The Instigator
Kumquatodor
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheUser
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Young-Earth Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 1 vote the winner is...
TheUser
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,084 times Debate No: 39815
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Kumquatodor

Con

I am using this debate as preparation of another debate.


I will be debating a Young-Earth Creationist, so I hope to be able to debate a Christian creationist.



We will be debating whether a literal interpretation of Genesis is scientificly possibe.

My opponent will attempt to prove Biblical Creationism, that the Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000-years-old, and disprove Evolution.

I will defend evolution and disprove Young Earth Creationism.
TheUser

Pro

I accept this argument. Hope to have a nice and interesting debate
Debate Round No. 1
Kumquatodor

Con

1. Noah's Ark is, in no way, possible. At all.
2. What happened to the dinosaurs?
3. How is it that the Earth is 6,000--10,000 years old, when evidence proclaims it to be ~~4.5 billion years old?
TheUser

Pro

1 The Bible does not tell us that Noah and his sons built the Ark by themselves. Noah could have hired skilled laborers or had relatives, such as Methuselah and Lamech, help build the vessel. However, nothing indicates that they could not""or that they did not""build the Ark themselves in the time allotted. The physical strength and mental processes of men in Noah"s day was at least as great (quite likely, even superior) to our own.2 They certainly would have had efficient means for harvesting and cutting timber, as well as for shaping, transporting, and erecting the massive beams and boards required. If the New Testament also mentions him in this passage:

Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.(1)

Was it just a fairy tale? No because even the people talk about him. I don't think the story was passed through oral tradition.

2 There is no word for it in the Hebrew language. If you think about it, why would God talk about an extinct group of species in his creation.(2)

3 Far from proving evolution, carbon-14 dating actually provides some of the strongest evidence for creation and a young earth. For information on this particular evolution lie, check this out to disprove those myths: (3)

(1)http://christianity.about.com...
(2)http://www.godandscience.org...
(3)http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Kumquatodor

Con

1 The Bible does not tell us that Noah and his sons built the Ark by themselves. Noah could have hired skilled laborers or had relatives, such as Methuselah and Lamech, help build the vessel. However, nothing indicates that they could not""or that they did not""build the Ark themselves in the time allotted. The physical strength and mental processes of men in Noah"s day was at least as great (quite likely, even superior) to our own. They certainly would have had efficient means for harvesting and cutting timber, as well as for shaping, transporting, and erecting the massive beams and boards required.
I say they COULD build them, but my problems are:

1. Where did all the water come from?
2. How did the animals fit into a boat 1/3 the Titanic's size?
3. How did humanity repopulate with a only few incestuous humans in 4000 years?
4. How did animals repopulate?
5. How did all the animals spread from one area to areas across oceans?
_____________________________________________________________
There is no word for it in the Hebrew language. If you think about it, why would God talk about an extinct group of species in his creation.
See next section.
_______________
Far from proving evolution, carbon-14 dating actually provides some of the strongest evidence for creation and a young earth. For information on this particular evolution lie, check this out to disprove those myths
You are partially correct. Carbon 14 does dissipate too quickly to accurately date objects over 50,000 years.

However, due to this, scientist use several methods, such as uranium dating, to see that the planet is about 4.5 billion years old, a far cry from a measly 6000 years.

How would the dinosaurs be 6000 years old if uranium, much more slowly dissipating, says 65 million years old?
TheUser

Pro

1. Where did all the water come from?The "fountains of the great deep" are mentioned before the "windows of heaven," indicating either relative importance or the order of events.
What are the "fountains of the great deep?" This phrase is used only in Genesis 7:11. "Fountains of the deep" is used in Genesis 8:2, where it clearly refers to the same thing, and Proverbs 8:28, where the precise meaning is not clear. "The great deep" is used three other times: Isaiah 51:10, where it clearly refers to the ocean; Amos 7:4, where God"s fire of judgement is said to dry up the great deep, probably the oceans; and Psalm 36:6 where it is used metaphorically of the depth of God"s justice/judgement. "The deep" is used more often, and usually refers to the oceans (e.g., Genesis 1:2; Job 38:30, 41:32; Psalm 42:7, 104:6; Isaiah 51:10, 63:13; Ezekiel 26:19; Jonah 2:3), but sometimes to subterranean sources of water (Ezekiel 31:4, 15). The Hebrew word (mayan) translated "fountains" means "fountain, spring, well."1
2. How did the animals fit into a boat 1/3 the Titanic's size? One commonly raised problem is "How could you fit all those huge dinosaurs on the Ark?" First, of the 668 supposed dinosaur genera, only 106 weighed more than ten tons when fully grown. Second, as said above, the number of dinosaur genera is probably greatly exaggerated. But these numbers are granted by Woodmorappe to be generous to skeptics. Third, the Bible does not say that the animals had to be fully grown. The largest animals were probably represented by "teenage" or even younger specimens. The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have been that of a small rat, according to Woodmorappe"s up-to-date tabulations, while only about 11% would have been much larger than a sheep.
3. How did humanity repopulate with a only few incestuous humans in 4000 years?Now, the way it's been explained to me is that all human civilization arose post-Flood. Using ages and dates in the Bible it's possible to determine the exact year (starting from the creation of Adam at 4026 BCE):

From Adam's creation to the birth of Seth 130 years
Then to the birth of Enosh 105 years
To the birth of Kenan 90 years
To the birth of Mahalalel 70 years
To the birth of Jared 65 years
To the birth of Enoch 162 years
To the birth of Methuselah 65 years
To the birth of Lamech 187 years
To the birth of Noah 182 years
To the Flood 600 years
Thanks to Bible geneology and chronology, the flood can be pinned to 2370 BCE, roughly 4,400 years ago as you said.

Anyhow, the progenitors of the modern human race were Ham, Shem and Japheth, Noah's three sons and their wives. They were fruitful and multiplied after the flood down to around the time of Peleg when the Tower of Babel was built. The building of the tower lead to the dispersion of various ethnic and language groups to all corners of the Earth and the rest, as they say, is history.

It's impossible to work out from the Bible the exact time of the Tower of Babel, but it's estimated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 180 years after the flood based on when Peleg lived.

Now, the earliest known Egyptian pyramid (the Step Pyramid) has been dated to about 300 years prior to this date, the slightly later Red Pyramid, Bent Pyramid and (of course) the Giza Pyramids and the Sphinx are all generally dated as occuring before the Biblical flood date as well. Of course, these datings must be off by somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 years or so in order for their construction to have occured post-Tower of Babel. So, presuming thats the case the next question is how many people needed to be alive in Egypt at the time of the pyramids construction in order to facilitate said construction? It's really impossible to tell for certain, but the generally accepted estimate is around 1-2 million people living in Egypt at the time and a pyramid building workforce around 20,000 people.

It's not only Egypt that needs to be accounted for, of course. The entire fertile crescent region, Sumeria, Accadia, Babylon itself, that entire region was likewise populated shortly after the flood and a lot of cities were built indicating minimally hundreds of thousands, likely millions more people.

In China, by around 2100 BCE (admittedly nearly 300 years after the flood) the earliest recorded records of a Xia dynasty are known to exist. So, presumably the China-bound descendants of the flood survivors, when scattered at Babel, took a while to migrate over there and then developed their culture. There were, apparently, tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of people in China at this time as well.

So, in an effort to determine if I could stick the to realities of human biology and postulate a repopulation scenario, I wrote a computer program today (I'm a programmer). I made many unreasonable assumptions by modern standards but I assumed that God would be using miraculous abilities to accelerate and support the repopulation effort. My program takes various parameters but it starts with the initial condition that 6 breeding pairs of humans (the Bible doesn't indicate that Noah and his wife had more children than the three) began to procreate at the fastest rate they could. The reproduction was divinely supported to be as effective as possible.
4. How did animals repopulate?Skeptics often claim, "The Bible is not a science textbook." This, of course, is true"because science textbooks change every year, whereas the Bible is the unchanging Word of God"the God who cannot lie. Nevertheless, the Bible can be relied upon when it touches on every scientific issue, including ecology. It is the Bible that gives us the big picture. Within this big picture, we can build scientific models that help us explain how past events may have come about. Such models should be held to lightly, but the Scripture to which they refer is inerrant. That is to say future research may cast doubt on an actual model, without casting doubt on Scripture.
With this in mind, the question needs to be asked, "Is there a Bible-based model that we can use to help explain how animals might have migrated from where the Ark landed to where they live today?" The answer is yes. Animals repopulate fast since some can have up to 100 babies.
Debate Round No. 3
Kumquatodor

Con

The reproduction was divinely supported to be as effective as possible.
Ok. Human repopulation COULD, with intervention, repopulate in ideal conditions. However, the lack of food (no meat or plants), combined with the million megatons of water make this impossible.


Consider: The Earth has a diameter of about 4000 miles, bringing the area to of a (admittedly flat, but none-the-less accurate) about 12,560,000 sq miles. The tallest mountain is 4 miles.

Therefore, the area including mountain height would be about 12,585,130 sq miles.

12,585,130 sq mi (the hight of the water at its highest point)--12,560,000 sq mi (the Earth's area)=25,000 sq mi of water.

25,000 sq miles is way too much to be stored on/in Earth. That would weigh 55,000,000 metric tons, or about 50,000,000 short tons. Where did the water go?
___________________________________________________
The answer is yes. Animals repopulate fast since some can have up to 100 babies.
100 babies while having NO food? Not possible.

Consider that some animals are native to Austrailia, which is across the ocean. How kangaroos get there? Did they swim 1000 miles?

How did penguins get to the Pole? Did they waddle through the desert?
_________________________________________________________
The God who cannot lie.
Off topic, I know, but if God cannot lie, then he is not omnipotent.
TheUser

Pro

1. Where did the water go?

The whole Earth was covered with the Flood waters, and the world that then existed was destroyed by the very waters out of which the Earth had originally emerged at God's command (Genesis 1:9; 2 Peter 3:5-6). But where did those waters go after the Flood?

There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the Flood waters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8-11 note "waves"). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah's day? Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the Earth (verse 9)[1]. They are the same waters!

Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the Earth (Isaiah 54:9). Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God acted to alter the Earth's topography. New continental landmasses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basin were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.

That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire Earth's surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the Earth's surface to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers). We need to remember that nearly 70 percent of the Earth's surface is still covered by water. Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah's Flood are in today's ocean basins.

A Mechanism?

The catastrophic plate tectonics model gives a mechanism for the deepening of the oceans and the rising of mountains at the end of the Flood.

As the new ocean floors cooled, they would have become denser and sunk, allowing water to flow off the continents. Movement of the water off the continents and into the oceans would have weighed down the ocean floor and lightened the continents, resulting in the further sinking of the ocean floor, as well as upward movement of the continents.[2] The deepening of the ocean basins and the rising of the continents would have resulted in more water running off the land.

The collision of the tectonic plates would have pushed up mountain ranges also, especially toward the end of the Flood.

Could the Water Cover Mt. Everest?

Mount Everest is more than 5 miles (8 kilometers) high. How, then, could the Flood have covered "all the high hills under the whole heaven"?

The Bible refers only to "high hills," and the mountains today were formed only toward the end of, and after, the Flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mount Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.

This uplift of the new continental landmasses from under the Flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the flood waters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today's Earth surface.

Thus, it is not hard to envisage the rapid carving of the landscape features that we see on the Earth today, including places such as the Grand Canyon of the United States.

The present shape of Uluru (Ayers Rock), as sandstone monolith in central Australia, is the result of erosion, following tilting and uplift, of previously horizontal beds of water-laid sand. The feldspar-rich sand that makes up Uluru must have been deposited very quickly and recently. Long-distance transport of the sand would have caused the grains to be rounded and sorted, whereas they are jagged and unsorted. If they had sat accumulating slowly in a lake bed drying in the sun over eons of time, which is the story told in the geological display at the park center, the feldspar would have weathered into clay.

Likewise, if Uluru had sat in the once-humid area of central Australia for millions of years, it would have weathered to clay.[3] Similarly, the nearby Kata Tjuta (the Olgas) are composed of an unsorted mixture of large boulders, sand, and mud, indicating that the material must have been transported and deposited very rapidly.

The erosion caused by receding flood waters is the reason that river valleys are far larger than the rivers now flowing in them could have carved. The water flow that carved the river valleys must have been far greater than the volume of water we see flowing in the rivers today. This is consistent with voluminous flood waters draining off the emerging land surfaces at the close of Noah's Flood, and flowing into the rapidly sinking, newly prepared, deep ocean basins.

Our understanding of how the Flood could have occurred is continually developing. Ideas come and go, but the fact of the Flood remains. Genesis clearly testifies to it, Jesus and the apostles confirmed it, and there is abundant global geological evidence for a global watery cataclysm

Footnotes

The most natural translation for the beginning of Psalm 104:8 is "The mountains rose up; the valleys sank down." See C.V.Taylor, "Did the Mountains Really Rise According to Psalm 104:8?" CEN Technical Journal, 1998, 12(3), p. 155.

The geological principle involved is isostasy, where the plates are "floating" on the mantle. The ocean basins are composed of denser rock than the continents, so the ocean basins sit lower in the mantle than the less dense continents with their mountains.

2 How did animals get to their native places after the flood?

Let us begin by reaffirming that God's Word does indeed reveal, in the plainest possible terms, that the whole globe was inundated with a violent, watery cataclysm"Noah's flood. All land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures not on the ark perished and the world was re-populated by those surviving on the ark.

How Did the Animals Get to the Ark?

Skeptics paint a picture of Noah going to countries remote from the Middle East to gather animals such as kangaroos and koalas from Australia, and kiwis from New Zealand. However, the Bible states that the animals came to Noah; he did not have to round them up (Genesis 6:20). God apparently caused the animals to come to Noah. The Bible does not state how this was done.

We also do not know what the geography of the world was like before the flood. If there was only one continent at that time, then questions of getting animals from remote regions to the ark are not relevant.
Debate Round No. 4
Kumquatodor

Con

Kumquatodor forfeited this round.
TheUser

Pro

This is last round. My opponent has forfeited so I have nothing to respond to.

Gl
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by gryephon 3 years ago
gryephon
Maybe later, looks like the position is filled.
Posted by Kumquatodor 3 years ago
Kumquatodor
Go ahead, @gryephon.
Posted by gryephon 3 years ago
gryephon
Is the pro required to disagree with evolution entirely, or can they agree with micro-evolution and disagree with macro.-evolution?
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
No, no NO! Arguing that it's "possible" is really giving a HUGE advantage to the YEC. However, if you are doing mere possibility, you might want to look at this: http://www.debate.org...

You're welcome, and good luck! :)
Posted by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
This is like looking for a free win. lol
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
KumquatodorTheUserTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I think the idea of Young Earth Creationism is absurd beyond belief. However this debate has to go to Pro, as his arguments were more coherent and formulated. Additionally sources have to go to Pro, as he cited sources. Conduct and grammar points similarly go to Pro, for not forfeiting and for using better grammar. It seems Con was just asking questions and never engaged in the debate. well done Pro, even though you Creationism is wrong :)