The earth was created by Old Earth Creationism
Debate Rounds (4)
The Earth is billions of years old.
Before I begin this debate, I would like to lay a few rules down.
1) No profanity
2) No Insults
3) Nothing inappropriate
Of course, MagicalPurple, you have to agree to these rules when you begin your argument in round 2.
Now, let me set forth a few definitions so that everything is cleared up.
Old Earth Theory: The theory that states that the Earth is Billions of years old, and life was created by evolution.
Young Earth Theory: The theory that states that the Earth is only thousands of years old, and was created by God in six days.
Earth: The planet we live on.
If all of this is okay with you, MagicalPurple, now we can move on to our arguments.
The reason why the earth can't be only a thousand years old is because of the overwhelming evidence that's all around us:
The grand canyon could have not been constructed by nature in such a short time
The stars that are reflecting their light to earth, some took millions and even billions in light years just to get back to Earth
Fossil fuels in the earth has many fossils dated back to the phestoric ages and it took all those billions of years just for them to be decomposed down to a fuel
I'm using old earth creationism because God used the concept of the 7 days in very long amount of time. before he created Adam and Eve he used the evolution process of the animals back in phestoric ages to become what they are today.
1) If evolution existed millions and billions of years ago, then why don't we see the evolving forms that my opponents states existed millions and billions of years ago? Because they never existed in the first place. You may say that we have found the missing link, or "Lucy," but those bones were collected over at least a square mile. Maybe there was a town in ancient times 5,000 years ago and they were killed in an attack and over the years became fossils. Also, if Lucy was one being, then why were her bones spread out over a wide area? I ask you, WHY?
2) If the universe has existed for millions and billions of years, then there would be many things that are different than they are now. For example, there is not enough written history to account for at least a million years of mankind. The civilizations drew on cave walls, constructed buildings, and so much other things, but no written history. Another example is that comets degenerate too quickly for them to survive billions of years.
I am looking forward to my opponents rebuttal of my arguments.
MagicalPurple forfeited this round.
"The Grand Canyon could have not been constructed by nature in such a short time...The stars that are reflecting their light to earth, some took millions and even billions in light years just to get back to earth." (Almost exact wording. Grammar and Spelling mistakes are not mine.) One more thing, it seems that my opponent thinks that I am arguing for evolution in 6,000 years. This is not the case, I am arguing that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago. Now on to my rebuttal. These two points I would like to rebut at once. First of all, when God created the Garden of Eden, he did not plant seeds and let them grow, what God did was he made a garden in full bloom. This is what he did with the Universe. God made the stars so that they could be seen from Earth at the time of creation. He did the same with The Grand Canyon. One question about the Grand Canyon, if the Grand Canyon has been around for so long, then why would it be so steep?
"Fossil fuels in the earth has many fossils dated back to the phestoric ages and it took all those billions of years just for them to be decomposed down to a fuel." My opponent again thinks that I am arguing for evolution in 6,000 years! I am not! God could have put the fossil fuels there, that is a possibility. Also according to a cite, fossil fuels only take thousands to millions of years to form.
I look forward to our closing statements.
MagicalPurple forfeited this round.
First of all, my opponent forfeited her round 3 + 4 arguments. By forfeiting those rounds, she gives me the opportunity to rebut her arguments with out any counter arguments. Also, there is no rebuttal of my round 2 argument, thus leaving it unchallenged. This alone should give me the victory. As you, the voters, can see, I have already won this debate. You may disagree with me, and that is okay. I just believe that if a person debating forfeits a round, then they lose that round. With that in mind, I have won half of the rounds in this debate. That combined with my arguments, should win me the debate.
Thank you, for debating with me, and continue with your votes. Thank you and good day.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.