Instigator / Con
7
1622
rating
30
debates
61.67%
won
Topic
#2802
Is YEC the most reasonable position for a Christian to hold?
Status
Finished
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and same amount of points on both sides ...
It's a tie!
Parameters
More details
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- Religion
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 12,000
Contender / Pro
7
1476
rating
5
debates
30.0%
won
Description
~ 847
/
5,000
Definitions:
-- Christian: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Christian]
-- Creationism: the belief that the world was made by God exactly as described in the Bible
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/creationism] (literally)
-- Young earth creationism: The idea that the days in genesis 1-2 are 24 hours long
-- PRO will post extra definition in the comment section
Rules:
1. Theology must be backed up with scriptural evidence.
2. Both Pro and Con can make claims about the bible and what it is, but must be ready to defend those views.
3. No new arguments in the last round.
The burden of proof is shared:
-- Pro: YEC is the correct position for a Christian to take.
-- Con: YEC is not the correct position for a Christian to take.
Good luck.
Round 1
Thank you, PGA2.0
SETUP
"Is YEC the most reasonable position for a Christian to hold?"
In this debate, we will use reason to figure out which position a Christian should hold, given all available information today. PRO must prove that reason most easily and securely leads one to believe in YEC, while CON will prove the opposite, that YEC is unreasonable or that more reasonable theories exist.
Definitions:
- Reasonable: being in accordance with reason [1]
- Fact: A thing that is known or proved to be true. [2]
- Reason: (noun) a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defence [3]
- Rational: having reason or understanding [4]
- Faith: something that is believed especially with strong conviction [5]
Authority:
This is a tough word to use in this debate. It has a lot of different meanings attached, with definitions ranging from "political power" to "God's truth". However, in this debate authority will have a simple meaning: the capacity to persuade. This means that not only do our sources need to have a trustworthy author, but we also need to analyze the intentions of said author, the knowledge possessed by him, the limitations imposed by the circumstance, the style of text and also the restrictions of communication in general. I will make an example to illustrate my point: If God himself spoke to me directly and told me 1 word, I would never try to deduce future prophecies from it. This is because langue has its own limitations. Different texts have different authority in different fields, and we need to always take that into consideration.
Reason vs Faith
Faith or reason? This question is deceptive, as they cannot really be separated. Without faith in some basic facts, our reason is pure speculation. And without reason, our faith is pure fantasy. It is therefore impossible to deny reason with faith or deny faith with reason. We will start with the most basic of assumptions as Occams razor demands. The assumptions are as follows: our reasoning ability is valid and our senses provide valid information.
FRAMEWORK
Facts are observations about our world, gathered through our senses. We can use reasoning to put together simple pieces of facts thus creating bigger facts - theories.
Science
Science has never been invalidated or proven to contradict reality but is only improved by newer scientific theories. Science is constantly spitting facts; scientists use controlled experiments, math and logic to prove their theories. This results in science reaching a level of accuracy that is unmatched by any other field of reason, including theology and philosophy. As a result, trusting science is the most reasonable thing to do for any person. If PRO doesn't accept the authority of science he can throw his computer out of the window as it is a product of science.
Christianity
Faith in God is reasonable, it is supported by facts and philosophical evidence. Calling the Christian faith blind and unreasonable is the most insulting insult anyone could use as an insult in order to insult Christianity. The Bible itself calls for evidence in judging reality: "every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’" [2 Corinthians 13:1]; [Deuteronomy 17:6]. Since the bible itself calls for evidence to validate claims, we can reasonably assume that even if the bible was written directly by God we still need to apply reason to our belief in God. I will now do just that and explain what evidence makes Christianity reasonable.
God
To believe in God is not blind faith, it is a reasonable faith. The cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, and many other proofs for the existence of God have been discovered. One of the most notorious sceptic and atheist ever, Andrew Flew, converted to Christianity because of what he saw as scientific evidence for an intelligent creator[13]. God is the uncreated creator of this universe. His existence is not arbitrary but a necessary element in any worldview that includes the belief in a universe with a beginning. Since science and philosophy agree that the universe has a beginning it is reasonable to assume the existence of God. There are many intellectual arguments from God that make it reasonable to have faith in his existence [stanford]. Even though his existence cannot be proven or disproven definitively, faith in him is reasonable.
The gospel
The records of Jesus exist in the new testament. They are reliable because they were written by authors who were his friends or spoke with eyewitnesses. Many other historical documents have confirmed the story, in addition to archaeology [6] [7]. C.S Lewis explained how Jesus could not be just a moral teacher, he would either be Lord, an evil liar or crazy [14]. In other words, if the New Testament is historically accurate then it is reasonable to believe that Jesus is Lord. Thus, one can be a Christian (follower of Christ) by simply applying reason to historical facts. To claim that the divinity of Jesus should be accepted blindly would be to reduce it from fact to fiction, from glorious truth to meaningless speculation. Since PRO has no intention of reducing the authority of Jesus or the new testament he must accept that their authority is based on reason and facts rather than blind faith.
Miracles
Miracles are events not predicted by the laws of physics, they have a supernatural cause. They cannot be proven or disproven scientifically, but they can be confirmed through historical evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Let us not forget that the disciples themselves were indeed always very sceptical. But the evidence for miracles, if you believe in God, is overwhelming. Christians claim to experience miracles all over the world to this day. The evidence for the resurrection is so overwhelming that Lewis Wallace (1827-1905), when he tried to disprove it, instead changed his mind [15]:
In fact when it comes to proving or disproving the resurrection a lawyer is better suited for the task than a philosopher or even a theologian.Wallace studied the evidence and concluded — contrary to his predisposition — that Jesus Christ did indeed rise from the dead and was seen by His disciples.
Conclusion
I have established that both science and Christianity are based on the same foundation: facts and reason. Any worldview that puts faith over reason is NOT the Christian one. Indeed, claiming that Christian faith is above reason is a ridiculous claim, as its very authority is based on reason. If we really believe that Jesus is the truth then we have no reason to hide in a bunker of "blind faith" and reject the validity of reason. Neither CON nor PRO can make an appeal to blind faith, we must explain why any asserted claim is based upon reasonable faith and not blind faith. Unless we do that then our claims must be discarded as pure speculation.
GENESIS
I will start this discussion with the most generous of assumptions: God wrote genesis and genesis is infallible. But unless PRO can back up that claim using proper reason we will have to reject it. But for now, I will only expose the problems with the text that exists regardless of who wrote it. RDF: https://www.bible.com
Religious story
Genesis contains many staggering problems for a reader wishing to decode any scientifical knowledge hidden within it. The intention of the text is to establish God as the creator of the universe, a goal which is reached with incredible success. But the logic of genesis? Well, let us just say that it is quite lacking. One example is that the sun was apparently created on the third day. Another logical flaw is that the "vault" which is the sky contained both the birds, the sun and the moon and also the stars. Are we supposed to believe that birds can crash into the sun if they fly high enough? Yet another example is that God is immaterial and cannot speak in the literal sense. The world God creates in genesis 1-2 only makes sense if you view the universe like THIS, please watch the link. That image of the world can be proven incorrect by simply looking at an actual image of the earth. The theme, tone, and general feel of genesis show us that it is clearly meant as a religious story rather than a reliable source of scientific information. The vagueness and symbolism of the text is the final piece of evidence: genesis is not a scientific article. PRO must disprove this claim.
Creation method
If we read the entirety of genesis 1-2 over and over again we can only make a single definitive conclusion: God created the world using two methods of creation.
- Ex nihilo: from nothing
- A priori: from something.
This means that God first created energy and later the energy was formed into other things by a process called "God said, and there was". That process is not specified and clearly allows for the laws of physics to be involved. So we need a theory to explain HOW God created the universe. It is clear that a day in the bible can often refer to an unspecified amount of time [2 Peter 3:8], so the use of "day" does not prove that YEC is correct. PRO must give a logical explanation of YEC in order for it to have any relevance. He must also provide facts to back up YEC.
I will now use science to disprove YEC.
SCIENCE
We are discussing the real (not the symbolic) age of the "heavens and the earth". I will prove beyond doubt that the universe is more than 10.000 years old. Let us first identify the best source with regards to facts. Science is, as proved earlier, the best way to make a reasonable claim about the physical world. Science is the most reasonable theory with regards to anything material since it is by definition THE STUDY of the universe [9]. If one rejects science then one rejects all knowledge, as science operates with the most basic of assumptions that also underly all other fields of reason. Let us delve into the evidence against YEC.
The universe
The closest star to our sun is more than 4 lightyears away. If the star didn't exist but then suddenly popped into existence we would wait 4 years for the star to become visible for us. Light travels with a constant speed of 299792458 m/s. This has been confirmed through multiple experiments, you can make your own experiment to confirm this[10]. We can use the speed of light to calculate the age of the light we observe by knowing the distance to the light source. BBC concluded in 2016 that the size of the observable universe is indeed 96 billion light-years in diameter when we account for the expansion of the universe [11]. We can subsequently deduce that the most distant galaxies we can see emitted the light we observe 14 billion years ago. We can then conclude that the universe is at least 14 billion years old. This matches perfectly with the age of the universe as predicted by the big-bang theory. A theory which is, to be honest, supporting the Christian faith by providing evidence that the cosmological argument needs.
The earth
According to space.com, scientists have found 3.5 billion-year-old rocks on every continent. Some are even older: "The rocks and zircons set a lower limit on the age of Earth of 4.3 billion years because the planet itself must be older than anything that lies on its surface." We can know beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth is at least 4.3 billion years old, according to simple measurements on rocks. If you want to read how the planets in the solar system were formed and how cosmology is linked to geology then read the article. If that isn't enough evidence, consider the dinosaurs. Another set of undeniable evidence is plate tectonics. According to national geographic, Mount Everest is growing each year because it is created by a collision between India and Asia. The two tectonic plates are constantly colliding for millions of years [12]. This is not unique to mountains. Oceans grow, continents melt into the mantle and volcanoes create islands like Hawaii. There is literally no counterevidence to all of these facts. Lastly, even the dinosaurs raise some serious doubt about YEC by simply having existed.
SUMMARY
What you can take away from all of this is that the universe has been explained in detail by entirely independent fields of research and they all come to the same conclusion: YEC is false, the universe has existed for more than 10.000 years. There is literally no scientific evidence pointing towards YEC. The theory does not explain anything. It does not provide any advice to scientists about how to change their methods or how their results can reflect the YEC reality. Therefore, YEC is not even worthy of being called a theory. It is simply a rejection of science. It is based upon.....well nothing really. All human knowledge and reason point toward YEC being factually incorrect. I cannot see why a rejection of science with no alternative theory can be "reasonable".
CONCLUSION
YEC is not the most reasonable position to hold, science is.
Final words
The most reasonable faith is that in God, the gospel and science -- all of them are trustworthy because of fact and reason. If PRO undermines science he also undermines Christianity. But PRO, you MUST provide a positive case rather than simply rebuttals - you are PRO after all. Give me an explanation for what happened, don't just repeat the exact words of genesis. I look forward to you proving that genesis 1-2 is a scientifical article written by God and that YEC is the most reasonable interpretation of it.
Over to you, PRO.
Is YEC the most reasonable position for a Christian to hold?
I thank CON for organizing this debate.
I want to emphasize what this debate is not. It is not a debate about science but about what the Bible teaches about creation, whether to an old or young earth. Biblically, does the age speak about thousands or billions of years? Scripture plays an important part in deciding. The question of science has come up, so it is addressed in my initial argument.
CON stated in the Description and title the guidelines of the discussion:
Pro: YEC is the correct position for a Christian to take.
Con: YEC is not the correct position for a Christian to take.
CON defines a Christian:
Christian: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
That should make the Lord Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, our ultimate authority in determining the correct position.
And on creation:
Creationism: the belief that the world was made by God exactly as described in the Bible
Please note the last six words, "exactly as described IN the Bible." So, the discernment should be towards what a Christian believes as guided by the Bible.
***
My argument summarized in three points,
1. The biblical God is the Christians final and ultimate authority,
2. Christians bring presuppositions to the table disguised as science,
3. Scripture itself reveals in its wording a young earth creation.
***
God, our Authority
1. The Christian position is that God has revealed, and it is our responsibility to understand His revelation correctly, as was Paul's admonition to Timothy.
2 Timothy 2:15 (NASB)
15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a worker who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
2. The Christian position is there is no higher authority available to humanity than God.
Isaiah 55:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.
Proverbs 3:5-6 (NASB)
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
And do not lean on your own understanding.
6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He will make your paths straight.
3. Since God created the Universe, He would know when and how it was made better than humans.
Psalm 147:5...His understanding is infinite.
Proverbs 2:6...From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.
1 John 3:20...He knows all things.
Jeremiah 10:12 (NASB)
12 It is He who made the earth by His power,
Who established the world by His wisdom;
And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens.
Colossians 1:16-17 (NASB)
16 for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Question: As a Christian, does CON accept these three propositions and that God is wiser and more knowledgeable than human beings?
Science takes God and supernaturalism out of the equation. Science views everything naturally. While science is assured, please note the Christian progression of causality.
God --> Creation --> Humanity --> Human Logic --> Science
God – the necessary logical Being and cause of the created order has revealed.
Creation – God is the intentional agent.
Humanity – Creation precedes humans.
Human logic – Humans bear the image and likeness of God, not the image of science.
Science – logic is necessary for science, so is uniformity of nature. Without the laws of nature (as put in place by God), science would not be possible. That causal process precedes science.
As a Christian, Science is based on what He has made, not about God, as scientists view Him.
Science or Scientism?
In a similar titled YEC debate, Wesley Coleman briefly touched on the presuppositional nature of the inquiry into the age of the Universe. We are working from the present, looking back into a past that no human being was around to experience. Thus, there are numerous assumptions built into our approach to this topic. Science has changed its view on the age of the Universe several times. Which idea is accurate? I believe two of Thomas Aquinas's arguments will come into the equation in this debate; the argument from 1) efficient cause [1] and 2) necessary being [2].
1. Efficient Cause – Christians believe that the efficient and sufficient cause is God.
Natural science does not give an efficient or sufficient cause for the BB. What is the agency?
2. Necessary being – no human being was there to witness the Universe's beginning. Thus, human beings interpret the data/evidence in determining the age and have been wrong in the past.
3. Scientists and human beings hold many different views, but a predominant one is the BB. Thomas Kuhn [3] has documented some of the revolutionary shifts in science over time that altered the paradigm. Models get replaced as more anomalies make a theory less palatable. Several factors could change the age of the Universe or our thinking on how it began. Here are three:
a) Einstein assumed the Universe's expansion rate as a "cosmological constant," which he later questioned. [4]
Analogy:
Picture a balloon without air. You mark two points on it with a magic marker. Now you start blowing it up. The distance between the two points starts expanding. The faster you blow it up, the quicker the balloon expands, and the more distant the two points become. And it has agency; the person blowing the balloon up. They determine how fast it gets blown up. Scientists thought there was a constant, the Humble Constant and the Speed of Light constant. Einstein and others question these constants as right. That creates doubt as to whether science has now got it right.
b) The speed of light is calculated. It works on two-way feedback for its constant (as CON's citation mentions in his R1), not knowing if the rate is the same both ways, per Dr. Jason Lisle.
"A less-well-known aspect of Einstein’s physics is that the speed of light in one direction cannot be objectively measured, and so it must be stipulated (agreed upon by convention). This stands in contrast to the round-trip speed of light, which is always constant." [5]
Thus, he proposes the measured one-way speed may be different. A star could be instantaneously seen.
Additionally, the Universe could have expanded faster than the Speed of Light initially, as per the balloon analogy, or the Hubble Constant may not have been the same throughout time, as some scientists have recently questioned (see A Universal Acceleration [6]).
c) What scientists called science is, in many ways, scientism.
"...scientism is a worldview where “only scientific knowledge is valid . . . that science can explain and do everything and that nothing else can explain or do anything: it is the belief that science and reason, or scientific and rational, are co-extensive terms.” [7]
Scripture teaches a YEC
If Scripture teaches God created the Universe not that long ago, should we not believe Him for believers received the teaching as if it were the words of God, not men?
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this reason we also always thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of mere men, but as what it really is, the word of God, which also is at work in you who believe.
Biblical Evidence:
The Word of God passages, the God spoke passages, the Lord spoke passages, the God said passages, and the Jesus said passages speak of God speaking to humanity. Not only that, the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit is said to have led and inspired the biblical writers as to what to write.
1. The meaning of a day in creation.
2. The use of a) a day, b) days, c) day with a number, and d) evening and morning in the Bible.
3. There are other Hebrew words to signify ages (Olam).
4. Figurative versus historical narrative.
5. Genealogies
6. Jesus supports a literal Genesis account.
7. Sin and death.
2. Robert Reymond (p. 393) notes:
a) Day/Yom (singular, dual, or plural) occurs 2,225 in the OT. Most signify as a literal day. Why change that meaning without justification?
b) In the plural, days (yamim) occurs 608 times; all denote an ordinary day (p.394).
c) He makes the point that when a number and the word yom are used in conjunction (1st, 2nd, 3rd day), they signify a literal day in every passage outside of Genesis 1. Why would Genesis deviate from the norm?
d) The term "evening and morning" outside Genesis occurs 37 times, all signifying a literal day.
For instance,
to offer burnt offerings to the Lord on the altar of burnt offering continually morning and evening,...
3. The word in Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative. (proof R2)
If Genesis 1-11 is not literal, then the genealogies come into question as to whether the Israelites are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as historical persons. Is CON willing to compromise the whole of Scripture?
4. Jesus treats the first 11 chapters of Genesis as historical narrative, the creation of Adam and Eve at the BEGINNING of creation, and the patriarchs as historical people, as do the apostles.
5. The genealogies are traced back to Adam, the first man.
CON, was Adam the first historical man or not? The Bible places him at the creation.
6. As previously noted, Jesus places Adam and Eve at the beginning of creation. He should know. [8]
7. The NT tells us that sin and death were introduce by Adam's original sin and the penalty thereof. The theological implications of denying the Fall of humanity in Genesis 2-3 as historical questions the need for a Saviour. [9]
Rebuttal
Definitions
"Fact" also has other applicable meanings - "something that has actual existence, an actual occurrence, a piece of information presented as having objective reality." [11]
My argument is the science of origins is highly speculative and changing.
Authority
CON: "the capacity to persuade," and "a trustworthy author,...intentions of said author, the knowledge possessed by him" favour my arguments as God as the most significant authority for the Christian. I established the Bible's claim as God as the highest authority, infinite in knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. I also appealed to Scripture as teaching a literal six-day creation as the most reasonable explanation and authority.
Faith and Reason
I agree with CON. The Christian faith is reasonable.
Science
I disagree with CON's assessment. Scientists disagree about science.
Christianity
I agree the Christian faith is a reasonable faith. I have applied reason to my interpretation of Scripture.
God
Christians should not deny science. I make a distinction between science and scientism; the latter I apply to CON. (see Science or Scientism above)
Gospel and Miracles
Good enough to agree with. Not sure of the relevance to our discussion, though.
Conclusion
Again, irrelevant. Agreed, the Christian faith is a reasonable faith.
Religious story
To be addressed in R2.
Creation method
I disagree with CON's second point. See R2.
Regarding 2 Peter 3:8, the text speaks in a figurative sense, by figurative words "like a thousand years/like one day," meaning that time is insignificant to an eternal God who transcends it. What is not said, "is a thousand years/is one day."
Round 2
FRAMEWORK
Definitions
PRO has accepted all definitions
Authority
PRO has asserted that God is our ultimate authority. PRO forgets that the definition of authority used in this debate, "the ability to convince", does not grant God authority solely based on his knowledge and power. PRO must show why God is a reliable source of scientific information in order to claim that God has authority. If God doesn't want to tell us about science, or if his words are hard to interpret, or if he has not written the Bible word-for-word, then PRO's entire argument falls apart immediately.
Faith vs reason
I showed why starting from a sceptical standpoint and purely looking at scientific facts leads one to believe in God, the resurrection and the historical reliability of the Bible. PRO has accepted that faith should be based on reason, not the other way around. It is settled that the most reasonable position for a Christian to take is not a fanatical blind faith in the inerrancy of the Bible, but rather to look at the facts and use reasoning to explain the world and the Bible. Since PRO accepted my definitions he has conceded that to assume the Bible is infallible is unreasonable. And by accepting that Christianity is based on reasoning he also rejected a blind faith in the mystical and magical "inspiration" of the Bible -- he has conceded that the Bible has authority (ability to convince) because of the Humans that witnessed the events and wrote them down.
Science
PRO rejected scientism, but he accepted science. Thus, science has been validated and agreed upon as reliable.
Christianity
PRO has accepted that Christianity is based on reasoning rather than blind faith. By using the God speaks passages as evidence PRO accepts that there are only some parts of the Bible when God speaks directly. In other words, PRO himself conceded that only where God is quoted directly can a text be called the word of God, which means that God is not backing everything written in the Bible by his omniscience. The implication of this is that the majority of the Bible is the word of men, not God -- the exception being when God speaks directly to human(s).
SCIENCE
PRO barely mentions my enormous scientific argument. Even still, I have some objections to his rebuttals.
"Science takes God and supernaturalism out of the equation."
Pathetic rebuttal. Science, by definition, doesn't deal with miracles, theology, prayer or supernatural beings. It uses rigorous experimentation, math, logic and reasoning to explain the inner workings of the universe. Science predicts what will happen in the absence of supernatural intervention. PRO forgets that without science, miracles cannot be detected. Without science, the resurrection might just be a random event. But when we use science, we know that people don't rise from the dead, and we can use the historical evidence for the resurrection to prove that Jesus is Lord. If PRO wants to complain about the naturalistic ways of science, then he undermines Christianity.
"We are working from the present, looking back into a past that no human being was around to experience."
PRO undermines our knowledge of the past. But hey, the resurrection happened in the past. What is more reliable, an ancient document or a precise measurement tested, calibrated and perfected through rigorous testing on known objects? The enormous amount of empirical evidence that science provides is far more reliable than any historical evidence the Bible can have going for it. Heck, if we reject science then God doesn't evidently exist, as most arguments for God depend on science or its philosophical implications. Thus, undermining the scientific method is a complete waste of time that can only lead to the death of God and philosophy alike.
"Natural science does not give an efficient or sufficient cause for the BB."
Exactly -- science necessitated the existence of God. Science does not undermine Christianity as atheists falsely claim, it only glorifies God.
"Science has changed its view on the age of the Universe several times."
It is like saying that we should choose a knife over a gun in a combat situation simply because the knife never changes while new gun models are created every year. YEC is not better than science simply because it never changes. By that same logic, we should also stick to the flat earth hypothesis and believe the earth is the centre of the universe. In fact, YEC was a part of THIS worldview, and PRO is being a hypocrite if he accepts YEC but not the flat earth theory. Both are worldviews that can be deduced from genesis and both have been proven to contradict science. The only reason why PRO believes in YEC and not the flat earth is that the shape of the earth was proved much earlier than the age of the earth -- it takes some time for religious institutions to incorporate and accept new facts.
"Several factors could change the age of the Universe or our thinking on how it began. "
a)
Einstein's personal beliefs don't count as science. His views were proven incorrect, which proves that the test of experimentation is valid and an effective way to stop misinterpretations of reality.
b)
The problem of measuring the speed of light is greatly over-exaggerated. If we calibrate two watches at the same time, then move them apart and measure the speed of light, the times are not 100% accurate because moving the watches slightly changes the time -- according to the theory of relativity. But if the theory of relativity is true (a necessity for PRO's argument to work) then light travels at a constant speed [nationalgeographic] [space.com]. Thus, PRO's rebuttal proves instead of disproves the constant speed of C.
c)
Scientism is NOT science. Scientism is the belief that science should be used in ethics, art and philosophy. PRO's claim that BB and evolution is scientism is laughable at best.
Extra evidence against YEC:
- Stars are still being created [...]
- The evolutionary history is supported by all relevant data available [biologos]
- All creationistic attacks on evolution have been defeated [...]
- All geological evidence points against YEC [...]
- Measurements on rocks
- Geological phenomena such as ice layers, mountains growing, ocean floors growing, volcanoes creating islands -- etc
Thus, there is an enormous BoP on PRO to show me why science is incorrect.
CHRISTIANITY
"Regarding 2 Peter 3:8, the text speaks in a figurative sense,"
PRO claims that the difference between "is" and "is like" is enough to reject my argument as irrelevant. In PRO's world, even the grammar of the Bible is inerrant. Consider the implications of calling the grammar of the Bible inerrant:
- Jesus is literally a photon
- Christians must literally be born again [John 3]
- God has multiple sons [Job 1]
In PRO's world, these must be accepted as speaking both literally and grammatically correct.
"CON, was Adam the first historical man or not?"
Adam literally means "the first man God created". So yes, the first man on earth was indeed the first man on earth. A=A, that is basic logic.
"Denying the Fall of humanity as historical questions the need for a Saviour."
I need a saviour because I am going to hell. I do not believe that people perish in hell due to Adam's sin. I believe that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." [Romans 3.23-24]. My belief in salvation that doesn't care about genesis is supported by the most reliable document for Christian teaching, the letter to the Romans. I also want to point to another very interesting part of the Bible. In Ezekiel 18, God is making it really clear that he is righteous, and they discuss sin and its implications. In verse 20, God literally contradicts the claim PRO made by promising that: "A son will not be punished for his father’s sins". In other words, even if Adam was my father, his sin would not affect my righteousness. PRO's argument has been debunked by God himself.
"The Spirit of God inspired the biblical writers as to what to write."
The link shows us a verse that talks about prophecies. As far as I can tell, the entire Bible is not a prophecy.
The Bibles author
PRO uses a quote from Paul to justify his claim that the entire Bible is the direct word of God. But Paul is only talking about the word that the Thessalonians received from the apostles. As far as I know, no apostle wrote Genesis. Furthermore, PRO ignores that in the new testament, "the word of God" symbolises Jesus Christ, as is evident from the opening of the gospel of John. Humans wrote some parts of the Bible without God entirely. For example, the book of Esther does not even mention God.
"Is CON willing to compromise the whole of Scripture?"
PRO asserts that if the Bible is not written directly by God we must discard the entire Bible. This is simply laughable. Jesus himself affirms that two or three witnesses are needed to confirm a claim. But PRO rejects this way of fact-checking and claims that we should accept any part of the Bible without any logical objections. In his world, we would need to accept the Quran, the book of Mormon and the Apocrypha alongside Genesis.
But if PRO wants to call himself a Christian and not a Muslim he must accept that any claim about history must be fact-checked and tested against evidence before it can be considered valid and reliable. This standard is how we determine truth in any situation, why would the Bible be any different? In fact, the Bible can be trusted without needing to claim that any magical "inspiration" wrote the Bible. The Bible was written by humans, but they did a great job of keeping it is historically accurate. After Adam was created, humans were present and could witness the events of the Bible. But early humans could only imagine how the world was created, so it makes sense that their view of creation would contradict our modern and scientific view.
Thus, the resurrection can be accepted and YEC rejected based upon the most reasonable way to view the world, called REASON. It uses only fact and logic, not blind faith.
(yes, to a missionary or pragmatic evangelist it might be more beneficial to have blind faith in the Bible, but that does not make YEC true.)
"Jesus treats the first 11 chapters of Genesis as historical narrative"
Jesus didn't correct the scientific worldview of his time. He didn't teach people about germs or viruses. He didn't teach them that the earth was round not flat. He didn't teach the Israelites that our brains think rather than our hearts. Thus, it comes as no surprise that he didn't teach people that YEC is false. Jesus had 3 years to teach the disciples everything they needed to know, he had no time and no intention of confusing them even more by correcting their misconceptions about the universe. Jesus also didn't challenge THIS worldview. If YEC is true because Jesus treated Genesis as a historical narrative then the earth is flat because Jesus treats it as such. But neither is the earth flat nor is it young -- even though Jesus did not debunk any of them.
"Why would Genesis deviate from the norm?"
Don Stewart is an internationally recognized Christian apologist and speaker. He is an expert on the Bible. He states about Genesis 1-11 [cfm]:
The author is selective in the events he records. There is no attempt at thoroughness or to give all the events in a strict chronological order. The purpose of the author is to present a brief outline of the history of divine revelation up to the beginning of the national life of Israel. The creation account, for example, is not a complete account of all things that occurred in the beginning. The events recorded fit the author's purpose.
I will let this expert's word talk for themselves. Simply put, there was no place in genesis for telling how God created the universe beyond a brief summary that had to slack on detail and use symbolism instead of speaking in a direct way. Please note that Don Stewart accepts the entire Bible as the word of God, he doesn't doubt the inerrancy or infallibility of scripture. What you can take from this is that even if you believe the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God, you are still not obligated to believe in YEC.
"Scripture is teaching a literal six-day creation as the most reasonable explanation and authority. "
Scripture also teaches that the world is flat and that the earth is the centre of the universe. THIS is the worldview PRO is advocating for, which is clearly false.
Gospel and MiraclesGood enough to agree with. Not sure of the relevance to our discussion, though.
The relevance is enormous. You see, the implication of miracles and Christianity being reasonable is that a fanatical faith in the inerrancy of the Bible is not necessary to be a Christian. In fact, one could reject the entire Bible and still believe in the existence of God and Jesus being resurrected. Science is innately more reasonable than YEC. Therefore, if you can be a Christian without believing in YEC then YEC is not the most reasonable position for a Christian to hold. I have proved that a Christian can believe in the entire Bible and still reject YEC. I have also proved why one can believe in the entire Bible except genesis 1-2 or genesis 1-11.
CONCLUSION:
YEC is not the most reasonable position for a Christian to hold.
CHALLENGES FOR PRO:
- The plant life of the entire earth would be destroyed by the flood. But there is plantlife today. This disproves a PHYSICAL flood.
- If Genesis 1-2 is a historical narrative, Adam should have died on the same day that he ate the fruit. But he didn't.
- If light travels instantly, and we can see stars being created today, is God still creating our universe?
- Why would God put so much evidence that disproves YEC into the creation if YEC is true?
What is the most responsible and reasonable position for a Christian to hold, trust, and invest faith in, that of their Lord and Saviour as revealed in Scripture, or that of finite, fallible, limited, subjective, contingent, uninspired human beings? Is the Christian to trust the Word of God over the words of humans? It depends on where their "reasonable" faith rests, God or humans. Does CON, as a Christian, believe God? How else would a Christin come to faith in Jesus Christ other than by trusting Scripture as their authority? That is the essence of this debate, who to trust. The Good News, is telling people about Scripture, so the Christian must be careful that they do not misrepresent it.
R1 Questions for CON
- As a Christian, does CON accept [my] three propositions and that God is wiser and more knowledgeable than human beings? (see God, our Authority) No answer. Yes, or no, CON? If yes, then can God preserve His revelation to humanity?
- Which [cosmological ideology] is correct? What is the agency? [for the Universe] CON admits God is the agency, but is he convinced of the BB and its accuracy? [1] And why does CON doubt Scripture as his highest authority? CON admits God, then mistrusts God's revelation over that of scientism.
- If Scripture teaches God created the Universe not that long ago, should we disbelieve Him? CON says we can't trust Paul as referring to all Scripture as the Word of God (Paul often refers to the OT prophets in His writings). What would Paul be referring to as God's Word in 1 Thessalonians (AD 51-52) [2] since the NT canon was not yet collated when he wrote this epistle?
- CON, was Adam the first historical man or not? Let me remind CON again, Jesus places him at the creation. Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, God created them male and female. What do those underlined words mean CON? When did God create Adam, per this verse? (Logic: Adam = from the beginning of creation)
- If Genesis 1-11 is not literal....are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob historical persons? No answer.
- Is CON willing to compromise the whole of Scripture? CON picks and chooses what parts of Scripture he will accept as true and discards the rest as unreliable. CON speaks for me yet again, saying I reject two or three witnesses. False.
***
Definitions
"PRO has accepted all definitions."
CON took the liberty to declare that I accept all of his "definitions" (see R2), which, in R1, weren't clearly separated as to their start and finish points (my thinking, the bullet points were the extent of them). He asserted a lot under the different headings, some of which I disagree with.
***
Authority v. God, our Authority
I questioned CON's view of authority in my R1 opening regarding what Christians should believe about God (God, our Authority). He believes that everything he now (R2) calls "Definitions," I accepted. False. I detailed what aspects of his definitions I agreed with, not his blanket statements. He neglects my contrary statements, such as, "I also appealed to Scripture as teaching a literal six-day creation as the most reasonable explanation and authority." Now, R2 (see Authority), CON asserts that God, as revealed in Scripture, is lacking "the ability to convince," thus is not authoritative, "based on His power and knowledge" displayed therein. His idea and opinion of God must conform to "science." Unless Christians first grant science, CON does not believe God is the Christian's ultimate authority as revealed in Scripture (all Scripture). What does CON's faith ultimately rest upon? CON's blanket statement, "Science has never been invalidated or proven to contradict reality but is only improved by newer scientific theories,"* is false as contested in my opening, Science v. Scientism. Much of what CON labels science is his belief in scientism when it comes to origins. For instance, I watched Discovery Canada [3] on TV, "DID THE BIG BANG REALLY HAPPEN?" Scientists are asking a lot of questions about the BB, and they don't know. Please note the philosophical nature with questionable data as "ideas not fully flushed out."
Hakeem Oluseyi, Astrophysicist - "details not quite worked out." (2:18-2:24)
Grant Tremblay, Astrophysicist - "Science isn't about being right all the time. It is about being wrong, and we could absolutely be wrong about a major component in our understanding of the universe." (2:33-2:43)
This astrophysicist disagrees with CON's definition (emboldened and underlined statement above*), but again, this is scientism, not science.
Paul M. Sutter, Astrophysicist - "The BB occurred throughout the universe simultaneously." (4:12-4:13)
Yes, Christians believe God spoke, and it was so. Instantaneous!
Sean Carroll, Theoretical Astrophysicist - "What I would like to say is there is no such thing that triggered the BB. We tend to think that when something happens, there was an effect, there was a cause, something that made it happen, but here we are talking about the whole Universe. There is nothing outside the Universe to bring it into existence." (6:00-6:15)
That is pure speculation and absurd. Sean Carroll proposes something from nothing. That is that "nothing" (not a thing, zero, nilch) brought something into existence - self-creation from nothing!!!
In speaking of the Universe, one scientist said, "The Universe is telling us something." This statement is personification, giving personal characteristics to something that doesn't speak.
Speaking of the BB's "infinite" singularity, the host suggests, "But there is a problem, the singularity and the laws of physics don't mix. It may be one infinitely small point, but it causes some impossibly big problems." (9:07-9:21)
Michelle Thaller, Astronomer, "How can we possibly say that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light?" (00:52-00:56)
The host asks, of the initial BB, "How can the Universe grow so fast? Did the early Universe grow faster than the speed of light?" (29:46-29:51)
Scientists don't know, but reason, "with a steady rate of expansion, there simply hasn't been enough time for the Universe to grow to its current size." (30:30-30:43)
The BB is insufficient in explaining this "really big, really fast [rate of] expansion, then it stopped," so the Theory of Inflation is proposed. The problem is they can't figure out what "triggers or powers inflation" or "why the inflation stopped?" (Christian answer: God spoke, and it was so)
The program also discloses questions about the speed of light as a constant in the beginning. If the expansion happened at once, as with God speaking, the Bible corresponds with what these astrophysicists are proposing, with a questionable timeframe. To bypass God speaking (supernatural agent), they introduce Multiverses and countless other uncertainties.
Is the BB a scientific fact or mere philosophical opinion regarding origins?
CON said, "If one rejects science, then one rejects all knowledge..."
How did people know anything before the scientific Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, and the scientific method, CON? Did the soldier know he had a weapon in his hands? Had it been proved by science? CON's statement is non-sequiter; it does not follow, once again.
***
Faith and Reason
CON alleges I accepted his full definitions, R2, adding that I must admit that the Bible is not infallible. It is infallible in its original manuscripts, and we have enough manuscriptural evidence [4] that we can reasonably determine the original text [5]. The Early Church Fathers reference many verses of Scripture. There are over five thousand manuscripts that confirm the accuracy, and over 24,000 part manuscripts as references for the originals. Thus, we can verify it with confidence. Where is the evidence, rather than the allegation, of corruption?
Here is what I agreed to:
"I agree with CON. The Christian faith is reasonable."
That is it. CON keeps reading into my R1 conclusions something not stated (eisegesis), as he does with the Bible, teaching things not disclosed or inferred.
***
Christianity
CON again is mistaken in thinking that only the God/Jesus speaking passages are referred to as the Word of God. He again misrepresents my beliefs by twisting what I have said into what he believes. It is ALL Scripture, contrary to CON's belief. It is written completely by men who were filled, INSPIRED, guided, and DIRECTED by the Holy Spirit, the true Author of Scripture. They wrote exactly what God wanted humanity to understand.
2 Peter 1:21 (NASB)
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Prophecy is a confirmation that God's word is true.
John 16:13-14 (NASB)
13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; ..., He will speak;...He will disclose to you what is to come. [prophecy] 14 ...He will take from Mine and will disclose it to you.
..., about which God spoke by the mouths of His holy prophets from ancient times.
Jesus, the Son, the living Word, speaking in His human capacity, filled by the Spirit, understood the whole OT (It is written) was from God, what Jesus called "the Scriptures" dealing with prophecy and typology/spiritual truths of Him (i.e., Luke 24:25-27; 44-49). What is applied to God in the OT is applied to Jesus in the NT. (another example)
The Apostles and NT writers also believe that they are teaching from the Word of God (God spoken through the prophets and fathers/patriachs) and Peter referred to Pauls letters as Scripture. If all Scripture is inspired by God, how can CON say some is wrong?
CON's arguments fail.
4. Figurative versus historical narrative (R1)
CON misunderstands the rules of grammar (eg. 2 Peter 3:8).
Four common types of figurative language and the clues they are being used:
Simile - "compares two unlikely things and uses words "like" or "as"..." [6] eg., (2 Peter 3:8; 1 Peter 5:8 )
Hyperbole - "a figure of speech that uses extreme exaggeration to make a point or show emphasis." [7] eg., Matthew 19:24.
Personification - "giving human characteristics to non-living objects." [6] eg., Evolution describes why this takes place.
Historical Narrative - "writing history in a story-based form." [8]
Historical - "people, situations, or things existed in the past and are considered to be a part of history."
CON believes Scripture teaches a flat earth is again not recognizing figurative language. The "four corners" can refer to compass directions (N,S,E,W).
CON does not believe that Adam represented humanity in the Garden, that all die (physically and spiritually) because of one man's sin, and that all who believe live because of another, the last Adam, and His righteousness. What one man started effected us all. The curses on humanity were imposed after the Fall.
"Why would Genesis deviate from the norm?"
CON's source, Don Stewart, supports the entire Bible as the Word of God. Nothing needs adding to refute that argument.
***
Science
I will address CON's claims regarding dating methods and the speed of light in R3.
***
CON's Challenge
1. Plant life surviving the Flood - Possible methods include, air borne spores, seeds floating on water, Noah taking domestic fruit and vegetable seeds aboard the Arc.
2. Adam's death - Adam died spiritually to God on the day he ate. He was also barred from the Garden and eating from the Tree of Life and living physically forever.
3. Still creating? - He caused the natural laws in six days.
4. I correctly identified that a Christian should hold to God's authority as highest, not scientism.
Round 3
FRAMEWORK
Authority
PRO forgets that God doesn't have authority solely based on his knowledge and power. PRO must show why God is a reliable source of scientific information in order to claim that God has authority relevant to this debate. If God doesn't want to teach us about science, then PRO's entire argument falls apart.
Resolution
Why on Earth is PRO asserting that the most reasonable position is one you are required to "hold, trust and invest faith in"? This debate is not about "loyalty" to a particular school of theology, but about reasoning. If PRO cannot believe in Jesus without trusting YEC then his worldview has no sound foundation in neither science nor religion.
Definitions
Simply implying disagreement with the definitions is not a valid objection, PRO. If you disagree with the definitions then you must challenge them. So far, you haven't.
PRO refutes to understand that scientism means to apply science to ethics. Scientism =/= science. Cosmology, geology, these fields are NOT scientism.
QUESTIONS
1.
Yes, God is all-knowing by definition. I keep saying this.
2:
Cosmological ideology? I am a Christian: I believe the universe has a beginning, and a necessary cause - God. I am a Christian due to historical evidence proving that Jesus rose from the dead. Why not trust overwhelming evidence for the resurrection? Why not trust overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang Theory? Why relly on blind faith in Biblical "inspiration" or blind faith in naturalism? Atheists reject truth and facts if they reject the evidence for the resurrection, and theists reject truth and facts if they deny BB. The only reasonable path is to accept evidence wherever it leads us? FACTS LEAD US TO JESUS, BUT NOT YEC.
3:
If Scripture teaches God created the Universe not that long ago, should we disbelieve Him?
Right now, I am filled with the holy spirit, I am speaking in tongues, I am prophetical, and what I write is the inerrant word of God.
If my argument teaches that YEC is false, should PRO disbelieve God's word communicated through me?
This argument PRO cannot reject without undermining his own cause.
4:
Adam, is he the first human?
In the Garden of Eden story, the name “Adam” is originally not really a name at all. The Hebrew noun adam means “human,” and throughout the Eden narrative it carries the definite article—“the human” [bibleodyssey.org]
Therefore, I see no reason to treat Adam as any specific human. Why would the sinless, perfect human being defy the law of God despite a threat against his life? If Adam and Eve existed and were willing to defy God, they must have been the most stupid, godless and most ignorant people to ever live on this planet. I find it hard to believe that this evil, rebellious family was the "perfect" image of God. Rather, it seems like modern people like Hitler have been much less evil. At least Hitler didn't kill his own brother because of jealousy, but Kain, the third human, did exactly that.
5:
Abraham travelled with his entire family to a specific country and followed a documented path. There was no chance of him "accidentally" being a myth. After all, his grandchild Jakob was literally transported into Egypt where he spoke with the prime minister called Joeseph. Many aspects of historical evidence, such as the names of certain places, proves the Biblical record of Abrahams life to be reliable [2]. This is the kind of evidence that makes the Bible reliable, not some sort of magical inspiration.
6:
PRO admits that two or three witnesses are needed to confirm a story. This means that the biblical account of creation doesn't meet the number of witnesses needed to confirm the event as historically accurate. The creation story provided by the Bible is by definition a myth, a story or imagination asserted as a true event while lacking evidence.
Objection:
I challenged PRO to explain why God purposefully creates evidence against YEC. His rebuttal that evidence is the Bible, not science makes no sense. Evidence is always evidence, no matter what form it comes in. PRO, why does God put false evidence against YEC into the creation, and why does he hide the evidence for a giant flood?
DEFENCE
How did people know anything before the scientific Age of Reason
PRO misinterprets my argument. He thinks I stated that only science can be called knowledge. That is not what I meant. The scientific method is but the most reliable way to understand reality [1]. Imagine throwing away an assault rifle to use a revolver instead. This is absurd. If you wanted to be armed just bring both weapons. By rejecting the best tool, it becomes nonsensical to bring any tool at all. That was my argument: if one isn't willing to trust science, then trusting any knowledge is absurd. If a person denies science because of personal belief, they are not searching for truth but instead trying to reinforce and keep an ideological bias.
To reject science based on the Bible is the most blatant self-contradiction I ever heard of. There have been more than 34 WORLD FAMOUS scientists motivated by Christianity.
These people, like Isaac Newton, trusted facts to reflect the truth, they trusted science to glorify God. I believe in facts rather than religious doctrine -- because facts are what reflects the truth. I believe that Christianity is true because of facts, not because of doctrine. If PRO really believes Jesus is the truth then why does he reject science? Does PRO believe that science undermine Christianity? If so, why does he trust Christianity rather than science?
Science
I never remember using the Big Bang as an argument. PRO could not object to my real and testable facts, like the age of rocks or the size of the universe, but instead debunks arguments I never made. PRO seems to believe that holes in scientific theory prove that YEC is true, or that science is invalid. He asserts: "science doesn't know everything, therefore what they do know is in fact not true." This is laughable. Indeed, there are holes in scientific understanding. But contrary to traditional theology, science doesn't simply make up stuff to fill the holes in their understanding. Christian theology is often about "guessing" what is true based on the Bible, not actually gather real information.
As a matter of fact, science is more reliable than theology BECAUSE it allows holes.
Science waits for new facts before it makes conclusions, theology simply makes a guess.
BIBLICAL MYTHS:
If all Scripture is inspired by God, how can CON say some is wrong?
I am not the one saying some is wrong, PRO is -- by not accepting Flat Earth Theory.
I am not an expert, so I will simply quote an expert named Robert J. Schadewald [3]:
Except among Biblical inerrantists, it is generally agreed that the Bible describes an immovable earth. At the 1984 National Bible-Science Conference in Cleveland, geocentrist James N. Hanson told me there are hundreds of scriptures that suggest the earth is immovable.The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book. In describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat.Samuel Birley Rowbotham, founder of the modern flat-earth movement, cited 76 scriptures.The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object.
YEC is not an individual theory, it is a puzzle piece in a coherent cosmology where every piece is indispensable.
If PRO denies that the Earth is flat, then he rejects the Biblical cosmology, including YEC. SIMPLE AS THAT
OFFENSE BY EVIDENCE
Images from space show us that the Earth is round, not flat. This proves that the Biblical cosmology is wrong, and the scientific one correct.
There are countless trees today older than 4000 years old. One is a total of 5062 years old. By comparison, the great flood happened 4.500 years ago. I find it hard to believe that any tree could survive the pressure of a vast ocean for a whole year. I also find it hard to believe that all the animals survived when they were released into a wasteland, and not just ate each other. How did the penguins reach Antarctica before they died? How did kangaroos reach Australia and Bears Canada? There are 6.5 million animal species today living on land. If the flood is real, then those 6.5 million species would need to be put on the ark. But how did they fit?
We would at least observe evidence of such an event, but no serious non-YEC scientists has even published any evidence for such a flood. Overwhelming amounts of cross-checking evidence proves that Earth is older than 6000 years old
Scientists have even created a coherent timeline of the universe. This timeline is more reliable than genesis 1-11, as it simply incorporates more and better quality information.
Conclusion: FACTS disprove the Biblical cosmology and prove that the scientifically model is correct.
UNDERMINING PROS INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE
Remember that genesis 1-2 was written in the third person view, which means that it was written by a human author. PRO and I already agreed that when God speaks it is explicitly stated. Genesis 1-2 does not mention any encounter between the author of Genesis and God. No real evidence suggests that God wrote Genesis 1-2. PRO claims that God mind-controlled all authors of the Bible to write his direct words. His only argument was that Jesus uses the phrase "it is written". This doesn't prove anything. Jesus obviously used religious scriptures in his debates with the Jews. Jesus used mostly poetry and IMPERATIVE references [imperratives]. In other words, Jesus would say something like:
- it is written, This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me. [Mark 7:8]
- it is written in the Law of the Lord: “Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord [Luke 2:3]
- It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone. [Luke 4:4]
This only proves that Jesus accepted the Jewish religion. But simply because the Jews had gotten a special revelation about God, it doesn't automatically mean that their view on cosmology was written by God. PRO is basically arguing that if YEC is false, then Jesus would not have quoted the Old Testament. This I find nonsensical. Jesus NEVER updated the wrong beliefs of the Jews. Jesus was only interested in justice, religious matters and ethics.
Remember, there are different versions of the Bible held by different parts of the Christian community, and the different translations complicate things even more. How do we even interpret the Bible? There are 3 broad categories of Christianity, and I urge ALL READERS to take a look at this complicated graph of Christian denominations. Surely, to claim that one specific view on the Bible is correct would be absurd. There are at least 4 types of theology, and each has its own distinct perspectives, motives and methods -- and they all come to different conclusions.
The belief that the Bible is inerrant is but one of those views. Thus, even if PRO has made an argument for that view, it is by no means authoritative. The Bible is quite reliable because the story of the Bible is supported by archaeological evidence as well as miracles and human witnesses. The new testament has been proven to be reliable by comparisons to other documents [5]. This vast ocean of historical evidence supporting the Gospel has contrasted the nonexistent scientific evidence for YEC. Why believe that the Earth is 6000 years old simply because Jesus didn't challenge an old Jewish story? Why believe that God mind controlled the author of Genesis when you can simply accept that YEC is a myth or a metaphor?
Again, God speaks with humans directly. He sends angels to speak to us, he doesn't mind control random people to write "his words".
Reliability of Genesis 1-11
Source: Archaeological evidence.
Archaeologists found a building material that fit the EXACT description of genesis 11.4: "They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar.". They had found the remnants of the mighty tower of Babel. There was also an official stamp in the brick that shows us exactly who commissioned it as a building material -- the king of Babylon. In fact, the story of the tower of Babel doesn't describe ancient history prior to Abraham -- it describes a ziggurat the Jews were forced to build by king Nebukadnessar II.
Thus, Genesis 11 describes an event that happened long after Abraham, Moses, and even David. Don Stewart was right in his analysis of genesis 1-11:
The author is selective in the events he records. There is no attempt at thoroughness or to give all the events in a strict chronological order.
Since Don Stewart accepts the inerrancy of the Bible, we can know that:
THE BIBLE, EVEN IF INERRANT, ISN'T ALWAYS RELIABLE.
Implications of PRO's answer
PRO admits that the death of Adam was symbolical (or "spiritual", whatever that means) ==> this means that at least one word in genesis 1-3 is NOT to be taken literally.
YEC is making at least two assumptions here:
- The words used in Genesis are to be taken literally
- There are some exceptions, such as the word "death"
I find it hard to believe that the creation account can be reliable if the words being literal or symbolical can shift from one verse to the next.
SUMMARY:
- The Bible is not evidently inerrant, and definitely not consistent
- God has no motivation for teaching us science
- There are multiple schools of theology
- Genesis is too vague to be taken literally
- Science disproves YEC
- YEC makes no logical sense in its own right
- YEC is incompatible with a round earth cosmology -- which most Christians share
CONCLUSION:
YEC is definitely not reasonable. Science definitely justifies the rejection of YEC. And even blind faith in the Bible should not prevent us from rejecting YEC.
The resolution has been thoughly debunked in every arena.
Back to you, PRO.
Authority
CON's definition, R1: "Reasonable: being in accordance with reason."
The question is whose reasoning (human or God's)? CON's default position - science (really scientism), not God, is the ultimate authority and necessity for knowledge. He wants to fit God into the science box. CON's reasoning works from the known and the now (empirical science/observation and experience) to the unknown (philosophical principles) distant past. CON puts science, not the Bible, as the position a Christian should hold above all else.
Colossians 2:2-4 (NASB)
2 ...that they would attain to all the wealth [a]that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I say this so that no one will deceive you with persuasive arguments.
A Lesson in Theology
CON's biggest mistake in reasoning, IMO, is that he relies first and foremost on natural theology and human minds over the Word of God. He believes that man, rather than God, is the measure of all things biblical. CON's notion that "man is true and God a liar" flies in the face of sound theology and what a Christian should believe (Romans 3:4; John 17:17). CON, as a Christian, fails to take into account the effects of sin (the noetic effect [1] [2]) on his and humanity's reasoning. The current science (scientism) of origins, including macroevolution, denies creation as perfect before sin changed the dynamic (I.e., Death was present before Adam sinned). Biblically, each is created to its own kind (not evolving from a natural common ancestor). To the Christian, God's word, not man's word, is the starting point, as many of the founders in fields of science believed, inquiring after God, trying to think His thoughts after Him by discovering what He had made (Romans 1:19-20, with v. 21-22, 25). The foundation (Psalm 11:3) of a Christian's belief is God's revelation to humanity, His Word. It takes president over human thought (Isaiah 55:8-9; Proverbs 3:5-7), where that thought differs from what God has said (1 Corinthians 1:20-21). A Christian should hold to God's word above all else since a Christian is saved and secured by it. Faith comes from hearing the message (Romans 10:17). God is what grounds us in our beliefs. We start with Him as our first presupposition, not science or the Universe. God's natural revelation (what is made) is affirmed by His special revelation (His living and active Word, penetrating to the heart of our existence - John 17:17). His Word is the Christian's most reasonable starting point, God's true knowledge [3]; powerful enough to heal, create and sustain the Universe, forgive and cleanse us of our sins, and transform us, having miraculous power!
Science
In R1, CON uses natural science as a panacea for explaining origins. CON needs to prove that what he offers regarding origins is science. I correctly identified that a Christian should hold God as their highest authority, not scientism. Scientism is the belief that science answers all, and nothing can be known without it. I.e., CON: "if we reject science, then God doesn't evidently exist" (see Authority, R1). God is self-evident on the impossibility or improbability of the contrary.
CON claims, "PRO forgets that without science, miracles cannot be detected," is a false dilemma/either-or fallacy (I.e., science is the only alternative). Those witnessing Jesus' miracles did not use science to verify what they SAW. They used reason. Seeing or hearing the Word created belief for many of them. They saw Him crucified, buried, and resurrected, alive from the dead. What did Jesus say to "doubting Thomas"?
29 Jesus *said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you now believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."
Jesus did not say, "because of science, you believe." He said because they saw Him, they believed.
CON denies and doubts God speaking through the many biblical authors as God's Word, his authority, not scientism.
Extra evidence against YEC (R2)
Here CON dumps lots of information contained in links. For instance, "All creationistic attacks on evolution have been defeated" [4] asserts multiple fallacies one could argue against. The article has its own biased loaded language approach and appeals to authority while inferring its neutrality. It deals with too broad a scope to respond to with a limited character count. Granted, it is well documented according to a naturalistic approach that excludes God. Science largely lost the godly approach during the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment. Then many scientists thought it plausible to reject God entirely from the scope of scientific thought. Everything must require a naturalistic explanation.
Dating Methods
1) Geological Column - Assumes Uniformitarianism (the present as the key to the past). Categorizes each layer as a different geological time period, ignores that layering can happen quickly (e.g., Mt. St Hellens [5]),
2) Dendrochronology or tree-ring dating - Assumes each ring is an annual indicator [6],
3) Radiometric dating - Assumes, 1) The unknown number of unstable isotopes can be known, 2) A constant rate of change occurred, 3) The daughter atoms are all produced by radioactive decay [7], [11]
4) Ice-core sampling - Assumes ice-core layering occurs only annually. [6 - ibid] Note the Lost Squadron (260ft) as an example of only 50 years. Layering from different snowfalls during the same year is possible [8] [9],
Assumption: "Ice cores can be dated using counting of annual layers in their uppermost layers." [10]
Assumptions of Radiometric dating
1) Where was the clock set? [11]
2) No contamination to alter the timeframe. [12 - see Assumption 2]
3) Constant decay rate? [12 - see Assumption 3]
4) Some radioisotopes are unstable. [11 - ibid, see Radioactive Decay]. Are present conditions the key to past conditions? When the rocks were formed, no geologist was present; none could measure at that time. [12 - see Conditions at Time Zero]
***
CON, R1: "What you can take away from all of this is that the universe has been explained in detail by entirely independent fields of research..."
Or the way of thinking has changed from looking at origins from a godly perspective to a human one. These science fields have jettisoned the idea of God and exchanged it with confirmation bias of naturalism alone.
CON's idea of science is largely what Vern Poythress describes as "modern secularist thinking...taking over the ideas of divine rationality" and replacing it with "human dominion" and "brute facts." Redeeming Science (frame-poythress.org), p. 54.
What does CON rest his faith on, God's authority disclosed in the written revelation or the authority of science?
There have been and are many views on origins. [14]
Speed of Light always a Constant?
Some alternatives:
1) Decrease in the velocity of light speed over time.
2) Gravity affects time, distorting it. The General Relativity at an "event horizon" virtually stops or runs slower.
3) The rate of expansion was greater at the initial BB; thus, the distance between star separation was quicker then than now.
4) God spoke the Universe into existence and placed the stars in the heavens immediately with the appearance of age, just like with Adam. Is Dark Energy, possibly a curse from the Fall, alternatively causes the expansion and further distancing witnessed in the Universe?
***
Rebuttal (R3)
Authority
God has authority based on who He is, His omniscient knowledge and omnipotent power, wisdom, grace, mercy, and every other attribute that makes Him God. He is the sovereign Lord. (Psalm 103:19 - His sovereignty rules over all).Romans 13:1; Matthew 28:18
Notice who gives the disciples authority! [15]
***
Resolution
About reasoning; from God or man?
***
Definitions
CON keeps asserting I have not challenged his definitions. I challenged aspects of them that were made known to the reader. Can Christians trust humans over God? If they do, they put their own reasoning above that of God's (idolatry). Is it more reasonable that a Christian holds that view?
CON says, "Scientism =/= science. Cosmology, geology, these fields are NOT scientism."
1) CON limits his definition of scientism.
2) Scientism goes way deeper than ethics.
3) CON elevates science above God so that nothing can be known without appealing to science.
***
Objection
Overruled: God does not create evidence against YEC; people do, in the name of science. The evidence for a giant Flood is apparent with catastrophism, not uniformitarianism.
***
BIBLICAL MYTHS
CON falsely accuses me of two things,
1) That I "say" some of Scripture is wrong. Where did I do that?
2) The Bible teaches a flat earth?
CON's flat earth defence displays biblical ignorance on the part of Robert J. Schadewald.
- Genesis 1:4: By inference and reason, knowing that the moon and sun are round or spherical in shape, why not earth?
- Daniel 4:10-11: "10 'Now these were the visions [a] in my mind..." A vision.
- Matthew 4:8 does not say how Jesus was shown every kingdom of the world, whether by vision, understanding/comprehension, or literally, but CON takes this as literal. CON falsely presupposes only one explanation.
- Revelation 1:7: "Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him..." 'See' --> understand (see 2d). "Coming on the clouds" refers to judgment in the Bible.
- "The four corners" (Revelation 7:1) is not a literal four corners, but compass directions --> N, S, E, W.
- The Vault of Heaven from the author's words, "This picture of the cosmos is reinforced by Ezekiel's vision. The Hebrew word raqiya appears five times in Ezekiel, four times in Ezekiel 1:22-26 and once in Ezekiel 10:1. In each case, the context requires a literal vault or dome."
- From the Hebrew ANE perspective, what they saw or reasoned with the naked eye was round, dome-shaped.
- How does "immovable earth" translate to "flat earth?"
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, ...
He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters...
When He established the heavens,..., When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
***
Reliability of Genesis 1-11
1. CON confuses the time of Nimrod with the time of Nebuchadnezzar. [16]
2. He confuses the similarities {building materials and towers' height within the city) with the tower in Genesis 11.
3. We already find multiple languages before and during the time of Nebuchadnezzar. [17]
4. He fails to consider the narrative (no headings or chapter divisions back then between Genesis 10-11). [18]
Therefore, CON is mistaken in his interpretation. The Bible is its own interpreter.
CON: YEC is making at least two assumptions here
CON confuses two types of death described in Genesis, spiritual and physical. He fails to understand the separation from God that Adam caused by sinning.
1) God told Adam that he would die on the DAY he ate of the fruit of knowledge. That day he died spiritually to God as our federal head. That day he was barred from the Garden and a close walk with God. That is why Jesus preached that one must be born again spiritually.
2) God barred Adam from eating the Tree of Life and living forever physically. Thus, Adam did not conquer physical death in Eden.
***
CON thinks he is a neutral judge between God and science. He demonstrates that he favours science over God's Word. CON ignored my arguments that the days of Genesis 1 are literal 24 hour days.
Principle: Science fits within what God has revealed.
Round 4
FRAMEWORK
Authority
PRO continues to assert that God is our authority. PRO has not shown us why God would teach us about science ==> PRO has not shown us why God is a scientifical authority.
"About reasoning; from God or man?"
A Christian is not God. A Christian uses human reasoning. Any attempt to claim that you follow "God's reasoning" would be an act of arrogance. PRO is clearly guilty of this, trying to force "God's reasoning" into the place where human reasoning rightfully belongs.
DEFENCE OF SCIENCE
Science =/= Naturalism
"Everything must require a naturalistic explanation."
More correctly: everything must require an ADEQUATE explanation. A miracle like YEC or BB is would be a scientifical theory, a claim about the natural world and its age. But to accept such a theory, empirical evidence is required. So far, no evidence for YEC has been presented by PRO. I however, have proved why YEC is false.
Speed of light
PRO has resorted to creative explanations that are supposed to make a YEC world make scientific sense. His lack of any expert sources proves that his imagination is at work. rather than logical reasoning. He claims that sin might have created dark energy, an idea which is pseudological pseudoreligious pseudoscience at best. Light slowing down and the expansion being faster is simply not viable. A slight change in any of the cosmological constants at the event of BB would have undermined life [Cambridge]. The scientifical theories around the details of the BB are vividly discussed, but no serious scientist has ever challenged the age of the Earth as being less than 6000 years.
The present is the key to the past
How can the present words in the Bible be the key to the past? We just assume it is, which makes Christianity dependent on Uniformitarianism. Christians, that have to make many assumptions to read the Bible, MUST accept scientific measurements that are far more accurate and relies on far fewer assumptions. If measurements don't reflect the truth about Earth then why do measurements like seeing a miracle reflect the truth?
To reject science is to reject the foundation that both science and Christianity relies on ==> the assumption that FACTS reflect TRUTH.
"God does not create evidence against YEC; people do, in the name of science"
PRO is suggesting that scientists are bad at their job; fabricating false evidence.
Actually, PRO ignores that all of the dating methods make sense and come to the same answers [sciencedirect]. Even radiometric dating, known for being unreliable, is incredibly coherent [journals.uchicago.edu]. Carbon dating is very reliable and is being calibrated to perfection. "Every 5,730 years, the radioactivity of carbon-14 decays by half." [nationalgeographic]. Contrary to PRO's conspiracy theory that scientists have an agenda and are lying to us, my source actually admits that there is a margin of error. "Samples that are older than about 40,000 years are extremely difficult to date due to tiny levels of carbon-14." [ibid]. PRO's objection requires dating methods to be off by a factor of thousands and millions. There is NO way scientific margins of error can invalidate the enormous amount of evidence that disproves YEC.
PRO suggests that God created the universe "immediately with the appearance of age". This is clearly a case of fabricating evidence. Evidence is nothing but facts that make something SEEM true. Why is God fabricating false evidence against YEC? Is he lying? Is he trying to fool us? Or maybe the evidence is simply true -- maybe YEC is false.
"Bias"
The argument stands. ALL SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS FOR YEC HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED! PRO disliked the tone of the expert article. But remember, they are defending themselves against people like PRO whose claims imply that scientists break their work ethic by teaching evolution and Big Bang; by claiming that evolution and BB are simply theories and that teaching them like science is wrong; even though the only counterarguments come from religion. PRO's perception of the tone doesn't matter when the authors write a scientifical and scholarly article with an enormous sources list. Check the source to check its validity: [expert article].
THE BIBLE
"A Lesson in Theology"
As I mentioned earlier, there are countless different ways of approaching the Bible. I have read a lot about theology myself, and the fact that I disagree with PRO doesn't mean that my view of the Bible is less correct. Simply because ONE way of interpreting the Bible leads to believing in infallibility, doesn't mean that the Bible supports that theory. Simply put, PRO's argument only applies to people that already share his view on the Bible. It is a self-affirming belief, not a good argument.
Author(s)
PRO claims that the entire Bible was written directly by God: "the words of God, not men". However, the Bible clearly identifies it's human authors:
I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write [Luke 1]The words of Jeremiah [Jeremiah 1]A psalm of David. [Psalm 23.1]Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, [Peter 1.1]The words of Nehemiah son of Hakaliah [Nehemiah 1.1]
Clearly, MEN wrote the Bible. What they wrote is their own words or the words of witnesses. However, they wrote down the word of God as well -- the word that God revealed:
The word of the Lord came to him. [Jeremiah 1]We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard [John 1.1.1]Then the Lord called Samuel. [Samuel 1.3.4]He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John [Revelation 1.1]
But to claim that EVERY word of the Bible is inspired by God is clearly a fallacy. There is at least one place in the Bible where God is not speaking directly:
I say this (I, not the Lord) [Corinthians 1.7.12]
The most important implication is that the genesis account is NOT evidently the direct word of God. Why would God refer to himself in the third person view? Why is the author not specified? Answer: God didn't write genesis, people did -- an unknown author did. This is why it contradicts all known evidence; because the people of the Bible could only write about what they had heard and seen. More likely than not, Biblical cosmology is NOT created by God, but borrowed from other cultures [lockhaven.edu].
In the strange case of genesis being God's revelation, then genesis 1-2 must be treated just like the revelation at the end of the Bible, in other words: like a symbolical story that needs to be interpreted, where multiple interpretations might be plausible [evidenceandanswers]. If that is the case, then the massive scientifical evidence clearly rules out YEC from being the correct interpretation of Genesis.
"CON's notion that "man is true and God a liar"
PRO is attempting to straw-man my argument. I am not saying that God is a liar, I am saying that Biblical cosmology is wrong -- either because God didn't write the Bible directly or because he didn't care about being accurate. Earth isn't flat as the Bible says, nor is it young. PRO falsely accuses me of rejecting the word of God, when I only reject PRO's view that the Bible is infallible.
Nimrod vs Nebudkadnessar
PRO is asserting that the genesis chronology is perfect. But my Bible expert has already proved: "There is no attempt at thoroughness or to give all the events in a strict chronological order." PRO is ignoring the fact that the BUILDING MATERIAL described in the Bible has been found [Tower of Babel] -- this is conrete archeological evidence. There was an image of Nebudkadnessar II on those bricks. The tower of Babel was built while the Jews lived in exile in Babylon. This explains how the Israelites could write the story in such detail -- because they were brought to Babylon [Britannica].
PRO IS REJECTING CONCRETE ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE THAT CONFIRMS THE BIBLE AS DESCRIBING REAL EVENTS;
HE DOES THIS SIMPLY BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES HIS PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of genesis as infallible and literally true.
The flood
PRO ignored the trees that are older than the flood. How could such a tree survive the pressure of an entire ocean, while not gaining natural access to light or carbon dioxide? The 8.7 million animal species would not fit into the ark, not to mention returning to their native continents, crossing oceans without food or fresh water. "According to estimations, about 99.9% of all species are extinct."[encyclopedia] Is PRO suggesting that God lied, that it was not true that Noah's ark carried all species. Is PRO suggesting that 99% of species went extinct while humans were around? The implications of YEC becomes pure nonsense. PRO ignores the absence of scientific evidence for the flood, which we WOULD find if YEC is correct. I found an expert article on the National centre for science education: "Many of these mineral compounds and red beds have combined thicknesses on different continents of more than one kilometre...one could expect these evaporites to be at the top of the supposed Noachian Flood deposits when the water supposedly receded and the land dried out, but certainly not in different levels in between older and younger fossiliferous". My source is discussing the evidence for a flood and concludes that the worldwide phenomenon of multi-layered soil between layers of fossils cannot have been made by a single big catastrophe, it would require a cyclic process. However, a regional flood in the Middle East is quite plausible: "The Noachian Flood story cannot describe a whole-earth flood, but it could only represent a large regional flood." Again, we find that the first in Genesis is only partly true.
Biblical proof of round Earth debunked
The "circle" of the Earth is pointing towards that the Earth is a flat DISC.
Biblical myths
"The four corners" (Revelation 7:1) is not a literal four corners, but compass directions --> N, S, E, W.
PRO has thus conceded his entire case by admitting that not every word in the Bible is to be taken literally.
How does "immovable earth" translate to "flat earth?"
"Except among Biblical inerrantists, it is generally agreed that the Bible describes an immovable earth. there are hundreds of scriptures that suggest the earth is immovable." [Robert]
The Earth isn't immovable, however, the Bible says that it is. Both I and PRO are denying that the Bible has authority to overide science and say the Earth is immoveable. However, I stay consistent and say that the Bible doesn't have authority to say the Earth is young. Afterall, its auhtors were fishermen, not scientists.
Genesis 1:4: By inference and reason, knowing that the moon and sun are round or spherical in shape, why not earth?
My second Bible expert answers this question brilliantly:
"The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. the writers of the Bible really did believe the earth to be flat" [Robert]. "they [PRO] rationalize and reinterpret these passages to defend their faith that their Bible is without error. they can't get away with this cheap trick, for the writers of the Bible really did believe the earth to be flat" [ibid]. YEC and Flat Earth Theory are one and the same Biblical cosmology, and the evidence for Flat Earth is way more prevalent in the Bible than YEC.
Matthew 4:8 does not say how Jesus was shown every kingdom of the world, whether by vision, OR literally
PRO is actually hurting his own case. Genesis 1-2 is in the same situation where you cannot decide whether or not it is a vision or to be taken literally. Thus, if the Bible doesn't teach that the Earth is flat, it definately doesn't teach that the Earth is young. PRO's argument for YEC is reliant on the Bible to always be literal, but he is himself denying that. PRO tries to explain away individual verse that supports the Flat Earth Theory. This attempt might be noble, but it is entirely in vain. The entire Bible is permeated by flat earth theory. "the modern flat-earth movement cited 76 scriptures".
SUMMARY OF BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS
THIS is the Biblical cosmology. Earth is flat, the sky is a metal dome, the earth is the centre of the universe and the earth is 6.000 years old.
PRO demands that the days in the creation story ought to be treated as literal days, but doesn't hold any other part of the Bible to the same standard. PRO is himself discreding YEC by refusing to accept the literal interpretation of the Biblical cosmology. He rejects every part of Biblical cosmology except YEC. If literal Biblical cosmology is wrong in every regard, why should we trust it to give a reliable account of the creation of the Earth? PRO's argument requires one to arbitrarily decide which parts of the Bible are reliable and which ones are not, while claiming that the Bible is ultimately "infallible" --- as long as you "interpret" it correctly. However, interpreting it is impossible, as too many factions and approaches have been tried to solve Biblical revelation beyond the simple historical facts like the exodus. PRO's ignores this problem, which renders him helpless against accusations of cherry-picking which verses are literal. This is a major inconsistency in PRO's argument and should be enough to disqualify his entire argument. Self-contradicting ways to interpret the Bible are NOT reasonable.
PRO's argument relies on the Bible being some magical phenomenon called infallability, the incapacity to make an error. Even if that was true, Christians are not some sort of supernatural beings with a magical ability to interpret the Bible perfectly. Our attempts at extracting truth from the Bible is not better than science is at extracting truth from reality. We Christians are mortals as any others, and to use our personal interpretations of the Bible to undermine scientific theories is simply absurd.
CONCLUSION:
YEC is not reasonable at all, it is dependent on a specific personal interpretation, defies all logic and has been disproved by rigorous scientific studies.
For CON, this debate boils down to whether God's Word is trusted over science, and the verdict is no. More to the point, CON is dealing with philosophical naturalism when he speaks of origins. That is how the science of origins is geared. Is that reasonable for a Christian to believe? Post-Kantian 'science' (as well as pre) tries to solve origins without input from the biblical God; the very God Christians place their reasoned faith upon. As Cornelius Van Til said, "modern science has virtually assumed that the addition of zeros will produce something more than zero." p.120. [1] Without God, science has nothing doing the work of origins, no intent, no purpose, nothing --> blind chance and brute facts. Secular sciences investigation of origins is an investigation without God. Science believes it can solve the problem of the origins by human reason alone. When science becomes the only means by which humans can know anything, it has become scientism. CON is building his foundation of knowledge on what Jesus calls sinking sand. As Van Til said, "the success of modern science" where it is successful is "the fact that it really works with borrowed capital." p. 120. That capital is what God has revealed not only in the natural realm but by His special revelation. CON replaces that capital with (what he believes is) science alone as his ultimate authority; thus, he relies on humanity to answer all things knowable. That idea alone is opposed to the biblical revelation of God. As mentioned before, Christians are to trust God as their ultimate source of truth. Science without God is constructed on brute facts (no ultimate foundation). How? CON inserts God only when nothing else will fit (a God of the gaps). Facts are created and controlled by God, but CON believes that all facts are controlled and created by the scientific mind. Is that reasonable for a Christian to believe?
CON, R1
- "scientists use controlled experiments, math and logic to prove their theories...reaching a level of accuracy that is unmatched by any other field of reason, including theology... [for Con, including unmatched by God] As a result, trusting science is the most reasonable thing to do for any person. If PRO doesn't accept the authority of science he can throw his computer out of the window..."
- "If one rejects science then one rejects all knowledge,"
CON, R2
- "PRO must show why God is a reliable source of scientific information ...to claim that God has authority."
- "If God doesn't want to tell us about science, or if his words are hard to interpret, or if he has not written the Bible word-for-word, then PRO's entire argument falls apart immediately."
CON, R3
- "PRO must show why God is a reliable source of scientific information..."
CON, R4
- "To reject science is to reject the foundation that both science and Christianity relies on..."
CON has it backwards. To reject Christianity is to reject the foundation that science is built upon. Science is not the foundation of facts; God is.
Origins deals with philosophical science, for it works from a presuppositions starting point that everything began by a BB or some other method, not God. Then it believes the scientific method explains everything. That is scientism.
CON stated (R1) that the account of creation is a "religious story" that he sees as vague and symbolic, definitely not a "scientific article." It is not the purpose of Genesis or the Bible to state how creation happened in today's scientific terms. Genesis 1 lays down the order of creation in six 24-hour days as a historical narrative. What is this symbolism CON refers to? It describes how a supernatural God created; He spoke things into existence. Remember, the Bible primarily addresses an ANE (Ancient Near East) culture, one not sophisticated in modernism. It speaks in a language that both they and we today can understand. Throughout, it claims to be God's Word, His revelation to humanity, specifically preserved in a covenant relationship with an ANE people (Israel). Through that people, the Messiah would come. From the actual physical history of Genesis 1-11, we find the first human beings created and the records of their lineages up to Abraham's time. If CON denies Adam is a literal human being, the first man, what does he believe about sin and the Fall? The whole biblical account of sin and separation from God begins with the fall of Adam. When does Jesus say the first male and female lived? He places them at the beginning of creation.
But from the beginning of creation, God created them male and female.
Is it reasonable for a Christian to question the Lord who bought them and doubt everything about their salvation? What need would CON have of a Saviour if Adam had not caused the separation between humanity and God? And CON's unreasonableness to trust God as true goes further than this; it goes to the very core of what CON is willing to believe about the Bible. Where does CON find the facts and reasons for Christianity? He finds it in the Bible, the same writings he believes are not the Word of God except where there is a direct quotation from God, otherwise not the infallible Word of God. Thus he picks and chooses what he will and will not believe true on any given subject. To top it off, CON places scientism above the Word of God. He believes his ultimate authority is science and scientific reasoning rather than God's reasoning as given in that special revelation.
***
Rebuttal
"About reasoning; from God or man?'
CON believes that to claim to follow "God's reasoning" "would be an act of arrogance." This is the opposite of what the Bible teaches.
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a worker who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
There is a correct understanding of God's Word of TRUTH.
Science =/= Naturalism
CON believes "everything must require an ADEQUATE explanation."
God is that explanation, not science.
Speed of light
CON believes I "lack...any expert sources," but I have quoted from credible astrophysicists and scientists who question whether the speed of light was always a constant and other anomalies about the science of origins as related to the BB.
CON misrepresents my claims about dark energy. I believe the curses God imposed during the Fall could be an explanation for dark energy.
CON believes at the BB, "A slight change in any of the cosmological constants...would have undermined life." Again, CON works strictly from the natural, forgetting God is a supernatural Being. But, at some point, CON must believe in the supernatural explanation if he believes in God.
The present is the key to the past
CON misapplies my argument about the present as the key to the past, taking it out of context. Non-sequitur.
CON claims, "Christians, that have to make many assumptions to read the Bible." Again, how does this follow as any different than reading anything else? There is still a correct interpretation. You must understand the author's meaning to interpret correctly.
"God does not create evidence against YEC; people do, in the name of science"
Selective scientists is CON's appeal to biblical inteprretation (i.e., see,"suggesting that scientists are bad at their job; fabricating false evidence")? Appeal to authority.
CON says I ignore dating methods. Dating methods assume the present is the key to the past, among other things.
CON claims I fabricate evidence by suggesting 'God created the universe "immediately with the appearance of age."' That was one explanation, as reasoned by Adam being created a man, not a baby or a child. The argument stands.
CON says, "Evidence is nothing but facts that make something SEEM true." Facts are true regardless of whether they seem true or not.
CON reasons with the YEC, God would be fabricating the evidence. That is not the case. We fabricate the evidence. God tells us like it is --> Adam was created as a man. Thus, he had the appearance of age at his creation. The same goes for the Garden.
"Bias"
CON believes he has debunked all arguments for YEC. He barely touched them:
1. The meaning of a day in creation.
2. The use of a) a day, b) days, c) day with a number, and d) evening and morning in the Bible.
3. There are other Hebrew words to signify ages (Olam).
4. Figurative versus historical narrative.
5. Genealogies
6. Jesus supports a literal Genesis account.
7. Sin and death.
THE BIBLE
"A Lesson in Theology"
CON believes because he disagrees with me, it "doesn't mean that [his] view of the Bible is less correct." It definitely means one view of creation is incorrect. What does the Bible teach? I have shown it teaches six days of creation that God compares to man's six days. How long should a person rest if a Sabbath day is different between humanity and God? What use does an eternal Being have of time but to use it as an example for humanity.
Author(s)
CON misrepresents me again, claiming "the entire Bible was written directly by God." Directly? I claimed every word was God-inspired, that humans wrote (in their own words) exactly what God intended for humanity to know. Thus Paul could say to the Thessalonians,
...when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of mere men, but as what it really is, the word of God,...
CON claims that not every word of Scripture is inspired by God by citing Paul, "I say this (I, not the Lord)" (1 Corinthians 7:12). If God did not want it heard, would He have allowed it to be recorded?
CON claims that not every word of Genesis is God-breathed, God-inspired. Does CON understand what the biblical word inspired means?
"CON's notion that "man is true and God a liar"
CON says that he is not calling God a liar. Then he must show that 'day/evening and morning' in Genesis 1 is not used to signify a literal 24 hour day. He never followed up on that argument.
CON says I falsely accuse him of rejecting the Word of God. Yes, CON only applies what he wants to as infallible or God's word.
Nimrod vs Nebudkadnessar
CON's appeal to authority, "my Bible expert has already proved," is blatantly obvious. What does the Bible say, not his selected expert? The context refers to Nimrod.
CON says I reject "CONCRETE ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE THAT CONFIRMS" his "fact." What is confirmed could be that both used similar building material, period.
The flood
CON asks how 8.7 million animal species would fit on the ark? [2]
1. Example: The 36 different current species of canines evolved from one pair.
2. Infant animals would be taken as pairs.
3. Kinds are not speicies.
Biblical proof of round Earth debunked
Con states, "The 'circle' of the Earth is pointing towards that the Earth is a flat DISC."
That is pure conjecture and CON does not understand the difference between a 'circle' and half circle.
Biblical myths
CON is the literalist (four corners), not me, bent on his flat earth conjecture. Clearly, biblical language can be interpreted as plain narrative or figurative.
CON's interpretation of "immovable" does not follow. Equivication.
SUMMARY OF BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS
CON misleads by accusing me of not holding other parts of the Bible to the same Genesis standard. The context and type of language determine the interpretation. More smoke by CON.
Round 5
I really want to debunk PRO's claims, but since this is the last round, I will instead summarise my case.
FRAMEWORK
Reason
Reason is about making sense of the world. Reason requires both logic and facts. PRO has provided neither, he simply made semantical arguments about the Bible.
BIBLICAL FLAWS
PRO's entire argument relies on the Bible being infallible, having more scientific authority than science itself. In other words, PRO's argument requires the Bible to be a more accurate description of reality than the reality we can study using science. This is plainly absurd. IF the Earth was young, then science would have been a much more accurate way to describe the Young Earth. Since science can find no evidence for a young Earth, PRO's argument hinges on God creating the world "immediately, with the appearance of age" This claim is based upon a semantical interpretation of the Bible, namely that the entire Bible must be accepted as true regardless of actual logic and evidence. This all stems from a fundamental assumption in PRO's worldview, that the Bible is God's word directly, not human words describing God's work.
Author
The Bible is the word of humans, it is stated plainly and obviously. Recall:
I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write [Luke 1]The words of Jeremiah [Jeremiah 1]A psalm of David. [Psalm 23.1]Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, [Peter 1.1]The words of Nehemiah son of Hakaliah [Nehemiah 1.1]
When the Bible is the word of God, it is clearly and obviously stated that God is speaking:
The word of the Lord came to him. [Jeremiah 1]We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard [John 1.1.1]Then the Lord called Samuel. [Samuel 1.3.4]He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John [Revelation 1.1]
Clearly, the Bible makes a distinction between the words of it's authors and the words of God himself.
I say this (I, not the Lord) [Corinthians 1.7.12]
The last quote is from Paul, PRO's source that the Bible is God's word altogether. Even Paul understood the difference between his word and God's.
PRO made a last attempt at redeeming the idea of the entire Bible being God's word, by saying: "If God did not want it heard, would He have allowed it to be recorded?"
This is, and I quote PRO, MEANINGLESS CONJECTURE! Paul clearly stated that the Bible contains his personal non-inspired opinion.
What happens when you take a part of the Bible not directly the word of God and treat it as the word of God? Answer: oppression.
Because of Paul's personal opinion that one serving God should not marry, both the Catholic and Orthodox churches forbid marriage for servants of God.
Taking the entire Bible as the word of God leads to unwanted consequences. Why? Because the entire Bible isn't the word of God, that's why. This doesn't take away from the Biblical authority. The disciples were eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus, and their recreation of the story, the gospels, are excellent sources to be trusted. But to claim that a myth like Genesis 1-3 should be trusted simply for being in the Bible is absurd, and doesn't in any way follow from PRO's semantical argument.
Language
PRO himself stated that the Bible while being the word of God, is written in human words. This alone should be enough to disprove YEC. If the author of Genesis was limited by the language he knew, then expecting his description of creation to be accurate is illogical and not supported by any evidence. Thus, to claim that God created the world EXACTLY like is written in Genesis is not at all possible, defeating the resolution.
The flood
The flood described in Genesis would have created evidence easily detectable by modern science, but we have found no evidence whatsoever. Attempts at interpreting the fossil record as evidence for a flood fail miserably, due to the multi-layered soil between fossils, along with the gradually increasing age-dating of fossils. With regards to the water, there is not enough water to cover the Earth, unless of course, the Earth looks like THIS. Furthermore, the ecological impacts are said to have destroyed the entire Earth's ecosystem, but apparently, a couple of thousand-year-old trees at the time survived the event, and the infant-animals taken from their parents could return to their native continents to then evolve into 8.7 million species, all within the lifetime of that surviving tree. This story is impossible, illogical, and never happened. The Bible describes a local flood at best.
The tower of Babel
The tower of Babel has been found. The exact same building materials as described in the Bible were found in the city of Nebukadnessar II, where the Jews were taken, hostage. This fact explains how the Jews could feel so sure about the building materials: they literally saw the tower being built, and how they failed to build it. To interpret the Bible literally leads one to have a wrong understanding of history, namely that a mythical figure named Nimrod built a tower centuries before organized society started building large structures. As my Bible expert stated, the book of Genesis is NOT perfectly chronological or even thorough.
Cosmology
The Jews believed the Earth to be flat, they really did. This is reflected in how they wrote the Bible.
"The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault." [lockhaven.edu]
The view of the Earth as young, and the view of the Earth as flat and the heaven as a metal dome are dependent on each other. If the Earth isn't young, it isn't flat, and if the Earth isn't flat, it isn't young. To choose only one of those theories and call it true is the most dishonest cherry-picking thing to ever do. (Granted, I do not accuse PRO personally of this, this dishonest cherry-picking is a result of centuries of church history where the Biblical cosmology is refuted by science.) The truth is that PRO's attempts at explaining away Flat-Earth scriptures are futile. The Biblical view of the Earth as immoveable is supported by hundreds upon hundreds of scriptures, and can't be denied.
A simple look at Earth from space is enough to invalidate the Jew's perception of cosmology, and with it, YEC.
Creation
The creation account is highly illogical. There goes by multiple days before the sun is created. The stars and the moon are created simultaneously, but the other planets not even mentioned. The lava not mentioned either, neither the atmosphere. In fact, nothing is mentioned not already known to exist by the Jewish people. If God was to write an accurate account of creation we Christians should believe in, then wouldn't he at least use accurate wording? What does "God said, and there was" mean? How does God create, and what is a day if the laws of physics are not active yet? (and yes, if the laws of physics were active before the sun and the moon, the Earth would not be in perfect orbit once they were created)? God creates the Sun from nothing but creates man from the dirt. Why? Nothing makes sense about the creation account. This is because God didn't write it, humans did, using humanly knowledge and reasoning. Our modern understanding is way better, with science we can explain the holes in the understanding of the Jews. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, which is good because if not for the age of the planet, the orbit around the sun would still be filled with dangerous rocks.
To claim that this very flawed story is more accurate than modern science is plain idiocracy. Either science is 100% false, or the story is outclassed by science.
Adam
Adam means "human". Adam did nothing of importance. If Adam did not exist, and humans just evolved (maybe got a soul from God, who knows), then the story of humanity is still the same. I need not go to hell because Adam sinned. I need to go to hell because I sinned. To take away from that fact is to undermine God's fairness as a judge. Imagine the USA killing all Germans because of Hitler, would that be fair? Imagine God sending all humans to hell because of Adam, would that be fair? No, we each make our choices, we each take the consequences. With Jesus, we all have a choice of redemption, it is our personal choice to be redeemed, Jesus is not the same as Adam, because with Adam people had no choice. The symmetry between Adam and Jesus is actually not good, it fails. Adam is, as should be clear by now, a SYMBOL of humaity.
Biblical authority
PRO complains that a human-written Bible is not reliable to trust in with your life. This is not true. The disciples wrote what they saw and heard. What they wrote was true, but not the direct word of God. When they wrote down the word of God, they actually tell us that God is speaking. This means that God is not speaking all the time in the Bible, and leaves room to reject Biblical conspiracies. God didn't write the Bible directly, so to follow the Biblical cosmology is not to follow God's cosmology, but the cosmology of the ancient Jews. The Earth cannot be proven flat using the Bible, one needs scientific evidence. Similarly, one cannot prove the Earth to be young using the Bible, one needs scientific evidence. This does not apply to miracles of course, because miracles need another kind of evidence: witnesses. This is what makes Christianity stick out as true. Other religions like Islam don't provide eye-witnesses to miracles, but the Bible does. However, speaking truthfully about a miracle you saw doesn't make your imagination of creation more true than science. Even Moses, if HE wrote genesis, was not an expert on origins.
Conclusion: The Biblical authority comes from eye-witnesses, not "inspiration". The Old Testament was already accepted way before the word inspiration was even introduced
Interpretation
Interpreting the Bible reliable for such parts as Genesis 1-3 or the revelation is virtually impossible. The different factions of Christianity all have different opinions on everything Biblical. Heck, every main faction of Christianity has its own version of the Bible. Furthermore, different experts interpret the same passages differently. To trust PRO's interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is NOT AT ALL REASONABLE. He has been running all semantical. He claims the days in genesis are literal, but that the death in genesis is spiritual, whatever that means. He misinterprets the Bible to say the Earth is round, despite all experts agreeing the Bible says the Earth is flat. PRO is a person, and his personal interpretation of an evidently not reliable book called Genesis is not more reasonable than science.
SCIENCE
Need I say more? You have gotten the point, all scientific evidence disproves YEC, and PRO's argument is that God created a world that LOOKS old. Interesting that God created fossilised dinosaurs. If he had made them equally old on the carbon-dating scale, maybe science would have accepted YEC. But ALAS, my opponent thinks carbon dating is not only unreliable but also reliable at being unreliable. Why is every single fossil of a dinosaur aged to be older than a human, if they lived side by side before the flood? Answer: they didn't. God either purposefully created scientifically evidence against YEC just to test the loyalty of PRO towards the Bible, or YEC is false.
Science doesn't simply create evidence like PRO claims, they STUDY the available evidence.
When a scientist finds ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for YEC, on that day it would be all over the Christian news. Since that hasn't happened, YEC is clearly without evidence.
CONCLUSION
With only a fraction of my arguments, PRO's position is reduced to dust. It is NOT reasonable to believe in YEC, especially not THE most reasonable position.
I would have loved to debunk PRO's non-sequiturs and many fallacies.
But in respect of the readers being smart enough to see them themselves, and not wanting to read much more, I will not do it.
Is YEC the most reasonable position for a Christian to hold?
Judges, please note, "for a Christian to hold."
Summary of my argument
In R1, I established the foundation I would argue from in this debate. I chose three points to expound upon,
1) The biblical God as the Christians reasonable and ultimate authority.
2) The presuppositional nature of origins and why it is reasonable to believe Christianity over philosophical and scientific naturalism.
3) What Scripture teaches.
All three deal with what a Christian should hold as reasonable.
CON tried undermining these three positions by arguing:
1. The God of Scripture is not reasonable as the Christians ultimate authority, science is,
2. Science is the only avenue of knowledge acceptable,
3. All Scripture is not to be trusted, only limited portions that quote God,
4. The meaning of Genesis 1-11 is not historical narrative but symbolic.
1) The Christians Authority
CON works from the methodology of non-Christian authority, undermining biblical authority by deconstructing it. He uses a definition of authority that is only beneficial to his argument (R1 --> Authority and Rebuttal). He then argues in R2 (Definitions) I have accepted all his definitions, misleading the jury and misrepresenting my stated position (R1 --> God, our Authority; R2 --> Authority v. God, our Authority). In R3 (Authority), CON further limits Almighty God in His power, knowledge, and ultimate authority, once again stating that God must conform to CON's authority and the idea of science. I refuted this in my R3 (Authority), stating that in Christ is found the treasures of all wisdom and knowledge.
2) Christianity V. Scientism
1. Scientism requires faith too. CON failed to take into account the biased philosophical, theoretical, and presuppositions nature of cosmological arguments.
2. His determined approach was science is the only valid avenue available for intellectual inquiry (see quotes, R4 --> CON R1, R2, R3, R4). Christian, is the underlined true or reasonable? CON sets science up as the absolute knower of all things, leaving God aside, only to be called upon in matters of faith, not the purveyor and interpreter of all facts.
3. Scientifically, how do we know the present is the key to the past, for the present, not from origins, is where we work from (R1 --> Science or Scientism?)? He never provided solid justification against this argument, just refashioned the argument from origins to God's Word (Equivocation). He stated in R4, "IF the Earth was young, then science would have been a much more accurate way to describe the Young Earth." This is not necessarily the case. I refuted this by the noetic effect of sin. (R3 --> A Lesson in Theology)
4. Science is funnelled through a strictly natural explanation of all things.
5. There is no scientific objective certainty in areas of origins.
6. A natural explanation is where inquiry focused since the Age of Reason. Thus, on this very point, the natural versus the supernatural, CON departs from the biblical faith, only giving lip service to the Christian God. From the start, his position undercut the Christian faith and reason in God. Is that reasonable for a Christian to hold, undermining the very faith that our salvation depends upon?
7. Instead of true knowledge of any fact of origins coming from God, as revealed in Scripture, CON sets up scientism as his true knower. To this end, he undermines Scripture as a revelation of God, thus infallible, reasoning that only the parts of Scripture in which God is quoted can be infallible, thus supernaturally influenced. CON's gross error undermines the whole of Scripture.
The difference between Christian and scientific methodology regarding origins is that the Christian method considers what the biblical God has said as its ultimate authority (God has revealed). Both methodologies work on a presuppositions nature, as I explained in R1 and subsequent rounds.
Christian presuppositional reasoning:
1. No one was there to witness origins.
2. Data does not come pre-interpreted.
3. Science of origins works on the assumption that the present is the key to the past because the relative present is all we have to work with. That means:
a. We cannot duplicate or repeat origins experimentally, only aspects of them,
b. We cannot witness what actually occurs,
c. We interpret all data based on our methodology. [1]
Therefore, our presuppositions predetermine our outlook.
While CON's arguments from science had merits, that merit came from the presuppositions bias that engulfs Science and scientists as holding the answers for the universe, life, and in CON's case, Christianity from a secular perspective. The Christian has reason to question such philosophical "scientific" thinking. The Discovery video quotes many reputable astrophysicists in questioning the BB's reliability, speed of light, and other anomalies.
3) Scripture
Why is it most reasonable for a Christian to trust God above scientific naturalism? Cornelius Van Til says, "For us there can be no true interpretation of facts without a miracle, for our opponents, [the] miracle is at best a somewhat unruly fact." p. 94.
1. CON is not using Christian theism but general theism as he deconstructs what the Bible says, choosing what he will and will not accept.
2. CON uses his own semantics in deciding what the Christian should believe, arguing that only those parts of Scripture that directly quote God are infallible (R4 - see Biblical Flaws/Author - denying "that the entire Bible must be accepted as true." CON's reasoning: "PRO's worldview, that the Bible is God's word directly, not human words describing God's work."*).
* Is it reasonable for a Christian to hold that all Scripture is described as divinely inspired?
1. 1 Timothy 3:16, not me, argues all Scripture, not some, is inspired by God.
2. I asked CON what inspired meant. He never answered. Inspired means 'God-breathed.' ALL Scripture is God-breathed. That means the Holy Spirit superintends what is written.
CON flies in the face of such teaching.
Scripture teaches:
1. Every/all Scripture is inspired by God (God-breathed).
2. God is true; He cannot lie.
3. Therefore, all Scripture is true.
Because God is true and all Scripture is God-breathed, all Scripture tells the truth. The Christian must find out God's intended meaning. That is reasonable since:
1. The Christian has placed faith in the biblical God.
2. The Christian can appeal to no greater authority, for such a God reveals His omnipotence and omniscient through Scripture.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy [2] effectively argues contrary to CON in its Short Statement:
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
The Statement in its Articles deepens the divide between CON and biblical Christianity.
Article VI
We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.
We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.
Article XVIII
We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms [R4 - Summary] and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.
(See Article I, II, III, IV also)
Thus, CON's arguments about Scripture are unreasonable since:
1. They deny fundamentals of the true faith, the inerrancy of Scripture in the original manuscripts.
2. CON's added inferences or subtractions from what Scripture teaches (see Eisegesis in Comments) divert from the issues.
3. God, in His revelation of Himself, the universe, and humanity, is our sufficient reason for faith and ultimate authority.
4. CON places human thought in the sciences above that of God, undermining the Christian faith. I mentioned prophecy (approximately one-third of the Bible) states, "no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." - 2 Peter 1:21. Men spoke prophecy. Because humans can error the Holy Spirit was necessary for preserving God's revelation. I showed that the Bible professes to be the Word of truth. CON's imposed divisions in R5 -->Biblical Flaws do not work. He evaluates Scripture not on its own merit but the merit of fallible humans operating from the guise of a natural science perspective. He confuses human reasoning with God's reasoning. Is that reasonable for a Christion to hold, to evaluate Scripture by injecting human thought over God's thought? I say no. If CON wished to undermine the historicity of Scripture, which he only did where it suited him, he needed to factually prove that a supernatural God cannot work miracles within human history. CON affirms God can and does. (R1 --> Gospels/Miracles)
In effect, what CON did is choose what he will believe - Science over God. That has dire consequences on the Christian faith and doctrine. I posit a few of the failures in CON's theology:
1. No need for a Saviour.
2. No original sin.
3. No physical, actual first-person, just a symbolic 'Adam idea.'
Anomalies of a symbolic Adam:
a. Adam is listed in the genealogies of Christ.
b. Does a symbolic Adam make the others symbolic too? CON picks and chooses who is literal in these lineages - Adam and his offspring --> no; Abraham --> yes.
c. If a literal human being (humanity's federal head) did not represent humanity in Eden, why do we die?
d. What of Adam's offspring? Did Caan actually kill Abel?
e. Who was actually kicked out of Eden? Was there an Eden?
d. Scripture places sin, death, and Adam back to creation.
g. The most reasonable understanding of creation is a six-day period, a day classified by evening and morning, a 24 hour day.
h. God as eternal is a timeless being. (R1)Thus time is meaningless to Someone without a beginning or end. Time begins.
i. God created the sun, moon and stars for humanity's purposes, to determine appointed seasons and times.
CON silently neglected and/or purposely ignored many YEC arguments (R1 --> Biblical Evidence), including the literalness of the word "day" in Scripture when accompanied by a number, or the words "evening and morning." (YEC, in part, hinges on correctly interpreting a day)
1. CON failed to show verses in Scripture of either a day with a number or "evening and morning," without the text referencing a literal day. He realized it hurt his position.
2. He explained away the historical narrative of Genesis, preferring to describe it as a story, a symbol of humanity's plight. His interpretation is fanciful at best.
3. I showed CON how Jesus identified Adam as the first man and at creation.
4. CON contradicted himself at times, symbolizing then literalizing Adam.
CON opposes God as the source of Christian knowledge.
CON placed humanity as the self-determiner in a contingent world of brute facts and changing ideals.
CON failed to interpret God's meaning in Scripture correctly.
CON placed his faith in scientism while undermining Scripture.
I ask the judges, is that the most reasonable position for a Christian to hold?
![[5]](https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3045/images/fig5.jpg){kind=link}
Thank you for the debate! If you are interested in another in eschatology I am interested.
Thank you for voting!
Only 7 hours remain for voting.
For future reference, as a voter, I am to consider content only with the text of the debate rounds, along with cited sources, but Comments are outside of consideration; therefore, I ignored your definitions, even though Con agreed to their location. His say so does not agree with Voting Policy, which disallows voting on the basis of outside comment. Neither opponents definitions were convincing, in any event.
I sympathize.
We are both getting roasted it seems.
Thank you for your vote
My vote: cont'd from #13
Sources: Sourcing by both opponents fail to convince any more than their arguments. Tie.
Legibility: My vote in this regard goes to both the Resolution/Description by Con [initiator] and in argument round by Pro. Con uses an acronym without defining it, assuming it is a commonly known term: YEC. What is that, an expression of disgust? I am a life-long Christian, but have never encountered the acronym. A simple definition of the acronym, to dissuade assumptions, would have been simple and prevent time taken away to find out for myself. Any debater ought to preclude this dissatisfaction simply by assuming the audience wants definition. Provide it. Pro makes the same mistake in R1 by the use of BB. Again, not familiar with the acronym. BB king? BB, the stock market acronym for BlackBerry? The projectile fired from a small gun? Any debater ought to… and finish as above. DEFINE YOUR TERMS. Acronyms, in particular. I have to consult Google to find the acronym, but Google failed to provide a definition in context with the debate. Actually, by a re-read, I find the it was Con who first provided the answer: big bang, but Con spelled it out, did not use an acronym. Google, itself, never gave me big bang. Tie, but holding my nose.
Conduct: Both opponents treat one another with sufficient respect. Tie.
Notes: I would have really liked to offer a winner, but both failed to convince with sufficient dedication to the Resolution, allowing themselves to be sidetracked by an absurd flat-earth extended discussion. As I said, shape of Earth is of no consequence to the Resolution. Would that it had led the way and the day. In this debate, I declare the Resolution as ignored, and the clear loser. Definitions were another loser, as noted on arguments. Both opponents should give them better deference. Pity.
My vote:
Argument: Con began R1 with a series of definitions; a long series. Once the argument began in earnest, I was still in a quandary when I was going to encounter the crux of the debate: is YEC a reasonable position? I wade through 1,400 words of definition and a scattered expose on scientific/philosophical jargon before encountering something that appears to have relevance to the Resolution, when, finally, the acronym YEC makes sense. I realize it is Young Earth Creation. And I find I must put away my bias because my own thinking on the matter definitively sides with Con. I can do that. I want to be convinced by either opponent based on their arguments, alone. But “Creation” is the 1,411th word in the Con R1 argument; it’s first mention when it is of ultimate necessity to the Resolution. Honestly, I am wondering why I have waited so long to encounter this critical word.
Conversely, Pro begins the R1 rebuttal that this debate is not about science, which Con goes to great lengths, at a frank disadvantage to himself, to effectively come to the same conclusion, but there is so much science offered by Con that Pro is inclined to feel it necessary to oppose. Con offer3es a simple rebuttal to science, that Christians should believe "…exactly as described IN the Bible." A good rebuttal to all the science discussed by Con. However, Con’s BoP is that science is the best explanation for Creation as not being YEC. But a period of activity over eons of time. Pro offers three propositions, all of which are supported by scripture, but none of the propositions convince that Pro has proven YEC. They do demonstrate God as the creator, but that is not relevant to the Resolution. Pro’s R1 could have had a convincing argument for YEC with his summary of a book by R. Raymond, with a discussion of “day,” [“yom” in Hebrew] and that this Hebrew word can signify a single day, or multiple days, and even points out the number of times “yom” appears biblically, and separates the usage as singular or plural, but then throws the argument a curve by saying that even in the 27% of the references of plural meaning, they also signify a single day. Yet, Pro never quotes Raymond directly, so we are left wondering just what is the point the author is making because Pro will not let us see his point. The argument fails on that missing quotation.
Con’s R2 begins by allowing that Pro has accepted all definitions. So, why must I have a regurgitation of them? In fact, having provided sufficient explanation of science in his R1, Con complains that Pro barely mentions “science,” [it is not Pro’s BoP to do so, by the way], but then cites several rebuttals from Pro’s R1, disputing that Pro does not mention it. Con declares that “Pro undermines our knowledge of the past,” while Pro has alleged that our past is described at length biblically. Con’s R2 argues the Pro has failed to provide an account of evolution, or that new stars are observed being “born,” ignoring that mention of these should be made to prove Pro’s BoP. Again, these are factors for Con to prove.
Pro’s R2 begins with questions for Pro, which neither offer argument for Pro, nor supports those arguments by sourcing. Questions are, indeed, challenges, but to what purpose? Pro also challenged a question in R1 with the same opinion on my part that questions are not arguments. Pro should just make argument, and support it to my convincing. I am not convinced of an argument by challenging questions. Pro then complains that Con assumed Pro’s acceptance of Con’s definitions, ands since Pro said naught about not accepting them in R1, and offering rebuttal to them, specifically, I am not now convinced of Pro’s sincerity by his denial only in R2, by which Pro concludes R2: denial of definitions.
R3 entertains a discussion entirely off-track hat actually began in Con’s R2, and spills into R3 as a knock-down/drag-out: flat earth. Neither opponent does their BoP credit by this off-debate subject, and I fear both have lost track of the Resolution, because, sphere or flat, Earth’s creation by YEC, or not, has completely fled the field.
R4, R5, ditto, and I’m done. Result: Neither side has convinced me of their argument. Tie.
cont'd in post #14
Understandeable. Thank you anyways.
Don’t think I’ll get a chance to do this one. Backlog of requests is already long, and this debate would be tough for me to stay neutral.
This topic might interest you.
Also, a vote would be highly appreciated.
vote bump
Objection accepted. There are as said, many ways to interpret the passages, and this debate only considers one option.
I must object to your definition of Young Earth Creationism, since one can believe that the days in genesis were literal 24-hour days, and be an Old earth Creationist. For example, Michael Jones from inspiringphilosophy believes that the days were literal, but the earth is old.
It's your dime. (^8
I had to present a solid logical and scientific argument this round. I will turn to theology the next round.
But I favour the YEC position.
I think it is very reasonable to believe. I have not made up my mind completely on the issue.
Do you believe that Young earth creationism is true to the world objectively or if it is just true to the bible itself?
As agreed upon in the Description, CON is allowing me to post additional definitions that I think will be needed for my argument that was not included in the Description. Here they are:
Definitions:
Scientism
1: methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist
2: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism
Exegesis - "a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially a religious text. Traditionally the term was used primarily for work with the Bible. In modern usage, biblical exegesis is used to distinguish it from other critical text explanation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis
Eisegesis - "the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis
The Laws of Logic - (1) the law of noncontradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle, and (3) the principle of identity.
https://arcapologetics.org/three-laws-logic/
Self-evident truths - "containing its own evidence or proof without need of further demonstration; Requiring no proof or explanation."
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-evident
***
"clear or obvious without needing any proof or explanation"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/self-evident
Necessary being - "a Being of which it is impossible that it should not exist."
https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/necessity.shtml
Efficient Cause - "the immediate agent in the production of an effect." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/efficient%20cause or "that which produces an effect by a causal process."
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/efficient-cause
Thank you, CON for agreeing to this!