The Instigator
muzebreak
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Levine
Pro (for)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,993 times Debate No: 27161
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)

 

muzebreak

Con

This debate is on whether Young earth creationism, hereafter know as Yec, matches with the current scientific understanding of the universe and empirical evidence gathered to date. I leave it to my opponent to expand upon what (s)he understands to be Yec.
This debate is 5 rounds, with an 8000 character limit and 72 hours to argue. My opponent shall lay out his/her case in the first round, then I will respond.

The rules are as follows:

-No plagiarism. Quotes are ok, but if they are going to be long then please try and just say it in your own words.

-Swearing is allowed and encouraged (this is slightly in jest as I find it annoying when people purposely add a rule forbidding it).

-No semantics, any questions as to definitions are to be issued through the comments section or a PM.

If my opponent would like me to clarify anything I have said here then (s)he can PM me or post in the comments section. If (S)he would like me to amend the resolution then (s)he can do the same.

I wish him/her luck, and hope that we are both able to provide a challenge for each other.
Levine

Pro

A Debate over Evidence, or Worldviews?

We all have a worldview – a way of thinking about the world we live in. We all have certain beliefs: ideas that we hold to be true. These beliefs affect how we see the world and how we interpret the things we experience.

For example, most of us believe that things cannot cease to exist. So if we see a magician make someone disappear, we know that it is just a trick. Maybe a trap door exists that we don’t see. Maybe it is a trick using light and mirrors. In whatever case, the person did not really vanish. Notice that we do not draw this conclusion because of what we actually saw, but because it is the only explanation that is compatible with our worldview. Our beliefs have affected our interpretation of the evidence.

A young child might draw and completely different conclusion. Maybe she doesn’t have enough experience to know people don’t have the power to make something vanish. Or maybe she understands that most people cannot do this, but she thinks that maybe magicians can. In any case, because she has a different worldview that we do, she draws a different conclusion: the magician can make people vanish! Our worldview prevents us from drawing that conclusion, even though we have witnessed the exact same event. We both have the same evidence, but we have a different interpretation.

A worldview is really a kind of bias. It prevents us from being objective and “open-minded” about certain things. That’s not quite a bad thing. In a way, a worldview is like having “mental glasses.” Many people wear lenses to help them see the world better. Without these glasses the world appears blurry, but with these glasses, the world snaps into focus and things become clear. We all wear “mental glasses” – we all have a worldview.

This is the heart of debates (i.e. creation versus evolution). Many people think the debate is about evidence, and although evidence is important, evidence is always interpreted through a person’s worldview. So the debate is really about worldviews, about which interpretation of the evidence is best.

Think about it this way: creationists, evolutionists, etc., all have the same evidence. They have the same fossils and the same rocks. They study the same principles of genetics, chemistry, and physics. They observe the same universe. Why then do we draw different conclusions when it comes to matters of origins? Ultimately, it is because they have different worldviews, and so they interpret the same evidence differently.

The very heart of the issue is if we start from the foundation of the Bible, or the foundation of naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that there is nothing outside of “nature” – the world we see, with its matter and energy, is all that exists, so it must have created itself through its own natural processes. There is no supernatural realm in this worldview. Therefore, they are operating within a naturalistic framework that rejects God.

Some say we shouldn’t start from the Bible, that it's unscientific. But, if the Bible really is accurate history, wouldn’t it be unscientific to ignore this information? Is it logical to deny recorded history, and choose to rely instead on guess work? Since all scientific evidences must be interpreted in light of some worldview, it’s very reasonable to base mine on the infallible Word of the Creator. The Bible is a sure foundation for a worldview that is logical, moral, self-consistent, and consistent with the evidence. Thousands of books have been written on how the scientific evidence is consistent with what the Bible teaches. These resources have shown that biology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, and astronomy make sense when interpreted through the glasses of Scripture. You can find these resources at http://answersingenesis.org..., http://creation.com..., http://icr.org..., and many others. I will be touching up just a bit on astronomy.

What is Young Earth Creationism?

The belief that our Creator, the God of the Bible, created the universe and earth about 6,000 years ago over six 24 hour days. This is what the Bible teaches, no matter what Theistic Evolutionists say. Their view contradicts the Bible in too many ways.

The Evidence Confirms a Young Universe (Astronomy)

Scientific evidence is very consistent with the Bible. So why do secular scientists believe the evidence points to a really old universe? People who believe in the bang bang will interpret the evidence according to the big bang (sometimes without realizing it). So in other words, they assume that the big bang is true and they interpret the evidence to match their beliefs. We all interpret the evidence in our worldview; there is no getting around it. The Bible, though, is also used to interpret the evidence. Since the Bible is true history of the universe, you’ll see it makes more sense of the evidence than any other worldview does (i.e. big bang).

Of course, big-bang supporters can always reinterpret the evidence by adding on extra assumptions (unprovable beliefs) so, these facts aren’t intended to “prove” anything. The Bible is right in all matters because it is the Word of God. However, you’ll see the evidence is consistent with a young universe.

Recession of the Moon

From the book Taking Back Astronomy: The Heavens declare creation by Dr. Jason Lisle.

Since earth rotates faster than the moon orbits, the tidal bulges induced by the moon are always “ahead” of the moon. For this reason the tides actually “pull forward” on the moon, causing the moon to gain energy and spiral outward. The moon moves about an inch and a half farther away from the earth every year due to this. Thus, the moon would have been closer to earth in the past. Six thousand years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet closer to the earth (the moon is a quarter of a million miles away). So this is not a problem over the biblical time scale of 6,000 years, but if the earth and moon were over 4,000,000,000 years old, then we have problems. The moon would have been so close that it would actually have been touching earth less than 1.5 billion years ago. This suggests the moon can’t possibly be as old as secular astronomers claim (JL 54-55). This chapter is also available online here -- http://www.answersingenesis.org...

The Magnetic Field of the Earth

The magnetic field surrounds the earth and is an important design feature. The universe has radiation which is harmful to living tissue. The magnetic field protects life by deflecting cosmic radiation. The magnetic field is caused by electric currents within its interior. These currents encounter electrical resistance, so they naturally decay over time. We therefore expect the magnetic field becomes weaker over time. Every 100 years, the magnetic field decays by 5 percent. Since the earth’s magnetic field gets weaker as time moves forward, it was considerably strong in the past. So strong in fact, 20,000 years ago life would be impossible.[1] 6,000 years ago the magnetic field would be a lot stronger, but perfect for life (JL 58-61).

also - Magnetic Fields on other Planets

The magnetic fields of other planets are aloes quite strong. If these were billions of years old their magnetic fields would be extremely weak by now. But, there not. A reasonable explanation for this is that these planets are only a few thousand years old, as the Bible teaches.

Dr. Russ Humphreys, (Ph.D. physicist and biblical creationist) produced a model of planetary magnetic fields which can explain their present strengths in terms of biblical creation.[2] This is the model that successfully predicted the present magnetic field strengths of the planets and moons before they were measured by the Voyager spacecraft (JL 58-64).[3]

Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence.



Debate Round No. 1
muzebreak

Con

Greetings, to dear readers and my honorable opponent.

My opponent has committed plagiarism of from the page
http://www.answersingenesis.org....

He took his entire opening statement, bar changing a few words, from said link.
As I have already said in the comments, I will let this clear rules violation
slide because it is not part of his actual argument.

I will be arguing that Yec is false, and that this earth is billions rather then
thousands of years old. And that the universe is much, much, older then that.

I will start by providing my evidence for a, approximately, 13.75 billion year
old universe.

The Universe is expanding.

Slowly but surly, the Universe is expanding into possibility space. This will eventually
lead to a heat death of the universe, but that is in the future. Right now, we are simply following
along the path to possibility space. Flying through space and time according to the
laws of physics.

Redshift

Redshift, it is but one key piece of evidence that the universe is expanding.
Based on our view of the universe, gained from the Hubble telescope, we can say that the universe
is expanding. One of the way's we can tell this is the shift of light through spectrum's.

When an object is moving away we can observe a shift in how we perceive it. And this is what is happening
with the stars far far away. This shift allows us to determine speed and direction of this light
producing object.

Based on the observations made by the Hubble telescope, we can conclusively see that
redshift is happening all around us and that the universe is expanding.

Cosmic microwave background radiation

Cosmic microwave background radiation [2], or Cmbr, is the left over heat from the expansion of the universe.

A heat level of "2.72548 " 0.00057 K"[3] permeates the universe, this is evidence
that the universe expanded form a singularity causing immense levels of heat.

I will take time to expand upon these in my next round, but for now I will use the rest of my space
to answer my opponent.

I would like to address my opponents claims towards bias in the view of the evidence.

So I shall.

I shall point out to my opponent that the system of peer review does it's best to cut out said bias,
allowing for people of every viewpoint to come to their own conclusion of the evidence and have it seen. And I will
point out to my opponent that peer reviewers are a vicious, vindictive, bunch, and that the slightest
error in a paper can ruin a persons career.

The scientific method was created, in part, to remove the exact bias that my opponent is speaking about.

I would like to also point out that my opponents argument is but a house of cards, flimsy that will be
knocked over by the slightest gust of wind. Well here is my tornado.

The idea that the universe is billions of years of was proved, surprise surprise, before scientists
thought the universe was billions of years old. This alone shows that his idea of people looking at
this idea under the view point of this idea is false, but lets forget about that for a second. My
opponent claims that every person who looked at the idea of the universe and accepted it, the majority
having done so, did so purely because they already accepted it. I would like my opponent to explain
why it is that only the religious believe that the universe is anything near thousands of years
old. Maybe its that bias he is talking about, something that festers and grows in religion; which
has no mechanism to remove it.

Science is inherently removed from bias, or at least as much as possible. While religion thrives on it.

Science is inherently self correcting, and is static in its explanations. While religion is
inherently dynamic; it sticks to what it started with allowing for next to no advancement in knowledge
because of its own arrogance.

My opponent assumes, in his own words an unprovable belief, that the bible is a true history of
the universe.

I assume nothing. I know nothing until it is proved through the scientific method. I only accept that
which is empirically verified and tested using various methods to breed out bias and error.

Now I would like to address my opponents argument towards the earths magnetic field.

But I shan't, since his argument about lunar recession comes first.

Lunar recession.

Now, my opponent throws out some interesting numbers. Those of us familiar with the popular
youtube atheist 'Thunderf00t' will know that he dealt with a similar, but more factually incorrect,
argument. But his video is my favorite source, so I'll throw it in here. [4]

Now, first off; my opponents argument assumes that the moon would have been receding from the earth
for the earths entire existence, so we already have some issues. The moon, in fact, was created when
a body of mass struck the earth near its formation.

"How did the moon form? According to the "giant impact" theory, the young Earth had no moon.
At some point in Earth's early history, a rogue planet, larger than Mars, struck the Earth in a
great, glancing blow. Instantly, most of the rogue body and a sizable chunk of Earth were vaporized.
The cloud rose to above 13,700 miles (22,000 kilometers) altitude, where it condensed into innumerable
solid particles that orbited the Earth as they aggregated into ever larger moonlets, which
eventually combined to form the moon."

So now we know that the moon hasn't been receding for the full age of the earth. But there are still
more erroneous assumptions made by my opponents argument. It assumes that the earths continents have
always been arranged the same way. I assumes that the lunar recession rate has always been the same.
It assumes so many things, and this is from the guy who started off talking about how we make
so many assumptions to get to our viewpoint.

His lunar recession argument completely collapses in on itself with but a little bit of research.

Now onto the magnetic arguments!

It seems my opponents arguments take next to no research to find huge gaping holes. I, luckily, found
a direct refutation of the source of his argument located Here-> [6]

Basically, his argument was taken from answers in genesis. It was written by a Dr.Sarfati.
And Dr.Sarfati based his argument off of the book "Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field".
The problem started when Dr.Sarfati used this book, because Barnes (the author) uses an erroneous
model of how the earths magnetic field actually works.

Dave E. Matson, B.A in mathematics, had this to say about Barnes magnetic argument:

"We can safely relegate Barnes' magnetic field argument to the junk heap of crackpot ideas.
Barnes' work lacks the scientific integrity, competence, and judgment one expects from a
scientific work."

Matson also wrote a paper detailing why Barnes' argument is incorrect.

An exert from his paper on Barnes' work has this to say:

"Barnes employs an obsolete model of the earth's interior. Today, no one doing serious work on the earth's magnetic field envisions its source as a free electrical current in a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay. Elsasser's dynamo theory is the only theory today which has survived." [7]

And so you can see that all of my opponent's arguments are based on false premises, false mathematics, and false science. And that none of them hold to the slightest scrutiny.

Sources are in the comments section.
Levine

Pro

I told you it was a mistake. You mentioned this in the comments, there was no point in saying it here. I’ve provided proper reference when you brought this up earlier.

The Universe is Expanding

You’re actually correct. The universe is indeed expanding. The Bible actually points out in a number of places that the universe has been “stretched out” or expanded. Isaiah 40:22 tells us that God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” Verses like this teach that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation, God has expanded it. When this was written, and till recently, secular scientists thought that the universe was eternal and unchanging. This would have caused Christians to read verses like this in an unnatural way, modern science now confirms this though. The Bible recorded the notion of an expanding universe thousands of years before secular science came to accept the idea.

Red Shift

The expansion of the universe does not actually support the big bang, as that’s what you’re trying to do. Just because the universe is thought to be expanding doesn’t mean it was ever small (i.e. singularity). This also doesn’t indicate that a big bang caused this expansion. The big bang model didn’t even predict this expansion. The big bang was made to make since of such expansion within the paradigm (framework) of naturalism. The Bible, although, brought forward the fact of an expanding universe thousands of years before secular scientists considered it. Also Red Shift isn’t really a fact to as of why the universe is expanding. Scientists have begun to question this interpretation of an expanding universe. There’s a lot of other ways to explain such “stretching out.”[2]

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

Explain.

You’re Claims about Bias’ and Worldviews

The ‘peer review system’ doesn’t cut out bias. Please, go look at a secular scientific journal, and tell me where it offers up the possibility of God being real. Tell me where it points out that evolution and the big bang, etc., are not proven. Show me where your ‘peer reviewed’ scientific journals don’t use propaganda tactics to convey their theories as true. You’re right though; the slightest error of an author mentioning the possibility of God in a secular journal will for sure ruin their career.

Seriously, proved? How? And which science are you speaking of, observational or historical? There radically different! For example, how does the 1st Law of Thermodynamics “prove” the big bang, when it emphatically states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed? That is true science rejecting cosmic evolution. I won’t waste any space on this, so look at this video J

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

“The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said:

‘We take the side of [evolutionary] science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

Now that’s open-minded isn’t it? Isn’t ‘science’ about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions. The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:

‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.’

So the fundamentally important question is, ‘which worldview (bias) is correct?’, because this will determine the correctness of the conclusions from the data.”[3]

The facts do not speak for themselves. They must be interpreted. We don’t pull out rocks or fossils from the ground with a label of how old they are. The scientific method doesn’t apply to historical science in the way it applies to observational (experimental) science. You can’t repeat past events. If you ‘know nothing until it is proved through the scientific method’ then you’re in the wrong debate. Because you must know nothing about evolution or creation.

Lunar Recession

I’ve never heard of creationists saying ‘3 inches’… I believe I did say 1 ½. His math sounds great, but it’s misleading. Refutations like his have been answered many times. The recession of the moon is not constant over time. It would have been faster in the past. So, it is incorrect to assume that the rate has always been 1 ½ /year.[4] So actually, your friend in the video is the one with the bad math. See this in detail from the article I just cited.

The ‘impact theory’ is fact? Were you there? Let’s just put that outside for now, and use your theory. You left out how old they estimated the moon to be. Your right that this article did say the ‘young earth had no moon’, but you leave out where the article states the moon is assumed to be (through their assumptions) basically the same age of earth. So, basically the math is still the same in my equation used for the recession.

You go on to say I assume the continents have always been the same, I never assumed such thing.

You also say I assumed the rate of recession to be constant. I believe above I pointed out the guy in the video did this, instead. I didn’t.

And no, our viewpoint (worldview) causes our assumptions. Which have to be made to interpret the evidence? I’ve explained this.

Magnetic Field

Look at the end notes on the articles I provide before you assume things. The citations you provided were supported with no scientific explanations. And most of them had no references. So were left to wonder whether they made up their argument or if it’s actually trustworthy. The statements made in your citations are a great example of how objections to biblical creation are ultimately subjective and emotional in nature — not logically rational.

Read this article http://www.answersingenesis.org... again. :) I don’t think you really read it. Or anything else I’ve cited.

This specific article was actually written by “Dr. Andrew Snelling
who holds a PhD in geology and has worked as a consultant research geologist in both Australia and America. Author of numerous scientific articles." Reliable, accurate, published geological field data have emphatically confirmed the young-earth model for magnetic fields.

I can't wait to hear the evidence for your side of the argument. As you can now see my arguments aren't based on 'false'... anything. Readers should be encouraged to look at the sources provided. You also never made since of the same evidence, based on your beliefs. Oh and to answer your question, I believe the earth is 6,000 years old because God was there, and He says it is. And the evidence fits perfectly. I pray you see that through this debate in later rounds.



[2]http://www.answersingenesis.org... -- #66 deals with this.

[3]http://creation.com... read the full article.

Debate Round No. 2
muzebreak

Con

muzebreak forfeited this round.
Levine

Pro

I guess there is a good reason for why you forfeited the last round. I will not post more evidences so that you will not be overwhelmed with things to reply to. For your benefit, I'll allow for this debate to be done another time if you so wish. And this debate should be determined as a tie if that's what should happen.
Debate Round No. 3
muzebreak

Con

muzebreak forfeited this round.
Levine

Pro

.... well
Debate Round No. 4
muzebreak

Con

muzebreak forfeited this round.
Levine

Pro

Levine forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
@Muzebreak, just post or votes will be against you for FF
Posted by Levine 4 years ago
Levine
Oh yeah, read the next sentence after I said it didn't predict it! The big bang model was made to make since of such expansion within the naturalism framework. It was known that the universe was expanding before your model came to be. Again, the bible tells us of the expanding universe thousands of years before secularists accepted it.
Posted by Levine 4 years ago
Levine
Oh yeah, read the next sentence after I said it didn't predict it! The big bang model was made to make since of such expansion within the naturalism framework. It was known that the universe was expanding before your model came to be. Again, the bible tells us of the expanding universe thousands of years before secularists accepted it.
Posted by Levine 4 years ago
Levine
Your comment was just another example, again, of emotional counters, because you can't logically defend your case (evolutionists usually do this). The model didn't predict it, this is true. Maybe you just don't understand the sentence. And I assure you, I'm very informed.
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
Nope. Found the thread just after entry closed.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Ouch. Although I'm a staunch YEC, this really isn't good. Levine, you should have used the biological arguments, they are much easier to understand and write out.

Muzebreak, are you in the DDO beginners tournament?
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
Wow........

I just finished reading your argument. I'm tempted to not even reply, I'm not sure if it's worth my time to reply to such stupidity.

I mean seriously! How can you say things like "The big bang model didn"t even predict this expansion."

and "For example, how does the 1st Law of Thermodynamics "prove" the big bang, when it emphatically states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed?".

While trying to masquerade as having some scientific understanding??????

The big bang theory is, literally, the expansion of the universe. It has nothing to do with how he universe came about and it most certainly predicted the expansion of the universe.

And you make so many strawmans of my arguments, it's not even funny. Your reply actually made me angry at some points, purely because of how stupid and misinformed it is.
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
Oh, and I brought it up in my argument for the benefit of the reader.
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
Levine,

I don't think you read rules.......

It doesnt matter if you sourced it, you c/p several paragpaphs.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
WARNING: CREATIONIST MATH

lol
No votes have been placed for this debate.