The Instigator
Barcs
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points

Young Earth Creationism

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 15 votes the winner is...
Barcs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,917 times Debate No: 9694
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (15)

 

Barcs

Con

Young Earth creationism is by far the most convoluted, ridiculous nonsense I've ever researched.

Young earth creationism is the literal interpretation of the creation account from genesis, where god created the earth in 6 days. This worldview claims the earth is tens of thousands of years old rather than the billions of years estimated by scientists. This encompasses the idea that man walked with dinosaurs and that Noah's great flood is true. It also alleges that evolution has no evidence to support it and is a lie.

I challenge any young earther to provide evidence that shows that the earth is young or debunks the modern science that proves the contrary. I will provide countless examples that prove the earth millions to billions of years old.

For those of you who think I'm referring to creationism as a whole, I am not. I am specifically talking about those who believe the earth and universe are NOT billions of years old.
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for starting a debate on such a controversial topic, I expect that we will both learn quite a bit during our debate.

First and foremost, I would like to explain to my opponent the following things:

1. My opponent is the instigator. He has set forth a resolution and chosen a position against Young Earth Creationism. I am the contender, and my role is to respond negatively to the arguments he provides, while still providing a case for my own position. I am not required to prove Young Earth Creationism beyond a reasonable doubt. I need only provide enough information to adequately negate my opponent's attacks while providing a suitable argument, showing that Young Earth Creationism is a viable position despite my opponent's criticisms.

2. Young Earth Creationism need not be a literal interpretation of the Bible. It must only involve the notions of a guiding force for the creation of the universe and the assertion that the current view of a several billion year old universe is flawed. Nothing else.

Next, I would like to debunk my opponent's first statement. There are an infinite number of convoluted, ridiculous, and nonsensical theories out there. The fact that my opponent believes he has not encountered one more so than Young Earth Creationism is irrelevant to this debate, as I am sure that no one will doubt that I can fashion a theory even more convoluted, ridiculous, and nonsensical.

My opponent has asserted that modern science *proves* a case for a several billion year old universe. If this is the burden he has chosen to place upon himself, I will allow him to do such.

I myself will uphold my opponent's challenge to provide evidence that the earth is young. However, this is a proof that will take many steps. First, I will make my case for a supernatural creation. Next round, I will make my case for a young earth.

1. The Anthropic Principle.

Naturalists tend to adopt the notion that each and every object in this universe is made up of mass and energy. In addition, they assert that physical forces are responsible for every cause and effect that takes place in the universe. This directly contradicts our experience of free will. A deterministic universe cannot account for the fact that free will exists among human beings and that we alone execute actions that move the physical laws of the universe and the timeline of natural events from an infinite number of possibilities to simply one, and having that one lead to yet another infinite number of possibilities.

With the advances in neurotechnology and biochemical research, we are still unable to prove the long held notion that our thoughts and actions are determined merely by physical, electrical forces in the brain. There is still an inexplicable confusion among the scientific community, even though all other aspects of human anatomy have been reduced down to the physical level, the brain and the processes by which human beings execute their actions and inflict change upon the universe remains undiscovered.

Is this a proof for free will? No. However, this calls into question the assumed naturalistic and deterministic worldview that our universe is simply what science and empirical evidence can conclude: the natural. It is evidence showing that the possibility of a supernatural exists, and that we cannot simply throw it out.

That having been said, there is something inherently and objectively special about human beings in comparison to all other things in the universe. Recall that the naturalistic view of all things as mere biochemical reactions ONLY makes sense in a deterministic view. I have shown that this view has not been substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, human beings can objectively understand the difference between their realm of influence, and that of all other animate and inanimate objects in the universe: we alone have the capability to enact our will upon the universe.

This hearkens back to the Biblical notion that man is the steward of the universe, and that he is master of this physical domain. Setting aside the notion of creation, this universe exists in a manner that points to the notion that we rule it.

2. The Plausibility of Creation and the Divine

The inexplicable aspects of our minds are what lead to very important parts of our society. Intelligence, creativity, logic, reason, these are all things that neurologists have not been able to adequately explain. Emotion and many higher learning functions have been traced to some degree, but not reduced down to the biomechanical components. It is then curious that the Judeo-Christian God is said to have the attributes of Intelligence and creativity, something that is shared with human beings. In this manner, if Creation is valid, then we were very much created in the image of the Divine, and no matter what your view of God, it then becomes plausible to believe that the aspects of humanity that seem supernatural to us, indeed come from a supernatural source. Not a conclusive proof, but a plausible suggestion.

3. The universe is fine-tuned to our existence.

Being unable to explain the source of our intelligence and our ability to manipulate the universe is one thing. However, when we connect it with the fact that the universe is structured in a way that is specifically catered to our inexplicable characteristics, we can really start to question whether this universe is really the result of uncaring forces that build upon each other as with the core tenet of natural selection.

Some may argue that the fine tuned argument is flawed in that we are arguing backwards, that humankind developed to fit the environment, and not the other way around. However, natural selection does not account for the development of the ability to defy physical law and implement an inexplicable free will upon the universe. How is it possible that ancient primate ancestors who did not have this ability, suddenly transcend the plane of determinism, into one of free will and free manipulation? How can it be that natural selection, which occurs by way of genetic mutation, a physical process that is overseen by deterministic mechanisms, suddenly pops out something that oversees *it*? This is akin to writing a computer program that can script itself to take over mankind. Something you see in sci-fi movies, but something not quite possible in real life.

4. Pulling it all together

The naturalistic mindset does not and cannot account for the fact that free will developed. Unless my opponent can conclusively prove the fact that free will does not exist, without assuming naturalism is flawless, then we must conclude that the human ability to enact its will on space and time is something far grander than natural, physical forces. The human being is special, and is special in all the ways that humans attribute to the Divine. This cannot be a coincidence. The most logical conclusion that comes from these processes is that these characteristics we identify as characteristically human are actually divine in nature, and that the Divine has, for some reason, instilled these characteristics into a physical form.

We were created by God, and we contain parts that are divine and unnatural. The universe reflects this divine creation.

I look forward to my opponent's inarguable proof for a several billion year old earth. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Barcs

Con

Thank you for accepting this challenge.

First I must state that my opponent did not yet provide any evidence to support the position of young earth. I did not create this topic to debate the potential existence of a universal creator. This is strictly about the age of planet earth and the universe. I can agree that it does not necessarily have to be a literal interpretation of the bible; however, my opponent needs to do more than show that some of the science is flawed. Science does not know everything. By accepting this debate he has agreed to provide evidence to show the earth is tens of thousands of years old. I will provide evidence that shows the earth is millions to billions of years old.

Now, I will offer a rebuttal to my opponent's 4 main points. Since the focus of this debate is young earth, much of his argument is irrelevant to the debate, so I will try to be quick and to the point.

1. My opponent claims that free will contradicts the natural physics of the universe. This is an interesting opinion, but can one really claim that our physical actions do not create the various situations we experience in our lives? Is that not cause and effect, but on a different level? Are we not on this planet and able to live our lives because of the law of gravity? Science does not know nearly enough about the universe to make such an assumption about free will. The same thing goes for the idea that humans are special. I am not claiming that science is all that there is or that nothing else exists. There is a good amount of phenomena that science cannot explain, but it is still fallacious to fill that gap with assumptions simply because we do not know the answer yet.

2. Again, there is a lot that we do not understand about the universe and human beings. That is, in no way shape or form, evidence to support the divine or for a creator. That is the infamous god of the gaps fallacy. Obviously, I am not saying that the concept of a creator is impossible; I am claiming that the earth and universe were not created in 6 days and that the earth is in fact millions to billions of years old.

3. My opponent seems to think that since we are able to change the world around us that we are manipulating the universe and defying the laws of physics. If you look at the macrocosm, human beings are not manipulating anything. If planet earth blew up tomorrow, most of the universe wouldn't blink an eye. It would keep moving and would still follow the laws of physics. The universe is not fine tuned to us. We are fine tuned to the universe. Both natural selection and micro evolution are hard evidence of this. Self awareness has most likely evolved in the brain slowly over time, as with most traits and features. It certainly did not just suddenly sprout up overnight as my opponent infers. Any pet cat is evidence that lower mammals can create situations where many outcomes are possible, as well as experience certain emotions. Humans are more intelligent, but is there any evidence that shows other smart mammals are not self aware? Is it impossible to think that most animals could very well have free will, but do not have the intelligence to understand it as we do?

4. I do not need to prove free will does not exist, in order to demonstrate that the earth is millions of years old or that it was created. My opponent needs to prove that free will even makes a difference to determine either of these things. My opponent's entire argument is filled with assumptions, none of which have any evidence to back them up. He seems to believe that I support the notion of a deterministic universe and nothing else, which is not true. This does not indicate that his argument is plausible in the least and is essentially god of the gaps.

In order to give credibility to his position, my opponent needs to provide evidence to support the notion that:

A. Humans do in fact defy the laws of physics.
and
B. Humans are special compared to other animals, besides just having more intelligence.

AGE OF THE EARTH

Here I will list several scientific facts that prove that the earth and universe are much older than most young earth creationists claim.

1. The speed of light

The speed of light is measured in light years and is equal to the distance light can travel in one year. The closest galaxy to earth is around 2.5 million light years away. The furthest one discovered is just over 13 billion light years away. If the earth and universe were less than 100,000 years old, we would not be able to see a large portion of the stars and galaxies that we see in the sky, since the light would have not have reached us yet. This demonstrates that the universe is at least 13 billion years old.

2. The fossil record

Palaeontologists have discovered millions of different species that have inhabited earth throughout its history. If the earth were thousands of years old, rather than billions, the earth would have been ridiculously overcrowded and sustaining life would be near impossible. Since fossils are rare, we aren't even close to knowing every single species that ever lived. This proves the earth is way more than 100,000 years old.

3. Radiometric dating

This method of dating is based on the decay of radioactive isotopes in atoms. This method of dating is observable and repeatable today. There are several different methods of radiometric dating that scientists have used to date sedimentary layers and other rock formations. The oldest rock layers to contain life have been dated around 3.8 billion years ago. Read more at the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

4. The age of sedimentary rock layers is consistent with the type of life found.

There has never been a mammal discovered in the same layer as a dinosaur, or a reptile discovered in the same layer as the early bacterial life. This is impossible on a planet that is millions of years old. If not, it would indicate that evolution is false and the fossil layers would be a huge mix of various creatures. Instead we have the layers that are dated the same, producing the same type of fossils, which is hard evidence for evolution and a billion year old earth.

5. Ice drilling.

Glaciers and natural ice formations have been studied by scientists extensively. They can actually count the number of years in which they go down into the ice based on the freezing and melting point lines. The only way it would be possible to have a 10,000 year old earth with this evidence, would be if we had hundreds of winters per year, which we know is false. Drilling into the ice, we can also determine the amount of CO2 in the air at the time, which is also consistent with the type of life that inhabited the planet during that time and is also consistent with the fossil record.

Summary:

These 5 scientific facts provide excellent evidence to support an old earth and old universe. I have only included the basics for now, but I'd be happy to provide more details if requested or provide more examples. The burden now lies on my opponent to debunk those 5 facts, plus provide examples that indicate the earth is less than 100,000 years old.

Good luck!
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response and shall now begin.

Since my opponent opened by criticizing the fact that I have not offered an argument for young earth yet, so shall I open by criticizing my opponent for not affording me the leniency that I specifically asked for in the previous round. As I said, my position requires more than 8000 characters can afford, I ask my opponent to have patience instead of taking his opponent post to chide me for something I already gave prior warning for.

As for his general claim about science, I hope my opponent will not set his standards too low. I took this debate on this claim of my opponent's: "I challenge any young earther to provide evidence that shows that the earth is young or debunks the modern science that proves the contrary. I will provide countless examples that prove the earth millions to billions of years old"

In this, my opponent has made two claims:

1. Modern science has proven that the earth is not young.
2. My opponent will provide countless examples that prove the earth's age.

However, he has decided to write an addendum saying that Science "does not know everything". I want to let it be known that I am holding my opponent, the instigator, to his promise that at the end of this debate, he will PROVE that the earth is young- not simply offer evidence to suggest the fact, but PROVE.

I will either "show that the earth is young", or "debunk modern science".

Now, on to the counterargument of my opponent's points.

1. Occam's razor states that all things being equal, we assume the less complicated explanation. In the absence of data about the status of free will, we will go by what we have instead of erroneously doubting everything. We as humans can easily witness our will manifesting in reality. Unless my opponent has any sort of evidence for determinism that trumps sensory evidence, then we must assume that free will is a supernatural occurrence for the reasons that I have stated: Natural explanations cannot account for the development of free will in a physical being.

2. Understood, I commend my opponent's understanding but I disapprove of his lack of patience. We have five rounds and I specifically asked for more time to set my position before being pressured to "get to the point", a request my opponent has rudely ignored. My opponent has implemented a straw man in this response. I am not basing my argument for a creator on ignorance, I, like my opponent, and speaking about a possibility. A possibility made strong by the fact that I have shown free will to be a supernatural occurrence. My opponent has no argument against this. Take my argument in its totality. Having shown that free will is supernatural, I am attempting to argue that from free will, comes free will. If the teleological end of a naturalistic universe is the supernatural result of free will, then a free will must have been its cause. This is not god of the gaps. This is not proof by ignorance. It is a standard inductive proof.

3. My opponent erroneously confuses self awareness with free will. I am not talking about the fact that humans manipulate the universe. Rather, I am talking about the inherent feeling of manifesting our will. A rock will move according to physical laws. Non-human animals are bound by instinct and bodily need. A human being moves of its own accord and chooses where, how, when, and to what extent. This is the difference, a difference that my opponent cannot explain with a naturalistic mindset, and also why he incorrectly assumes that a "we are fine tuned to the universe" mentality is acceptable. Natural selection of human beings cannot explain the development of free will.

4. Like I said, I in no way said that my argument was concluded, nor did I promt my opponent for an immediate response. This lack of respect and these meaningless accusations that I am using a fallacious argument are nothing but the result of my opponent falsely assuming that I have finished. I implore the audience to ignore these unwarranted attacks until the debate is finally over. I am simply setting the stage for an argument on Young Earth Creationism (which requires a creator). The argument has not begun yet.

A. Humans impose their will on the universe. They defy the laws of physics because according to the laws of physics, all things proceed as the result of preceding forces. Daily life for a human being shows the contrary, that our will is actually a deciding factor in how the physical world is changed. This is the manner in which it defies what we know to be physical law.

B. Intelligence does not explain how a physical bag of chemicals suddenly develops the ability to exert its will into reality. It is analogous to a computer code developing a method by which it can physically move, when it has never been programmed to do so before.

And now, rebuttals for my opponent's points.

1. The speed of light- Galaxies are moving away from the earth at speeds faster than the speed of light, due to the expansion of the universe. The light reflected from a galaxy is not an accurate measure because it assumes that the distance between that galaxy and Earth are the same. This is, of course, also assuming that the speed of light in a vacuum is not relative. Special relativity states that the measurements of c were based on local measurements of time and distance. The curvature of space time may actually flaw those measurements.

http://math.ucr.edu...

2. The problem is that these "millions of species" were most likely hundreds of thousands of species at best, it's just that scientists know that categorizing extinct creatures by new taxonomy for benefit of the doubt is easier than assuming that two similar fossils are the same species. In short, scientists inflate the number of actual different species.

3. All forms of radiometric dating is based on the assumption of a constant half life. Keep in mind that humans have been studying atomic chemistry for only a short period of time. I'm not saying that it doesn't work now, but I'm just saying that no one should assume that it is how it always was.

4. This point is based on bad science. Fossil dating , geological dating, and radiometric dating developed as a combined effort. As a result, they share the same assumption and thus, the same flaws. The layers labeled from one site to another by assumptions with radiometric dating and fossil dating. The classification of the fossil is based on what is assumed to be known about the strata. These fields are purely tautological.

5. Glaciers and natural ice formations are assumed to carry the same patterns they do today, thousands of years ago. However, this may not necessarily be the case. Bands in ice formations could be due to climate patterns that fluctuated rapidly during the creation of the earth, or the disasters of the bible. Furthermore, CO2 sinks in near-freezing water and exhibits variable solubility as temperature changes. This makes the CO2 level a poor representative of an old earth.

These five "facts" have been shown to be questionable. They do not represent a proof, rather, a possibility.

Going along with what I said previous, since free will supercedes natural explanations and we can rightly say that the universe has the teleological end towards free will, we can assume that the creator is actually a being of free will. There is no historical record from anywhere near 10,000 years ago, and all data suggesting an old earth is questionable. We can go with what we can prove. We know mankind existed approximately 10,000 years ago, we don't know anything before that. So why believe my opponent?

More in the next round. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Barcs

Con

Thank you for the response.

Again, no evidence has been provided by my opponent to argue for a young earth. I know we have 5 rounds, but I'd rather utilize each round efficiently instead of waiting for the later rounds before addressing the main topic. My opponent has called me impatient because I prefer to get to the point, which is the age of the earth and universe. I am going to provide evidence that supports science, show that it is way more likely than a young earth, and debunk any evidence he posts. My original statement said that I challenge my opponent to provide evidence for a young earth and I have yet to see that.

Now, I will offer a rebuttal to my opponent's first set of points.

1. Occam's razor states that few assumptions should be made as possible when offering an explanation. By assuming that freewill is supernatural, my opponent is directly contradicting what he is advocating for in his response. The simplest explanation for free will is that it is a direct reflection of our intelligence and consciousness. I have never claimed that the concept of a deterministic universe is the only possibility.

2. My opponent has called me impatient, rude and labeled my argument a straw man. I do not appreciate that. I have not used any personal attacks, and I'd prefer that he does not either. I'm simply trying to stick to the topic, which is the age of the earth. My opponent has stated that his position is only a possibility, but then claims that he has proved it inductively.

3. I am not confusing free will with self awareness. You cannot have one without the other. My opponent is suggesting free will is not part of our intelligence and it is a separate supernatural trait. My opponent needs to provide evidence that shows animals do not have free will. Most of their actions are based on instinctual survival, however they do make decisions. Proof of this is my cat, as I mentioned last round. When I call my cat, sometimes she comes and sometimes she does not. This is her decision. If she were only acting on instincts she would come every single time unless she was preoccupied. This is evidence of an animal utilizing free will. This can be shown in cats, dogs, pigs, chimps, dolphins and other smart mammals.

4. My opponent is making accusations and attacks instead of following the topic. Responding negatively to his arguments is not disrespectful, it is my job as his opponent in this debate. I am not going to ignore the several flaws in his argument because it is not complete. He has not yet provided solid evidence for a supernatural creator or a young earth and I have to call him out on it. His entire argument thus far is based on free will being a supernatural phenomena, which is inconclusive.

A. Human beings are bound by the laws of physics, free will or not. If a man falls off a cliff he cannot exert his free will to save himself from gravity. He can attempt to use his brain to help him survive or utilize technology, but he is still bound by the law of gravity. If a human being is set into motion, in space, he or she will continue to move in that direction until acted on by another force, regardless of the person's will. Both of those examples are indisputable. Human beings can make intelligent decisions, but they are still bound by the physical laws of the universe. Our most basic components are atoms, which consist of particles, just like everything else in the universe. There is no evidence at all that suggests we are special or different.

B. My opponent is claiming that free will suddenly developed and that it is a trait of human beings only. He is also oversimplifying the evolutionary process as "a bag of chemicals" suddenly getting free will. This is a hasty generalization and is not indicative of evolution at all. I would like to request evidence to support this claim. Fossils have shown that our ancient ancestors used primitive tools. Homo erectus also had similar intelligence and used both fire and tools. Is this not exerting free will? If not I ask my opponent how he defines free will and how he can prove it even exists. Without this evidence his entire argument falls apart.

I have provided several examples to show the flaws in my opponent's reasoning and understanding of free will. His claim that human beings are the only species with free will is questionable. His assertion that free will is supernatural also has no evidence to support it. I challenge my opponent to back both of those statements up with actual evidence.

I will now offer a response to my opponents rebuttal on my scientific claims.

1. The speed of light can slow down but it can not speed up. C has been shown to either be constant or the TOP speed of the light in a vacuum. This depends upon whether the photons have a mass greater than zero, which is not conclusive. What my opponent is saying, still does not change the fact that light from many other stars and galaxies takes millions to billions of years to reach earth. Unless he can provide evidence that shows that light can travel to earth faster, my argument still stands.

http://math.ucr.edu...

2. My opponent is incorrectly assuming that there have only been hundreds of thousands of species to ever exist on earth, when over 1.4 million have been identified living on earth today. Most scientists claim that the total number of species to ever have existed is between 5 and 50 billion, but there is no way to know for sure because fossilization is so rare. This easily puts the number of species in the high millions. My original point that the earth would have been overcrowded still holds true and is hard evidence to indicate an old earth.

http://www.newscientist.com...

3. My opponent is making the assumption that the radioactive decay rate might have been different in the past. What ifs are not scientific evidence. As far as we can tell, this decay rate has been consistent. What if aliens visited earth 200,000 years ago to manipulate genetics of early hominids to create homo sapiens? It's possible, but without evidence I have no right to use that in a scientific debate.

4. The age of various fossil layers is determined by the rocks within them using radiometric dating. This is not bad science and is not tautological. The fact that various layers that have been dated to the same time period and contain the same species, further verifies that the dating methods are accurate. If they were not, many layers would have been shown to be from the same time periods and have different types of species within. This has never happened.

5. Again, my opponent is using "what ifs" rather than scientific evidence. I would like to request that my opponent provides evidence to show that ice bands can build up quickly from a disaster. If he cannot, then it is not a viable alternative. The creation of these bands is observable and repeatable today and demonstrates that the earth is indeed old.

My five facts still hold true, and no scientific evidence has been posted to show otherwise. Every counter my opponent has made is not provable at all and based on "what ifs".

The burden of proof is still on my opponent to prove that free will is a supernatural occurrence and is indicative of a creator. It is also still on my opponent to prove that the earth is young. He has not been able to do that thus far without making multiple assumptions. There is no written historical record prior to 10,000 years ago because homo sapiens did not develop a known written language until around 3000 BC. Sure, it could have developed earlier, however we do not have any evidence of it. Even around 1 AD 90% of the population was illiterate. Lack of a historical record, does not prove anything. We have learned about most ancient cultures with archaeological finds, rather than historical records
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

1. Free will cannot simply be a direct reflection of our physical minds because we are the only animal that have three components together: Self awareness, the ability to enact will onto the environment, the ability to plan for the future. Every other animal follows the same set of embedded rules. Of the millions upon billions of species that exist or have existed on this Earth, we are the only ones to have all three abilities? Our closest animal relative only demonstrates 2/3 of these traits. Free will is inexplicable by naturalistic thinking.

2. Those were not personal attacks, those were responses to what I felt was offensive behavior.

3. Cats are not self aware, as demonstrated by this video, one out of hundreds, showing that cats do not have the mental capacity to recognize themselves in mirrors:

A. Again, I did not mean to say that humans defy physics, rather that our ability to enact our will defies nature. Natural selection cannot adequately explain the enormous jump from the nonexistence to the presence of free will and what we can do with free will.

B. First of all, the fossils analysis of our "ancient ancestors" is primarily guesswork that bases its conclusions on the assumptions of radiometric dating. Homo Habilis only has 4 specimens and 3 out of the 4 are nothing but skull fragments that might have been indicative of genetic disorder of Homo Sapiens. The final specimen was not very conclusive either. Archaeologists were only excited about the discovery of the tools.

Now, for my opponent's other arguments. Mainstream academia has developed a bias against Young Earth research. The "what ifs" are of vital importance. Do not forget, audience, that my opponent has said that modern science HAS PROVEN his position. His confidence would indicate that there shouldn't be any "what ifs".

1. Areas of space separated by vast distances exhibit the same radiant energy. Studies suggest that the only possible reconciliation is a faster speed of light during the formation of the universe that allows for the dissipation of energy.

http://www.weirdwarp.com...

Under the creationist model, this would be the great burst of light that God spoke into existence in Genesis.

2. Perhaps I misspoke. I meant to indicate that the current method of taxonomy is highly flawed. What scientists believe to be "millions" may only realistically be "hundreds of thousands", or even less.

http://www.icr.org...
http://www.icr.org...

The designation of a "species" has no clear distinction. In fact, the entire spectrum of taxonomy is arbitrary at best. There is some genetic change, but there is no conclusive evidence for the biblical taxonomic group of the "kind". The "kind" is just as arbitrary a designation as phylum, order, family, or genus, and so far, no transitional fossils:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Demonstrate a jump between kinds.

3. This is a backwards accusation. My opponent argues that we cannot dispel things based on assumption. However, the assumption that half life doesn't change is an ASSUMPTION. There is just as much evidence showing that half life doesn't change as there is evidence showing that it does.

4. My point was not that one contradicts with the other, but that radiometric dating and empiric fossil strata dating assume the same things without substantiation. Radiometric dating has no objective basis, whereas fossil strata is less flawed. The strata could simply be the difference between a few hundred years.

5. Again, my opponent demonstrates intellectual hypocrisy. Shady interpretation of evidence is not evidence.

http://www.icr.org...
http://www.icr.org...

Scientists arrived at their assumption based on the top few layers, measurements of those gradations, and the overall thickness of the entire layer. However, further research of the Greenland ice cores shows that the layers, due to scientific uncertainty, cannot be analyzed further than about 8500 layers, meaning, 4250 years. This is what happens when assumptions are made from excessive simplicity.

***

The teleological end of free will coming from a free will could not have taken place by natural selection. A natural cause of the universe's existence would not explain this teleological end. Therefore, we must assume that whatever "thing" was responsible for existence, also did so with a consciousness and with foresight. It had a goal.

If this thing's goal was to create free will from free will, then it could not do so with mere natural means. The Biblical creation account satisfies this necessity. A supernatural guiding force that fashioned the universe and the creation of man is a clearer explanation that encompasses the super-nature of free will and its teleological characteristic.

It is clear from everything that we know, that mankind and the presence of intelligence on this planet, is a teleological end. The gap between what we can do/what we have accomplished and what any other object in this universe can do, is enormous. This gap cannot be explained by natural phenomena. Evolution does not create genetic mutations that allow us to bypass evolution, it is unnatural and irrational. We are violating nature at its core. A change in a species of this magnitude cannot simply be the result of a natural mechanism. There must be something inherently different about what we know to be intelligence and free will.

Is it any surprise then, that these two traits are so heavily tied to the Judeo-Christian God? No. God has created us in his image in the manner that we are physical beings that exhibit intelligence and free will, just as God is a being that exhibits intelligence and free will. And as a being with power beyond that which we can comprehend, it is illogical to say that God must jump through the hoops that "evolutionary science" has arbitrarily dreamed up. Macroevolutionary principles have contributed absolutely nothing to society outside of expanding its own field with useless information. There is no accomplishment by man that relies on the principles of an old earth.

All evidence that the Earth is old, is based on evidence that is inconclusive at best and outright fallacious at worst. There are flaws with all the five "facts" that my opponent brought up. Set aside the notion that I use "what if" arguments. The very evidence that my opponent brings up is based on twice as many "what ifs". My opponent, currently, has no conclusive evidence that proves his claim, nor does he have any that debunks mine.

Furthermore, I need not conclusively prove that YEC is the only plausible explanation, as I have said before. I am the contender, and my opponent seeks to show that modern science conclusively proves YEC as false. I support YEC because I find that it is a more succinct and concise explanation for the way the universe came to be, more so than the notion of an Old Earth. My goal is to show that that YEC is *not* convoluted, *not* ridiculous, and *not* nonsensical.

I have done my part by evening the playing field between YEC and Old Earth. There are controversies with both, that's a given, but the fact that both of them engage in conjecture and guesswork is enough to invalidate my opponent's position that YEC has been disproven conclusively.

I look forward to my opponent's conclusive disproof and inarguable evidence for an Old Earth next round. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Barcs

Con

Thanks for the response.

My opponent cannot provide reasonable evidence to suggest that free will is supernatural, or that it even exists. My opponent also cannot prove that we are the only animal on earth, ever, to have this alleged trait. Both claims are assumptions. When a cat attacks a mirror, it proves a lack of intelligence, not a lack of self awareness. Evolution shows that intelligence evolved slowly over millions of years. This led to the ability to make tools and eventually manipulate our environment. It has nothing at all to do with free will. Free will is an imaginary concept, and my opponent cannot prove otherwise. Intelligence is unquestionably what makes human beings what we are today, not a magical attribute that suddenly allows us to plan for the future.

http://www.cerebromente.org.br...

Fossil analysis is not primarily guesswork. Fossils are studied sometimes for decades before the full picture can be put together.

My opponent claims there is a bias against young earth creationism. This may be true, but for very good reasons. It is not science. It is no surprise that the majority of my opponent's links are to a biased creationist website known as the Institute for Creation Research.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Please note this link about ICR and the scientific criticisms of this organization. They operate with a predetermined conclusion, which is not indicative of the scientific method at all. This is the same organization that advocates for teaching creationism as science in schools and cannot be considered an authoritative source. It has already been decided in both court and the scientific community that creationism is not science.

It matters not, whether the species is technically called "species", or whether the taxonomy is perfect. The fact of the matter is that for every one fossilized type of creature found, there were thousands to millions of them living on earth. Then you also have to account for the number of undiscovered creatures. A conservative estimate would easily put this number in the high quadrillions. If all of these creatures shared the same 10,000 year period, the earth would have been impossibly overcrowded, dinosaurs would be in a large portion of recorded history, fossil layers would have been more diverse, and we would have lived with homo erectus up until the past century. It just doesn't add up.

My opponent does not understand that there are thousands of transitional fossils. Evolution is a slow process. There are no sudden changes. The Wikipedia link he posted supports my case, not his. Below is more information on transitional fossils and the claims made about them.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Ice Core Dating:

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Please view the link above. My opponent's claims are from a non scientific source posing as science. Scientists have been studying this for decades.

Now I will post more evidence for an old earth

1. Racial diversity amongst homo sapiens.

It is simply not possible for human beings to change that much and become that racially diverse in only 10,000 years. In the past 3500 years of recorded history, the basic ethnic races have stayed the same. Other than an increase in inter racial breeding, there has been very little change at all. When did all of these races have the time to evolve that much? Without an old earth, it doesn't make sense. Homo sapiens have been on this planet for near 200,000 years.

http://ncse.com...

2. Sedimentary layers in lakes date back at least 20,000 years.

These layers are caused by annual sediment and can be observed today. Scientists can measure these layers and determine exactly how many years they go back. In order to explain the number of layers, using the young earth model, there would have had to have been several winters per year, which has never been observed.

3. The formation of stalactites

The average growth rate of a stalactite is .005 inch per year. If the earth were only 10,000 years old there wouldn't be any stalactites larger than 50 inches unless it was formed by fast moving waters. The largest known Stalactite is located in the Gruta Rei do Mato, and is 20 meters long. Fast waters are nowhere near by. Clear evidence of an old earth.

There are many other pieces of evidence that indicate an old earth including the formation of limestone, the formation of volcanic islands, slow erosion of the grand canyon, both coral and tree rings, and other geological weathering evidence.

My opponent still has not provided any evidence that favors a young earth. I have been requesting this since the first round. Instead, my opponent is attempting to twist my words around to shift the burden from himself to me. I took the position against young earth creationism and clearly outlined how it was going to be done in round 2. I sincerely hope that he will not wait until round 5 to post this evidence.

Now, I will respond to the last section of my opponents argument.

My opponent needs to provide some kind of evidence to support this teleological end, that he is advocating for. There is no evidence that suggests anything of the sort suddenly developed in humans but not in any other mammal. My first paragraph debunks his claims about free will. There are too many assumptions in these paragraphs to count.

"Therefore, we must assume that whatever "thing" was responsible for existence, also did so with a consciousness and with foresight"

"If this thing's goal was to create free will from free will, then it could not do so with mere natural means."

"the super-nature of free will and its teleological characteristic"

"This gap cannot be explained by natural phenomena. Evolution does not create genetic mutations that allow us to bypass evolution, it is unnatural and irrational. We are violating nature at its core. A change in a species of this magnitude cannot simply be the result of a natural mechanism. There must be something inherently different about what we know to be intelligence and free will."

"t is illogical to say that God must jump through the hoops that "evolutionary science" has arbitrarily dreamed up. Macroevolutionary principles have contributed absolutely nothing to society outside of expanding its own field with useless information. There is no accomplishment by man that relies on the principles of an old earth."

My opponent cannot prove any of this. First he says that evolution doesn't create mutations to bypass itself, then says that evolutionary science dreamed up evolutionary principals. That's a direct contradiction. He is using evolution to support his argument then immediately after, discredits it. Science is all about knowledge and research. Evolutionary science's contribution to society is irrelevant to the debate, and does not change its validity. That is a fallacy.

"My goal is to show that that YEC is *not* convoluted, *not* ridiculous, and *not* nonsensical."

My opponent is quite good at playing with my words. I cannot show him how ridiculous and nonsensical his theory is if he refuses to even post it. Since there is only one round left after this, I humbly request my opponent to post his best evidence of a young earth this round, so that I will have a chance to respond. I have offered tons of evidence that favors old earth, and the only arguments against it so far are pseudo science sources and "what ifs".

I look forward to my opponents conclusive proof of a young earth and free will.
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

Let me first state that I do not want to get sidetracked. My opponent's first round challenge:

I challenge any young earther to provide evidence that shows that the earth is young ****OR**** debunks the modern science that proves the contrary. I will provide countless examples that prove the earth millions to billions of years old.

My opponent has given me a choice of two positions to take. I am taking the latter position to debunk the modern proofs. He keeps accusing me of not providing an argument, my arguments are meant to debunk his. End of story.

1. My opponent argues that cats attacking mirrors show lack of intelligence. He then makes an argument on that regard. This argument can be ignored because contrary to what my opponent says, this behavior has nothing to do with intelligence, but specifically with self awareness.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

The mirror test was developed in order to determine which species are self aware, based on how they respond to themselves in a mirror. Cats fail the mirror test and thus, are not self aware and my opponent's claim is negated. Humans are the only animal on the planet who are self aware, manipulate the environment, and predict future manipulations. This point is 100% inarguable scientific fact.

Furthermore, my opponent is proposing that we assume that free will does not exist, when we have plenty of sensory information claiming otherwise. It's called "day-to-day life". Thus, my argument stands.

2. My opponent claims that fossils are studied for decades and thus, it is not primarily guesswork. Most of fossil analysis regarding transitional fossils is based on the presumption of evolution. Furthermore, fossils can only be preserved in environments that would severely degrade the organism. All fossils are degraded to some degree, and scientists allegedly base their analyses on things such as small notches and markings. Why does this field allow for so much error? Because it is a field that is self enclosed. There is no societal benefit from the studies regarding fossils and thus, nothing to check their failure. We can disregard this argument against Creationism.

3. My opponent claims that there is a bias against Creationism because it is not science. This is completely fallacious, as he assumes that anything that is not definitively scientific is definitively false. Creationism science may not follow the scientific process, but they still perform experiments and interpret data that yield valid conclusions. Mainstream academia just rejects all experiments outright. My opponent is maliciously trying to define science as truth and creationism as unscientific in order to form a tautological position. Science =/= Absolute truth.

4. My opponent suggests that for every fossilized type of creature, there were "thousands to millions" of them in existence. His entire point rests on this assumption and yet, he has absolutely no evidence for it.

5. My opponent stresses that transitional fossils take a long time to show evolutionary movement. This is a misleading point. The source my opponent provided simply shows that individual organisms exist. So called "transitional fossils" make the assumption that it bridges, without actually showing anything conclusive.

6. I predicted that he would go to "Talk Origins" as a source, so I delivered a preemptive source negating what Talk Origins says about the Vostok Ice Core. However, my opponent did not read my source nor did he read his own. The Core was analyzed using 10 methods. 6 of these methods are comparative methods that rely on the assumption that they guessed the right age of other things that they have dated to be millions of years old (Circular logic). 3 more of these methods are based on the assumption of the validity of isotope testing (Circular logic). The final one is said by my opponent's very own source to be "The most inaccurate method". This piece of evidence can be thrown out.

Now, for my opponent's other arguments.

1. Racial diversity amongst homo sapiens.
My opponent is arguing that Creationism does not allow enough time for Evolution. It doesn't have to, because it is an alternate explanation. The two need not coexist.

2. Sedimentary layers in lakes date back at least 20,000 years.
My opponent does not include the mechanism of study. If this is similar to geologic strata, then I have already addressed this point. If this is about striations in the layers, then it involves more guesswork on the scientists' part.

3. The formation of stalactites, limestone, volcanic islands, grand canon, coral and tree rings, etc.

Most if not all of these methods are flawed based on rate assumptions. The formation of stalactites as my opponent suggests, is based on the assumed rate. However, there is nothing that suggests this rate is always the same. Rates change based on the conditions of the environment such as temperature, humidity, and air components. For limestone, this is a similar situation, mostly involving carbon dioxide presence. There is no living tree with enough rings to show a million-year old earth. The grand canyon could have been formed by a large glacier scraping through the earth as a result of the momentum from flood waters receding. The scratches along the sides of the grand canyon are indicative of this and contradict the notion of a slow wearing-away by water. As for the others, my opponent has provided no source and no explanation.

4. My opponent accuses me of bearing the burden and twisting his words from Round 2. I don't care about Round 2, I am going by the parameters he set in Round 1. Perhaps my opponent would like to change the frame of this debate every round? Maybe next round, he'll want me to argue Evolution and him to argue Creationism?

More rebuttals:

1. My opponent says that he has rebutted my point about free will. He has done no such thing as his argument has been countered.

2. My opponent says that nothing I said has any evidence and that I contradict myself. He then says that my statement about Evolution's validity is fallacious. Everything that I have said remains a rational possibility and is based on what we can observe about the world. Also, I did not use evolution to support my argument, I stated that the evolutionary model (the only naturalistic model that comes close to explaining human attributes) does not offer a plausible explanation. Therefore, we must consider the supernatural. Finally, my opponent is incorrect about my statement. My point that Evolution has no use in society is to explain why it could be open to error. Physics is validated by the construction of a bridge. Evolution is validated by nothing.

3. My opponent complains about my wordplay and lack of evidence.

I thank my opponent for his compliment but I indicate that this is not wordplay, it is exactly what my opponent has said in round one, the very first line. See my introductory note at the top of this response.

So far, I have called into question every single one of my opponent's modern science "proofs", and none of conclusively prove anything. My burden is met. I have submitted my uncontested argument by free will and have debunked all of my opponent's evidence. While it may not be deemed "scientific", this has nothing to do with whether it is fact, true, or false.

Again, my opponent is trying to mislead the audience by saying that a FACT that comes from unscientific sources is 100% FALSE. A fact is a fact no matter where it comes from. I ask my opponent and the audience to overcome their bias and FACE THE FACTS.

Thank you to the audience and to my opponent. I look forward to my opponent's conclusion.
Debate Round No. 4
Barcs

Con

Thank you for the response.

This is the final round of the debate and in concluding I will demonstrate 2 main points:
1. My opponent's claims about free will cannot possibly be true.
2. The science behind old earth is strong, while young earth creationism is not plausible without making a multitude of assumptions and ignoring scientific facts that verify each other.

Free will:

"Humans are the only animal on the planet who are self aware, manipulate the environment, and predict future manipulations."

First, the mirror test does not prove self awareness, since it is not falsifiable. Second, elephants, chimps, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans, and dolphins have all demonstrated the ability to recognize themselves in mirrors.

http://www.livescience.com...
http://www.earthtrust.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I will now list examples of animals that manipulate the environment and plan for the future, many of which can recognize themselves in mirrors.

a. Beavers create dams in rivers to protect them from predators.
b. Squirrels store nuts in the summer to plan for the winter. Some have shown to create their own 3D maps. Some even mask their scent with rattlesnake to scare away predators.
c. Dolphins communicate with each other and work in social groups where they organize and designate who gets food, who raises the calves, and various other activities. Some even use shells as tools, an ability that is passed from mother to child.
d. Chimpanzees and orangutans make tools and use them to hunt. They also maintain social ranks and can even be manipulative. They can learn and solve puzzles that involve planning ahead.
e. Gorillas can learn. Koko learned over 1000 symbols in sign language and effectively used it to communicate. She also demonstrated planning and problem solving skills, the use of tools, understood over 2000 words in English and even told jokes.

The examples above, and many others prove that my opponent's claims about free will cannot be true. Human Beings are not the only self aware, environment manipulating, future planning animal. Case in point.

Fossils and fossilization:

Fossilization is the process where bones become stone usually through permineralization. Ancient fossils like dinosaurs, are usually completely stone. My opponent claims fossils can only be preserved in environments that would degrade the organism, but this is not true. The best preserved fossils are the ones that have been kept away from erosion and other environmental factors. Social benefit has no correlation with accuracy and comparative studies are based on living creatures. Many factors can be determined about a creature through its fossilized remains.

A creature's survival is based on adaptation and reproduction. The better adapted they were, the higher the population. The higher the population, the more likely we are to find a fossil. My assertion that the earth would be too overcrowded to support itself stands strong and the math does not lie.

http://www.paleontology.esmartstudent.com...

"but they still perform experiments and interpret data that yield valid conclusions"

I ask my opponent to provide any evidence to suggest this. He has yet to provide a shred of evidence in favor of the young earth position, yet somehow can claim that the experiments yield valid conclusions. I request my opponent to provide some examples.

Transitional Fossils:

My opponent lacks an understanding of transitional fossils and is making a hasty generalization about evolution. There are tons of transitional fossils and they indicate a gradual change over time. We haven't found every single one, but there are plenty to support the notion that life evolved slowly, over millions of years. Tiktaalik is a perfect example of a transitional species.

http://www.livescience.com...

Ice Core dating, stalactites, sedimentary, volcanic layers and rate of formation:

My opponent is claiming that lower ice cores and other phenomena could have formed at a faster rate. Ever since scientists began studying ice cores, they have observed the rate of formation. The rate of formation has not increased or decreased so there is no reason to assume the rate has ever changed, especially not that drastically. If it has sped up or slowed down in the past, then why is it not still accelerating or decelerating? Would ice or a stalactite formed really fast over a short period of time, look exactly the same as one formed slowly over thousands of years? This notion is absurd to say the least. In all cases, we can observe these things forming today, and the rate is consistent. Ice cores can also be studied to indicate the volcanic activity of the time period. This can also be verified by studying the layers of volcanic formations. The data matches perfectly and is consistent every time. In ice layers we can watch them form year to year and accumulate a years worth of dust, precipitation, deterioration, etc. For my opponent to be correct, all of these independent factors, measurable in the ice layers, would have to suddenly increase at the same time. It would have to be a HUGE coincidence for this to happen, and it takes a large logical leap.

Continental Drift:

Scientists who study continental drift have determined that the continental plates move about 1-2 inches per year. Continental drift is directly responsible for many fossil finds. Fossils that wouldn't even be findable if the continents hadn't been drifting for millions of years to uncover them. It's no coincidence that a map looks like the continents fit together perfectly, and it can be measured where they used to be. 10,000 years only accounts for about 1500 feet of drift in the history of the earth. This is proven false by many fossil finds that date back to Pangaea.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com...

This would have to be yet another thing that suddenly changed its rate of movement during the past. This also ties in with the evolution of race in homo sapiens. In fact, any significant micro evolution is impossible on a 10,000 year earth, but it is observable today.

"The grand canyon could have been formed by a large glacier scraping through the earth as a result of the momentum from flood waters receding."

Please provide a source. The grand canyon is composed of granite. We can observe the Colorado river and it's erosive effect each year. This is further evidence of old earth. It is impossible for the grand canyon to have been suddenly formed by a glacier or flood.

Evolution is validated through fossil evidence, genetic evidence, and speciation. My opponent claims that it cannot be validated socially, therefore it is automatically wrong. This is simply not true. I wasn't saying that a fact is not a fact because it's not scientific. I'm saying that my opponents claims are not facts OR scientific. They are "what ifs" based on a very uninformed interpretation of scientific evidence.

In conclusion, I have undisputed proved that my opponent's claim about free will is not true. Not only is it filling in an unknown gap with a supernatural assumption, but several animals have been shown to have the 3 "requirements" that my opponent has set forth about free will. I have also clearly demonstrated that young earth creationism is not a plausible alternative. The formation of sedimentary lake layers, ice core data, evolution, continental drift, volcanic formations and stalactites are all consistent with their data about the earth. In order for a young earth to be plausible, all of these separate factors would have had to change their rate of formation or movement simultaneously, drastically, and coincidentally in the past. My opponent has not shown any evidence to support his theory or debunked modern science.

Thank you.
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for a wonderful debate and will now conclude.

To begin my conclusion, I will reiterate my opponent's challenge from the first round:

"I challenge any young earther to provide evidence that shows that the earth is young or debunks the modern science that proves the contrary. I will provide countless examples that prove the earth millions to billions of years old."

The voting will be determined based on whether or not the audience believes that my opponent has shown that Young Earth has been conclusively disproven by science, and whether or not my arguments call that "proof" into question.

The Free Will argument:

I would like to point out to the audience that this argument is important in the debate and for them to weigh it heavily in their decision. Remember that the topic is Young Earth Creationism and not Young Earth. My Free Will argument goes to provide a foundation for the plausibility of a creator.

My opponent's rebuttal is essentially that there are animals that exhibit all three traits. However, none of the examples he provided are valid.

1. Falsifiability- Animals that treat their reflections as other animals are not self aware, animals that markedly understand that their reflections are themselves, are self aware. Falsifiability is an irrelevant issue.

2. Beavers and squirrels do not recognize themselves in the mirror, and while they show signs of "foresight", it is actually just ingrained behavior. This differs from the behavior of planning future tool use, as humans do, and is the trait responsible for our development of mathematics and engineering.

3. Dolphins and Chimpanzees may use tools, but they use tools that are nearby or are handy. They do not set the tools aside with a specified use or meaning, thus, they do not demonstrate all three abilities. There is a sharp difference between teaching an animal learned behavior and having it exert its will in the present and the future.

So far, my opponent has provided no evidence debunking the obvious fact that Free Will of the human being is an occurrence that is unnatural. Our ability to not only *have* desires and concepts as to how we want the world to be, but actually manipulate it into being the way it is, is not something Evolution could do. In fact, there is no natural explanation for it and thus, only the supernatural remains.

My opponent's points for Old Earth:

1. Fossils, no matter how they are preserved, tend to only provide the structure of mineralized bone, not of the organism itself. The corpse of the organism would have been traumatized by whatever medium it was fossilized in. My opponent confuses the fossil with the organism. Scientists make too big of a leap between an indirect representation of an organism and the organism itself.

2. The problem with my opponent's assertion is that while a correlation may exist between population and fossil probability, there is absolutely no evidence showing that that correlation is. My opponent's source does not mention any specific numbers. Therefore, 100,000 vs 10,000 members of a species may all be down to guesswork.

3. My opponent again asks me to provide scientific evidence when he has defined science to exclude creationism. The valid conclusions were a result of the articles I posted as sources in previous rounds, and my opponent has not managed to debunk them, only ignore them.

4. My opponent claims that transitional fossils support an Old Earth, this is not the case. So far, our entire discussion has concluded that the mainstream interpretation of so-called "transitional fossils" supports an Old Earth, but this is just the interpretation, not actual evidence. They show different organisms which are arbitrarily arranged in taxonomy into different species, when it is impossible to note whether or not they were separated by ability to reproduce. This is proof that all fossil taxonomy is arbitrary guesswork.

5. My opponent says that the rates have been the same ever since Scientists were studying ice cores. Scientists have been studying ice cores for at most, 100 years. Things could have been drastically different 500 years ago, so this point is moot.

6. My opponent argues that Continental drift rates are another piece of evidence for Old Earth. However, as he himself mentions, there is that possibility that the rates have changed. A toy boat that is pushed will eventually slow down.

Throughout the entire debate, my opponent has been unintentionally harboring and encouraging a bias against Creationism because he believes that mainstream science has been proven. However, with all of the data that he presents, none of it has been shown to be conclusive. I have pointed out circular fallacies and unjustified assumptions in each of the experiments my opponent has listed, instances where scientists interpret their findings under assumed conclusions, which is exactly what my opponent criticized Creationism Science for.

I have shown how all the unjustified assumptions in small parts of mainstream science regarding Evolution and Old Earth lead to tautological answers. I have also explained that unlike bridge building for physics, the concepts around Old Earth, carbon dating, and Taxonomy have no practical usage by which we can check the theories. This is another major possible source of error.

With all of these gaping holes, how can my opponent assert that modern science has "proven" anything at all? If such is the case, then I have fulfilled by burden of showing that modern science at this point, is too flawed and lacking to be able to come to a conclusion on the age of the earth.

Thanks to my opponent for a spectacular debate, and thank you to the audience.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kane-W 7 years ago
Kane-W
Toasty, all of Kleptins doubt dealt with rate change of the measuments we use today which was refuted by Barcs here: "In order for a young earth to be plausible, all of these separate factors would have had to change their rate of formation or movement simultaneously, drastically, and coincidentally in the past."

It would be an incredible coincidence for all forms of radiometric dating, ice formation, stalagtite formation, errosion, volcanic structure formation, fossilization, continental drift and there were a couple more im forgetting to ALL simultaneously, drastically and equally not only change rates but ALL increase rates and then ALL simultaneously, drastically and equally decrease to the present state AND then ALL simultaneously, drastically and equally level off and stop changing AT ALL for as long as we have been measuring them. Not only that but they look exactly the same as if they had formed at the same rate they are today. Things that happen very fast dont look the same as thing that happen slowly. If a 20 foot stalagtite formed in 10,000 years very fast at first then extrememly slow the base of it would look much different than the tip, same with ice cores the deep layers would look much different than those towards the surface. A continent that moved at 1000 times the current rate would probably leave a pretty obvious tell tale sign right?

Why would they all change at the same speed, same direction, and at the same time all extemely then just stop changing when we look at them? That is an impossible coincidence.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
This debate was a bit hard for me to resolve as a voter. I was thinking about burden and burden issues, and trying to pick up the most significant arguments. It came down to a few things.

1) Kleptin showed reasonable enough doubt in scientific evidence, which was never refuted.
2) Kleptin's free will teleological was shown to be false. His wiki source clearly shows that magpies can identify that their reflections are themselves (when shown reflections of themselves with colored stickers under their beaks, magpies attempt to remove the stickers). This proved to be a huge issue as Kleptin's entire proof was undermined.

In retrospect it came down to only two things, of which the first was greater. I ultimately vote with Pro here. The burden established by the instigator in round 1 was an either/or burden, and Kleptin went with both. Though he ultimately failed to prove YEC, he did 'debunk' the provided evidence in a manner which was not refuted.

For this reason:
B/A: Con->Con
C: Tied.
S/G: Pro; I noticed Con saying 'debunks' which should have been 'debunk'. There may have been other errors, but this one stuck with me.
CA: Pro; see above.
S: Tied.
Posted by Barcs 7 years ago
Barcs
Definitely, man. That debate was more challenging than I thought. I definitely learned a lot during this experience. Thanks Kleptin!
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Oh. My. God.

I am never pretending to be a Creationist ever again. I swear, my IQ probably went down 30 points since the start of this debate.

No debate requests for the next few weeks please. I haven't been this drained since I debated Logical-Master about bears >.>

Props to Barcs for an excellent job.
Posted by Kane-W 7 years ago
Kane-W
Well technically Kleptin brought it up, it is a red herring and it should have been treated as such and ignored by Barcs, but instead he debunked it IMO. That said IMO the audience should ignore the issue all together when determining a victor.
Posted by simbaguy2 7 years ago
simbaguy2
Both of the debaters have made an invalid and irrelevant argument, the debate has nothing to do with "free will" it is supoposed to be about YEC, neither debater should win the "debate".
Posted by Renzzy 7 years ago
Renzzy
Kleptin can support Christianity if he chooses to, and I see no mockery. Let the man debate, and judge afterwards. There is no reason to be offended.

Kleptin made a simple request that the comments be withheld until the debate concluded, and it would be respectful to honor it. I would assume judgemental comments like studentathletechristian8's and Volkov's are the reason he made the request.

Judge as you like AFTER the debate is concluded. One way or the other.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Should I be offended that Kleptin, a non-Christian, is trying to support Christianity? It seems like a mockery, but maybe K was just going for ingenuity.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
This is a travesty! Traitorous! Horrible! How could you Kleptin? How could you!

Nice argument though.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Finally, we get to see Kleptin debating on the side of Young Earth Creationists.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Demauscian 7 years ago
Demauscian
BarcsKleptinTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by Mixer 7 years ago
Mixer
BarcsKleptinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
BarcsKleptinTied
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 The_Anarchist_Opposition 7 years ago
The_Anarchist_Opposition
BarcsKleptinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
BarcsKleptinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Barcs 7 years ago
Barcs
BarcsKleptinTied
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 tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
BarcsKleptinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
BarcsKleptinTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
BarcsKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by mistavega 7 years ago
mistavega
BarcsKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30