The Instigator
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
weather
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

There is no Biblical evidence for Young Earth Creationism (YEC)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 5 votes the winner is...
rougeagent21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,448 times Debate No: 7116
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (5)

 

rougeagent21

Con

I stand in negation. As my opponent is pro, I will allow him to open.
weather

Pro

No where in the Bible does it say that Satan possessed the woman, who was made separately at the time according to some religions, and bore Adam a demon that made God scrap the whole thing and start over.

Genesis 1:1-2 says "1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And 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." This simply means that the earth was there, but without form, Like when you dig clay out of the ground, it doesn't come out as a nice bowl, or a perfect sphere with a magnetic field, but it is there. there is no mentioning of light before Genesis 1:2 so there was no way this could of happened, and if someone just got rid of everything be fore that, how can we trust the Bible? How do we know we didn't come form some nonsensical process of natural selection? We know so because of faith. if You don't have faith in the bible than why aren't we debating evolution? The bible says to have faith in God, who wrote the Bible through the apostle, so if we cant trust the Bible, than we cant trust that there is a God?

In the end it is just a theory that can be accepted or rejected.
Debate Round No. 1
rougeagent21

Con

rougeagent21 forfeited this round.
weather

Pro

I was under the influence during the last post of round one, so scratch that.

Genesis 1:2 says that the earth was formless and void. That can be interpreted that this is post Armageddon, and we really are in old heaven, but Satan got in, and now God had to start over. God than began again and moved Adam over because he was the only one who didn't sin in the last world and God saw he was lonely and put him in a sleep ad made a woman. and so on from there.
Debate Round No. 2
rougeagent21

Con

I will first address my opponent's claim, and then move on to the evidence.

My opponent offers a single verse, and says we could have mis-interpreted it. This is not the case. When reading the Bible, you must read everything in context. What my opponent fails to present to you is the preceding verse: Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." http://www.biblegateway.com... Key words in there? Beginning, and created. These contradict everything my opponent has said. First, his idea of post-Armageddon is thrown off, since it explicitly states that God created the heavens and the Earth, IN THE BEGINNING. Second, God CREATED them. They were not already there, but rather were formed new.

Now, on to the cold, hard evidence that is easily found in the Bible.

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.

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.
weather

Pro

Now when you say "The first day was roughly 4,000 years ago" is that impending the short day theory (6 periods of 24 hours) or the long day theory (6 periods of hundreds of years) was used, because it doesn't say how long the earth was void, dark and formless, the man could have survived, we would be able to see, we could find a way to survived the cold its possible.

yes it is at least 4000 years of 24 hours, but there could be thousands more.

the world could have been like Narni in the Lion, which and the wardrobe where the white which (devil) took over and and than Aslan (God) came and fixed everything and made it how we are, and than he made light.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
I'll have to look into it. I think I might understand what you are trying to say more if I could talk to you in person. Oh well.
Posted by RedDawnJensen 7 years ago
RedDawnJensen
Switzerland is full of geniuses. They all live there and eat their perfect chocolate, which they open with their sharp knives while loooking at thier 'very accurate' timepieces. Also, they are smart enough to still be neutral in all wars even though they were right in the middle of both world wars!

But they do have one weakness: after all this neutrality, they forgot how to be militant. They were too busy bieng smart. They mustve realized this though, because they tried to catch up with the rest of the world by building the one and only swiss army tank, which was an epic fail. But theyre so smart theyll catch up and start cranking out superweapons. Let this be a warning of the evil power of switzerland.
Posted by RedDawnJensen 7 years ago
RedDawnJensen
How much radiation there was?

Well its a combination of these things as far as I know:

1 Smart people looking at the atoms of elements and guessing just by the nature of the atom how much radiation it would emit. I have no idea how they do this. Maybe they just say 'hey this element here looks like it has this type of structure so we can assume so-and-so'. Then they use big supercomputers, frizzle their hair (frizzled hair gets you extra street cred among physicists), and scribble jargon on chalkboards so that we think that it takes them a long time and a bunch of resources and calculations to figure it out. Or maybe they do have to do all that stuff to figure it out.

2 As uranium decays, it turns into lead. Actually, a certain kind of lead. Not just any lead, but '206Pb' lead. I just now looked the name up because I wanted to know just what the name was. I don't know what the '206' means, but I'm pretty sure it has to do with having a few more particles than usual or something of the sort. Anyhews, by looking at how much uranium to lead there is, you can see that it has decayed halfway, or a third, or whatever. Of course, this explanation is waaaayy simplified and there is actually a ton of other stuff that the person doing this would factor in like the different types of decay and the other stuff. So, if you have the radiation measurements, you know the rate of decay, and if you look at how much lead there is compared to uranium, you know how far along it is since it started. So in theory you could use those to things to see when it started to decay.

But then the lava can interrupt these things sometimes by mixing rock or stretching or diluting it, and so readings of radioactive dating sometimes gets messed up. But whenever that happens to the smart people, the smart people just say "uhhh... over nine thousand?" and the normal people are all like "heh heh, that's funny" and the smart people scamper away to Swizerland, the genius land.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
You still can't answer the question of: "How do we know how much there was to start with?"
Posted by RedDawnJensen 7 years ago
RedDawnJensen
Well normally because of the halving and not steady decay, you would be able to tell by the graph thing how much radiation used to be there, but of course the whole thing that ruins the nice little rules of radioactive dating is MOLTEN HOT MAGMA, excuse my caps loc. Without molten hot magma, the half lives would all be perfect duplicates of each other when viewed on a graph, and you would be able to take a few readings with a gieger counter and say "this rock is exactly how old". But magma oozes through, spills onto, seeps through, melts and mixes rock with other rocks untill there is no technically pure rock left, and that means that you cant get a perfectly accurate assumption of what the half life of any given substance is because it might have been mixed with another rock and cooled. This could cause uranium to be mixed with another element, lets say 50/50 of uranium and the other element. This would cause the uranium to appear half as radioactive. Of course the geology guy doing this stuff would probably tell that it isnt pure. But if it was 99/1, then it wouldnt be able to be detected. The geologists cant get past this, and they have to average out all the data and hope theyre not too far off.

Dont get me wrong, I'm glad theres magma, otherwise hawaii would stop rising and all the hawaiians would drown, and there goes the price of pinapples.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
I know how half-lives work. There are several problems with what is assumed by them. One, the decay rate is not always constant. Two, you cannot know how much of an element there was to start with. Sure, we can estimate how quickly it decays, but we do not know how much there was originally. Therefore, we do not know how far back to count.
Posted by RedDawnJensen 7 years ago
RedDawnJensen
You would know how radioactive it used to be, because elements decay radioactively not at a steady rate, such as a car going ten miles per hour, but at a halving rate, that is, it becomes half as radioactive every certain amount of time.

Now what if you dont know the half life of an element? You can use the age and the level of radiation to find out the half life.

But what if you dont know the age or the half life, and want to find out the age? Then what you do, is measure the radiation level over time. Because elements decay not at a steady rate, but at a halving rate, they all have the same angle of slope. Therefore, if you have taken at least three measurements, no matter how far apart they are, you will be able to see what the angle of slope is, like my little graph made out of "L"s below. The only thing that changes the angle of slope is time and the amount of radiation that the element started with, so if you have your three measurements and you know how far apart they were taken, you can find out the age of the angle of slope and therefore how much radiation the element started with. So now you have how much radiation you started with, how much it looses per given amount of time, and how radioactive it is at three points in time on the graph so you are able to se how old it is.

Sorry if I lost you somewhere in that big tangled mess of words, but half lives is something that is hard to express in writing.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
"Since geologically pure uranium is half as radioactive as it used to be, and it takes about 4.5 billion years to loose half of its radiation, then one must assume that the world (or at least the uranium, but I find it insulting that uranium was created before people) must be 4.5 billion years of age."

How can you possibly know how radioactive it used to be? Were you there? Really, how would you know?
Posted by RedDawnJensen 7 years ago
RedDawnJensen
Hey, I just realized something:

Uranium has a half life of about 4.5 billion years, that is, it takes 4.5 billion years to loose half its radioactivity. but, 4.5 billion years later, it will still be radioactive because it will loose half of its radioactivity and therefore still be 1/4 radioactive. 4.5 billion years later, 1/8 radioactive.
L
L
L
L
L L
L L
L L L
L L L L
1 1/2 1/4 1/8
Therefore, measuring radiation of uranium over time (it takes a long time- several years I believe, because it takes so long for uranium to loose a detectable amount of radiation) can not only show you how radioactive it used to be, but can also show you its half life (4.5 b) and even how old it is.

Since geologically pure uranium is half as radioactive as it used to be, and it takes about 4.5 billion years to loose half of its radiation, then one must assume that the world (or at least the uranium, but I find it insulting that uranium was created before people) must be 4.5 billion years of age.

so there are two interpretations of this:

1. the planet is 4.5 billion years old

2. uranium was created 4.5 billion years ago, and God must've been proud of himself and was all like, "y'know, I think that'll be enough for right now" but after 4.5 billion years the uranium became stale and was only half as fresh so he said "I think Ill make a new solar system to put this in." and that's how we got here.

But if you really want to be freaked out listen to this:

Has anyone here ever played Simcity? you know after a while sometimes you just figure that a city isn't going anywhere or isn't that great, and then you just have fun messing around with it?

Well, lets just hope God hasn't ever played SimCity.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
nicely put ;)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
rougeagent21weatherTied
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 Riley09 7 years ago
Riley09
rougeagent21weatherTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 RedDawnJensen 7 years ago
RedDawnJensen
rougeagent21weatherTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
rougeagent21weatherTied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
rougeagent21weatherTied
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