The Instigator
Creation_Science_Guy
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Mickeyrocks
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

The earth is only 6,000 years old and the Bible proves it through science.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 3/2/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 545 times Debate No: 7189
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

Creation_Science_Guy

Pro

I think the Topic Title says it all. I believe the above statement is true and there is evidence for it. I'll let my opponent start the debate as I'm sure he'll want to go right into radiometric dating first. Anyway, all are welcome and God Bless!
Mickeyrocks

Con

You don't give me anything to negate yet, so I'll just note some observations and you can make your case whenever.

The resolution sets out three burdens for the affirmative to meet, whereas the negative only has the burden of adequately negating one of the three facets of the resolution. If just one of these is met by the negative then you have sufficient reason to negate insofar as the burdens set out to affirm are not wholly met. There is no 2/3 vote here; burdens are burdens for a reason.

They are as follows:
1) The earth is 6,000 years old.
2) The bible proves 1)
3) The biblical proof is scientific.

Constraints:
1) 6,000 years old can be proven through any kind of logical reasoning, there doesn't need to be a sticker that says "Earth: 7,000." or whatever, only it has to prove 6,000 exactly. The resolution says "only" so it's implying some precision in the calculation of age thus 6,000 is the number that MUST be met.
2) The bible alone must prove it. Any arguments not deriving from the bible on the affirmative can be instantaneously disqualified as they are not within the scope of the resolution. Contradictory evidence can derive from forums outside of the bible, as the negative is not constrained by the resolution only to operate within that text.
3) Scientific means that it employs technology to prove something; dropping two things off a building could be considered scientific proof for gravity, but obviously we wouldn't accept that as sound justification. Thus, scientific proof involves some form of technology.

Uh, as for an NC (Negative Constructive) I'm not really going to worry about that. I'm just going to block out the AC (affirmative constructive) and void his impacts, which would give you sufficient reason to negate, insofar as he won't be meeting the triple burden set by the resolution. So my "constructive" will be in rebuttal, and the debate will be waged on the affirmative side - myself demonstrating how he doesn't meet the burdens, him trying to prove how he does. Obviously he hasn't given me anything to negate yet, so at this point (if like, we forfeit every round after the initial round) you'd automatically vote in negation as he gives you no proof on how he meets the three burdens.

Word of advice, you should probably just structure your argument by burden (3 contentions on how you meet each burden) and that'll make the debate a whole lot easier, nobody wants to sift through a bunch of useless words to find how and where you meet what I've placed upon you. It'll make the debate run much more smoothly.

Aiight, whenever you're ready.
Debate Round No. 1
Creation_Science_Guy

Pro

Creation_Science_Guy forfeited this round.
Mickeyrocks

Con

sorry if the grammar or spelling sucks I'm on an iPhone. anyways,

he forfeited which saddens me but obviously if he forfeited and gives no reasoning he can't meet the resolutional burdens so you autmatically negate at this pout in the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Creation_Science_Guy

Pro

Creation_Science_Guy forfeited this round.
Mickeyrocks

Con

same as before, blah blah you still automatically negate.
Debate Round No. 3
Creation_Science_Guy

Pro

Creation_Science_Guy forfeited this round.
Mickeyrocks

Con

:*(

space space space space
Debate Round No. 4
Creation_Science_Guy

Pro

Creation_Science_Guy forfeited this round.
Mickeyrocks

Con

burden of proof is always on the affirmative, I framework three burdens the resolution sets and obviously by not posting an argument he does not meet any of these. I understand some Christians are going to vote for him anyways but please use your better judgment and vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
Do-over. This was going to get interesting!
Posted by Mickeyrocks 5 years ago
Mickeyrocks
Um what, he just never made an argument... :(
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
Um?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
Creation_Science_GuyMickeyrocksTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by DesmondTiny 5 years ago
DesmondTiny
Creation_Science_GuyMickeyrocksTied
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 draxxt 5 years ago
draxxt
Creation_Science_GuyMickeyrocksTied
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 philosphical 5 years ago
philosphical
Creation_Science_GuyMickeyrocksTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by chip 5 years ago
chip
Creation_Science_GuyMickeyrocksTied
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