The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

Young Earth Creationism is telling lies to make Money, nothing to do with God?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,890 times Debate No: 39148
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)




Every facet of the teachings of Young Earth Creationism is indeed False.
Technically, they are Frauds, yet the legal system does not intervene and charge them as it should.
Because they hide under the cloak of Religion.
Truthfully, Young Earth Creationist leaders are deliberately pushing outright lies concerning science to make lots of money from deceiving those that want to believe that their Lies are true.

They make a huge amount of money from deceiving those in the US Bible belt and others.
The Creation Museum is proof alone of the massive amount of money that publishing deliberate lies can produce.

Don't take my word for it:
Here's a very good summery of Creationist Teachings:

Young Earth Creationism has been condemned by most major Christian groups.
It has truly nothing to do with Christianity, for starters, it is completely Old Testament based, with no real support from Jesus Christ.

It makes a complete mockery of Christianity and denies everyday knowledge of Science.
YEC is evidently and definitely, just a money making concern.
Making money from production of DELIBERATE LIES and false CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
Young Earth Creationist Leaders should truly be Convicted Of Deliberate Fraud.
As well as Receiving Money by Deception.


This is not a joke, and this is not trolling. However, I would like to save the poor Creationist soul from being outright humiliated in this debate. Instead, I am an evolutionist here to argue with this premise. YEC (Young Earth Creationism) is a popular thing in the United States, and I do not believe these poor blokes really want to deceive you.

I will be arguing that though Creationism is scientifically wrong, it is not outright deception for the purpose of monetary wealth. These Creationists truthfully believe in everything they say. There are many Creation Scientists who, though out of their field, study and look for evidence for the Young Earth Theory.

Take for example, Kevin and Eric Hovind. Two very good preachers that go around attempting to push Creationism on America. In many places they succeed in their mission. Others, they do not. However, they fully believe in their mission to spread what they call the truth. They believe that Evolution is wrong because of the Myths that exist about Evolution, from the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the "Missing links."

It is obvious that their science and arguments are wrong, but does that make them liars and deceivers? Let's look.

de"cep"tion [dih-sep-shuhn] Show IPA
the act of deceiving; the state of being deceived.
something that deceives or is intended to deceive; fraud; artifice.

Here we see the definitions of "deception". In the Second definition of it, we see that it must be intended to deceive, or be fraud. Is that what Creationists are doing?

If you look at Eric Hovind, son of Kent Hovind, it is not deception that drives him but faith in his belief that God created the universe.

be"lief [bih-leef] Show IPA
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

He believes this because he was told to believe in this. Because he was indoctrinated into the belief. Now, he simply tries to help other people like him. On his website he says this:
With 95% of the Christians I meet unable to defend their faith in God, the Church is in trouble. We want to teach people to "know" and "defend" their Creator.
"Eric Hovind

He is not trying to deceive his followers, but help them through this life and keep them on the straight and narrow, give them someone to look up to in the fight against what they perceive as direct attacks on their beliefs, their identities. He reinforces their faith in God as Creator and so they buy his books, attend his seminars, and take him at face value. They need him to help substantiate their claims in a world that has in the last 200 years turned sharply against them. The inerrant word of God is the foundation for their life, values, and identity. This also goes for the Hovinds. They viciously defend it and attempt to discredit anything that goes against them.

While some people may take advantage of their faith and use them for personal gain, others strongly believe in their cause and will shut their eyes and ears to any evidence that they cannot refute, believing everything is an attack by Satan. These people are not liars or deceivers, but they are believers. Simply uneducated believers.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank You Jake for taking the other side of the debate:
I'm Certain you will give me a very hard battle:

Though I'm not actually attacking the Rank and File Creationism believers.
I'm attacking the underlying concepts and Leadership of the Young Earth Creationist movement.

The ones you are protecting are just the poor naive Sheep that are the Victims of this deceptive confidence game to rob them blind of their hard fought incomes.
It appears Con likes to play the conscientious Shepherd! :-D

Those rank and file YEC sheep are only the pawns in the chess game.
The fault in YEC, lies in the entire basis of the belief system.
Those pawns have little knowledge of science and the education system has let them down or they were never exposed to genuine education from parents who chose to home school them in YEC dogma, to which there is little hope for the latter of ever understanding science properly.

THE Authors of YEC literature, the false Scientists, the ex-Scientists that turned to producing False Scientific YEC literature and those that Prey on YEC believers funds to fill their own pockets and create commercial buildings like the Creationist Museum to draw even more money from the pockets of poor misled believers.

Yes Con: I Feel As Sorry For The Poor, Naive, Misled Believers As You, And The Government, Along With The Legal System, Should Strongly Tell Those That Are Being Deceived, That They Are Deceived. They Should Also Jail Those Who Are Deliberately Telling YEC Lies For Money, For Criminal Fraud. To Send A Big Message To Believers To Get Out Of It.
Though The YEC Leadership Is Allowed To Blatantly Lie And Rip Off Those Clients You Defend!


Sagey, you aren't staying on topic. You attack the science but not the Creationists themselves. These leaders are the ones you are challenging, not their science.

1) You never attacked any of their leadership. I provided a very controversial Creationist name. The Hovinds are very prominent "leaders" of the Creationist belief.

2) All you have done is attack creationism rather than the creationist leaders you disdain.

3) I have already claimed that creation science is wrong, but what is in question is the character of Creation scientists and the most you have done is attack using 2 Fallacies:

A) The straw man fallacy. You say Creationist leaders are deceiving their followers, but offer no examples of explicit proof to a creationist leader purposely lying to his followers.

B) You use the over-generalization fallacy. You assume all Creationists are lying to their followers rather than "most" or "some"

Until you can prove that many Creation scientists are intentionally lying for the sake of monetary gain you have failed to carry your burden of proof.

I extend all of my arguments as none of them were refuted.
Debate Round No. 2


Con States: "You attack the science but not the Creationists themselves. These leaders are the ones you are challenging, not their science.
In order to attack the leadership, firstly I need to ascertain that their pseudo-science is Fraudulent.
I an Accountant was caught falsifying clerical records or publishing falsified accounts, they would be legally charged with Fraud and often imprisoned.
The same should go for deliberate falsifying of scientific records and publishing (deliberately) falsified Science.
Technically it is the same crime.
Ken Ham, John Morris, Andrew Snelling, Ray Comfort, Answers-In-Genesis, and Living Waters should all be investigated and charged with willful Scientific fraud for the fraudulent extraction of monetary gain through deception of unwitting Individuals.

Thereby, closing a large chapter on a deceptive practice that has plagued the US for over 60 years.
A chapter that was making the United States appear as one of the most naive countries on Earth.

Charging the Leadership of Young Earth Creationist Frauds would send a long awaiting message to all such Fraudsters, that the world is tired of putting up with Nonsense being used for the purpose of Fleecing Innocent Victims of their Hard Earned Money.

LOL :-D~ Enjoy!


I would first like to go through you sources.

First off, that interview between Mr. Dawkins and that vile idiot Bill O'Reilly is not proof that Creation Scientists have intentionally lied, or misled their followers.

Your next source is a book detailing how their claims are wrong in the Geological world. Still, no proof that Creation scientists are intentionally lying to their followers.

Your YouTube link? Nothing but a link to Aaron Ra's channel. I will enjoy viewing that later, but once again cannot be used as evidence against the Creation Scientists.

Next, let's look at why them using false science is not fraud.

When you look at this video, you see that the creationist uses myths and assertions that require faith. He rejects Evolution and continues to make "predictions" and talks about the bible. His very good public speaking skills and well developed arguments pretty much destroy the scientists, despite the fact that the Creationist is wrong. You can see that Kent (the creationist in the video) firmly believes everything he is saying. This is not intentionally lying. In all, this is ignorance with a microphone, and that is all Creationism is.

You see the same thing when you look at Henry Morris's "A Scientific Case Against Evolution."

Creation "science" is merely poking holes in today's understanding of the world in a futile attempt to wipe the threats against their faith away. There is no real science behind it. They look at evidence and decide what to conclude based on that evidence. However, their belief in the bible not only leads them to believe it supports creationism, but continues to make them attack what they call a fraud! Once again, they are not intentionally lying. Instead, they are taking evidence and turning it to support their own theories. Since they honestly fully believe the bible, all evidence they see will fit to support it.

Again with the generalization, but this time you name people without evidence to back it up

Now that we see Creation science isn't lies, just arguments from ignorance, we have to move on to your list of names. The problem I have with this list is that it in no way helps your argument. You just assert that they need to be tried for deception because they teach fallacies of science. You provide no evidence that they are INTENTIONALLY LYING FOR MONETARY GAIN. They honestly believe these fallacies are correct and when it comes to religion, belief is everything.


In conclusion, there is no evidence that these Creationist leaders are lying for the sake of monetary gain. Even if Pro succeeded in proving that every single Creationist was indeed intentionally lying, that does not prove that they were doing it for monetary gain. Nor do Christian organizations looking down on Creationism actually prove that it has nothing to do with god. I think that people like the Hovinds and the late Henry Morris truthfully believed it. They were teaching these things to A) substantiate Creationist claims and B) help believers move through life by taking these "threats" head on.

At the end of the day, Pro did not fulfill his burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
LOL, Well done Jake, Checkmated.
I really didn't get to play my trump card, forgot we only had 3 bites! :-D~

Yes, I was going to attack some Creationist Scientists who one geologist in particular was playing both sides, which demonstrates deliberate lying for the almighty Creationist Dollar.

Maybe next time!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Thanks Enji, yes, I do need to space my arguments better.
I've always been bad at formatting, nearly failed form design and web page design while studying Information Science.
Mostly because of poor spacing and justification.
Used to get carried away with Centering everything, when Left Justification would have been better.
Posted by Enji 3 years ago
You can just press [enter] twice:

and then your comment will be better spaced.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Hey MrJK, how did U get so good with your replies, I haven't been able to get the formatting that you got in those.
Nice!! Are you some kind of web Guru?
Maybe you format them in some Web page software first, that's only my guess.
I don't have any such software except MS Word, but the web page formatting in that is pretty bad.
I used to use Dreamweaver many years ago.
But, I wonder if the formatting would copy over to,
Any Tips are welcome.
Posted by MrJK 3 years ago
I wanted to vote, apparently I haven't earned this privilege yet.

I thought you might appreciate this video, you may well have seen it before.
It evidences some of the deception in 'ID' and also spends some time on 'the wedge' -

However, the general conclusion does not point to financial gain for the ID crowd, instead, as Con points out, for the most part it seems to come down to a genuine faith in the word of the bible.

That being said, there could have been some juicier arguments from both sides.

This could be an extremely worthwhile and entertaining debate. Refine and strengthen the arguments and repeat it.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
I put colors in that one, but as soon as I added links, the colors disappeared.
I forgot to add this link.

disingenuous is a polite word for FRAUD!
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Thanks, I've been wondering how to do that for some time now.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
No they don't, they only work in argument frames.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Hmm Jake, it appears that to dress up your response, you need to use HTML code.
like <b> ,,,,,,,, for Bold ,,,,,, </b> and <i> ...... For Italics ..... </i> and it comes with a variety of large Headers like <header1> Smallest Header </header1> , <header2> .. Next Largest Header </header2> and finally <header3> Which is usually as large as you would need </header3> Notice the "/" right slash is the Off Switch. I haven't done HTML for several years since I authored a few web pages for a client. You can also add color, though I'll stick with the basics, because color RGB codes can be tedious. for red font, <font color="red"> and of course to turn it off </font>

I'll post this to see if they work in normal comment boxes. Fingers Crossed.
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
I will debate him on this topic simply because I find it to be an over-generalization and that it needs to be defended.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 2-D 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented a position that I wouldn't dare try to defend, even tho there may be some truth to it. He makes an assumption about the hidden motivations of the entirety of YEC leadership. Con pointed out that Pro was only restating his position without providing evidence. I agree that many of the leaders Pro reference appear to be corrupt but that appearance could be false as Con points out and says nothing about YEC leadership in general. Con presented a plausible alternate scenario that the YEC leadership believe themselves and this is intuitive living in a culture of deluded Christians that clearly believe.
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument with Kent Hovind (who was jailed for financial crimes) could have provided an interesting opportunity for Pro to make his case, however Pro never takes it. Con convincingly argues that the leaders of the YEC movement are firm believers in God and a young earth and that their reason for doing so is not for the money. Convincing arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I expected Pro to present scandalous material exposing many Young Earth Creationists as frauds, but I was utterly disappointed in what I read. Pro didn't offer any substantial material but irrelevant sources like the Bill O'Reilly's clash with Dawkins. Con made it clear that such leaders could themselves be self-deluded and leading other deluded people. This point was not challenged by Pro who seemed unfamiliar with the concept of "the blind leading the blind". Hence, Arguments go for Con because Pro didn't satisfy his burden of proof in this debate; it is not easy to accuse others of fraudulence and then offer nothing that confirms it beyond reasonable doubt. Sources go for Con too because of the irrelevant citations given by Pro whether the O'Reilly interview or the book disproving some of the creationist claims. Both debaters had bad conduct and used insults against Creationists, so they both lose that point. When it comes to S&G, both debaters were equally good.