The Instigator
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points
The Contender
vorxxox
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points

There is no Biblical evidence for an young Earth

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 7 votes the winner is...
rougeagent21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,406 times Debate No: 6947
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (7)

 

rougeagent21

Con

I stand in negation. I will allow my opponent to open.
vorxxox

Pro

Hello, and thank you for creating such a debate.

I'm a Christian and everything but geeze, I'm tired of people trying to say that the Earth was only 4000 years old. The Bible doesn't say such an absurd thing. As for the whole thing in genesis about God creating the Earth in seven days, has the thought ever crossed anyone that perhaps we once lacked words to describe extremely long segements of time and space? Did Moses know what a light-year was? No, but if God told him that he lived 7 lightyears away from here and Moses didn't understand, he would say seven ___(whatever is the unit of distance back then). Instead of 7 days, why not think of it as 7 phases? Hmmm? Because people can't think outside the box.

For example, when Jesus says love thy neighbor as thyself, does that literally mean wash and clothe your neighbor and give each of your neighbors a portion of your earnings, and let your neighbor sleep with your wife?

Now, the burden of proof is on you. You have to prove there is evidence for young Earth. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
rougeagent21

Con

My opponent only makes one claim. This is essentially that we mis-interpret what the Bible is trying to say. Instead of actual "days" we are in fact dealing with other time periods, right?

I would disagree. Being that we are both Christians, we believe the Bible to be a source of truth. God intends for us to read the Bible, it is the manual for life. Because he wants us to be able to interpret it, I believe he would put it in terms that we can easily understand. If by "days" He actually meant "light years", then He would be lying through the Bible. The Bible is a source of truth, correct? Therefore, lies cannot be told through it. God meant seven days, when He said seven days.

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.
vorxxox

Pro

To refute your argument

"I would disagree. Being that we are both Christians, we believe the Bible to be a source of truth. God intends for us to read the Bible, it is the manual for life. Because he wants us to be able to interpret it, I believe he would put it in terms that we can easily understand. If by "days" He actually meant "light years", then He would be lying through the Bible. The Bible is a source of truth, correct? Therefore, lies cannot be told through it. God meant seven days, when He said seven days." - Did God Himself write the Bible? Or did people write what they intepreted as God's will? Are people perfect?

Here's the answer to all of these questions: No, Yes, and No. Therefore, how are you mistaking a mis-interpretation with a lie? That's like if I tell you 'The Bears ate the Panthers' and you told your friend 'Oh my god, some wild bears ate some panthers' when really I was talking about a football game, are you necesarily lying, or did you just mis-interpret what I was trying to tell you?

And besides, how can the world be 4000 years old when the first civilization aroused 10,000 years ago (the Urs)

"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"

1. Yes. 2 and 3, no.

Also;

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

This document claims that dinosaurs existed alongside humans. How could humans exist with these things around and live? Now, why the heck are dinosaurs extinct? The Bible gave NO account of the dinosaurs.

This is why I am winning this debate:

My opponent is giving no evidence on how the bible necesarily argues and supports YEC. For what I know, this is another mis-interpretation. Seriously, you have yet to give any PROOF of YEC. Adding up ages of biblical figures doesn't mean we can conclude 'A ha! So the world must be 4,000 years old.'
Debate Round No. 2
rougeagent21

Con

My opponent attacks my first point with this statement: "Did God Himself write the Bible? Or did people write what they intepreted as God's will? Are people perfect? Here's the answer to all of these questions: No, Yes, and No. Therefore, how are you mistaking a mis-interpretation with a lie? That's like if I tell you 'The Bears ate the Panthers' and you told your friend 'Oh my god, some wild bears ate some panthers' when really I was talking about a football game, are you necesarily lying, or did you just mis-interpret what I was trying to tell you?"

Now, my opponent uses the excuse that the Bible was written with human error. There are two problems with this. One, we hold the Bible to be our source of truth on Earth. It is what we Christians live by. Second, God DID write the Bible, through human hands. He laid it upon them what to write. God would not let all of humanity be mislead with human error. So, the Bible IS true, and its evidence is also true.

"And besides, how can the world be 4000 years old when the first civilization aroused 10,000 years ago (the Urs)"

Again, two problems with this. First, it is irrelevant to this debate. We are debating whether or not there is BIBLICAL evidence. Anything outside of the Bible IS IRRELEVANT to this debate. Furthermore, the Urs were not actually present 10,000 years ago. The Earth is not that old, so how could people be there without an Earth? I will prove in a second here the evidence the Bible gives us for YEC.

"This document claims that dinosaurs existed alongside humans. How could humans exist with these things around and live? Now, why the heck are dinosaurs extinct? The Bible gave NO account of the dinosaurs."

The answer to both of your questions can be found in the Bible. Read Genesis 1:29–30, and Job 40:15–24. These passages both describe dinosaurs, and how they co-existed with humans. The Bible both tells of dinosaurs, and their life with humans. These were just a few passages of the numerous ones mentioning dinosaurs in the Bible.

Now, my opponent states that I have provided no evidence.
"My opponent is giving no evidence on how the bible necesarily argues and supports YEC. For what I know, this is another mis-interpretation. Seriously, you have yet to give any PROOF of YEC. Adding up ages of biblical figures doesn't mean we can conclude 'A ha! So the world must be 4,000 years old.'"
No proof? I have given Biblical evidence! Why can't you add up the years? Why not? The Bible is truthful, and accurate. Allowing the calendar changes, we CAN accurately assume that the Earth is around 4,000 years old.

So, I have disproved ALL of my opponent's assumptions, while furthering my own completely. In short, my case stands with evidence, while his has crumpled.

When voting on this debate, you must take the following point into account.

This debate is purely on Biblical evidence. ANY evidence not in the Bible MUST be ignored, as that evidence is for another debate. Who gives Biblical evidence to back up their argument? Who cites the evidence? Leaving you with these thoughts, I conclude my portion of this debate.

"Resolved, there is no Biblical evidence for a young Earth."
Negated.
vorxxox

Pro

:)

First I will refute my opponent's arguments:

You say:
"Now, my opponent uses the excuse that the Bible was written with human error. There are two problems with this."

I actually said human misinterpretation. That's not necessarily error.

"One, we hold the Bible to be our source of truth on Earth. It is what we Christians live by. "

It's not untrue. MISINTERPRETATION.

"Second, God DID write the Bible, through human hands. He laid it upon them what to write. He laid it upon them what to write. God would not let all of humanity be mislead with human error."

One again. It's not error. It's misinterpretation. For example, in the part of the Bible where Moses was with God as the burning bush, Moses asked of his name and God said "I am who I am" He said his name was indecipherable by humans. Yet, in Hebrew, "I am who I am" makes up the initials YHWH, so they came up with Yahweh. Then later, we came up with God. Wait a second, I thought his name was Yahweh. Wait another second, I thought it was indecipherable. Or maybe, just maybe, back in then they lacked such a word as 'God'. Or, maybe, his name was "Am who I am" and they thought that was a statement.

"The answer to both of your questions can be found in the Bible. Read Genesis 1:29–30, and Job 40:15–24. These passages both describe dinosaurs, and how they co-existed with humans. The Bible both tells of dinosaurs, and their life with humans. These were just a few passages of the numerous ones mentioning dinosaurs in the Bible."

Ok. Why are they extinct. I mean ALL of the dinosaurs. All like 10,000 species. And you can't blame it on the Ark because Job is a long time after the flood. That's because the Bible doesn't talk about dinosaurs.

'Furthermore, the Urs were not actually present 10,000 years ago. The Earth is not that old, so how could people be there without an Earth?'

Oh I'm sorry. That was the Sumerians. Still.

Here's my conclusion:

As things are translated and translated, or information is handed down from one person to the next, it's likely to be modified simply from misinterpretation. We humans misinterpret a lot. Like I said, they could have simply lacked the words to describe 4.6 billion years of Earth history in 7 phases as they once lacked to words to describe God. My opponent keeps a blind eye to this argument and justifies himself by saying "God would not let humanity be mislead with human error." He let's a lot of things happen for the sake of free will. Thousands of innocent people die every day. God doesn't interfere with our every action, otherwise we wouldn't really be free, life would be meaningless, God wouldn't be very glorious and everything bad that happened would be God's fault.

"Resolved, there is no Biblical evidence for a young Earth."
Affirmed.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Absolutely. Thats the whole point of this site. Challenge me anytime.
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
doh! thats "potato = patata."
Sorry for taking up space on your debate but can't send you a message.
Peace.
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
Hi Rouge, thanks for responding!

I've read a couple of your debates and always find them interesting, would love to debate you sometime. (Jesus as son of God? Portrayal of Satan/The Devil in the Bible? Biblical evidence for the trinity?)

Just so you know, I'm not a Christian or an Atheist but enjoy reading the Bible from time to time as I think it's an amazing piece of literature.
I've read all of Job and I think it's one of the strangest and most interesting books in the Bible, partly because it's a mixture of prose and poetry.

I meant no offense by referring to "Jewish myths and legends" which is how I view the Talmud, the Old Testament, the Apocrypha etc.

Just out of interest would love to have some more references for dinosaurs in the Bible too, was there a different verse from Genesis that you felt described dinosaurs?

Oh and I also love etymology and coincidences in language! Interesting that you say 'papa' means 'potato.' When I eat Tapas I always have patatas bravas. [http://www.freedict.com... : patato = patata] but maybe there is a connection; pater, potato ? .....hmmm.. interesting.

Hey and I just realised 'tapas' is an anagram of 'pasta' as well!
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
I apologize for the Genesis verses, I mis-typed. As for Job:

"that's Behemoth, a mythical creature of Jewish legend"
Actually, if you would read ALL of the verses, it said that God created Behemoth. Myth? Jewish legend? It seems that the Bible says that Behemoth ACTUALLY EXISTED! OH MY!

http://bible.logos.com...
(scroll down to Job 40 and 41. 41 also talks about Leviathon)

"the counterpart to Leviathan, also described in Job as a herbivore [" he eats grass like a cow"]"
Well, yes, so what? There were plant eating dinosaurs. Namely, Behemoth.

"and often equated with a hippopotamus. (Behemoth means Hippo in Russian.)"
And "papa" means" potato in Spanish. Let me ask you this: Does a hippo move its tail "like a cedar tree?"

Well I think that about sums it up. Interesting field, dinosaurs. Fascinating what God can make.
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
Hi guys, just wanted to pick up on one of Rouge's points :"Read Genesis 1:29–30, and Job 40:15–24. These passages both describe dinosaurs"

From Collins Good News Bible (Today's English Version):

Genesis 1:29-30: [29] I have provided all kinds of grain and all kinds of fruit for you to eat; [30] but for all the wild animals and for all the birds I have provided grass and leafy plants for food" - and it was done.

Nope no dinosaurs there.
Maybe Rouge was thinking of a different passage? or maybe his Bible is very different to mine?

As for the Job verses, that's Behemoth, a mythical creature of Jewish legend, the counterpart to Leviathan, also described in Job as a herbivore [" he eats grass like a cow"] and often equated with a hippopotamus. (Behemoth means Hippo in Russian.)
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
No, I'm good. Thanks though. I won't be debating here for a while so I can catch up on school and such.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
What about this statement: "Because he wants us to be able to interpret it, I believe he would put it in terms that we can easily understand. If by "days" He actually meant "light years", then He would be lying through the Bible."
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
By the way, I love that debate with the guy who can't even use grammar, much less write a complete sentence. Good luck with that!
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
That is too explicit. Yes, I know I said it. It was probably a little rash given that the Bible has been interpreted numerous ways. That would not be so much a debate as it would be opposing translations. Nice try though ;)
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
Hey rougeagent21, challenge me to a debate about this statement: "one can only see YEC as the only option regarding the Bible"
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 8 years ago
TFranklin62
rougeagent21vorxxoxTied
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 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
rougeagent21vorxxoxTied
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 Mohrpheus 8 years ago
Mohrpheus
rougeagent21vorxxoxTied
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 girlforgod21 8 years ago
girlforgod21
rougeagent21vorxxoxTied
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 8 years ago
rougeagent21
rougeagent21vorxxoxTied
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 8 years ago
Riley09
rougeagent21vorxxoxTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by vorxxox 8 years ago
vorxxox
rougeagent21vorxxoxTied
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