The Instigator
CharlesWhitman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Minuteman
Con (against)
Winning
45 Points

Young-earth creation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,455 times Debate No: 17322
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (8)

 

CharlesWhitman

Pro

Science is completely misguided when talking about the age of the earth. Their "evidence" doesn't make sense, and I think the devil is working his game over these fools! Scientists used to believe that Adam and Eve were real and that they birthed humanity, that the earth was completely changed by Noah's flood. They knew this stuff was real! It wasn't until atheistic writings began to trick people that scientists began writing new theories, which contradicted the Bible. These new scientists with their new "theories" didn't even test to see if Noah's flood could have happened. As a consequence, people began not to believe any more. God tells us what happened, so what purpose is there to go against the perfect word?
Minuteman

Con

"God tells us what happened, so what purpose is there to go against the perfect word?"

Flawed argument. The Bible is not true, and God does not exist. If so, my opponent has failed to prove so.

Please vote con.
Debate Round No. 1
CharlesWhitman

Pro

There's plenty of reasons to believe that the Bible is true! It's been around for over a thousand years and all its prophecies have come true, and millions of people believe in it, so there must be some truth to it. Science has been around for about 500 years and has changed over-and-over again. Moreover, I cannot, and no one can, prove God exists. One must have faith. You have faith that nothing exists, and I have faith something does
Minuteman

Con

"Faith" is not a scientific argument.

Please vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
CharlesWhitman

Pro

Heathen, I never made a scientific argument! You have yet to make a single argument.
Minuteman

Con

"I never made a scientific argument!"

He has never made a scientific argument. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
"Also, as to the "prophecies that have come true," those prophecies are so vague that nearly anything can be warped to apply." While this isn't really true... (He shall be born of a Virgin, they pierced my hands and divided my lots), I agree that Pro is a sad mark on the face of intellectual Christianity.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
I like how Minuteman manages to destroy Pro's weak arguments with a couple of sentences....
Posted by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
DetectableNinja
And since the Bible nor God can be proven, Pro's argument is destroyed.
Posted by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
DetectableNinja
Science (by its TRUE definition) has technically been around for almost as long as the Bible has. Also, saying that millions believe it and that it's been around longer is not an argument. Also, as to the "prophecies that have come true," those prophecies are so vague that nearly anything can be warped to apply.
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
oh dear Lord. This helps me understand why so many atheists think us Christians are ignorant and foolish.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
If science is based on evidence and justification (that provides its integrity), then how can its theories be baseless....Do you think scientists believed in evolution without considering/acknowledging any evidence? My, I hope Minuteman show this member a big favor...
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Kinesis, just because you can't accept that it is turtles all the way down doesn't mean the rest of us should live in ignorance.
Posted by SuperRobotWars 5 years ago
SuperRobotWars
This debate is nothing but facepalm, I would accept if it were simply 2 rounds long.
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
You see, guys like this are the strongest argument against representative government.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
CharlesWhitmanMinutemanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Try to stay away from the fallacies charles. This a debate site not a drunken proselytizing session. This has got to be a joke right? Ok, where's the camera?
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
CharlesWhitmanMinutemanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, calling your opponent a 'heathen' and insulting scientists by calling them followers of the devil, really isn't going to win you a point for conduct, or argumentation. Even while Con's arguments were terse, your argument was neither objective or based on facts...
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
CharlesWhitmanMinutemanTied
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: Pitiful... just pitiful.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
CharlesWhitmanMinutemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no answer to Cons refutation and just kept repeating himself. Faith may be something we all should have but you can not argue that your belief is correct because you have faith that it is.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
CharlesWhitmanMinutemanTied
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: flawed arguments from pro.
Vote Placed by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
CharlesWhitmanMinutemanTied
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 was at least expecting some nonsense christian things like about moon dust and stuff.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
CharlesWhitmanMinutemanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I think it speaks volumes about how awful Whitmans arguments were that I, a conservative Christian, give all points to Con.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 5 years ago
SuperRobotWars
CharlesWhitmanMinutemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Tis a shame, no sources were used, grammar/spelling was about the same, and con convinced me with 3 sentences.