Instigator / Con
Benjamin avatar
Benjamin
1513
rating
10
debates
55.0%
won
Topic

Is YEC the most reasonable position for a Christian to hold?

Status
Debating

Waiting for the contender's third argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
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
PGA2.0 avatar
PGA2.0
1473
rating
4
debates
25.0%
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
Benjamin avatar
Benjamin
Con
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. 
  1. Ex nihilo: from nothing
  2. 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. 
PGA2.0 avatar
PGA2.0
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.

1. Exodus 20:8-12 lays out what a day is, the same for God as His people. [10]

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
Benjamin avatar
Benjamin
Con
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 Miracles
Good 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?
PGA2.0 avatar
PGA2.0
Pro
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 
  1. 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?
  2.  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.
  3.  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? 
  4.  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)
  5. If Genesis 1-11 is not literal....are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob historical persons? No answer.
  6. 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 )
Metaphor - "compares two things not alike." [6] e.g., John 11:25.
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."
Narrative -  "a story or an account of a series of events." [9]

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
Benjamin avatar
Benjamin
Con
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
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:
  1. The words used in Genesis are to be taken literally
  2. 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.







Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet