The Instigator
jrardin12
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
cello242
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Creation vs. Evolution Part 1 Young or Old Universe?

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  
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: 1/12/2019 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 933 times Debate No: 119859
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (36)
Votes (0)

 

jrardin12

Pro

I believe God created the heaven and the earth. God made everything, Including the universe, In six literal 24-hr. Days. The scientific evidence for a young universe is great. I will list them here.

1. Faint Sun Paradox- the sun's temperature would have been below freezing when life supposedly evolved 3. 5 billion years ago.
2. Our Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field.
3. Short-lived Comets.
4. Moon Recession
5. Rapid Star Aging
6. Spiral Galaxies

Now I have a question for whoever is on this debate. For you what caused the universe to come into existence and where did the original energy or matter come from?
cello242

Con

Hello jrardin12,

I am a devout christian and an amateur christian apologist, So I 100% agree with you that God exists and Jesus Christ is his son. I believe God caused the universe to come into being at the point of the Big Bang 13. 8 billion years ago, Creating a complex chain reaction guided by his hand in order to arrive at the earth we live on today.

You are quite right about the faint sun paradox, And I cannot wait to hear you elaborate on your other main points of evidence.

This should be a fun debate!

I would like to point out that not all Christians need be committed to young earth creationism. The first eleven chapters of Genesis are open to many interpretations, Not just the literal version. God could have created the earth in 6 days, Or six eons. The first non literal interpretation of Genesis came out in the year 300 with St. Augustine, Which is 1500 years before Darwin ever came along! So going against young earth creationism is not a retreat in the face of modern science rather a progression of one theological premise over another.

My arguments against young earth creationism is as follows.

1. Universal expansion is too slow to accommodate a beginning as young as 6000 years
3. The oldest zircon rock dates 4. 36 billion years old. This is much older than the 6000 year hypothesis.
4. The light from many stars takes millions of years to reach our planet.

not experienced in debating against YEC, So i'll wait for you to elaborate your points first.
Debate Round No. 1
jrardin12

Pro

Thanks for taking me on this debate. I was hoping for an atheist to debate me, But I can always recreate this debate.

Since you are a Christian I have some Biblical reasons why a Christian cannot compromise on the long ages of the universe.

1. The Bible clearly teaches that God created in six literal, 24-hour days. The Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1 is yom. In the vast majority of its uses in the Old Testament it means a literal day; and where it doesn't, The context is made clear.
2. The context of Genesis 1 clearly shows that the days of creation were literal days.
3. The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 make it clear that the creation days happened only about 6, 000 years ago.
4. Exodus 20:9-11 blocks all attempts to fit millions of years into Genesis 1.
5. Noah's Flood washes away millions of years. It would have produced exactly the kind of complex geological record we see worldwide today: thousands of feet of sediments clearly deposited by water and later hardened into rock and containing billions of fossils.
6. Jesus, The Creator, Was a young-earth creationist. In Mark 10:6 we have the clearest (but not only) statement. He teaches that Adam and Eve were made at the "beginning of creation, " not billions of years after the beginning, As would be the case if the universe were really billions of years old.
7.
8. The idea of millions of years did not come from scientific facts. This idea of long ages was developed by deistic and atheistic geologists in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. These men used anti biblical philosophical and religious assumptions to interpret the geological observations in a way that plainly contradicted the biblical account of creation, The Flood and the age of the earth.
9. Radiometric dating methods do not prove millions of years. Erroneous dates are given all the time. Examples: dates of millions of years are given to recent lava flows. Diamonds and coal, Which evolutionists say are millions of years old, Were dated by carbon-14 to be only thousands of years old.
10. Did you know that the expansion of the universe is found in Is. 40:20 and other verses? However, It has not become scientific fact until the last century.
11. Belief in millions of years undermines the Bible's teaching on death and on the character of God. To accept millions of years of animal death before creation and Fall of man contradicts and destroys the Bible's teaching on death and the full redemptive work of Christ. It also makes God into a bumbling, Cruel creator who uses (or can't prevent) disease, Natural disasters, And extinctions to mar His creative work, Without any moral cause, But still calls it all "very good. "
12. I would like to talk about distant star light in the next round since it is long.
13. Comets. "The question arises, Why do comets still exist in the solar system? On a time scale of multiple billions of years, Should they not all be long gone? , Either by escape, Collision, Or disintegration? The average number of solar revolutions before a comet dissipates is estimated to be about 40 trips. Comet Halley has already been observed through at least 28 orbits, Dating back to 240 B. C. Its remaining years are numbered.
Astronomers recognize two comet varieties with respectively short and long revolving periods. The short-period comets have orbit times less than about 200 years. Halley's comet is such an example with a period of about 76 years. Meanwhile, The long-period comets may require thousands of years for each solar pass. The origin of both kinds of comets remains a mystery to secular astronomers. Based on the rate of at which comets are destroyed today, It is surprising (from an old-universe perspective) that either long-period or short-period comets are still present. The supply should have been depleted billions of years ago. How then do you explain these apparently "young" comets in a solar system that you believe to be billions of years old? " by Dr. Don B. Deyoung and Dr. Jason Lisle
14. I will give another example in the next round along with distant star light.
cello242

Con

cello242 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
jrardin12

Pro

jrardin12 forfeited this round.
cello242

Con

cello242 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
jrardin12

Pro

jrardin12 forfeited this round.
cello242

Con

cello242 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
jrardin12

Pro

jrardin12 forfeited this round.
cello242

Con

cello242 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"Infinite regress"
Which is what the watchmaker sums up to or generally intelligence design.
Since God is intelligence wouldn't It have a creator? Infinite regress.

"explain why it is the best explanation to have a God of God. "
Should have made it clear that I was talking about some or most of what theist arguments boil down to.
Posted by cello242 3 years ago
cello242
@omar2345

The point of the argument is that there is no God of God. Again, Infinite regress.

By explanation I mean explanation of origin. You do not have to explain how God came to be to prove that God's existence is the best explanation of the teleology of the universe (I am referring to the fine tuning version of the teleological argument). You would still have to explain why it is the best explanation to have a God of God.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@cello242

"You don't need to explain the explanation. "
By that logic the God of God does not need an explanation.
Posted by cello242 3 years ago
cello242
The idea that God needed a creator is a dangerous one to hold. In order to prove that an explanation is the best, You don't need to explain the explanation. For example

The best explanation of me being hit in the head with a baseball outside of a baseball stadium is that a player hit the ball out of the stadium. I do not need to explain how the player got there, Why he/she was playing, What the schedule of the stadium was, Etc.

If you need an explanation for every best explanation
then you would need an explanation for that explanation
and an explanation for that one
and the one above this sentence
and off into an infinite regress. . . .
and science would be destroyed!
Posted by dustryder 3 years ago
dustryder
@jrardin12

Speculation implies lack of knowledge or evidence. Since it is known what fills those gaps via consistent theory and supporting evidence, It is hardly speculation.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"But you fill in the gaps with speculation. "
Speculation is I don't know?

"A God who must have a creator is not a God. "
Which is precisely what the watchmaker argument is.
A God is a sign of intelligence therefore it must have a creator.

It is only a definition. That definition can be wrong which it is due to the lack of evidence for God to be like it states in definitions.
Posted by jrardin12 3 years ago
jrardin12
I am going to leave you and watch the Colts vs. Chiefs. Hopefully it isn't a blow out.
Posted by jrardin12 3 years ago
jrardin12
No, But you fill in the gaps with speculation. Your evidence is not based on evidence either. Give me one. A God who must have a creator is not a God.
Posted by dustryder 3 years ago
dustryder
@jrardin12

A dinosaur turning into a bird is not described by any science. The evolution of a dinosaur group into modern day birds however is well described and supported by scientific evidence. Since myths are by definition non-evidence based, Clearly this is not a case of mythology
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"A dino turning into a bird is mythology. "
A God creating something is mythology.
Realised a while ago the difference between what you copy from someone else and what you actually say.

"Who came up with laws of logic then? "
You already know the answer but I will entertain you anyway. I don't know. I may never know but the difference is I am not filling in the gaps with God.

"I already told you that the question who created God is illogical. "
By you agreeing with the watchmaker argument you actually admit to say God also has a creator. Basically an infinite loop of creations. If you don't think so lay out the watchmaker argument for me.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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