proving anything. Just presenting evidence.
Next, you argue that because there are so many religions in the world that Christianity could not be true. You say that if it were true then there shouldn't be so many people with different versions of things. There was a game we used to play at birthday parties called telephone. One person thinks up a phrase and whispers it to another person. That person whispers it to the next person and on down the line. At the end of the round the person who was last to hear the phrase says what he/she heard whispered to them. It is always different from what it started as. Does this mean that the phrase whispered at the beginning was fundementally flawed? No. It means that over time through channels of communication things get misunderstood and changed. Sometimes on purpose. So the thought that there are millions of people who believe different things than Christianity, and the fact that they believe different things disproves Christianity somehow, is ridiculous. There are millions of people who don't believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old (including other religions than Christianity). Does this disprove that the earth is not millions or billions of years old? No. That is honestly the worst argument I've ever heard.
Now, I would like to point out here that my opponent did not offer any counter evidence for round two when we were discussing stars. Instead he dodged the issue and moved on to another.
You say that there are artifacts and things that date back to far more than 6,000 yrs. You yourself however, admit that there are numerous shortcomings to carbon dating. There are. The biggest of which is that the scientists that use it assume that the atmosphere has been mostly constant since the beginning of time. They know that it has changed somewhat because they have a table to re-calibrate the date due to different levels of carbon in the atmosphere. These tables however, only date back 15-20 yrs. We don't know what the atmosphere was like 2,000 yrs ago. For that matter we don't know what it was like 300 yrs ago. We don't know what the carbon levels were for these dates because we didn't know how to measure them back then. Another problem with it is that it is very easy for an object to become cantaminated with recent carbon. Although this doesn't disprove carbon dating it does once again show that it is not proof of anything. Once again, I would like to say that all I have to do is show that you cannot prove that the earth is older than 6,000 yrs old.

Your first argument (which is the basis for this debate) claims that there is overwhelming proof that the world is much older than 6,000 yrs old. That it is in fact millions or billions of yrs old. As I have shown, no one can prove either the young earth view or the view you presented. You claim that you know for a FACT that anyone who believes in a young earth is willfully deluding themselves. I have given evidences for a young earth, and evidences against an earth that is millions or billions of yrs old. So far however, besides attacking young earth creationists personally, you have not given evidence against any of my arguments. Have I PROVEN that the young earth view is correct? No. What I have done is showed that you cannot prove that the earth is much older. I have provided a reasonable explanation of the young earth view. I have provided evidence that radiocarbon dating could be wrong. You did not prove your view. You did not show that all young earth creationists are willfully deluding themselves. You did not disprove any of my arguments. I'm not asking for people voting in this debate to believe my side of things. I'm asking them to realize that you cannot prove that GOD did not create the world. I'm asking them to realize that you cannot prove that the earth is older than 6,000 yrs.

Lastly, you provided some videos that were trying to prove that the story of Jesus is just folklore blown out of proportion. The "proof" of this is that by using the zodiac symbol one can see in the stars where the story came from. This really doesn't have to do with how old the earth is. I'm guessing you were taking the approach of trying to disprove Christianity and therefore prove that GOD didn't create the world. This would then prove that the world was much older than 6,000 yrs. When I first started watching the video I thought "wow that's alot of coincidences. Almost too many to be coincidences." Then I remembered Psalm 19:1 which says "The heavens declare the glory of GOD." As creator, GOD could have written the greatest story of all time into the stars. The story of His Son dying to save sinners. I was right. It wasn't coincidence. It was GOD displaying His glory by writing a story that hadn't even happened yet into the stars at the dawn of time.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AEQUITAS 9 years ago
AEQUITAS
But GOD has infinite power and therefore keeps HIS Word from being changed. The fact that christians come up with different interpretations does not mean that the Bible is not perfect. It just means that all too often men give into carelessness and their own passions, and take something perfect and misapply, or misinterpret it.
Posted by CH 9 years ago
CH
Re: Aequitas

'The Bible is God's perfect Word given to imperfect men', but the bible was not written by God. ‘God's perfect Word [was] given to imperfect men' and then recorded in writing by those 'imperfect men', and reinterpreted and rewritten by future generations of 'imperfect men', over and over again. It is thus prone to imperfections, i.e. christianity's many subdivisions...
Posted by AEQUITAS 9 years ago
AEQUITAS
The Bible is GOD's perfect Word given to imperfect men.
Posted by CH 9 years ago
CH
"I choose to accept GOD's account of things rather than imperfect men who weren't there" (Aequitas, Round 1, para.3)...Surely the bible is an account of God written by 'imperfect men'...
Posted by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
http://www.nmsr.org...

Regarding Dr. Humphreys
Posted by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
I have to say this isn't my best debate. It was rather stupid that I started during the beginning of my move and wasn't able to give my full attention to it. Ah well, I was bored. However, I did state in the opening argument it was on you to prove to me that the earth was no more than 6,000 years old. For that 'proof', you gave me a website basically based upon the work of one man Dr. Russell Humphreys, who's creationist science has been widely discredited by normal scientists and only accepted by those who can't get around the fact that science and their religion don't mesh. The difference between scientists and the creationists, is that science don't have an agenda they are trying to rectify, and the creationists do. Scientists base their work on experimentation and data, to get what the facts are. Creationists on the other hand, have an agenda that states a fact and tries to find ways to bend data to fit that "fact"
As to my not refuting you "God made stars full grown" claim. I can't refute something that has no factual basis in reality. If you claim Aliens have abducted you, how can I prove they didn't. I gave you a counter argument website that is very thorough in displaying the science vs. conjecture. YCE claims change constantly. After science proves it's not true, they come back with something else. C-14 does granted some limitations as in it gets less accurate the older an artifact is, there are other dating techniques used. Still, like I stated, up to 50,000 is very accurate. Just because you don't want it to be, doesn't mean it's not. The scientific method isn't always cut and dry. Quantum physics for example relies a lot on theory and experimentation and extrapolation, and yet lo' and behold you have this computer using all that theory. Just because you don't understand the science doesn't make the science incorrect. Additionally, it's a huge pet peave when theists use the Bible as reference, it's like citing Little Red Riding Hood
Posted by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
Damn, sorry, I was in the process of moving and didn't have Internet access. I just starting getting some connection from an outside source enough to try and post my argument, but then as I was doing it, I was forfeited. Sorry about that.

I posted the last arguemtn in the comments section below
Posted by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
Though carbon-14 dating has some limits, it gives very accurate dating up to 50,000 years. There are plenty of artifacts dating beyond 6,000 years. That is proof. That is factual. That is reasonable. That is enough to shatter the YEC vision. That is enough to put in doubt the Bible. No theist can prove their religion is accurate. There is too much evidence to the contrary. A perfect example is the multitude of religions in the world and that fact that millions don't follow Christianity. Even more so, not EVERY christian believes the earth is 6,000 years old, they view Genesis as a metaphor. Which it clearly is. If it were supposed to be literal, there should have been MUCH, MUCH greater detail of the world and our Universe.

I submit to be taken in consideration of my final argument, these YouTube videos:
Posted by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
Alright, will I didn't think you would just debate me with a website posting.
Seems a little cheap, but I will comply with that counter argument.

I'll just post my counter website. It's quite thorough, the way science tends to be: http://www.talkorigins.org...

Since I have nothing to really debate besides posting my counter-argument website and essentially the crux of pro's argument was 'the world is 6,000 years because there is no other way it couldn't be. Read the bible, it tells you.' And despite evidence of an expanding Universe, the counter argument to starlight was 'God made it that way. Duh.' Sorry there is too much knowledge out there to just let that fly. We have entire librarys devoted exclusively to paleontology and every paleontologist would laugh or cry if someone tried to tell them the world is 6,000 years old.
Posted by AEQUITAS 9 years ago
AEQUITAS
it's your turn to debate.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by AEQUITAS 8 years ago
AEQUITAS
attritionAEQUITASTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by flamingdebater 9 years ago
flamingdebater
attritionAEQUITASTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jojoluvsyew 9 years ago
jojoluvsyew
attritionAEQUITASTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kitty 9 years ago
Kitty
attritionAEQUITASTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Biowza 9 years ago
Biowza
attritionAEQUITASTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
attritionAEQUITASTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
attritionAEQUITASTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by bthr004 9 years ago
bthr004
attritionAEQUITASTied
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 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 9 years ago
bexy_kelly
attritionAEQUITASTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
attritionAEQUITASTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30