The Instigator
sherlockmethod
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

YEC arguments pose problems to Judeo-Christian beliefs as well as science.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
sherlockmethod
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,660 times Debate No: 8297
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

sherlockmethod

Pro

YEC is a political, cultural, religious movement that places the belief in a Judeo-Christian God in falsifiable terms and supports the position using pseudoscience mixed with selective biblical interpretations as a basis for support.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
This article will suffice, as a rough form, with the above statement from me.

I define Judeo-Christian belief as a religion, maintaining many sub-groups, supporting the omnipotent God of Abraham as depicted in the writings, and oral histories, of the Hebrews. I will accept other definitions (hence the five rounds). I will be using the NIV of the Holy Bible and some texts by Jewish scholars to support my position, in respect to Judeo-Christian beliefs. The scientific texts I use will vary depending on my opponent's points of contention.

Stipulations:
1) I am not arguing the existence of the God of Abraham, or any supernatural being, just that the YEC position poses problems in reference to a belief in the God of Abraham and the understanding of science.
2) The importance of a belief in the God of Abraham as opposed to an understanding of science is not the topic of this debate.
3) InfraRedEd and Sadolite, please do not accept, as I have debated both of you and wish to face a different opponent.
4) I understand that I am biting off more than I can chew.

I am allowing 5 rounds due to definition arguments and stipulations from my opponent. My opponent can simply accept, leave the argument blank, and I will start the pro position in full in the second round allowing for 4 full rounds of debate. Wish me luck as I will need it.
rougeagent21

Con

This should be fun! Go ahead PRO.
Debate Round No. 1
sherlockmethod

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and look forward to learning from it. My original argument contained too many contentions so I shortened it to 2 points concerning Judeo-Christian beliefs and 1 point concerning science after defending the first part of the resolution. I did this because the space limit would make a response difficult. I had 8 points for each so hopefully this edit will provide a more manageable debate.

Contention 1:
YEC is a political, cultural, religious movement.
YEC as a political movement - YEC's have tried to establish a foothold in politics for close to a century. The political movement gained the most steam in the late progressive era 1920-1925 prompted by a national anti-evolution crusade led by William Jennings Bryan, William Bell Riley, and John Roach Straton. (Trial and Error, Ed Larson. Updated addition, 1989. p30) (see also, the Scopes Trial - most texts will be sufficient). Since this time, YECs have posited countless amount of legislation attacking evolution and attempting to add creationism, creation science, and intelligent design into the public schools using legislative bodies, most have failed:
Epperson v. Arkansas http://straylight.law.cornell.edu...
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education http://www.talkorigins.org...
Edwards v. Aguillard
http://supct.law.cornell.edu...
Kitzmiller v. Dover
http://ncseweb.org...
Recent legislation
http://www.google.com...
After each loss YECs change strategies and attempt to remove the YEC position from the legislation due to First Amendment concerns, but when cross examined many refuse to state their belief concerning the age of the earth (see the Kansas Science Trials) Some of the participants went so far as to describe the earth as being anywhere from 6,000 to 4.3 million years old to avoid the question.

YEC as a cultural movement - YEC also operates outside of the public schools, encouraging home schooling, and is attempting to have their universities listed as accredited schools.
http://ncseweb.org...
http://ncseweb.org...

They created their own peer review publications.
http://www.answersingenesis.org...

They provide materials for home schooling.
http://www.answersingenesis.org...

In addition, YEC is presented as a world view in opposition to secular study. YEC place absolute belief in the inerrancy of the KJV of the Bible and accepts it as the only authority. http://www.answersingenesis.org...
ICR states very clearly:
" Each believer should participate in the "ministry of reconciliation" by seeking both to bring individuals back to God in Christ (the "Great Commission") and to "subdue the earth" for God's glory (the Edenic-Noahic Commission). The three institutions established by the Creator for the implementation of His purposes in this world (home, government, church) should be honored and supported as such."
http://www.icr.org...

YEC as a religious movement - this is self explanatory as the YEC position relies on the KJV of the Bible as the basis for its belief. I can find no source maintaining a belief in a 6,000 year old earth outside of a religious context, and the 6,000 year old earth and the 6 days of creation are two of the defining factors of the YEC movement.

YEC is a political, cultural, religious movement.

Contention 2:
Problems to Judeo-Christian Beliefs.

1)YEC places the belief in the God of Abraham in falsified, pseudoscientific terms.

A champion of YEC, Dr. Henry Morris, will not accept any form of theistic evolution.
http://www.icr.org... any evidence supporting evolution is wrong or misapplied. http://www.icr.org...
Henry Morris and the ICR place the whole of Christian belief in line with a belief in a 6,000 year old earth, 6 days of creation, immutability of "kinds", a world wide flood, and the tower of Babel. All of these principles rely on falsified theories if viewed as actual events. Once a person reaches the collegiate level, many of the principles of critical analysis and the plethora of evidence refuting such events place God in the center of discredited history and science. If Judeo-Christian beliefs are presented in the manner, they will fall.

2)YEC ignores the history of the Hebrew people and the foundation of scripture to maintain ignorance of the subject.

YEC has to maintain an inerrant KJV of the Bible. Why? Many Christians do not speak the language of the earlier texts and the various methods used to bring about the KJV require an intellectually honest person to realize interpretation of various texts was necessary to write the KJV. Does this make the KJV wrong? No, but reliance on a word for word reading to be used as a scientific and historical text of great accuracy requires knowledge of foundation, and the foundation does not support such a reading.
The Hebrew people maintained beliefs in oral tradition prior to writing. "Judaism existed a thousand years without an authorized scripture." (The Story of Scripture, Daniel Jeremy Silver. p14) One of the most compelling aspects of the Hebrew God is that he is one. Monotheism served as a uniting principle for the scattered tribe surrounded by civilizations with polytheistic beliefs. Understanding these concepts is vital to the Judeo-Christian belief. An understanding of the writings, and the oral traditions that led to them, emphasize important aspects of the KJV of the Bible and why some texts were deemed scripture and others discarded. Ignoring these aspects of Judeo-Christian beliefs removes a key foundation of the faith replacing actual events with selective, self serving, interpretations to fit a presupposed world view. A religion cannot survive if foundational aspects are ignored.

Contention 3:
Problems to science.

1) YEC requires scientific ignorance.
In order to maintain a YEC position in relation to the vast amounts of cosmological, geological, and biological evidence refuting it, requires misinformation and blatant lies. If a scientific law does not fit the presuppositions of YEC then the law is rewritten and contrary evidence ignored. I can find no better example than the Creationists' version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. When creationists are told the 2nd law pertains to closed systems, they respond simply - no. I share Dr. Robert Pennock's dismay when he writes, "The plaque on the wall at the ICR's museum simply adds the claim that increase in entropy applies not only in closed systems but in open systems too. What is one to make of such an argument?" (Tower of Babel, Pennock p80) Many people do not know, nor care, about most scientific theories and laws; when presented with misrepresentations of these laws by trusted church members and fellow Christians, acceptance is easy. YEC thrives in such environments and must be addressed there. (see previous debate concerning YEC debates in public forums http://www.debate.org... ) YECs do not exist in a vacuum. They vote, they run for public office, school boards, etc. They pose problems for science education, as a coherent reading of the evidence does not support their position.
rougeagent21

Con

rougeagent21 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
sherlockmethod

Pro

I still maintain the Pro position and do not wish to present further arguments until my previous contentions are addressed. Con is a good debater, and we still have more rounds; he can recover.
rougeagent21

Con

Thank you for your confidence PRO. This round will be brief, but focused. I look to clear up some of the more vague points. I will present arguments in the next round.

==YEC is a political, cultural, religious movement==

Forgive me, but I fail to see how this furthers the claim that YEC is a problem to Judeo-Christian beliefs or science. So a political group wants ID in schools, does that show any problems in ID? Please show why this presents problems.

==Problems to Judeo-Christian beliefs==

1- God in falsified terms
Once again, I do not see a real problem here. A man believes the Earth is 6,000 years old. Has this theory ever been proven false? No, and it never will be in the foreseeable future. Were any of us there to watch? I think not. You assume too much when you say these are false claims. Further, doesn't this actually help the negative side? The fact that a Christian believes in a young Earth clearly supports YEC.

2- YEC ignores the history of the Hebrew people and the foundation of scripture.
Although my opponent is not extremely clear on what part(s) of the Bible he is referring too, I will assume that he is referencing Genesis, the first book of the Bible? Please clarify this.

==Problems to science==

1- YEC requires scientific ignorance
I follow what you are saying here. I will argue this in the next round.

After hearing back from my opponent, I will present the wholeness of my arguments as well as my rebuttals in the next round. Until then, I wish him luck. Thanks again for sticking with me. School is now out and I should not miss another round.
Debate Round No. 3
sherlockmethod

Pro

I thank my opponent for responding.

Con asked in reference to YEC as a political, cultural, religious movement,

"I fail to see how this furthers the claim that YEC is a problem to Judeo-Christian beliefs or science. So a political group wants ID in schools, does that show any problems in ID? Please show why this presents problems."

1) I defined YEC as a political, cultural, and religious movement and supported the statement to show the movement is more than just an interpretation of the KJV of the Bible. I was simply defining the movement not furthering the claim. I did not posit this contention to show its harm to Judeo-Christian beliefs or science. I detailed the definition to thwart potential arguments based on the unimportance of YEC. My opponent is certainly free to write, "YEC is a political, cultural, and religious movement, but so what?" I was supporting my extended definition from the wiki article, nothing more. A review of debates on this site indicates definition support is necessary. If my opponent has no problem with YEC being defined as a political, cultural, and religious movement, in addition to the rough wiki definition, then I will not address it further.

Con stated in reference to placing the God of Abraham in falsified terms,
"I do not see a real problem here"

2) I certainly do! Placing the Judeo-Christian beliefs in the center of pseudoscience and false history is a problem as both, pseudoscience and false histories, require deceit for support. My opponent is welcome to offer arguments showing YEC is not pseudoscience and the 6,000 year old earth is not false history and not deceitful, but I can find no logical argument showing how any belief system based on deceitful premises can maintain itself; once the deceit is shown, the belief system, as a whole, becomes suspect. Please note, I made very clear in Rd 2 the fact that YEC will not divorce a belief in God from a belief in a young earth. If the young earth falls, then belief in God falls with it according to YEC principles.

In relation to a 6,000 year old earth, my opponent writes,
"Has this theory ever been proven false? No, and it never will be in the foreseeable future."

3) I stated in the previous paragraph that my opponent was welcome to offer arguments showing YEC is not pseudoscience, but this statement does not allow such an argument to be presented if my opponent wishes to be consistent. I completely agree with my opponent when he says the 6,000 year old earth has never been proven false. The claim is not falsifiable as it is based on acts by a supernatural deity originating and existing outside of space/time. My opponent confirms this with his further contention of "never will be in the foreseeable future." I will further this one and say it never will be at all as an omnipotent being can change any and all evidence at will. Describing unfalsifiable claims as theories while claiming their basis lies in the fact they cannot be proven wrong, is the heart and soul of pseudoscience. The natural evidence provided by YEC, which is falsifiable, has been falsified. No cosmological, geological, biological, or chemical evidence, when viewed in full, supports a 6,000 year old earth. The belief, when based on natural evidence, is pseudoscience.

Once YEC is removed to a belief without physical evidence, science is no longer helpful. The theologians must step in as the belief hinges on a very specific and selective reading of the KJV of the Bible. I will address this in item 5

"Were any of us there to watch? I think not."

4) This is common argument posited by YEC and specifically Ken Ham's movement. See Answers in Genesis; they present this contention in most of their articles so I see no need to cite each one. I fully and unequivocally agree no human was present at the formation of the universe or the formation of earth or any planet for that matter. If humans were present then science has gotten a lot wrong. My response is simple – so what? Eyewitness testimony is not necessary to prove facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Examine the existence of atoms for a perfect example, as we have never SEEN an atom.
Sam Bowen does an excellent job of explaining this point when asked whether we have seen an atom and his explanation applies firmly to this contention:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov...
(I chose this source as it is written in layman's terms.)
Even though we did not see the formation of the earth, there is so much evidence showing the earth is much older than YEC claims; science simply cannot support the belief. I honestly can't see how any reasonable person can support such a contention.

My opponent asks for clarification and states in reference to the Hebrew people and scripture,
"Although my opponent is not extremely clear on what part(s) of the Bible he is referring too, I will assume that he is referencing Genesis, the first book of the Bible? Please clarify this."

5) I am referring to the Bible as a whole, not Genesis alone. The book of Job, and Isaiah fall victim to YEC as well as Genesis. Job in respect to the placement of dinosaurs and humans existing at the same time, http://www.answersingenesis.org...
and Isaiah, specifically Isaiah 40. http://www.icr.org...

YEC takes this passage and applies it to show the prophets knew the earth was a sphere well before science realized the spherical earth. Why? I will let Father Bruce Vawter explain why such readings are necessary for YEC:

"The Bible is no longer a source-book for religion, it is primarily a source of knowledge, sacred and profane….It is instead the one and only source of every human affirmation in every conceivable field of such affirmation, in whatever area of affirmation – social, religious, the totally secular areas of profane history, chronology, current scientific hypotheses of processes- in short, a divine encyclopedia of all relevant knowledge dropped down from the heavens as the only righteous guide to life." (Is God a Creationist? P75,76; speech originally given at the Conference on Creationism in American Culture and Theology in 1982)

Furthermore, in direct reference to Isaiah 40, Professor of Comparative Mythology and the History of Religions at Gustavus Adolphus College, Conrad Hyers, provides a phenomenal context to Isaiah 40, which if viewed as a scientific principle must ignore the history surrounding it

"If one really wishes to appreciate more fully the religious meaning of creation in Genesis 1, one should read not creationist or anticreationist diatribes but Isaiah 40. For the theology of Genesis 1 is essentially the same as the theology of Deutero-Isaiah. They are also bothe from the same time period, and therefore part of the same interpretive context. It was a time that had been marked, first, by the conquest of most of Palestine – save Jerusalem- by the Assyrians under Sennacherib….The last vestige of Jewish autonomy and Promised Land had been overrun, The Holy City had been invaded ….Those taken into Babylonian captivity, as well as those left behind, now had even greater temptations placed before them to abandon faith in their God….[B]efore the might and majesty of the great empires of the day, a prophet dared to stand forth and declare what Genesis 1 in its own way also declares [Isa. 40;12,13] Here too is a poetic affirmation which no literalism can reduce to its own scales and balances, and no symbolism or imagery exhaust. [Isa. 40, 21-23]
To YEC this is heresy, as Isaiah was simply telling people the world was a sphere.

I await my opponent's argument concerning the problems to science.
rougeagent21

Con

Alright then, I believe my opponent has cleared up a few fuzzy terms, and I am ready to begin my arguments.

==PROBLEMS TO RELIGION==

The "problems" that my opponent addresses here are scientific, rather than religious. These will be addressed later under the scientific problems section. For now, we shall stick to religious problems.

The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything.

Is there anything wrong with figuring out the age of the earth this way? No. There is nothing to indicate the genealogies are incomplete. There is nothing to indicate God left anything out. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates in any way that the world is older than 6,000 years old.

The genealogy of Jesus is recorded in two passages of the Gospels: Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–28. Each traces the ancestry of Jesus back to King David, to show his fulfillment of prophecy regarding the Christ.

Genealogy of Jesus according to Luke-
God
Adam
Seth
Enosh
Cainain
Mahalalel
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech
Noah
Shem
Arphaxad
Cainan
Shelah
Eber
Peleg
Reu
Serug
Nahor
Terah
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Pharez
Hezron
Ram
Amminadab
Nahshon
Salmon
Boaz
Obed
Jesse
David
Nathan
Mattatha
Menna
Melea
Eliakim
Jonam
Joseph
Judah
Simeon
Levi
Matthat
Jorim
Eliezer
Joshua
Er
Elmadam
Cosam
Addi
Melchi
Neri
Shealtiel
Zerubbabel
Rhesa
Joanan
Joda
Josech
Semein
Mattathias
Mahath
Naggai
Hesli
Nahum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Jannai
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Eli
Joseph *
Jesus

The belief of a young Earth does not contradict Judeo-Christian beliefs. On the contrary, it actually stems from them. We come to a 6,000 year old Earth through the genealogy of Jesus. YEC agrees with religious beliefs.

Given the resolution, my opponent must prove that there are problems to Judeo-Christian beliefs AS WELL AS SCIENCE. Therefore, he must prove problems to science AND religion. If he can only do one or neither, then I have fulfilled my duty as CON. Please keep this in mind as you read the debate.

==Problems to Science==

My opponent claims that creationists ignore scientific evidence. He emphasizes the second law of thermodynamics. This basically states that the entropy will increase in a closed system. I believe my opponent either misunderstands entropy, or YEC. The Bible says that chaos is ensuing, and the Earth is deteriorating. This completely agrees with the second law of thermodynamics. "Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Behold, evil is going forth From nation to nation, And a great storm is being stirred up From the remotest parts of the earth." Jeremiah 25:32 Please offer more problems, because there are none here. Now, lets look at the places in the Bible that actively support modern science.

Cosmology/Astronomy

Time had a beginning 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, 1 Corinthians 2:72
The universe had a beginning Genesis 1:1, 2:4, Isaiah 42:5, etc.3
The universe was created from the invisible Hebrews 11:34
The dimensions of the universe were created Romans 8:38-395
The universe is expanding Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5,
Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah
51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah
12:16
Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe (refutes steady-state theory)Genesis 2:3-47
The universe is winding down and will "wear out" (second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death"-maximum entropy) Psalm 102:25-278
Describes the correct order of creation Genesis 1 (see Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation)
Number of stars exceeds a billion Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:229
Every star is different 1 Corinthians 15:4110
Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groupsJob 38:3111
Light is in motion Job 38:19-2012
The earth is controlled by the heavens Job 38:331
Earth is a sphere Isaiah 40:2213 Job 26:1014
At any time, there is day and night on the Earth Luke 17:34-3515
Earth is suspended in space Job 26:716

Earth Sciences

Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity describedGenesis 1:2-9, Psalm 104:6-9, Proverbs 3:19, Proverbs 8:27-29, Job 38:4-8, 2 Peter 3:517
Water cycle described Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10, Job 36:27-2818
Valleys exist on the bottom of the sea 2 Samuel 22:1619
Vents exist on the bottom of the sea Job 38:1620
Ocean currents in the sea Psalm 8:821
Air has weight Job 28:2522
Winds blow in circular paths Ecclesiastes 1:623

Biology

The chemical nature of human life Genesis 2:7, 3:1924
Life of creatures are in the blood Leviticus 17:1125
The nature of infectious diseases Leviticus 13:4626
Importance of sanitation to health Numbers 19, Deuteronomy 23:12-13, Leviticus 7-927

Any problems there either? Absolutely not. The Bible affirms modern science. I can only see agreement between the Bible, YEC, and science. Therefore, I can only negate the resolution. Thank you.

==SOURCES==

http://www.missiontoamerica.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.godandscience.org...
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
http://bible.cc...
Debate Round No. 4
sherlockmethod

Pro

I will deal with my opponent's contentions and conclude my argument. I see no need to add more as my opponent has not refuted my previous points. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and look forward to future debates with him.

My opponent states in reference to problems to religion, "The ‘problems' that my opponent addresses here are scientific, rather than religious. These will be addressed later under the scientific problems section."

Point 5 in the previous round, which my opponent ignored, deals with the religion problems. Please note, I showed how YEC abandons the history of the Hebrew people so as to fit scientific principles into the Bible. I addressed this point twice in this debate and my opponent chose not to refute it. This was one of the main contentions I presented. I cannot rebut any response he puts forth in his last round. Voters should be aware of this as my opponent has had ample opportunity to deal with this matter.

My opponent states, "The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything.
Is there anything wrong with figuring out the age of the earth this way? No. There is nothing to indicate the genealogies are incomplete. There is nothing to indicate God left anything out. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates in any way that the world is older than 6,000 years old."

My opponent copied this material directly from a YEC website, but did not research the problems associated with turning the KJV of the Bible into a chronology for all of time itself. I addressed this issue in my last round (pt 5, Father Bruce Vawter quote) The chronology put forward by Bishop Usher does not address the time and location of the Hebrew people and their propensity to deify their ancestors much the same as the polytheists did in their chronologies. I know how the YECs get the 6,000 years; the problem is using the Bible as a pinpoint accurate history of all time. John Lightfoot refined the seventeenth century Bishop's work and concluded the Creation took place on October 18, 4004 B.C. Funny enough, historian E.T. Brewster commented, "Closer than this, as a cautious scholar, the Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University did not venture to commit himself." (The Tower of Babel, Pennock, p10.) My opponent never addressed this point and he had opportunity to do so.

My opponent further states in reference to the 6,000 year timeline the chronology of Jesus' ancestors, "The genealogy of Jesus is recorded in two passages of the Gospels: Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–28. Each traces the ancestry of Jesus back to King David, to show his fulfillment of prophecy regarding the Christ."

My opponent would have done well to read the next sentence in his provided source, "The two genealogies are remarkably different, however, disagreeing completely on the lineage from Joseph, the putative father of Jesus, back to David. Matthew begins at the patriarch Abraham and traces a descent through David's son King Solomon, omitting several generations along the way. Luke proceeds [sic, error in original] upward, through David's son Nathan, continuing all the way to the first man, Adam."
The differences in this chronology, as the wiki states, have been a source of controversy. I do recommend Augustine's writing on this subject [listed as source 7 on the wiki; De consensu evangelistarum (On the Harmony of the Gospels) beautiful work], but I must note – YEC ignores him as well.
My opponent lists a chronology, but nothing more. This was not necessary as I am aware of how time is extrapolated from this chronology, but my opponent never addresses the errors associated with it. Those errors were mentioned in the source he provided.
My opponent states, "My opponent claims that creationists ignore scientific evidence. He emphasizes the second law of thermodynamics. This basically states that the entropy will increase in a closed system. I believe my opponent either misunderstands entropy, or YEC. The Bible says that chaos is ensuing, and the Earth is deteriorating."
I ask voters to consider this comment when judging conduct. Unless supported, I do not claim my opponent misunderstands concepts presented. Disagreeing with a concept is not misunderstanding it. I consider this type of argument to be in bad form. I have not, under any circumstances, misunderstood entropy or the YEC use of it in this debate. My opponent, at least, agreed that the 2nd law applies to closed systems; I showed in my previous arguments that YEC does not agree with this principle. YEC applies the 2nd law to show evolution is not possible and to show how the fall of man is in direct support of this law. YEC must have the 2nd law apply to OPEN systems and this is simply false. Upon return from my vacation, I will happily have a debate concerning the 2nd law and the fact entropy IS NOT THE SAME as disorder. http://www.entropysite.com...
Even Answers in Genesis refutes the claim presented on my opponent's source http://www.answersingenesis.org... , and it is listed as a refutation on the same website my opponent pasted to his argument http://www.godandscience.org... .
Scientists correctly reminded the YEC position that without entropy Adam and Eve could not have digested food. Yet my opponent sources a website that simply ignores this evidence; a phenomenon I explained very clearly throughout this debate. The correlation of the fall of man, entropy, and decay as related to the 2nd law has been falsified. They are not the same.
My opponent quotes Jeremiah 25:32 from a site that lists many translations of the Bible. I urge voters to review this verse and ask, "What does this have to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?" Evil going forth from every nation has nothing to do with a scienctifc law stating that "heat does not flow spontaneously from cold to hot objects; it is impossible for an engine to convert heat to work with 100% efficiency and; the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." (The Nature of Science, James Trefil, p399) I don't see it, but maybe I misunderstand the whole concept.
My opponent copied verbatim a list of scientific principles from the Bible. Again, this was not necessary as I am fully aware of how YEC extrapolates science from the KJV of the Bible. I listed two examples myself! Why add anymore without addressing the two I presented? How does my opponent deal with my reference to Job and Isaiah? He lists the very points I made in the previous rounds, and nothing more. He took Isaiah 40 and applied it to a spherical earth, and I need to add at this point that a circle is not the same as a sphere, and ignored, as YEC does, the context of the verse within the historical and cultural situation of the Hebrews.
The Con position's only arguments were direct pasted from YEC sites after an unnecessary clarification round. He never addressed my main points, and he had ample opportunity to do so. Upon review, I have shown YEC poses problems to both science and Judeo-Christian beliefs for the aforementioned reasons given in prior rounds. The Con position merely restated the YEC position, which was really not in controversy in this debate. I know what the YEC position holds. Pro met his burden and did so with ample source material from scholarly work. Con was not able to refute the points provided. Con can only add to his stance in the final round and can do so without my rebuttal. I hope voters do not think my stance harsh, but one round compiled from cutting and pasting a website should not hold against the material I provided. Con is a capable debater and should have fared better than his position here. The Pro position holds.
rougeagent21

Con

Here we go, final round. Unfortunately, I believe there have been a few mis-communications throughout the debate. I will clear these up during this round. As my opponent is so eager to tell you, I will not make new attacks on his arguments, but re-emphasize my own. Lets begin.

An important factor in the debate is the wording of the resolution. To uphold his position, PRO must prove problems to Judeo-Christian beliefs AS WELL AS science. If I can show that just one of these has no problems, then I will have fulfilled my duty.

== Religious Problems ==

I believe this has been addressed by both sides adequately. Please read the previous rounds for more information. This matter can be sealed quickly though. Please realize here that YEC was founded from Christianity/Judaism. The reason that there are no problems is because they are the same thing! Christianity supports YEC.

== Problems to science ==

Even if you want absence of contradiction in religion and science, I can reinforce this point as well. My opponent ignores the extensive list I have provided. He continues to bring up entropy. Although he claims I have poor conduct, I was only stating that I think there was a misunderstanding. THIS STILL SEEMS TO BE AN ISSUE. Here is the definition of entropy from dictionary.com:a numerical measure of the uncertainty of an outcome; "the signal contained thousands of bits of information" My opponent brings up examples such as Adam and Eve being able to digest food. This is completely irrelevant to YEC. As I have stated, YEC SUPPORTS my opponent's "problem," therefore making it an affirmation. There is no contradiction here, and no problems posed. He goes on to challenge the verse I have provided. Go ahead, look at other translations, in fact I encourage you too. All translations should relay the same information.

In conclusion, I have reversed all "problems" raised by my opponent. It is rather obvious that there are no religious problems, given that YEC was founded by them. Further, all scientific "problems" raised have been disproved. Thank you for your time and patience.

YEC arguments pose problems to Judeo-Christian beliefs as well as science.
Negated.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Obviously. As I stated, I am trying to get better. RFDs help me improve. I am not trying to get another "win" for my list.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
You lost already....
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Earth to voters...
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Anyone...
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Thanks Lex. Can everyone post RFDs please? I am always looking to improve and I cannot do so simply by the site telling me "you lost." Thanks guys.
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
Thank you for the RFD, Lex. I have been on vacation and maybe I should have asked the ghosts of Savannah to give me debate points instead of the winning lotto number - I did not win that either, lol. That city, I must admit, is beautifully ... mischievous. I am confident the vote will change once others decide to look at the debate, as Con did not do well. He is a solid debater, but I did take this one. We will see. Thank you again for taking the time to go through a long debate.
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
This was a very tricky debate and shouldn't be judged too rashly.
Pro has three arguments going for him: (1) YEC beliefs force scientists to accept an unfalsifiable position, (2) limitation of consideration of Christian beliefs to the KJV forces Christian's to ignore religious history, including earlier Bibles and even original texts (Dead Sea Scrolls, for example), and (3) by exposing religious beliefs to falsification, YECs expose their faith to falsification.

The third argument is open to a value debate - YECs may desire that their faith is exposed to falsification. The other two arguments are not however: Pro has proven that a young earth proposition is unfalsifiable. Being able to identify true and false suppositions by observation is essential to empiricism, which in turn lays the foundation of science. Pro succeeds in showing problems with science.

Pro posited a conjunctive argument. Pro must prove YEC also 'poses problems' for Judeo-Christian beliefs (plural). Not all Judeo-Christian beliefs arise from the KJV. Pro states that YEC argues from KJV, and that religious scholars argue outside of it for support of their 'Christian' beliefs. Con does not address this concern, instead claiming that YEC is simply an extension of one existing belief. He fails to see how one belief can pose problems for others sharing the same theological heritage. Pro's contention is never refuted. Therefore, the resolution is affirmed on both fronts.
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
Someone took it this time. I will respond in the morning.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
sherlockmethodrougeagent21Tied
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 TFranklin62 8 years ago
TFranklin62
sherlockmethodrougeagent21Tied
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 Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
sherlockmethodrougeagent21Tied
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 Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
sherlockmethodrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
sherlockmethodrougeagent21Tied
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