Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Group Debate on Age of The Earth

creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 11:53:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I want to setup a group debate of 3 vs 3 on the age of the Earth. I am on the side of Young-Earth Creationism and I need two other good debaters who agree with this position. I want to challenge 3 people who accept the standard age of the Earth as 4.5Gy; your religious beliefs do not matter. So comment below and lets see if we can get this debate rolling!
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 11:17:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 11:53:49 PM, creationtruth wrote:
I want to setup a group debate of 3 vs 3 on the age of the Earth. I am on the side of Young-Earth Creationism and I need two other good debaters who agree with this position. I want to challenge 3 people who accept the standard age of the Earth as 4.5Gy; your religious beliefs do not matter. So comment below and lets see if we can get this debate rolling!

Count me in, if I'm allowed to debate, being an unverified newbie? I'll take the Young-Earth side.

BTW, you're setting yourself up to lose by taking a defensive position. A purely defensive position on any topic always loses, regardless of who's right. You should make your debate about the Big Bang and their claim that the universe is 4.5 billion years. That is, Big Bang vs. Young Earth.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 3:21:39 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Out of curiosity, do you know of any young Earth non-creationist? That is, someone who believes in a young Earth for reasons that are not religious?
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 10:56:55 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 3:21:39 AM, Stronn wrote:
Out of curiosity, do you know of any young Earth non-creationist? That is, someone who believes in a young Earth for reasons that are not religious?

Simpleton, the dichotomy isn't young-earth creationist vs. young-earth non-creationist, it's young-earth creationist vs. old-earth creationist.

Maybe you could explain why there aren't any young-earth atheists? Young-earth atheism is just as logical as old-earth athiesm. The only answer I can think of is because atheists are not logical. If the whole universe could, without cause, form 4.5 billion years ago with all the information needed to produce the universe that existed 10 thousand years ago, why not just skip the 4.5 billion years?
keithprosser
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 12:42:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I don't want this quoted out of context, but It's not that atheists are illogical but that science is 'illogical', at least as far as 'first order predicate logic' is concerned. The problem with logic is that the following is totally valid:

Anything A is also B
x is A therefore x is B.

But in science nothing is so clear cut. We are dealing with with scraps of human knowledge (not mathematical idealisations) so we get things like:
All A examined so far are also B
x is almost certainly A therefore x is quite probably B.

It gets very long-winded to always write or say the caveats (especially as they are taken as 'givens' by anyone with a scientific mind-set) so what is meant as a cautious statement about our current state of knowledge in the latter form comes across (to some people who do not share the scientific mind set) as dogmatic assertions of the former sort.

Scientific truths come in various strengths. The laws of thermodynamics have survived centuries of examination and testing both theoretical and practical so they are 'high quality' scientific truths that are vanishing unlikely to be overturned. On the other hand, Dark Energy is currently a 'low quality' scientifc truth that may - one day - take its place amongst the more respected laws of science, but at the moment DE is a new kid on the block that most scientists wouldn't bat an eyelid over being shown to be nonsense.

Science is not logical in the strictest sense - it is however 'rational'. Science takes what we know and makes the best possible use of it, taking into account the uncertainties in our knowledge.

It is trivial to show that the universe could have popped into existence a moment ago and all our memories are 'fakes' - indeed all you have to do is assert it. But whether it is reasonable or rational to suppose that is the case is another matter. As far as I am concerned, a non-creationist young earth isn't worth refuting. Such a debate might be appropriate to the philosophy forum where ideals of truth matter but in science deals with what can be demonstrated to be, say, "virtually" certain.
Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 12:48:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 11:53:49 PM, creationtruth wrote:
I want to setup a group debate of 3 vs 3 on the age of the Earth. I am on the side of Young-Earth Creationism and I need two other good debaters who agree with this position. I want to challenge 3 people who accept the standard age of the Earth as 4.5Gy; your religious beliefs do not matter. So comment below and lets see if we can get this debate rolling!

Count me in!

I will accept the standard age of the Earth 4.5 billion years old. I will be debating against your viewpoint.
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 6:16:29 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I'd be wiling to debate your team of young-earth creationists, but I don't like negotiating with other team members. If you'd like a three-on-one, that would be fine.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 1:16:56 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 10:56:55 AM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/19/2016 3:21:39 AM, Stronn wrote:
Out of curiosity, do you know of any young Earth non-creationist? That is, someone who believes in a young Earth for reasons that are not religious?

Simpleton, the dichotomy isn't young-earth creationist vs. young-earth non-creationist, it's young-earth creationist vs. old-earth creationist.


I understood the debate you intended. I was just asking a simple tangential question. No need to to respond with name-calling.

Maybe you could explain why there aren't any young-earth atheists? Young-earth atheism is just as logical as old-earth athiesm. The only answer I can think of is because atheists are not logical. If the whole universe could, without cause, form 4.5 billion years ago with all the information needed to produce the universe that existed 10 thousand years ago, why not just skip the 4.5 billion years?

A lack of young-earth atheists is easy to explain. Belief in a young earth stems almost exclusively from a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture, which gives rise to a subsequent rejection of any modern scientific findings that conflict with scripture. Since atheists do not consider scripture to be infallible, they naturally do not base their beliefs on it, and therefore have no reason to reject scientific findings.

Given that this is a science forum, and what you are proposing is a scientific debate, then religion ought not play a role. Yet of course it will.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 1:23:51 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 1:16:56 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 6/19/2016 10:56:55 AM, Rukado wrote:
Maybe you could explain why there aren't any young-earth atheists? Young-earth atheism is just as logical as old-earth athiesm. The only answer I can think of is because atheists are not logical. If the whole universe could, without cause, form 4.5 billion years ago with all the information needed to produce the universe that existed 10 thousand years ago, why not just skip the 4.5 billion years?

A lack of young-earth atheists is easy to explain. Belief in a young earth stems almost exclusively from a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture,

My question has nothing to do with the Bible or young-earth Creationism. I asked a question about the logic of Atheists, and you didn't respond to that.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 1:39:48 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 1:23:51 AM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/20/2016 1:16:56 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 6/19/2016 10:56:55 AM, Rukado wrote:
Maybe you could explain why there aren't any young-earth atheists? Young-earth atheism is just as logical as old-earth athiesm. The only answer I can think of is because atheists are not logical. If the whole universe could, without cause, form 4.5 billion years ago with all the information needed to produce the universe that existed 10 thousand years ago, why not just skip the 4.5 billion years?

A lack of young-earth atheists is easy to explain. Belief in a young earth stems almost exclusively from a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture,

My question has nothing to do with the Bible or young-earth Creationism. I asked a question about the logic of Atheists, and you didn't respond to that.

You asserted that atheists are not logical. My reply implied that, lacking a good reason to do otherwise, it is logical to believe the findings of modern science.

The argument that if universe occurred from nothing 4.5 billion years ago, it could just as easily have occurred from nothing 10,000 years ago smacks of Last Thursdayism (http://rationalwiki.org...). While possible, the evidence says otherwise.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 2:11:33 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 1:39:48 AM, Stronn wrote:
You asserted that atheists are not logical. My reply implied that, lacking a good reason to do otherwise, it is logical to believe the findings of modern science.

You have not replied to my question about why there no young-Earth Atheists. Instead of answering my question of logic, you avoid an answer and you appeal to a well recognized logical error of Appeal to Authority. It's not logical to "believe the findings of modern science."

The argument that if universe occurred from nothing 4.5 billion years ago, it could just as easily have occurred from nothing 10,000 years ago smacks of Last Thursdayism (http://rationalwiki.org...). While possible, the evidence says otherwise.

4.5 billion years (rather 13/14/15 bya) is based on the assumption of the Big Bang and the evidence of stellar redshift. The Big Bang is not scientifically reasonable, rendering dating from redshift a very weak dating method.

You could just as well claim the evidence shows the universe is 1000 billion years old, and point to whatever evidence you like, "the largest galactic structures would take 1000 billion years to form". Or, point to 10,000 years...

You mock Creationism with your last Thursdaysim, but why don't Atheists believe the universe was created last Thursday? Logically, last Thursday was determined the moment of the creation of the universe. So, Occam's Razor suggests we should just shave away all the time before last Thursday. Where did all of Thursday's information come from when the universe was created? Your medium-age universe might address how light from stars made it to Earth, within the Big Bang model, but it creates other problems. Ultimately, there aren't any young Earth Atheists because an older universe obfuscates their problems with Atheism. People recognize last Thursday as stupid. But, billions of years ago is just as illogical, but the length of time boggles their minds.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 5:59:59 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 2:11:33 AM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/20/2016 1:39:48 AM, Stronn wrote:
You asserted that atheists are not logical. My reply implied that, lacking a good reason to do otherwise, it is logical to believe the findings of modern science.

You have not replied to my question about why there no young-Earth Atheists. Instead of answering my question of logic, you avoid an answer and you appeal to a well recognized logical error of Appeal to Authority. It's not logical to "believe the findings of modern science."


An appeal to authority would be if I had argued that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old simply because scientists say it is that old. But that is not what I said. What I said was that accepting the conclusions of experts in technical fields in which you yourself lack expertise is perfectly reasonable, unless you have a good reason to reject the consensus of such experts. The difference between that and an appeal to authority may be somewhat subtle, but I hope it is clear now.

A 4.5 billion year age for the Earth is the overwhelming consensus reached by generations of scientists conducting painstaking research in Geology, Physics, Biology, Paleontology and numerous other scientific sub-fields. Simply to reject their conclusions without good reason would be unjustified. Most people who reject an old Earth do so because of religion. For them, a conflict with doctrine provides sufficient reason to reject scientific consensus. Atheists, lacking such a reason, tend not to reject scientific consensus.

The argument that if universe occurred from nothing 4.5 billion years ago, it could just as easily have occurred from nothing 10,000 years ago smacks of Last Thursdayism (http://rationalwiki.org...). While possible, the evidence says otherwise.

4.5 billion years (rather 13/14/15 bya) is based on the assumption of the Big Bang and the evidence of stellar redshift. The Big Bang is not scientifically reasonable, rendering dating from redshift a very weak dating method.


You are conflating the age of the Earth with the age of the universe. The age of the Earth has been calculated from multiple lines of evidence quite independently of any red shift or cosmological model.

You could just as well claim the evidence shows the universe is 1000 billion years old, and point to whatever evidence you like, "the largest galactic structures would take 1000 billion years to form". Or, point to 10,000 years...


You seem to be saying that you can find evidence for any claim about the age of the Earth, and that all such evidence will be equally compelling. Such is not the case. Scientists did not just pull the 4.5 billion year age out of a hat.

You mock Creationism with your last Thursdaysim, but why don't Atheists believe the universe was created last Thursday? Logically, last Thursday was determined the moment of the creation of the universe. So, Occam's Razor suggests we should just shave away all the time before last Thursday. Where did all of Thursday's information come from when the universe was created? Your medium-age universe might address how light from stars made it to Earth, within the Big Bang model, but it creates other problems. Ultimately, there aren't any young Earth Atheists because an older universe obfuscates their problems with Atheism. People recognize last Thursday as stupid. But, billions of years ago is just as illogical, but the length of time boggles their minds.

Occam's Razor does not say we should prefer an explanation with the minimum time possible, but one with the fewest assumptions possible. The simplest explanation is that the Earth appears as if it is 4.5 billion years old because it is 4.5 billion years old.

Last Thursdayism makes a point about the unfalsifiability, and therefore unscientific nature, of some Creationist claims. For instance, the claim that distant stars and galaxies were created with their light already on the way to Earth, or that light moved faster in the past, or that the Grand Canyon was created as-is a few thousand years ago, and only looks like it took millions of years develop.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 10:23:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 5:59:59 AM, Stronn wrote:
An appeal to authority would be if I had argued that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old simply because scientists say it is that old. But that is not what I said. What I said was that accepting the conclusions of experts in technical fields in which you yourself lack expertise is perfectly reasonable, unless you have a good reason to reject the consensus of such experts. The difference between that and an appeal to authority may be somewhat subtle, but I hope it is clear now.

You're digging your hole (error) deeper. Significant dissent against the prevailing view about origins within the scientific community is not tolerated (because of politics). And, if those supposed experts are really experts, they could answer the most basic questions without pleading, like how the universe is expanding, which is the essence of the Big Bang theory. You might as well insist the Earth is the center of the universe, because this is the"conclusions of experts in technical fields in which you yourself lack expertise is perfectly reasonable"... experts before Galileo.

"Big Bang" equals "space is expanding [from a singularity]." Expansion is not empirically observed and expansion violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (energy, from nothing, to push gravitationally bound mass apart).

You are conflating the age of the Earth with the age of the universe.

Actually, that error is also yours, "The argument that if universe occurred from nothing 4.5 billion years ago..." No one but you equated 4.5 billion years (the generally accepted age of the Earth) with the age of the universe. I initially ignored that error on your part because it isn't relevant.

The age of the Earth has been calculated from multiple lines of evidence quite independently of any red shift or cosmological model.

You continue to appeal to authority. The date of 4.5bya is based on a single line of evidence, anyway. And, anyone who came up with a different number using the same line of evidence would be accused of being in error (i.e. wrong assumptions, misidentified material, unrepresentative anomalous material, etc.). You're right, cosmological red-shift does not support the 4.5bya date.

Occam's Razor does not say we should prefer an explanation with the minimum time possible, but one with the fewest assumptions possible. The simplest explanation is that the Earth appears as if it is 4.5 billion years old because it is 4.5 billion years old.

You believe all of last Thursday's information spontaneously formed 14-ish billion years ago. So, why not just believe it formed last Thursday? Try to respond with logic, instead of your sophomorism (appealing to authority, authority not even addressing the logic presented).

Last Thursdayism makes a point about the unfalsifiability,

With the Establishment's treatment, the Big Bang and Darwinism are falsifiable, so don't add hypocrisy to your list of errors. E.g. why doesn't the First Law of Thermodynamics falsify the Big Bang?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 12:12:07 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 10:23:20 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/20/2016 5:59:59 AM, Stronn wrote:
An appeal to authority would be if I had argued that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old simply because scientists say it is that old. But that is not what I said. What I said was that accepting the conclusions of experts in technical fields in which you yourself lack expertise is perfectly reasonable, unless you have a good reason to reject the consensus of such experts. The difference between that and an appeal to authority may be somewhat subtle, but I hope it is clear now.

You're digging your hole (error) deeper. Significant dissent against the prevailing view about origins within the scientific community is not tolerated (because of politics).

Significant dissent against the prevailing view about origins within the scientific community doesn't need to be not tolerated; because it doesn't actually exist.

Limited, minor dissent exists; which is then extrapolated through political methods to make it seem like there is an argument.

Or, to rephrase.

Creationists in multiple organizations repeat the same ridiculous, and false claims that don't hold up to any sort of scrutiny, and then when scientists, laymen and forum denizens spend their time showing how their arguments do not hold up to any scrutiny, the creationists then claim there is a "controversy" because there are so many people talking about it.
NothingSpecial99
Posts: 378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 2:07:40 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 11:53:49 PM, creationtruth wrote:
I want to setup a group debate of 3 vs 3 on the age of the Earth. I am on the side of Young-Earth Creationism and I need two other good debaters who agree with this position. I want to challenge 3 people who accept the standard age of the Earth as 4.5Gy; your religious beliefs do not matter. So comment below and lets see if we can get this debate rolling!

I would love to be on your team.

A creation vs evolution debate for reference:
http://www.debate.org...
"Check your facts, not your privilege" - Christina Hoff Summers

If you go to jail for Tax Evasion, you're living off of Taxes as a result of not paying Taxes

"Facts don't care about your feelings" - Ben Shapiro
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 3:35:15 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 11:17:09 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/17/2016 11:53:49 PM, creationtruth wrote:
I want to setup a group debate of 3 vs 3 on the age of the Earth. I am on the side of Young-Earth Creationism and I need two other good debaters who agree with this position. I want to challenge 3 people who accept the standard age of the Earth as 4.5Gy; your religious beliefs do not matter. So comment below and lets see if we can get this debate rolling!

Count me in, if I'm allowed to debate, being an unverified newbie? I'll take the Young-Earth side.

BTW, you're setting yourself up to lose by taking a defensive position. A purely defensive position on any topic always loses, regardless of who's right. You should make your debate about the Big Bang and their claim that the universe is 4.5 billion years. That is, Big Bang vs. Young Earth.

I want to converse with my debate team through email, so please email me at creationtruth[at]live.com to confirm your participation and include a description of your position on the age of the Earth and a brief overview of the evidence you intend to bring forward (please only one line of argumentation).

I also want a very well structured debate truly representative of the young-Earth creationist position. I want people on my team who know what they are talking about and to be truly of the young-Earth persuasion. You don't have to be a vocabulary or grammar wiz as I can edit your input if need be, but I do ask that you not use any logical fallacies or arguments strictly from non scientific fields of study. Thanks.

Yours in Christ,

Brandon
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 3:43:05 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 3:21:39 AM, Stronn wrote:
Out of curiosity, do you know of any young Earth non-creationist? That is, someone who believes in a young Earth for reasons that are not religious?

I am not aware of any myself and I would doubt any exist (although you can never be to sure with people having the internet today). The YEC (Young-Earth Creationist) viewpoint utilizes the Bible as a historical model of history and attempts to make sense of the universe and everything in it utilizing data from various scientific fields of research.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 3:46:37 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 12:48:58 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/17/2016 11:53:49 PM, creationtruth wrote:
I want to setup a group debate of 3 vs 3 on the age of the Earth. I am on the side of Young-Earth Creationism and I need two other good debaters who agree with this position. I want to challenge 3 people who accept the standard age of the Earth as 4.5Gy; your religious beliefs do not matter. So comment below and lets see if we can get this debate rolling!

Count me in!

I will accept the standard age of the Earth 4.5 billion years old. I will be debating against your viewpoint.

Ok I'll put you down for the opposing side. Please be on standby while I gather my team together. Thanks.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 3:47:34 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 6:16:29 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I'd be wiling to debate your team of young-earth creationists, but I don't like negotiating with other team members. If you'd like a three-on-one, that would be fine.

We'll for this debate I would like both sides to be even.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 3:48:22 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 6:38:07 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I could do 3 on 1 or 3 on 3 too. Depends how the debate is actually planned out to work.

Would you be on the Young or Old Earth team?
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 3:51:44 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 5:59:59 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 6/20/2016 2:11:33 AM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/20/2016 1:39:48 AM, Stronn wrote:
You asserted that atheists are not logical. My reply implied that, lacking a good reason to do otherwise, it is logical to believe the findings of modern science.

You have not replied to my question about why there no young-Earth Atheists. Instead of answering my question of logic, you avoid an answer and you appeal to a well recognized logical error of Appeal to Authority. It's not logical to "believe the findings of modern science."


An appeal to authority would be if I had argued that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old simply because scientists say it is that old. But that is not what I said. What I said was that accepting the conclusions of experts in technical fields in which you yourself lack expertise is perfectly reasonable, unless you have a good reason to reject the consensus of such experts. The difference between that and an appeal to authority may be somewhat subtle, but I hope it is clear now.

A 4.5 billion year age for the Earth is the overwhelming consensus reached by generations of scientists conducting painstaking research in Geology, Physics, Biology, Paleontology and numerous other scientific sub-fields. Simply to reject their conclusions without good reason would be unjustified. Most people who reject an old Earth do so because of religion. For them, a conflict with doctrine provides sufficient reason to reject scientific consensus. Atheists, lacking such a reason, tend not to reject scientific consensus.

The argument that if universe occurred from nothing 4.5 billion years ago, it could just as easily have occurred from nothing 10,000 years ago smacks of Last Thursdayism (http://rationalwiki.org...). While possible, the evidence says otherwise.

4.5 billion years (rather 13/14/15 bya) is based on the assumption of the Big Bang and the evidence of stellar redshift. The Big Bang is not scientifically reasonable, rendering dating from redshift a very weak dating method.


You are conflating the age of the Earth with the age of the universe. The age of the Earth has been calculated from multiple lines of evidence quite independently of any red shift or cosmological model.

You could just as well claim the evidence shows the universe is 1000 billion years old, and point to whatever evidence you like, "the largest galactic structures would take 1000 billion years to form". Or, point to 10,000 years...


You seem to be saying that you can find evidence for any claim about the age of the Earth, and that all such evidence will be equally compelling. Such is not the case. Scientists did not just pull the 4.5 billion year age out of a hat.

You mock Creationism with your last Thursdaysim, but why don't Atheists believe the universe was created last Thursday? Logically, last Thursday was determined the moment of the creation of the universe. So, Occam's Razor suggests we should just shave away all the time before last Thursday. Where did all of Thursday's information come from when the universe was created? Your medium-age universe might address how light from stars made it to Earth, within the Big Bang model, but it creates other problems. Ultimately, there aren't any young Earth Atheists because an older universe obfuscates their problems with Atheism. People recognize last Thursday as stupid. But, billions of years ago is just as illogical, but the length of time boggles their minds.

Occam's Razor does not say we should prefer an explanation with the minimum time possible, but one with the fewest assumptions possible. The simplest explanation is that the Earth appears as if it is 4.5 billion years old because it is 4.5 billion years old.

Last Thursdayism makes a point about the unfalsifiability, and therefore unscientific nature, of some Creationist claims. For instance, the claim that distant stars and galaxies were created with their light already on the way to Earth, or that light moved faster in the past, or that the Grand Canyon was created as-is a few thousand years ago, and only looks like it took millions of years develop.

You should join the opposing team if you feel so strongly about your position. I have one person so far on the opposing team; need 2 more.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 4:16:18 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 11:53:49 PM, creationtruth wrote:
I want to setup a group debate of 3 vs 3 on the age of the Earth. I am on the side of Young-Earth Creationism and I need two other good debaters who agree with this position. I want to challenge 3 people who accept the standard age of the Earth as 4.5Gy; your religious beliefs do not matter. So comment below and lets see if we can get this debate rolling!

I can join the YEC team. Or the 4.5Gy team. I presume the YEC team will have more spaces though.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 6:25:22 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 4:16:18 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/17/2016 11:53:49 PM, creationtruth wrote:
I want to setup a group debate of 3 vs 3 on the age of the Earth. I am on the side of Young-Earth Creationism and I need two other good debaters who agree with this position. I want to challenge 3 people who accept the standard age of the Earth as 4.5Gy; your religious beliefs do not matter. So comment below and lets see if we can get this debate rolling!

I can join the YEC team. Or the 4.5Gy team. I presume the YEC team will have more spaces though.

I want the people on the YEC team to truly be of that persuasion. You are welcome to join the Old Earth team.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 1:07:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 3:48:22 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/19/2016 6:38:07 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I could do 3 on 1 or 3 on 3 too. Depends how the debate is actually planned out to work.

Would you be on the Young or Old Earth team?

Old :)
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 2:03:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 1:07:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:48:22 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/19/2016 6:38:07 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I could do 3 on 1 or 3 on 3 too. Depends how the debate is actually planned out to work.

Would you be on the Young or Old Earth team?

Old :)

Ok I'll put you down for the old Earth team. I need one more for the YEC team and one more for the Old Earth team.
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 2:06:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 2:07:40 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
At 6/17/2016 11:53:49 PM, creationtruth wrote:
I want to setup a group debate of 3 vs 3 on the age of the Earth. I am on the side of Young-Earth Creationism and I need two other good debaters who agree with this position. I want to challenge 3 people who accept the standard age of the Earth as 4.5Gy; your religious beliefs do not matter. So comment below and lets see if we can get this debate rolling!

I would love to be on your team.

A creation vs evolution debate for reference:
http://www.debate.org...

I want to converse with my debate team through email, so please email me at creationtruth[at]live.com to confirm your participation and include a description of your position on the age of the Earth and a brief overview of the evidence you intend to bring forward (please only one line of argumentation).

I also want a very well structured debate truly representative of the young-Earth creationist position. I want people on my team who know what they are talking about and to be truly of the young-Earth persuasion. You don't have to be a vocabulary or grammar wiz as I can edit your input if need be, but I do ask that you not use any logical fallacies or arguments strictly from non scientific fields of study. Thanks.

Yours in Christ,

Brandon
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 2:12:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 3:21:39 AM, Stronn wrote:
Out of curiosity, do you know of any young Earth non-creationist? That is, someone who believes in a young Earth for reasons that are not religious?

I used to work for a company that had communications satellites. I was never directly involved with this aspect, but I know they had to tweak the position of the satellite (geo-stationary) periodically, and I forget now, but maybe every day (or maybe they just checked every day).

It got me to wondering - is it reasonable to suppose the earth could be in anything approaching stable orbit for 4.5B years? And this isn't even accounting for the moon, who's orbit is measured to be expanding some 2cm/year (the rate from memory)

So I think there are perhaps straight up technical reasons to doubt the steady-state model.

-----------

btw, for myself, I don't quite fit in either camp here. I'd tentatively support a sort of variant of Paley's watch - I have no idea how old the watch is, but if the second hand is moving I know that it couldn't have been wound up very long ago. So possibly old watch, but recent intervention for sure.
This space for rent.
NothingSpecial99
Posts: 378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 3:58:34 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 2:06:04 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/21/2016 2:07:40 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
At 6/17/2016 11:53:49 PM, creationtruth wrote:
I want to setup a group debate of 3 vs 3 on the age of the Earth. I am on the side of Young-Earth Creationism and I need two other good debaters who agree with this position. I want to challenge 3 people who accept the standard age of the Earth as 4.5Gy; your religious beliefs do not matter. So comment below and lets see if we can get this debate rolling!

I would love to be on your team.

A creation vs evolution debate for reference:
http://www.debate.org...


I want to converse with my debate team through email, so please email me at creationtruth[at]live.com to confirm your participation and include a description of your position on the age of the Earth and a brief overview of the evidence you intend to bring forward (please only one line of argumentation).

I also want a very well structured debate truly representative of the young-Earth creationist position. I want people on my team who know what they are talking about and to be truly of the young-Earth persuasion. You don't have to be a vocabulary or grammar wiz as I can edit your input if need be, but I do ask that you not use any logical fallacies or arguments strictly from non scientific fields of study. Thanks.

Yours in Christ,

Brandon

I have sent the email
"Check your facts, not your privilege" - Christina Hoff Summers

If you go to jail for Tax Evasion, you're living off of Taxes as a result of not paying Taxes

"Facts don't care about your feelings" - Ben Shapiro
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 4:28:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 6:25:22 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:16:18 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/17/2016 11:53:49 PM, creationtruth wrote:
I want to setup a group debate of 3 vs 3 on the age of the Earth. I am on the side of Young-Earth Creationism and I need two other good debaters who agree with this position. I want to challenge 3 people who accept the standard age of the Earth as 4.5Gy; your religious beliefs do not matter. So comment below and lets see if we can get this debate rolling!

I can join the YEC team. Or the 4.5Gy team. I presume the YEC team will have more spaces though.

I want the people on the YEC team to truly be of that persuasion. You are welcome to join the Old Earth team.

Does it matter if I am of that persuasion or not? I can defend that position better than most. I have done debates to that effect before, e.g.:
http://www.debate.org...

Not to mention nearly half my debates are for positions I don't strictly hold/am against. And I win most of them,