The Instigator
Yodaskool
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raymond_Reddington
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The young-Earth theory is impossible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Raymond_Reddington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 752 times Debate No: 56686
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Yodaskool

Pro

I find the young-Earth theory to be impossible, as proven by science.

I shall let Con start.
Because I'm nice.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

Before I begin I will point out that my opponent has affirmed the resolution as a complete fact. Pro is not dealing in probabilities here. No matter how improbable my responses they will completely negat his statement. Therefore if I can even show one scenario where young earth creationism is even possible I will win.

Possibility 1: Global Conspiracy
It is possible, unlikely but possible, that every scientist and regular person to ever advocate an old earth is part of an enormous conspiracy. The existence of this organization is not well known because of there habit of brainwashing all members into becoming billion year old earth and evolutionist propaganda. This organization has been around since before the time of Darwin, always gaining power and becoming an immense threat to society intent on destroying the well known scientific reliability of religious books through their manufactured and fake "science". This situation is possible.

Possibility 2: A God
It is possible that a god created a young earth but merely made it appear old. Such a situation would explain all the scientific evidence for an old earth and maintain the possibility of a young earth. A situation like this is possible and negates the resolution.

Possibility 3: Extreme Equipment Malfunctions
The odds of every piece of equipment that has supported a young earth having an extreme malfunction is probably about 1 in 10 raised to the trillionth power. Unfortunately for my opponent though a very low probability does not equat to impossible. This is possible and negates the resolution.

Conclusion
I agree with my opponent that a young earth is improbable. Pro has however given himself an impossible resolution to defend by claiming it is impossible.
Debate Round No. 1
Yodaskool

Pro

Thank you, Con, for this rich and mature response from you. Although some may think it to be completely ignorant, but yes, those statements you made about my opinion are true. I am absolutely sure that the young-earth "theory" presented by the Christian community, or by any party for that matter, is inaccurate.

For my counter-arguments:

1: Global Conspiracy
I apologize for the manner in which I say this, but over 3/4s of the graduated individuals of this planet cannot be part of an "old earth" cult. I know I'm not.
If this were possible, there might as well be the same form of conspiracy in the Christian group, right? They are equally probable to my eyes. Now, as an Atheist, I see not a reason why I could spread said conspiracy. This is why: There never was one. I find it impossible that an evolutionist turned creationist would think as I do, and after becoming a creationist, why wouldn't he spread this secret only evolutionists know of?

2: A God
A God. A God that made a new planet seem old just to see how our little minds would progress the environment. You know, I had this very thought when I was a little child, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same with you. I told it to my parents, and they decided it was not even probable.
Look, if a God wanted is to know it existed (as the Bible tells us), it would let us know. It wouldn't make all these facts just to laugh at us and think to itself how funny we are. I trust you read the comments, and I also trust that you know that right now I'm mostly referring to a Christian God. And by definition, a God is a supreme entity with incredible power, so please don't say "by "God" I meant an idea".

3: Extreme Equipment Malfunctions
I fail to see what you mean with this argument, but I guess you try to say that anything that has supported a young earth has suffered a malfunction...? I apologize in which manner I say this, but this is just... wow. Improbable.

Now, for my main argument:

1: Age of Entities
So, many creationists believe that all of existence is around 6,000 years old. Well, I have one argument which I believe counters that completely: there are things over 6,000 years old. And by things I mean trees. Yes, there are trees around 4,000 years older than what creationists believe the all of existence is. And considering that nothing could have survived the "great flood", the oldest living thing, apart from sea plants, could be at a maximum of 4,000 years old.
Now, you may argue that there are situations in which trees produce more than just one ring per year. But of course, we all know, or should know, that there are other methods for how we can determine an organism's age. These include radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology.

There, I happily await Con's answers.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

Responses
"Thank you, Con, for this rich and mature response from you."
You are welcome. If you wanted a more serious debate perhaps you shouldn't have claimed you could prove something was impossible.

"Although some may think it to be completely ignorant, but yes, those statements you made about my opinion are true. I am absolutely sure that the young-earth "theory" presented by the Christian community, or by any party for that matter, is inaccurate."
I also find it highly improbable. Unfortunately for you though, improbable is not the same thing as impossible.

Global Conspiracy
"I apologize for the manner in which I say this, but over 3/4s of the graduated individuals of this planet cannot be part of an "old earth" cult. I know I'm not."
You have nothing to apologize for. It is absolutely possible that the majority of graduated individuals are part of a conspiracy. My job in this debate is to provide "possibilities" which would negate the resolution. Because you affirmed the "impossibility" of something you must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt every possibility I propose. You have provided no evidence to support your assertion.
"If this were possible, there might as well be the same form of conspiracy in the Christian group, right? They are equally probable to my eyes."
Obviously but you must disprove the possibility of a global conspiracy to uphold your resolution.

The lack of a reason to spread this conspiracy is not proof it is not a possibility. I also provided a possible reason. To do away with the scientific reliability of religious books.

A God
"A God. A God that made a new planet seem old just to see how our little minds would progress the environment. You know, I had this very thought when I was a little child, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same with you. I told it to my parents, and they decided it was not even probable."
I will say it again, my proposals don't have to be probable, just possible. This also means it is possible that even the christian god made a young earth appear old. To disprove this proposal you must prove that the christian god would not decieve us. Since you cannot prove his intentions it is not possible.

Extreme Equipment Malfunctions
"I fail to see what you mean with this argument, but I guess you try to say that anything that has supported a young earth has suffered a malfunction...? I apologize in which manner I say this, but this is just... wow. Improbable."
I assume you meant old earth instead of young earth. It is a possibility no matter how improbable. This being even remotely possible negates your resolution.

1. Age of Entities
All of my proposed possibilites would negate this.

Conclusion:
My opponent has given himself an impossible BoP by affirming the impossibility of something. No matter how remote the probability, if any of my proposals are even possibe I win this debate. He must disprove them all to show no possibilities for a young earth exist.
Debate Round No. 2
Yodaskool

Pro

You say I must prove that all and any suggestions of a young-Earth scenario are irrelevant. Well that would be a lot easier if I actually knew all suggestions, perhaps you could tell them to me, and I could attempt to prove them wrong. I see you didn't provide and arguments in your last argument, so right now I really cannot prove said suggestions wrong.
Look like I'll have to rely on google.com

The Moon is getting further and further:
We all know that the Moon is receding around 3cm a year, therefore many creationists say that if the Moon really was billions of years old, then it would've already left earth's gravity. A simple calculations can prove them wrong.

The oldest living organism is 4,000 years old:
Many say that the oldest living land organism is at a maximum of 4,000 years old. As the Bible says, the Great Flood happened around 4,000 years old, then obviously said living land organism must be one of the first to be planted. Right?

Well there are living land organisms over 4,000 years old, like I said before, trees, and some are over 10,000 years old.

Human Expansion:
Another argument is that the human populations and expansion would have had just enough time after said flood to increase to around 7,000,000,000 people. I guess we all know that the huge acceleration of human expansion has started just a few hundred years ago.

The Sun is shrinking:
Many say that the Sun is shrinking at a rate of around five feet per hour. Like the Moon argument, they say that it would now be the size of an apple. Another quick calculations can prove it wrong.

So there are a few examples, I really look forward to proving your theories wrong.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

Pro has apparently misunderstood my argument so I will clarify. Because Pro has affirmed the resolution "Young Earth Creationism is Impossible" as fact, all I have to do to win is propose possibilities. If any of my proposals is even possible, no matter how improbable, I win the debate. I provided three possibilities that would allow Young Earth Creationism to be correct.
1. Global Conspiracy- Every Old Earth advocate is a part of a conspiracy
2. A God- A God created a young earth that appeared old
3. Extreme Equipment Malfunctions- Every confirmation of an old earth has actually been a result of a severe equipment malfunction.
All of these scenarios are incredibly unlikely, but that is not the same as impossible. All of these situations are possible. Probability does not matter here. Pro affirmed the impossibility of something, and I have given three possibilities. Pro has pointed out that these are all incredibly unlikely but that is actually irrelevant. Since they are all possible they completely defeat the resolution. In order for Pro to win he must prove that all 3 of these possibilities are actually not possible at all which he has failed to do. All of my possibilities also work around Pro's arguments in that if any of them were true, which is possible, then his arguments would be irrelevant and fail. Pro has an impossible burden of proof because he must prove that several things are actually impossible to uphold the resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
Yodaskool

Pro

Excuse me, but I personally recall debunking those theories you suggested previously. I find my arguments good enough, but it's in no way my responsibility to make you like what I said.
I find my previous statements completely valid, yet you say they are invalid. I'd like you to tell me why. Unfortunately for you, it's too late since this is my last chance for an argument.
I hope you do realize that I supported many other theories, and I also remember debunking them. Incase you've forgotten, those theories were: The growing distance to the Moon, Organisms older than 6,000 years, Human Expansion and the Shrinking of the Sun.
I fail to see how this is an "impossible burden of proof" since, like I said, I remember personally debunking them. If they're invalid to your eyes, well there's really not much I can do about that.

Overall during this debate you've been saying something along the lines which lead me to believe that you do not believe in the young-Earth scenario. This is in my opinion the most invalid thing said during this debate. I find it somewhat, well, stupid to argue on behalf of a belief that has nothing to do with yours. Anyway, thank you for this debate, I'll be looking forward to the final statement.

Vote Pro.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

This argument is basically over since Pro did not understand the argument I was making. He clearly believes that showing my scenarios as improbable makes them impossible which is a serious mistake. This debate was never over probability but possibility. To show that YEC was impossible he needed to show that all of my scenarios were impossible which he did not do. He only argued that they were incredibally improbable.

Pro claims "I fail to see how this is an "impossible burden of proof" since, like I said, I remember personally debunking them". His drastic misunderstanding of my arguments will cost him this debate. He failed to disprove any of my arguments.

He did attempt to argue that science favors an old earth, and it does. All of my arguments circumvent that though by showing how science could possibly be mistaken. Overall Pro did not successfully disprove my arguments which was required to win this debate.

"Overall during this debate you've been saying something along the lines which lead me to believe that you do not believe in the young-Earth scenario. This is in my opinion the most invalid thing said during this debate. I find it somewhat, well, stupid to argue on behalf of a belief that has nothing to do with yours. Anyway, thank you for this debate, I'll be looking forward to the final statement."
It is true, I believe YEC is improbable but would never go so far as to say impossible. That would be an impossible burden of proof. As fir arguing this debate it's important to play devil's advocate sometimes and explore both sides, though you couldn't really call this a deep look into creation "science".

It was an impossible BoP and Pro failed to fulfill it. If any of my arguments are even remotely possible I win automatically. The only way to vote is Con.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Raymond_Reddington 3 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
I agree but I just have to show that it's possible
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
In science evidence does not have to be seen in action, if valid connections between lines of evidence can be made, by such things as chemical make-up, genetics, physical characteristics, then it can be verified as scientifically correct. The Big Bang is a good example of this, in that every galaxy and major body in our universe is moving away from a set point, indicating that something must have occurred at that point, such as an explosion (very rapid expansion) then the guessing game is what it could have been originally, where some believe it to have been a Black Hole.

The Fossil trail is like a trail of footprints, or the movement of those galaxies, it leads from a starting point to a finishing point.
Such as the trail from dinosaurs to birds, it has a complete record of the changes from scales to feathers and from the long tails to short folded tails in modern birds.
So the fossil record is scientific evidence that Evolution has occurred.
Evolution has been witnessed in the laboratory concerning small, fast breeding organisms, such as bacteria, fruit flies etc... as their rapid breeding and multitude of offspring allow changes to occur in a human lifetime, where more complex, slower breeding organisms do not.
Though as Darwin noted, human assisted evolution (unnatural selection) follows the same process as evolution, only forced by humans, such as developing all the current breeds of dogs from the wolf and creating, Broccoli, Lettuce, Cabbage, Brussell Sprouts, Kale and Cauliflour all from the same wild mustard. Those are all evidence of evolution assisted by humans, the unassisted version just takes longer.
Evolution is a Scientific Theory as it has provable Evidence that it exists and has occurred.
Creationism is not even a Hypothesis as it has no evidence to make it such.
Creationism is only an argument, which is an idea without evidence.
In science: A Theory must be Proven to be a Theory.
No, Creationism is Not a Scientific Theory at all.
Posted by Mike-the-wise-guy 3 years ago
Mike-the-wise-guy
True science by definition must be observable. Sense we cannot observe evolution taking place, it is not true science. And technically, neither is Creation. They are both theories.
Posted by WileyC1949 3 years ago
WileyC1949
Logically you also err when you say that the "Young Earth Creation" is a hyphosis held by "Christians". It is a belief held by a small number of Christians and by some Muslims. Very few Christians actually accept this position. The majority of Christians fully accept the discoveries of true science. For that matter the argument is the very first one discussed by Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa Theologica" in the 13th Century. Catholic universities throughout the Middle Ages taught that there can be no conflict between true science and faith. Certainly as proven by the Galileo conflict not all got the message, but that does not change what was being taught.
Posted by Yodaskool 3 years ago
Yodaskool
I thought this to be incredibly obvious, but if you really need the knowledge, I'm talking about the Christian argument that the earth is around 6,000 years old.
Posted by n7 3 years ago
n7
Bad resolution. Fire breathing ants isn't nomologically possible, but it's conceivable making it primarily possible. Some possible world may have the earth being young just like ants breathing fire. You need to specify you're talking about nomological possibility or you will get trolled and lose bad.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
YodaskoolRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: Science proves probabilities, not possibilities. Everything is possible.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
YodaskoolRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: Even though I agree with Pro's arguments against Creationism, I still think Con's statement that Pro did not fulfill his committed Burden Of Proof obligation to prove all of Con's arguments wrong. Pro appeared to defeat the Equipment Malfunction issue reasonably and the Global Conspiracy argument, but fell a little short of demonstrating that God isn't fooling us into thinking the Earth is much older than it is. Which is impossible to defeat, but that is the problem with making such a direct, over confident resolution. Had the resolution been "Improbable" instead of "Impossible" the evidence Pro presented would have been good enough to win alone.