The Instigator
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Losing
70 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Pro (for)
Winning
78 Points

There is No Biblical Support for Young Earth Creationism

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 22 votes the winner is...
Tatarize
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,493 times Debate No: 6940
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (59)
Votes (22)

 

rougeagent21

Con

I stand in negation. I will allow my opponent to open the discussion.
Tatarize

Pro

We know the Bible is perfect and accurate and that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. If the Bible did give evidence and support to the idea that the Earth is very young then the Bible would be wrong. This cannot be, therefore it must not be true. QED.

Any and all supposed supports are clearly read out of context or mistranslated.
Debate Round No. 1
rougeagent21

Con

My opponent makes two claims. One, that the Bible is perfect and accurate. Two, that the Earth is 4.6 Billion years old. Now I agree with the first claim, that the Bible is true. I disagree That the Earth is that old. The Bible gives us evidence to how old the earth is. Since we both agree that the Bible is true, then if it gives us evidence, it must also be true. Correct?

Now, the Earth has been around roughly 4,000 years. (This is MUCH shorter than my opponent suggests) Man was created four days after the first day. The first day was roughly 4,000 years ago. "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth...God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. So the evening and the morning were the first day." -Genesis 1:1, and 1:5.

How do we know the Earth has been around for about 4,000 years you ask? Simple. The Bible tells us. There are many genealogies throughout the Bible. Here are a few:
Genesis 5 Adam – Noah
Gensis 11 Noah – Abraham
Abraham to Moses is then counted
Moses to Judges then
Judges to Kings then
Historical timelines.

Here is a website that details it out for you if you want to read it.
http://www.abiblestudy.com...

So, if you count, this totals to be around 4,000 years, allowing for different calendar translations. 4,000 years is EXTREMELY shorter than my opponent suggests.

Here are the facts so far, and correct me if I'm wrong:

1-We both agree that the Bible is true
2-The Bible gives us evidence for YEC
3-YEC is true, since it is proven in the Bible

Taking all this into account, one can only see YEC as the only option regarding the Bible. Thank you.
Tatarize

Pro

My opponent is mistaken. He's taking parts of the Bible out of context to suppose the Bible supports Young Earth Creationism. As Young Earth Creationism is completely absurd and factually false on every level it must necessarily be the case that either the Bible is false or my opponent is misinterpreting the Bible.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

We can tell from various scientific fields that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Further there are organisms around today such as the King Clone creosote bush which is 11,700 years old and thus cannot be the product of a Young Earth. Further there are processes which take millions of years and clearly verify the age of the Earth is significantly longer than 4000 years. We have books older than 4000 years old.

My opponent is clearly misrepresenting the Bible. If he were accurate he would be forced to conclude the Bible isn't pure and true, and that can't be. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old, the Bible is perfect, so clearly the Bible doesn't (if properly read) suggest anything different.
Debate Round No. 2
rougeagent21

Con

My opponent says that I am mistaken. He says I am using the Bible out of context. Please, tell me how and where. All of these references lead to the next, and are completely related. Where am I wrong?

Here is my opponent's line of thinking:
1-The Bible is true
2-Stuff on this Earth is older than 4,000 years, 4.6 billion in fact
3-The Bible must support truth since the Bible is true.

There are many flaws with this logic. The main one I will talk about is his assumption that we have evidence much older than 4,000 years. How can he prove this? Was here there when these "books" were written? Of course not. Well, he might say now: "That is absurd. Of course I wasn't there. We use other methods to tell somethings age."
Like what? Radiometric dating? Carbon half-lives? These are extremely faulty methods, and have been proven inaccurate multiple times. http://www.cs.unc.edu... methods in general are inaccurate

So, my opponent cannot prove that we have these old artifacts. He now argues that there are processes that take millions of years. The problems with this accusation are threefold. One, he gives NO examples, no evidence, and no warrant. But for the sake of the debate, we will assume that there are. So, one might be the Grand Canyon, right? That took millions of years, right? Now to the second fallacy here. OK, so the Grand Canyon. Millions of years to carve out, right? If my opponent truly believed in the bible, and CORRECTLY INTERPRETED IT, he would see no problem to YEC that the Grand Canyon supposedly poses. What about Noah's Flood? Could that torrent not have carved out a canyon. To wipe out all of humanity, it seems you would need a massive flood, enough to even carve a canyon. If my opponent responds no to this statement, he would be trying to limit the power of God. This would be contradictory. Thirdly, does my opponent believe that God created everything flat? Everything in a perfect equilibrium? Of course not! He created a beautiful, diverse world. This is also contradictory to my opponent's logic.

So my opponent has made two accusations.
1-I misinterpreted the Bible.
Please tell me where and how! If you provide no alternative, then there is no other option!

2-We have evidence of old artifacts and events.
I have already addressed this. Please see my above argument.

So, both of my opponent's points have fallen. His logic failed him, since it contains falsehoods. I challenge you, opponent, to prove me wrong here. With no case and no reasoning, My opponent's entire argument fails.

Now my argument IS supported. It is supported BY THE BIBLE, something we both agree on as true. How then can my opponent deny the unmistakable evidence in this true and Holy document? My case has excellent logic, and is supported by the Bible. Therefore, it stands strong.

I leave my opponent with three challenges. One, to prove the existence of these extremely old documents. You must prove that they are that old, which is an IMPOSSIBLE task.

Two, you must also prove that God could not have created the Earth how it is today, and that it has changed over billions of years. (Another impossible task) You must limit God's power so that he COULD NOT have done it himself.

And three, Interpret the Bible correctly. You said I incorrectly did this. You did not say how, or when, or where. If the Bible is not being literal when it clearly states the family tree of Jesus, Noah, and others that can be traced, followed, and accurately dated, what IS it saying? If not how old the Earth is, THEN WHAT?

You MUST answer all three challenges in order to win this debate. If unable to do so, you have certainly lost.
Tatarize

Pro

I posted a link to a significant amount of scientific research which fairly conclusively proves that the universe is far older than 4000 years. If the universe were 4000 years old we could look into the night sky and see only a few stars as most of them are significantly further away than 4000 light years. There are cultures and organisms significantly older than this presumed date. Yes, radiometric dating is fantastic and scientifically sound evidence that the age of the Earth is significantly older than 4000 years. Carbon 14 dating only works to about 50,000 years or so any carbon dating of the significant amounts of organics we have within that time range more than proves the point. The methods are fine. Citing one link from a kooky computer scientist at a second rate university is extremely substandard reasoning to suppose that the totality of physicists and geologists in the world are wrong.

I have repeatedly shown there are vast numbers of very good evidentiary reasons to suppose a the universe is significantly older than he claims. Flood basins are significantly different than the Grand Canyon. One would need to be completely demented to suppose that a world wide flood would cause such an artifact.

Also, there is no evidence of humanity being wiped out. In fact, the central part of the United States was populated by a large human population from more than 10,000 years ago. Having come over the Bering strait from northern Asia.

I'm not saying that humanity couldn't be wiped out, rather than humanity wasn't almost wiped out. Clearly that is not true. Nor does this require a flat world or any kind of odd new geology.

My opponent is violating one of his core premises. He is supposing that the Bible is inaccurate. He argues for Young Earth Creationism when clearly that cannot be accurate because the earth isn't young. The Bible would not support a false doctrine, ergo the Bible does not support YEC. This was never denied in any aspect of the debate.

Secondly, my opponent is misinterpreting the Bible and clearly not read the book. He's clearly a Sunday Christian who fails to understand the most basic concepts. For example, he says "... does my opponent believe that God created ... everything in a perfect equilibrium? Of course not! He created a beautiful, diverse world." This is contrary to the most basic elements of Scripture. God did create everything in perfect equilibrium! EVE SINNED AND SCREWED IT ALL UP!

My opponent would have you believe that Christians are backwards and the Bible contradicts reality when everybody knows that to be absolute hokum.

Young Earth Creationist doesn't have a lick of truth and the Bible is truth incarnate. They have nothing in common.

Proving the Earth is old takes the smallest fraction of science, and is widely accepted the world over as truth. Geology, biology, physics, radiometric dating, astronomy, cosmology, population dynamics all establish without a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and the universe is 13.73 billion years old. I've posted a number of links which firmly establish this.

It isn't that God couldn't have created the Earth how it is today, but rather that the Earth is clearly billions of years old. Seriously you want me to accept that the Bible says the universe was created 6000 years AFTER the Egyptians first brewed beer? If you are simply going by God's power, then tu quoque, you are saying that it's impossible that God made a universe much larger and older than you suppose.

You're interpretation of the Bible is clearly wrong because your conclusions are clearly wrong. I mean, if you thought that the Bible said the Earth was flat would you believe the Earth to be flat contrary to all the evidence that it's very much a sphere? In fact, there are some people who do do this and they too are misinterpreting the Bible. The universe cannot be different from how the true interpretation of the Bible says it is, and since the world is older, the Bible clearly does not suggest otherwise.

When the Bible says year or day it could mean anything, perhaps eon or 2.6 billion years.

My opponent never disputed the core of the argument. So long as one accepts that the Earth is older than 4000 years, my logic is not in contention. No part of my argument was challenged outside of the facts. The only question raised is whether there is good scientific evidence that the Earth is older than 4000 years. And there is. QED.

My opponent would have you believe the world is flat because somebody somewhere misinterpreted the Bible to make that supposition. I'm sorry I've heard enough irrational blasphemy from my opponent today. Vote PRO!
Debate Round No. 3
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Sounds about right.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
How about this: "Resolved, God exists." Good enough?
Posted by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Depends a bit on the phrasing but most likely yeah. I'll post a comment in the offered to debate if I have an issue with the given topic.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
This is totally off-topic. Will you accept the debate if I challenge you to one on this topic?
Posted by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
You cannot disprove something which doesn't exist.

You can't prove a negative.

We have exactly as much evidence as we should have for God not exist. Your point is that your previous request was completely silly. This is why the burden is on somebody making a claim. It is for you to prove the existence of God and until that is done, there is no reason to believe in God.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
You cannot disprove something that you cannot see, my point exactly.
Posted by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Delusions are like that. It isn't whether I can absolutely prove the government is not reading your mind with their secret satellites. I know you can prove it because it's crazy.

How can you disprove the existence of leprechauns?
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
How can you disprove the existence of God?
Posted by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Bible.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
So what is defined as false?
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 7 years ago
Yraelz
rougeagent21TatarizeTied
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 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 RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
rougeagent21TatarizeTied
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 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 Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
rougeagent21TatarizeTied
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 ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
rougeagent21TatarizeTied
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 baconator 7 years ago
baconator
rougeagent21TatarizeTied
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 resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
rougeagent21TatarizeTied
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 hauki20 7 years ago
hauki20
rougeagent21TatarizeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
rougeagent21TatarizeTied
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 InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
rougeagent21TatarizeTied
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 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 Galiban 7 years ago
Galiban
rougeagent21TatarizeTied
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