The Instigator
Spud
Pro (for)
The Contender
GoOrDin
Con (against)

Young Earth Creationism is bunk

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
GoOrDin has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 961 times Debate No: 98663
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)

 

Spud

Pro

GoOrDin presented this in a comment to me:

"Spud, when you ugh, find some time. We should have a discussion maybe in the forums, or you can man up and challenge me.

I am A Young Earth Creationist. and My profile here is already substantial reference links to expand upon my limited character count.

I bury people."

Rules:

- Max 3 arguments at a time (for example if you want to present evidence for a global flood, a young universe, or a Young Earth, you can present 1 argument for each category. This makes it so that I'm not inundated with refutations to make.

To quote an episode from Rick & Morty, "Show me what you got."
GoOrDin

Con

Welp, It is a pleasure Spud. to Everyone, noticing I am back Hello.
thanks for accepting. I'm wasting characters

All assertions that Earth is not young, based on what are acknowledged as "scientific" findings, are in fact unsubstantial claims that are not supported by the evidences used as a reference to their validity. IE. Carbon dating, without relative references cannot determine that the half life of these molecules is 5000 years, which is the references point they are starting from concerning the deterioration process (all dating methods follow this actual, exact same example of Inconclusive Analysis, Which are then used in reference to one another. Which is like saying: "this cat is a dog. I know, because this giraffe is not a dog, this lion also is not a dog, and this rhino is not a dog." as evidence the cat is a dog). Furthermore, IE. Continental Drift: has been measured for how many years? Specifically and Factually it has only been measured since satellites and high-speed internet ~leading one to presume the data is inconclusive as that, BUT also, the continents factually are divided, so A docked ship is unsettled by forces acting upon it: It's not pulled anchor and left the port. (I have more. but 2 more Arguments to jump 2) [continued... dinosaurs+eurosion]

The Idea that there has been MILLIONS and Billions of years of Rape, murder, tyranny, cannibalism, pedophilia, raiding, bigotry, insolence, impudence as well as well all manners of grotesque concepts and attributes of social misconduct IS NOT JUST hard to stomach, It's impossible to account for the evolution of intellect NOT just in this scenario, WHERE idolizing womanizers is degenerating, and Selfish ambition is incapacitating to the psychological development, in addition to selfishness, plight and jealous inhibiting intellectual qualities, BUT on account of the fact that Eating requires desire to eat to sustain life, and a Desire to eat is dependant on the capacity to fulfill that function defies evolutionary principals.
More over, DNA cannot be a precursor to a cell, according to scientific evidence, nor a cell obviously a precursor to DNA. They are co-existing elements which are very susceptible to all forms of hostility biotic and abiotic, preventing Any inefficient "organism"(of abiotic qualities** LOL) from developing at any rate into a multi celled organism: Which on a microscopic scale factually doesn't exist in the real world. All living organisms, are not developing DNA of peculiar new features, but are productive living cells which in no way resemble an evolving substance. Meaning Science does not support the claim that life originated from a developing organism (any number of new found organisms does not indicate evolution from such phenomena). [this subject cont.: the development of physical & intellectual characteristics & Social phenomena.]

5047 - characters left. thanks for the long post capacity. You are not shy.

So, Because I won't leave you hankering over characters yourself, I'll go back and touch on these additional points I hoped to carry through later rounds, instead of leaving you fighting over 3 argument topics.

DINOSAURS:
Logical cause of Extinction, provided:

ate eggs. ate babies. ate moms. ate pregnant moms. ate dads. ate while during mating season. ate during all seasons of the migration. ate for sport. ate for falix symbols. destroyed habitat. kill when dinosaur defends habitat. failed domestication: poor diet; disturbed breeding habits; over burdened; diseased; sex diseases from mix breeding during low populations; crushing eggs from fear; killing dinosaur from fear; disturbing migration patterns; food shortage from human involvement with environment and prey; killed during war as mounts and machines; as well as natural catastrophes, including drought from human's diverting rivers, or burning forests.
Aside from the fact that Carbon dating is fraudulent and can easily be proven to be through basic scientific analysis of the functional practice AND it's basic formula - the bones were subject to Firepits for eating, weathering, burial, submersion, rotting and pestilence, rendering any assertion of Dating methods inconclusive on various levels.
And Dragon myths.
Fire being metaphors, but also plausibly because T-RX was designed to suit the world's environment by Eating actual Wood - and having been corrupted by human habits ate meat out of self defence, prerequisite and Corrupt observations.

The Development of Social Phenomena:
My father is an atheist, and he was quite avid throughout his life to tell me that, "without the scriptures. human's would still be bashing each other over the heads with stones." And as I became inducted into the work place, Taken away from all the juvenile imbeciles who in their Na"ve state of mind think that their reasoning and logic exceeds not just their predecessors but Millions of other people and Thousands of years of recorded scholars and philosophers who provide for them a secure education, food supply, media, clothing, technology and legal protection, I was there introduced to men who were left to their own devices. This is what I Observed: They idolize womanizers; they do not take care of themselves physically because of enmity, pride and jealousy or arrogance; they endorse corrupt agendas to create conflict, or to promote themselves in their aspirations of ill-conduct; They fund cartels illegally, crashing our food/cloths/utility economy by purchasing drugs, as well as legally by spending observed amounts of time drinking and smoking and watching SPORTS, WHILE they cut the grass with non renewable resources; mean while, complaining about the establishment which provides us with stability (the Banks, and bureaucrats and wealthy elite) when without them we would never - as proven by the fact that we don't without their money, which isn't Man power and resources and preparation, but is in fact the only thing that Motivates these imbeciles, WHEN the problem is how bigoted, lazy, rude and incompetent they are. AND WHAT I NOTICED is a reoccurring FACT about these people: Those are ALL and ONLY the Atheist Population [with an exception of the -with non-renewable resources - grass cutters]. ANd their psychological condition which not only endorses that behaviour and perspectives is one of inexcusable contempt against God, whom they do not believe in, For not making them Rich Womanizers, because they want to be such.
The point is that, The social structure, defies ABIOTIC development of DESIRE, ANGER, PLEASURE, IDEOLOGY and ASPIRATION on a molecular level. When the "abiotic substance of the person" in itself lacks such drive to manifest those traits, and cannot satisfy the prerequisites to do so, prior to the entire body dying: such as defecating.

Erosion:
Historically, enough phenomena has been recorded to accommodate all geological accounts of erosion sufficiently to describe the current state of the world. In fact the current state of the world defies the principals of multiple millions of years of global events, through myriads of examples of preserved fossils, even sea fossils on Mountains, which would indicate that a slow and not rapid progression of land movement would have lead to the Surface fossils being eroded long before snow and ice covered the stones (glaciers would have grinded them into dust, instead of positioning them).

Fun Fact: Argument 3
Aliens seeding earth predicament.
If aliens seeded earth, and are responsible for our religions they promise us in historical accounts to: Return and slaughter all atheists, adulterers, insolence and corruption FOR NOT loving the God whom is holistically everything in existence and endears all things which are satisfying to the grand sum of Creation, with no temple to worship in nor flesh to bow before, ON ACCOUNT of defying the principals of Righteousness's authority and Grandeur, as well as it's Life sustaining Qualities and ordinances.

2 arguments = Sc+Bi
Debate Round No. 1
Spud

Pro

No probs Con.

I don"t get your first paragraph. You start off with talking about the age of the Earth, and in the very next sentence, you go on about carbon dating? Why on Earth (excuse the pun), would you use carbon dating as an example when talking about the dating the Earth? Carbon dating is *not* used to determine the age of the Earth. In a perfect world where contaminations don"t take place, there wouldn"t even be carbon in rocks, so that renders your example utterly void. As you said Carbon-14 has a half-life of approx. 5000 years so please tell me why you think carbon-14 is used to date the age of the Earth when it"s half-life is that low? This would mean that when we get into the upper limits of carbon dating (45,000 -50, 000 years), dates significantly higher than that limit would be effectively useless. Uranium-lead dating is what was used to determine the age of the Earth, not carbon dating.

Far as I"m aware, samples are sent off to labs where they can be tested. Relative testing can be used to determine the age of a specimen, but that does not automatically mean that is the *only* way to determine the age of a sample. See source [1] for further details on radiocarbon dating. Like I said, I don"t get why we"re discussing this in the first place; if you want to talk about the age of the Earth, discuss Uranium-lead dating, not carbon dating.

Another point where you"re going to have to explain further is your continental drift thing; I"ve got no idea where you"re going with that mate; you got a source I could read so I can determine what you"re talking about?

If you"re speaking about the human species in regards to raping, murdering, tyranny, cannibalism etc. for millions of years, then you would be wrong, There hasn"t been millions of years of all that because humans haven"t existed for that long. We"re a fairly recent species in stark contrast to others; earliest forms of human life can be traced back to 200, 000 years (see sources 2 & 3)

Whilst it is true that most cells do have DNA, there are some cells in the human body which don"t have DNA. Below quote from Wikipedia under heading, "Mammalian erythrocytes" [4]

"Because of the lack of nuclei and organelles, mature red blood cells do not contain DNA and cannot synthesize any RNA, and consequently cannot divide and have limited repair capabilities"."

The very foundation of your argument is wrong, since mature blood cells don"t have DNA. I"ve also come across the claim that mature hair cells don"t have DNA either, but the websites I came across claiming that, are not even worth bringing up.

I"ve got no idea where you"re heading with your dinosaur extinction stuff. Are you really refusing to accept that the Chicxulub crater even exists? Also, if you think dinosaurs lived with humans in the past, you"re kidding yourself mate.

Scriptures or not, humans have always been a particularly violent and vicious species, regardless of religious affiliation. You just have to look to Vlad III of Valahia for that. Even defending Christendom doesn"t excuse the Forest of the Impaled. Nor the slaughter of innocents in the Siege of Acre for that matter either. Your paragraph on the development of social phenomena is too wordy; you typed a lot, but really didn"t say anything worthwhile.

*Sigh.* Funnily enough, that sea fossils on mountain was an "argument" nearly turned me into a YEC 5 or 6ish years ago, when I was still a neophyte to debating. Sucks to be you though, because I"ve since learned from my mistakes in that time. I"m assuming you"re talking about Himalayacetus for this argument, which was named because it was found on the Himalayas. What you are neglecting to mention is that particular specimen is dated to be 3.5 million years old, and of course that was before the Indian Plate collided with the Eurasion Plate [5], which in turn means that the Himalayas weren"t even there at the approximate time of 3.5 million years ago. This mountain range is recent; only 50 million years old.

I really don"t care about aliens either, so don"t know why you"re bringing that up. Too much Ancient Aliens perhaps?

Bro, you said you bury people in a debate so because of that, I didn"t bother giving you a warning that I"m fairly competent at discussing science, even though I don"t even work in a field of science. I"m sorry to say it, but you"re most certainly not going to be burying me with these arguments. I didn"t even have to crack out too many journals for this one; I only cited one journal. The rest of your comment can be refuted with even the most basic of Google searches. Even though I am slightly disappointed with the calibre of Con"s arguments, I thank Con for the debate we are having.

Sources
[1] http://www.radiocarbon.com...
[2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[3] http://www.nature.com...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] https://www.geolsoc.org.uk...
GoOrDin

Con

So you don't have any evidence, Young Earth Creationism is bunk. ??? seeing as you didn't provide any.
I expect you to provide evidence next time.

So. You wanted to improve upon my reference to Carbon dating, by providing an alternative. How little regard you have. One major point about Carbon dating, other than conditions being unaccounted for, was that there was no comparative information to prove the findings were accurate. How can you determine that C-14 has a half life of 5000 years, when we have been studying C-14 for less than 40. Uranium? was it. has a longer half-life? With less conclusive supporting data to indicate that is scientific or fact. Hmmm...

The point is, bud: Bunk is something entirely unsociable with Creationism.
and you do have Burden of Proof. and I have provided plenty, indicating you have nothing.

And don't say I have nothing. I do. and I WILL get to it. But as a debate, we had 5 rounds. and You wasted yours stipulating over what the Audience has to evaluate, all the while 'Making absurd accusations that I provided nothing' as though that actually diminished my contributions.

This is my argument this round. YOU have NO evidence, criteria, or MOtive to assert that ASSUMPTION, that Young Earth Creationism is Bunk - simply because you haven't seen the Proof yet. Because NO ONE can possibly think that something that is not a fact is a fact: IE. Creationism is scientifically debunked by science.

(Now if you want to introduce me to a super Philosopher, who can defy and over come millennia of the wisest people from each and every culture on the planet {this is where the funny part about aliens came in [seeing as, their supposed "higher authority and wisdom' was a holistic God with no flesh nor temple. Aumubla, chaos, Allah, Krishna, Creator. etc. ]} that would be great. Because, I've only heard of na"ve brats who think their intellect somehow exceeds our moderators and ancestors alike.)
Debate Round No. 2
Spud

Pro

No actually. This is not about providing an alternative. Providing an alternative implies that both dating methods would be acceptable to reach the age of the Earth, and this is not the case. Improving your argument about C-14 dating and its applicability, it is the understatement of the century come to think of it as well. Carbon-14 is not used to date the Earth because it simply *cannot be used to date the Earth.* Please tell me how you think the Earth is dated to be 4.5 billion years old when carbon dating reaches its upper limits around 45, 000-50, 000 years? And also please tell me how rocks are dated with carbon dating? Technically speaking, there shouldn't be any carbon in rocks, because they're not organic material! Now, does this mean that there will never be carbon in rocks? No. Carbon-14 can enter rocks through contaminations, but there shouldn't be any carbon in rocks, without contamination occurring. These are both rebuttals I brought up in Round 2, and you have actually ignored these glaringly obvious holes in your argument, because they completely refute your misconceptions about dating methods. Even worse is that some creationist sources actually refute your argument (see below quote) [1]

"The most well-known of all the radiometric dating methods is radiocarbon dating. Although many people think radiocarbon dating is used to date rocks, it is limited to dating things that contain the element carbon and were once alive (like fossils)."

Let me repeat that. Creationist websites even refute your argument. I should point out that I am in no way supporting AiG, because their website is an absolute train-wreck, but when one of the most incompetent websites at discussing science, is able to refute your own weak misunderstandings of how dating methods work, you know your argument is seriously, seriously bad. Uranium Lead dating on the other hand, *is* used to date the age of the Earth, as Uranium 238 " Lead 206 has a half-life of 4.47 billion years [2].

"One major point about Carbon dating, other than conditions being unaccounted for, was that there was no comparative information to prove the findings were accurate. "

Please specify what you are talking about in regards to above quote. If you do not give me specifics, I have a low chance of even knowing what you're referring to.

Also please tell me that the below quote is a joke:
" How can you determine that C-14 has a half life of 5000 years, when we have been studying C-14 for less than 40."

I will give you the benefit of the doubt there and say that you're pulling my leg, and you're not actually being serious. Because if you are being serious, then may Stendarr have mercy on me.

You have provided plenty of arguments yes, but just because you have given a fair number of arguments, that does not mean said arguments are competent. I also don't think I wasted my round; I sufficiently responded to your arguments and pretty much skewered them.
"This is my argument this round. YOU have NO evidence, criteria, or MOtive to assert that ASSUMPTION, that Young Earth Creationism is Bunk - simply because you haven't seen the Proof yet. Because NO ONE can possibly think that something that is not a fact is a fact: IE. Creationism is scientifically debunked by science."

Now, in regards to the above quote, I've seen all manners of absolutely ridiculous arguments from Young Earthers. From "polystrate trees," which apparently support a world-wide flood according to many YEC's, to a mass grave of Medusae in Wisconsin to supporting a world-wide flood, to YEC's using "kinds" to classify differing populations of organisms. I would like to remind voters that for me to present arguments that other YEC's have made in the past, that Con has not made, would be misleading and dishonest for me to do so. Therefore I will only present arguments against claims which Con has made. For me to do otherwise would be dishonest, as I don't even know what arguments Con would to support Young Earth Creationism.

I would like to remind Con that we are discussing science, not philosophy; I am not talking about a deity in this debate because I really don't care for such discussions anymore. I find them boring now, and as a result, I have found much more interesting topics to debate; such as science. And because Young Earth Creationism has constantly butted heads with science in the past, refuting creationist arguments has become a past-time for me. A discussion about god is therefore not relevant to this topic, and subsequently I would like to see the topic of aliens & God to be dropped from this conversation, as it is irrelevant.

Sources:
[1] https://answersingenesis.org... (I'm not citing AiG as a credible source; see para. 2 for info).
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
GoOrDin

Con

Well again you failed to explain how or why YEC is Bunk.

But, I never said, Carbon dating was specifically used to date the age of the earth. Carbon dating is used to suggest, unscientifically, without foundation, that things are 10 000 -100 000 years old, without any relative references to support those assertions. IE. dinosaur bones. trees. fossils.

Carbon dating is an unreliable reference to science proving things are ages at all, for reasons I explained. ie. Simply because you cannot substantiate those claims: the science is non existent.
You cannot assert C-14 can indicate any age older than a mere 2000 years based upon reliable fact based sources, and anything after that can have radical changes in deterioration. PLUS, carbon dating doe snot account for variations in weather, wear, or burial technique or condition... etc etc.
Radiation scanning, is even less scientific because they don't know what they are looking at, what to expect, nor the situations. There is nothing supporting the claims that these are sciences, Besides cigarette, booze, porn and drug cartels buying academic influence and funding documentaries to travel to tropical places and get into Russia and china.

Your entire argument thus far is elusive. and your arguments against me were out-right hog-wash.

I wouldn't even bother putting facts before you. Because you begin to rant, with completely pointless, flawed and outright redundant remarks. So I'll save them fro next round and prove your a Troll with the accumulative 3rd strike when your next round falls flat on top of your other shadow
Debate Round No. 3
Spud

Pro

I have done that all throughout this debate mate. All I have done here is let you present your arguments for Young Earth Creationism, and then I've repudiated them.

Lol. Yes you did.

"All assertions that Earth is not young, based on what are acknowledged as "scientific" findings, are in fact unsubstantial claims that are not supported by the evidences used as a reference to their validity. IE. Carbon dating, without relative references cannot determine that the half life of these molecules is 5000 years, which is the references point they are starting from concerning the deterioration process (all dating methods follow this actual, exact same example of Inconclusive Analysis, Which are then used in reference to one another."

You used carbon dating as an example, which followed your sentence talking about the age of the Earth. You most certainly talking about carbon dating when you were talking about the age of the Earth. That quote is verbatim from text in Round 1. You are either lying, or you simply don't remember what you typed.

Con barely touched on my refutation for Round 3, and I am thus inclined to believe that Con does not wish to partake in this debate anymore. Because of that, I won't touch on any of Con's other "arguments" he has put forward in round 3. If Con does not wish to continue, then I will not flood him with refutations to his text in round 3, as that would make it so that Con wouldn't be able to address points I brought up in Round 2 & 3. If Con does not wish to continue, then I ask Con to comment "Forfeiting round" when it comes time for him to post his argument. Out of fairness, I will also do this if Con takes this route. If Con does not wish to do this, then I would like to suggest he present 3 more arguments for Young Earth Creationism in Round 4, and we can continue from there, since all other avenues of talking points has now been exhausted. This is merely a suggestion; Con does not have to take the latter advice however.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Spud 10 months ago
Spud
@Plexon_Warrior Lol, feel the same way., Though I didn't get the notion that GoOrDin actually thought that dinosaurs breathed fire; more so that humans couldn't domesticate a T-rex and other dinosaurs, and were thus killed off due to humans hunting dinos and occupation of their habitat. I don't know which option is more insane to be honest.
Posted by Plexon_Warrior 10 months ago
Plexon_Warrior
It's a real shame that this debate had to end as such. It should have gone on. You presented well, Spud. I raise my cupcake to you. This was thoroughly enjoyable to read through it all. I had quite a few good laughs. I will forever think of a T-Rex breathing fire at some lonesome DNA with out a cell.
Posted by Spud 10 months ago
Spud
@CosmoJarvis Thanks for that, appreciate it. Yeah, that is a bit of a shame. I would have liked to have seen this debate go into the voting period, but I guess there's nothing that can be done about it.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 10 months ago
CosmoJarvis
You've presented a great argument. It's a shame that the debate is "broken," so-to-speak on the account that GoOrDin forfeited the round.
Posted by Spud 10 months ago
Spud
@GoOrDin I successfully repudiated the rebarbative tripe that you spread all across this debate, as I have explained previously. I have skewered your insipid notion that carbon dating was used to date the Earth (which is what you implied, as I showed in round 4). The murder and tyranny thing is ridiculous; I pointed out that our species has only been around for 200, 000 years; not your millions of years that you're alluding to. And even if that were true, the fact that you can't stomach the thought of it, does not constitute a viable argument in of itself, for very obvious reasons. I refuted your claim cells cannot exist without DNA and thus cannot be a pre-cursor, as I pointed out that mature red blood cells do not have DNA. Despite all of these refutations (and more) that I have put forward, you have the effrontery to come back one month later and claim in the comments that I'm leaning on "pre-conceived notions" and neglected to consider your arguments? Either you're too ignorant to notice that I have ripped your arguments to shreds, or too stubborn to admit your short-comings. If there's anyone who needs to sit back, make a cuppa and re-read the debate, it's you mate.

Also, it would be beneficial if you learned what constitutes as bigoted behaviour. Unfortunately for you, eviscerating your arguments does not constitute a bigoted attitude. Nice try though.

And to the other commenters, on this thread - I raise my cuppa to you.

"Why do you party grandpa?"
"To get riggety riggety wrecked son!"

May Rick & Morty be forever in our hearts.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 10 months ago
CosmoJarvis
Wubba lubba dub dub indeed.
Posted by Heirio 10 months ago
Heirio
P.S

Wubba lubba dub dub!
Posted by Heirio 10 months ago
Heirio
*looks around the room*
*stares at email*
What the hell did you notify me about this for?
*looks at comment*
Oh.

"You averted your attention from logic."

I don't know the context, but this here is called being illogical.

"which I the definition of bigotry"

No it isn't.
Bigotry is generally defined as intolerance to other viewpoints.
Now, as I don't know the context, Spuddy may have been bigoted (I doubt it), but "averting attention from logic" is not bigotry, it is intellectual dishonesty; it is illogical.

(Reading the context now)

By your own standards, you are the bigoted one.
Spud has provided evidence and refuted you.
You have failed to do so.

I recommend a mirror.
Posted by GoOrDin 10 months ago
GoOrDin
You didn't repudiate anything. You averted your attention from logic; which I the definition of bigotry. You leaned on your preconceived biases and neglected to consider the contend presented. I hope you try to re-read the argument one day.

In a dabate you are not obligated to 'Win'. That is bigotry. This sin't an argument. In a debate, You are meant to Only come to Evident Clauses and to never Present Fallacy in the from of arguments.
Posted by Spud 12 months ago
Spud
@Ragnar That would be a good idea actually. I think I might take a bit of a break from debating on here though; just finished one 3 days ago and really cannot be bothered to start another debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.