The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Biblical Creationism is Incorrect

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,099 times Debate No: 54696
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Biblical Creationism is false. It has effectively no scientific backing, multiple contradictions, and moreover is not found in the Bible.

1st: Acceptance only.
2nd: Opening arguments only.
3rd: Both rebuttals and new arguments.
4th: Rebuttals only.
5th: Summaries only.


Hello, my name is Jaison Cruz and I will gladly accept your challenge. I am a Deist but I fully understand the story of creation and I am willing to defend it for the sake of the debate. Good luck and I am glad to be your opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent.


21PA: Falsifiability

Just a short point to show that Biblical Creationism is not science, but religion; if it has no basis in science, then there is no reason to believe it.

Biblical Creationism is unfalsifiable. Why? Because whenever an evolutionist proves that an aspect of creationism is scientifically impossible, incredibly improbable, or contradictory, a Biblical Creationist can just say that "God did it using magic, so, uhm, that makes it possible!" This can never be disproven, because God will always make creationism appear possible, making it impossible to find a disproof of creationism.

It's like this: Say I tell you that there's a gigantic pink elephant sitting next to you. You doubt me, noticing a distinct lack of elephant, pink or otherwise. I tell you that it's there, but it's just invisible to you and me, because the Flying Spaghetti Monster gave it an invisibility + nonmateriality cloak. There is no way that you can prove me wrong -- and no way that I can prove myself correct.

As such, either my opponent must accept that Biblical Creationism is NOT science, or that God cannot intervene in every instance.


2P1B: Timescale

Biblical Creationism argues that the world is below 6,000 years old [01]. If the world is proven to be older than 6,000 years, then the Bible is not inerrant, and Biblical Creationism is false. Clearly, the world is older than 6,000 years, because many artifacts have been dated to older than 6,000 years old. Let me provide a few samples:

5,063 years - Currently unnamed tree [02]. This tree is too old for Biblical Creationism not because it would be older than the world but because it would have had to been alive since before the flood began.

11,750 years - King Clone creosote bush ring [03][04][05]. Dated both through known creosote growth rates and through carbon 14 dating, this bush ring is 5,750 years too old for Biblical Creationism.

160,000 years - Ice cores [06]. Using multiple dating methods, this ice sheet is too old both for the existence of the Earth and for a global flood. The only way to account for this level of ice core development within 6,000 years would be to have 27 layers of ice fall each year, every year, on the polar ice caps, which has not een documented ever and would need a mechanism.

8,550,000 years - Magnetic reversals [07]. The change of polarity of the earth occurs once about every 50,000 to 800,000 years, and very very very rarely much more frequently than that. About 171 reversals are currently documented, which places the Earth at a minimum of 8.55 million years old, or 8,544,000 years too old for Biblical Creationism.

13,000,000,000 years - SDSS 1306+0356 [08][09]. This quasar is 13 billion light-years away from earth; consequently, if the speed of light has not changed, then the universe must be a minimum of 13 billion years old. 12,999,994,000 years too old for Biblical Creationism.

Biblical Creationism cannot be true, because it predicts a false age of the Earth; given that its entire theory is based on the inerrancy of the literal Bible, which is now errant, it falls.


2P1C. the Global Flood

If the entire world was flooded, then certainly there must be evidence of it. I ask my opponent to provide this evidence, because otherwise there is no reason to believe that it is true.

Moreover, there's simply not enough water on Earth to cause a global flood, as one should realize when one realizes that water sinks to the lowest location. Flooding the world up to Mount Everest (as the Bible dictates) would require 4,530,000,000 km^3 of water, or about 3 times as much water is present on Earth. Where did they come from? Where did the floodwaters go?

Some might argue that the flood created the mountains. This is unfeasible -- a flood that created both the Sahara (noted for flatness) and Mount Everest (noted for lack of flatness) could not occur, simply because a great enough to flatten a desert has plenty to quickly erode a mountain, leaving us only with the possibility that God preserved the landscape of the world, which would also be required for Noah to land back into his native Middle East. (Think sand castles -- how often does a wave roll in and create both a flat area and a nonflat area?)

Moreover, the Ark simply would not float. Aside from the fact that the Ark is not large enough [11], the Ark could never have survived multiple-mile-high waves [12] formed by the winds sweeping water around without any ground to break them up. No land animals could possibly have survived.

This is not to mention what the sediment would do to sea creatures or how viruses and bacteria were transported.

Biblical Creationism cannot be true, because it predicts an impossible global flood of the Earth; given that its entire theory is based on the inerrancy of the literal Bible, which is now errant, it falls.


2P2. Errancy

Only one contradiction or error is enough to prove the Bible errant, Biblical inerrancy wrong, and Biblical Creationism totally unbased. I've provided three.

1: God the frenemy
Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27: Love God.
Deuteronomy 6:13, Psalms 33:8, 34:9, 111:10, 115:13, 128:1, 147:11, Proverbs 8:13, 16:6, 19:23, 22:4, Isaiah 8:13, Luke 12:5, 1st Peter 2:17: Fear God.
1st John 4:18: There is no fear in love.

2. Death waits not
Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27: Jesus says to his listeners that some of them will not taste death before he comes again in his kingdom. Jesus said this a little under 2000 years ago. I leave it an exercise to the reader to tell whether or not his promise held true.

3. Identity crisis
2nd Corinthians 13:11, 14, 1st John 4:8, 16: God is love.
Genesis 4:15, Deuteronomy 32:19-27, Isaiah 34:8: God is a vengeful god.

Biblical Creationism cannot be true, because the Bible is contradictory and/or false; given that its entire theory is based on the inerrancy of the literal Bible, which is now errant, it falls.


2P3. Where's the Inerrancy?

To quote Jesus, "I speak to them in parables..."[13]

The Bible makes use of stories and parables, metaphor and allegory.[14] Why should these stories be taken literally? Genesis, too is one of these stories [15][16][17]. This is why there are two Genesis accounts -- they are not a literal telling of the creation of the world, but a creation myth created by priests for the Jewish people to believe so that their religion sounds good.

Why take a story literally, ever, especially when it was neither meant nor possible to be taken literally?

Biblical Creationism cannot be true, because the Bible not supposed to be inerrant; given that its entire theory is based on the inerrancy of the literal Bible, which is now errant, it falls.



[07] Laurie R. Godfrey (1983). "Scientists Confront Creationism". W. W. Norton & Company, Canada. Pages 35-36. ISBN 0393301540.
[12] Meyer, Nathan M. 1977. Noah's Ark-Pitched and Parked. Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books.
[15] (See title.)


JaisonCruz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent forfeited the previous round.


JaisonCruz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent forfeited this round.


JaisonCruz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


My opponent forfeited every round. He offered no reasons to negate, and did not respond to any of my points, all of which prove the errancy of creationism. I urge a pro vote.


JaisonCruz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Cowmaneater 7 years ago
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation" If its a scientific theory its hardly unsupported and in this case the big bang has mounds of evidence to support it thanks to Hubble, Einstein, and Slipher. Now support for a great flood that wiped out almost all life at the exact same point only leaving 2 of each animal, ive yet to see that.
Posted by daltonslaw 7 years ago
Hey man don't blame this stuff on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he didn't make the bible man, he made pasta which is obviously worth much more. Try eating a Bible.
Posted by American_Patriot2016 7 years ago
To contradict FuzzyCatPotato's argument there is geological evidence supporting the great flood around the time the Bible claimed it to have occurred so evidently there is scientific evidence backing claims made by the Bible. Also there isn't any scientific evidence to support the big bang theory, that's why it's called a theory.
Posted by MorningSpirit 7 years ago
Why is there never a Creationist in these debates? They would have the opportunity to present all of the raw facts of Creationism like...
Posted by sassypup419 7 years ago
I agree with FuzzyCatPotato because it is not found in the Bible.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by baus 7 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF with equal S&G.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.