Instigator / Pro
14
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2803
Earth’s Age is More than 100,000 Years Old
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
Undefeatable
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1760
rating
89
debates
76.4%
won
Description
A slight harder counter argument to YEC.
We are obviously talking about our plant Earth.
Burden of proof is shared. No quantum physics arguments allowed. No trolling. No semantic arguments. No kritiks.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thanks Con.
The premise is: Earth is greater than 100,000 years old.
I noticed I accidentally included a typo in the premise, missing an "e" from Planet. This is not intended, of course. Earth age scientifically calls towards the planet's age, rather than any "plant". There is obviously no plant named "Earth".
As one of my previous esteemed opponents Jarret Ludolf states [source]:
This idea is known as Grice's Razor.“Senses are not to be multiplied beyond necessity” — Paul Grice [2]Grice is saying that you must look at the context; the ‘literal’ version of what is being said shouldn’t be taken in isolation. Let’s look at a quick example:David: Kate — Are you coming to the sprint [mistyping "Sprint"] planning meeting?Kate: Let me just grab a coffee…While Kate didn't literally say she would come to the sprint planning meeting, it is conveyed that she will by the context of the answer. Similarly, even though I mistyped "planet" to become "plant", it is also conveyed by the context. To quote MisterChris:"Respond to what I meant, not what I said"
Even legal standard supports this idea: "You should assume that the parties intended the words in their contract to have their usual and ordinary meaning unless you decide that the parties intended the words to have a special meaning". [Source]
Hence, with the capitalization of "Earth" as a formal statement of our planet's name, and with no plant having such name, in addition to all google searches leading up to our planet as a result, we can safely conclude that Grice's Razor combined with legal backing, that we are talking about planet Earth.
Now onto my argument.
Geological Evidence
European oak trees have been used to build a 12,000-year chronology. [7] The ice cores combined with the rock layers reveals 160,000 annual layers of accumulation, proving that Earth must be at least one million years old for the sediment and ice. [2] Indeed, "Below the visible layers of snowfall, by comparing chemical isotopes with other studies, scientists have drilled ice cores deep into glaciers and found ice that is 123,000 years old in Greenland and 740,000 years old in Antarctica." [8] Next, the changes in Earth's surface proves that the Hawaiian Islands' tallest volcano must've taken about 500,000 years to grow to its present height. [2] With the new crust forming, the rough estimate is at least 1500 million years, far greater than 10,000 years old. [2]
Not only so, "Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years). " [9] If the Earth itself says that it is over 10,000 years old, why should we doubt geology?
Radiometric Dating
Using the half life of various elements, the isotopes of potassium prove that "rise of humans about 2.5 million years ago, the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, the appearance of animals with hard shells starting about 540 million years ago, and other key transitions in life on Earth are usually dated in this way" [2]. A famous expert also cited 7 additional ideas to back up this claim [5]:
- There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
- All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time... The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
- Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
- Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
- A recent survey of the rubidium-strontium method found only about 30 cases, out of tens of thousands of published results, where a date determined using the proper procedures was subsequently found to be in error.
- Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
- The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.
Unless Con refutes the accuracy of radiometric dating, this stands powerfully.
Evolution
Evolution is a theory proven by countless scientists and experts. The most common evidence cited is the fossil record, and evidence plain to the eye. As one study notes, "A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin's finches. The ancestors of these finches appear to have immigrated from the South American mainland to the Galápagos. Today the different species of finches on the island have distinct habitats, diets, and behaviors, but the mechanisms involved in speciation continue to operate." [3] In addition to this, thousands of fossil organisms have proved that microbial life was already in existence 3.5 billion years ago.
The distribution of species prove that, if Earth was only 10,000 years old, we would see brand new species every single day, based on the pattern. Or for no apparent reason, the specie variation stopped and the laws of evolution suddenly decided to change for no apparent reason. This seems beyond absurd to the highest order to me.
In addition, even molecular biology supports evolution. As the same paper notes, "During the next two decades, myoglobin and hemoglobin sequences were determined for dozens of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, worms, and molluscs. All of these sequences were so obviously related that they could be compared with confidence with the three-dimensional structures of two selected standards—whale myoglobin and horse hemoglobin. Even more significantly, the differences between sequences from different organisms could be used to construct a family tree of hemoglobin and myoglobin variation among organisms. This tree agreed completely with observations derived from paleontology and anatomy about the common descent of the corresponding organisms." The molecular clock is so useful that it has been used to go beyond paleontological evidence, providing other animals' relatives and proving evolution beyond a reasonable doubt.
Evolution is so powerful that the Supreme Court ruled that creationism was not fit for teaching, already fulfilling my case even on a legal basis [2]. In addition, 97% of scientists support evolution [6]. In a criminal court case, if 97 out of 100 scientists say a man murdered another man, this is far beyond a reasonable doubt. Keep in mind that even Trial by Jury only requires majority vote with 12 members. It's impossible for con to win here.
Conclusion: The scientific and expert evidence, if presented even in criminal court case, would destroy any opposing lawyer, regardless if they use the Bible, emotional arguments, or otherwise. The rigorous evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth is over 10,000 years old. As I have only used expert sources and true evidence, the opponent cannot use the Bible, as it is written not by experts. The opponent cannot use unfounded claims, news sources, nor even semantic arguments. Because each of my papers use similar words -- strong evidence, strong support, Earth's Age, billions, so on and so forth. I eagerly await his argument.
Question For Con
- Is there any proof of God?
- If God exists, why would he fool us to make the world appear much older than they really are?
- If Creationism is true, how does Evolution actually work?
- If Noah's Ark occurred, why can't we find this Ark? The size must match at least one of our largest ships ever created.
- What would it take to change your mind (or if you are playing devil's advocate, overcome your argument)?
- How old is the universe?
- Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
- Why/How do you think that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?
- The Genesis flood: Where did all that water come from? Where did it go?
- How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements, and the consistent correlation with objects of known age?
- What scientifically factual information can you supply to support your contention that the universe is less than 10,000 years old?
Other sources in comments
Con
#2
Thank you, Undefeatable
SETUP
The rules
Here are the restrictions my opponent has put on me:
Burden of proof is shared.No quantum physics arguments allowed.No trolling.No semantic arguments.No kritiks.cannot use the Biblecannot use unfounded claims,
This enormous list of restrictions essentially makes it impossible for me to fulfil my BoP. I, therefore, declare that the BoP is ONLY on PRO. Voters, if you think of voting PRO because my BoP was not fulfilled, then instead give me the conduct point as I accepted this impossible challenge. Also, I think it is fair to say that if PRO breaks any of his own rules then he should automatically lose the conduct point -- any voter with integrity would accept that.
Earth’s Age is More than 100,000 Years Old
This can only mean that PRO wants to show us why there is ABSOLUTELY no way the earth can be less than 100.000 years old. If he cannot defeat any and all doubt to the resolution he will loose.
EXPOSING PRO
PRO has already broken his own rules multiple times.
No Kritik
Kritik: "philosophically-based argument which questions fundamental assumptions underlying the arguments, positions, or presentation of one side in the debate." [1]
PRO Kritiked my position:
- the opponent cannot use the Bible, as it is written not by experts.
- PRO has thus broken his own rule.
No semantics
Semantics: The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. [2]
PRO used semantics:
- we can safely conclude that Grice's Razor combined with legal backing, that we are talking about planet Earth.
- PRO has thus broken his own rule for the second time
Cannot use unfounded claims
Unfounded: lacking a sound basis [3]
PRO made a lot of claims lacking a sound basis:
- Unless Con refutes the accuracy of radiometric dating, this stands powerfully.
- CON does not need to show why radiometric dating is not accurate. He needs to show why it is irrelevant. This claim from PRO is not sound or founded.
- The distribution of species proves that, if Earth was only 10,000 years old, we would see brand new species every single day, based on the pattern.
- PRO ignores the basic fact that YEC is not including evolution in their theory. PRO made an unfounded claim.
- In addition, even molecular biology supports evolution.
- PRO ignores that YEC assumes each animal was created by the same God. Thus, molecular biology does NOT support evolution against YEC. Molecular biology only supports YEC and evolution as a single category. Molecular biology proves that either YEC is correct or evolution is correct. PRO has made an unfounded claim yet again.
- the opponent cannot use the Bible, as it is written not by experts
- PRO ignores that YEC is a religious view. The Bible is supposedly written by God himself. PRO asserts that God is not an expert - and unfounded claim.
- The size must match at least one of our largest ships ever created.
- It's impossible for con to win here.
- I am currently winning since PRO is breaking all of the rules that prevent me from presenting a good argument.
Conclusion
PRO has broken most of his own rules and stands to be judged for doing so. He should be punished by the voters giving CON the conduct point (and also the grammar one).
I will now make a noble attempt at rebutting PRO's arguments while honouring the restrictions set in place for the debate.
REBUTTALS
If the Earth itself says that it is over 10,000 years old, why should we doubt geology?
This is a non-sequitur. He claims "the earth says", but then attributes the facts to geology. I conclude that the earth doesn't "say" it is 10.000 years old, geology does. We can be sure that GEOLOGY measures the earth as being more than 10.000 years old.
The rigorous evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth is over 10,000 years old
The earth LOOKS more than 100.000 years old. That does not prove that it IS. If YEC is true then God created the universe, and God can easily make the universe look old.
- Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
PRO's own sources provide a fitting answer: "You should assume that the parties intended the words in their contract to have their usual and ordinary meaning unless you decide that the parties intended the words to have a special meaning". [Source] ..."Respond to what I meant, not what I said".
If PRO want to claim that the Bible, written by our glorious and almighty creator, would contain lies -- then he is mocking the religion of Christianity and our Lord and saviour.
Doing so would be "an intentionally offensive or provocative post" - classified as a troll [6]. And subsequently, PRO would be breaking another one of his rules: No trolls.
By questioning the authority of God PRO would also be breaking his other rule: No Kritik.
you are playing devil's advocate
When did God become the devil? I am defending God, not the Devil. PRO has, with this statement, been a troll and thus broken his own rule.
Question For Con
PRO has made a lot of questions I cannot answer because I cannot use the Bible.
However, I can answer this one: - Is there any proof of God?
You bet there is.
YEC IS CORRECT
P1: If the Bible is true then YEC is correct
P2: The Bible is true
P3: YEC is correct
P1: If the Bible is true then YEC is correct
I want to provide scriptural evidence but the rules say I cannot. However, the voters must agree that YEC must be assumed to be the position of the Bible.
P2: The Bible is true
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 also many other philosophical arguments for God that make it reasonable to have faith in his existence [stanford].
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 calling Christianity meaningless speculation he must accept it as reasonable faith. Anything else would be Kritik.
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. And 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
ARE THERE ALTERNATIVES?
PRO asks me why God would create a universe that LOOKS old.
The first law of thermodynamics asserts that energy must be conserved [britannica.com]. This means that energy cannot be created or destroyed - only switch from one form to another. So without a first cause, the universe is infinite in time in both directions - and both before the Big Bang and after the heath death is the universe filled with nothing but endless entropy. But God is the first cause, he is omnipotent, and he can create energy from nothing. He is the necessary creator of the universe as the cosmological argument proves. Science cannot provide a first cause, because science does not allow an immaterial force to create energy. The Big Bang Theory does not provide a sufficient explanation that is not God. The Big Bang was not random but highly fine-tuned to the power of 10^10^50-100 => for EVERY cosmological constant [source]. Thus, the Big Bang would still require God to happen.
THUS ==> Science is NOT the final authority with regards to WHEN the universe starts and stops -- GOD IS.
Now, the question still remains: why did God create the world 10.000 years ago rather than 14 billion years ago?
But is there any difference at all? In fact, no. There is no difference between a universe that was created 10.000 years ago and a universe created 14 billion years ago. Both universes have popped into existence with no cause but God. If PRO can think that the BIG BANG created the universe, then he asserts as a truth that a first cause exists. But in doing so, he also admits this fact: that it is arbitrary which moment the universe pops into existence. And since God created the universe, an act science cannot explain, then GOD knows when that happened. And God tells us that it happened 10.000 years ago. Since science cannot operate beyond that initial creation, only God knows the correct answer to when the earth was created.
SUMMARY
- Science asserts the need for a first cause
- God is that first cause
- An old universe and a young universe are the same if they both have a beginning - which they do.
- YEC is what God has revealed to humanity
- Science cannot detect this initial creation, but it MUST have happened.
CONCLUSION
Science is only valid between the start of the world and the end of the world.
The universe is NOT more than 100.000 years -- at least not beyond reasonable doubt
YEC is a very reasonable alternative to the popular BB theory - especially for Christians, Muslims and Jews which FAR outnumber naturalistic atheists.
QUESTIONS FOR PRO
- What happened before the Big Bang. Is the universe infinitely old?
- Why did Big Bang happen rather than a black hole being created?
- How did evolution start without life to begin with?
- How can a human have a mind if an atom cannot have a mind?
- Is there a soul or is life completely and utterly meaningless?
- If God did not create the universe, what first cause does PRO believe in?
Round 2
Pro
#3
Voters should note that my warning to Con not to use the bible was to attack his source's credibility, rather than set a strict rule. Of course, Con is free to do whatever he wishes, but if he uses a book translated a thousand times over and written centuries ago, then he severely reduces his own credibility.
Con assumes that questioning the bible is a "kritik". But he has not proven that the Bible as credible as my argument. Let me repeat, my strong phrasing is more assertive but near equal claim that the Bible should simply be dismissed in the face of thousands of studies and scientists. Therefore, there is no Kritik here.
Con assumes my clarification in round 1 was a semantic argument based on meaning of words, but a correction on "plant" to "planet" seems reasonable rather than redefining what Earth truly means.
Con thinks many of my claims are unfounded, but merely because there are alternate explanations does not mean they have zero reasoning whatsoever. Recall that he has not even attempted to attack the soundness of my evidence.
Geology
Con tries to bat away my figurative speech by interpreting it as if Earth is literally speaking. He has not negated this evidence. Extended, as Con dropped this.
Other dropped arguments
Radiometric DatingUsing the half life of various elements, the isotopes of potassium prove that "rise of humans about 2.5 million years ago, the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, the appearance of animals with hard shells starting about 540 million years ago, and other key transitions in life on Earth are usually dated in this way" [2]. A famous expert also cited 7 additional ideas to back up this claim [5]:
- There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
- All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time... The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
- Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
- Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
- A recent survey of the rubidium-strontium method found only about 30 cases, out of tens of thousands of published results, where a date determined using the proper procedures was subsequently found to be in error.
- Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
- The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.
EvolutionEvolution is a theory proven by countless scientists and experts. The most common evidence cited is the fossil record, and evidence plain to the eye. As one study notes, "A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin's finches. The ancestors of these finches appear to have immigrated from the South American mainland to the Galápagos. Today the different species of finches on the island have distinct habitats, diets, and behaviors, but the mechanisms involved in speciation continue to operate." [3] In addition to this, thousands of fossil organisms have proved that microbial life was already in existence 3.5 billion years ago.The distribution of species prove that, if Earth was only 10,000 years old, we would see brand new species every single day, based on the pattern. Or for no apparent reason, the specie variation stopped and the laws of evolution suddenly decided to change for no apparent reason. This seems beyond absurd to the highest order to me.In addition, even molecular biology supports evolution. As the same paper notes, "During the next two decades, myoglobin and hemoglobin sequences were determined for dozens of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, worms, and molluscs. All of these sequences were so obviously related that they could be compared with confidence with the three-dimensional structures of two selected standards—whale myoglobin and horse hemoglobin. Even more significantly, the differences between sequences from different organisms could be used to construct a family tree of hemoglobin and myoglobin variation among organisms. This tree agreed completely with observations derived from paleontology and anatomy about the common descent of the corresponding organisms." The molecular clock is so useful that it has been used to go beyond paleontological evidence, providing other animals' relatives and proving evolution beyond a reasonable doubt.Evolution is so powerful that the Supreme Court ruled that creationism was not fit for teaching, already fulfilling my case even on a legal basis [2]. In addition, 97% of scientists support evolution [6]. In a criminal court case, if 97 out of 100 scientists say a man murdered another man, this is far beyond a reasonable doubt.
Con's core argument
voters must agree that YEC must be assumed to be the position of the Bible.
Con assumes that merely because I dismiss the Bible is because it is opposing my view. But the age of earth is ambiguous with regards to Bible, with an unknown set of age. I did not want this to become a religious argument about existence of God, and that is why I encouraged Con not to use the Bible.
Con argues "Since science and philosophy agree that the universe has a beginning it is reasonable to assume the existence of God". But this seems absurd. Why would you assume the beginning is personal, timeless, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent? Adding upon so many elements for a "maximal being" adds upon an absurd burden of proof onto Con.
Next, Con assumes that historical accuracy means the same thing as scientific accuracy as well. The articles speak nothing on how said "miracles" may defeat said archeological records and other ideas. Otherwise, if something 6,000 years old looks 4 billion years old, then wouldn't Jesus's bones also radiometrically be dated near 3 billion years as well? None of the writers nor sources are scientific experts and thus their impact on my evidence is very little. He pulls his argument to talk of resurrection, but does not state how this impacts scientific experimentation at all.
Con says the universe is incredibly fine-tuned, but this does not mean there must have been a creator. It seems absurd that the "fine tuning" would allow for only one planet among light years to be habitable, despite the "goldilocks zone" being relatively large. In addition, the "fine tuning" of dangerous parasites and bugs that eat people's brains also make Con's argument fallacious. Fine tuning in its nature assumes that all numbers have an equal random chance of being selected, but what if the universe just happened to be that way? It would just be as likely as any other configuration.
- What happened before the Big Bang. Is the universe infinitely old?
We don't know. I say the universe is older than 13 billion.
- Why did Big Bang happen rather than a black hole being created?
"The event occurred everywhere in space, not actually a point. In particular, the energy was uniformly distributed everywhere. The net gravitational potential was therefore near zero, and there was no one point to which everything could collapse." [source]
- How did evolution start without life to begin with?
Scientists theorize it begun with RNA, which was chemicals that formed the reactions for the basis of life. [source]
- How can a human have a mind if an atom cannot have a mind?
- Is there a soul or is life completely and utterly meaningless?
Loaded question, even if you have no soul, I personally believe you can set your own purpose for life. Either way, I don't think this is relevant to the debate.
- If God did not create the universe, what first cause does PRO believe in?
The Big Bang, of course.
Con dropped these questions:
- If God exists, why would he fool us to make the world appear much older than they really are?
- If Creationism is true, how does Evolution actually work?
- Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
- Why/How do you think that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?
- The Genesis flood: Where did all that water come from? Where did it go?
- How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements, and the consistent correlation with objects of known age?
- What scientifically factual information can you supply to support your contention that the universe is less than 10,000 years old?
Con
#4
Thank you Defeatable
RECAP
Rules
PRO has broken his own rules, and the defence of his statements do not address the critique I raised towards them. PRO has dismissed his own rules to save himself.
Premise
PRO has contradicted himself multiple times. He calls this a science debate but the description states that it is a debate about YEC. PRO has asked me religious questions but he himself does not want to talk about religion or philosophy. I am very confused. Theological questions are not the topic of the debate, the topic is theology vs naturalism. Therefore we must still assume that the Bible supports YEC - that is the premise.
First cause
PRO has made his position clear: he believes that the Big Bang is the first cause that created the universe. I believe the first cause is God.
REBUTTALS
the Bible should simply be dismissed in the face of thousands of studies and scientists.
PRO ignores that if GOD wrote the Bible then its authority is far greater than that of science. PRO must debunk God or Christianity in order to win.
I personally believe you can set your own purpose for life
Your personal belief doesn't matter in this debate. Show me scientific evidence that "meaning" exists in your naturalistic world.
Recall that he has not even attempted to attack the soundness of my evidence.
I don't need to. Without a sound philosophical foundation, PRO cannot claim science is a valid way to understand the world.
Con is free to do whatever he wishes
Well, then I will present the fact that scientifically speaking, time doesn't evidently exist: "According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn’t correspond to physical reality." [nature.com]. --- "But while useful, there is no strong scientific evidence showing this physical view of time is actually true. After centuries of debate, theories and experiments, physicists still can’t agree on what time actually is or whether it even exists outside of the human mind." [4].
Scientists theorize it begun with RNA, which was chemicals that formed the reactions for the basis of life.
That doesn't answer my question. RNA is a complex organic molecule that only exists in living (or former living) beings. RNA doesn't simply pop out of nowhere. And the chemical "pounds" that supposedly contained RNA would not spontaneously create a cell to surround the RNA. And without a cell RNA is completely and utterly useless. Evolution needs a stable population and access to energy to start off, something which PRO has not established as true to the RNA world. PRO has failed to defend this plot hole in the naturalistic story.
The event occurred everywhere in space
If PRO critiques me for using the Bible as a source then he is a hypocrite. PRO's source here is zibadawa-timmy. A random internet user is not more reliable than the Bible.
the "goldilocks zone" being relatively large
PRO is confusing two terms. The "goldilocks zone" is the distance a planet must be positioned from its star in order for water to exist in all three states of matter [nasa.gov]. Because of the pure amount of planets in existence, this MUST happen regardless of how unlikely it is. But the fine-tuning of the universe is in another category. For example, if the gravitational constant changed by a factor of 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 there would be no stars or galaxies at all [2]. The same level of necessary fine-tuning applies to all important numbers during the Big Bang. In other words, our planet existing in the goldilocks zone is like winning a lottery while fine-tuning is like throwing a bunch of pencils on a wall and the pencils accidentally paint Mona Lisa on impact. The former is unlikely but the latter is impossible.
For not wanting to discuss religion, this argument seems suspiciously religious. PRO, Instead of attacking a specific theology please attack Christianity. If PRO wants to have a religious argument he can make another debate. This is a futile attempt at distracting the debate from theology vs naturalism to theology vs theology. YEC is the official position of the Bible, at least that is what we must assume in this debate since most Christians and believe so.
an absurd burden of proof onto Con.
I have fulfilled that BoP by showing why God exists and why Christianity is the correct religion. You are just critiquing theological though, not Christianity.
- If God exists, why would he fool us to make the world appear much older than they really are?- Why/How do you think that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?- If Creationism is true, how does Evolution actually work?- How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements, and the consistent correlation with objects of known age?
It is impossible to make a world that does not look old. I will prove this later in this post.
- Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
I already answered.
Con tries to bat away my figurative speech by interpreting it as if Earth is literally speaking
Blatant lie. I showed why SCIENCE, not EARTH, says that earth is 4.3 billion years old. Science cannot speak either, so I don't know how PRO can make this accusation.
The articles speak nothing on how said "miracles" may defeat said archeological records and other ideas.
They don't. They simply prove that God exists and talks with humans. And if that is true then God, being omniscient, has greater authority than science.
Otherwise, if something 6,000 years old looks 4 billion years old, then wouldn't Jesus's bones also radiometrically be dated near 3 billion years as well?
PRO completely misunderstands the YEC position. It is not about time going faster, it is about God creating the universe. And all universes must LOOK old.
He pulls his argument to talk of resurrection, but does not state how this impacts scientific experimentation at all.
This just proves that God wrote the Bible. And if God, who never lies, tells us that YEC is correct then it is.
Con argues "Since science and philosophy agree that the universe has a beginning it is reasonable to assume the existence of God". But this seems absurd.
Say that to these atheists who converted solely because of science and philosophy: [Josh Rasmussen, PhD]; [Andrew Flew; Britannica]; Also, consider this quote: "Philosophers of religion possess expert knowledge on the arguments for and against God’s existence. The arguments for God’s existence are just overall more convincing and render God’s existence more probable than not." [3]. Although there is a selection bias, this stands powerfully. Especially since atheists ofter try to debunk God.
CHRISTIANITY
He has not proven that the Bible as credible as my argument
Last round I simply proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the Bible is valid using historical evidence. PRO has not disputed the validity of the Bible using evidence, he simply calls for it to be rejected. His claim that the bible was translated thousands of times is a blatant lie, as are his other groundless assertions about it. The Bible is archaeologically sound and has been proved reliable countless times. In fact: "Aside from the internal evidence that Scripture is what it claims to be—the very words of God—is a growing body of external evidence that supports its reliability as a document." - PROs view of the Bible is a myth [1].
The question is whether or not God is a part of history or simply a hoax. As stated earlier, Jesus DEFINATELY rose from the dead -- with over 400 witnesses all of which supported the story of the resurrection. If PRO wants to use the legal standard of truth he must accept the resurrection as a historical event. Lawyers have studied the story and found it to be true, a point which PRO did not rebut.
The same standard applies to most of the other stories of the Bible. Most of the important stories and meetings with God in the Bible had hundreds and thousands of witnesses. Such stories cannot be fabricated, one does not simply indoctrinate an entire nation of adults. I might convince a naive person that miracles happen in Africa, but never that HE travelled through a desert with miracles happening left and right all the time. In conclusion, the Bible is a credible historical source and God interacts with humanity. This has not been challenged by PRO.
Why would you assume the beginning is personal, timeless, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?
We do not assume but conclude that God has these traits. Through philosophy, we can conclude that the first cause must be eternal, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. The traits of God as honest, righteous and loving is how God has revealed himself to humanity. Maybe God is simply fooling us, but there is no doubt that God has revealed himself to humanity. The evidence is in the Bible and continues to this day - just read the stories of Christians like Billy Graham. Miracles proved to the disciples that Jesus is Lord, and miracles proved to the Israelites that God is Lord. To summarize, God has been proved to be personal, timeless, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
SCIENCE HAS LIMITS
I agree that science shows us a world that LOOKS 13 billion years old. But that argument is irrelevant because science is not an authority with regards to when the universe came to be. PRO's attitude to science shows a fundamental weakness in his position. He is not urging for science, but Scientism. Scientism rejects the boundaries of science. It tries to use science to answer what science cannot answer by definition. PRO is using science incorrectly, as he tries to explain when the universe was created. This is completely absurd, as science cannot explain what happened before the laws of physics became active.
P1: Science requires the laws of physics to be constant
P2: The universe has a beginning so the laws were not always constant
C: science is not always valid
The Big Bang theory admits that "all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time" [phys.org]. However, the laws of thermodynamics state that energy cannot simply appear out of nowhere [britannica.com]. Science could be used to calculate an eternal row of cause and effect extending all the way to infinity. In other words, according to the laws of physics, the Big Bang is NOT the start of the universe like PRO claims. Subsequently, we can conclude that PRO's naturalistic worldview is internally contradictory. He claims that the universe started with the Big Bang but his source, science, contradicts itself on this issue.
CONCLUSION
ANY universe would look old - regardless of how it was created. If the universe has a beginning then science cannot explain when it began.
But guess who could explain when the universe came to be...
God (▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿)
The age of the earth is a theological question rather than a scientific one. So we can conclude that the earth is NOT obviously more than 100.000 years old. PRO must debunk my philosophical argument, not insist on using the field of science which causes a contradiction when answering this question. PRO has simply asserted as a fact that science is the ultimate authority, but he fails to back up his trust in science with philosophy. This renders his argument invalid.
merely because there are alternate explanations does not mean they have zero reasoning whatsoever
I accept that PRO's claims have a bit more than "zero reasoning whatsoever". However, that is not sufficient for winning this debate.
Round 3
Pro
#5
I will take a step back, and avoid making new arguments as it is the final round. And I believe I do not need any new arguments.
Firstly, do not give conduct point to Con, despite his claim that I broke the rules. He has not shown how precisely I am making assumptions out of thin air (making a Kritik). The Bible is merely one book compiled by religious believers. All the evidence for old earth would overcome its length by a hundredfold at least. The more evidence you have supporting your case, the more credible you are. In my case, I have thousands, if not millions, of experts proving the age of the earth.
My conclusion is that the scientific rigor and the studies are not to be dismissed merely because of a slight probability of God, or the Bible's historic accuracy. He hasn't spoke of its scientific evidence, nor of actual passage that proves of the Earth's age. He relies on fine-tuning, but it seems far more reasonable to me that a benevolent designer (as required from Bible's talk of holiness and greatness) would make the constraints far more flexible than exterminating mankind, if wrong by proportion of 10^10^123. In addition, the mere existence of current evolution is dropped by Con, and hence the difficulty for beings to adapt and survive further enhances the idea that the intelligent designer is dubious at best.
Con's argument is grandiose and seeming powerful, but it misses the bigger idea.
Why is geological records inaccurate?
Why do radiometric methods correctly measure the vast majority of known items within the realm of 6,000 years, but Con would dismiss it once we breach beyond the 100,000 year mark?
Why is evolution wrong?
The *impact* of my arguments holds far stronger weight overall, because it is the most logical and consistent way to explain the world. Both con and pro agree there can be some scientific standard in the world-- Con relies on the archeological experts to support the bible's historic claims about Jesus's resurrection and the generic events that occurred. But the big problem is he has to prove the age of earth is young despite the vast amount of evidence presented against it.
He has failed to provide explanation for why Jesus's existence lowers the age of the earth by millions of order of magnitude. Even though science isn't always valid, never has a theory been presented with such soundness and still refuted. Recall that all cases "beyond a reasonable doubt" with over 97% of scientists agreeing would be a near unanimous consent. And if voters look through Con's sources and ideas, they will find that the New Testament is yet still a revision over time and changing often. The difficulty to differentiate between symbolism and literal interpretation can be difficult in specific passages. Hence, the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt regarding this topic.
Remember that Con has shown zero evidence and *assumed* the Bible directly tells us literally how old the earth is. Voters should vote for me due to this alone. Thanks for the debate.
Con
#6
Thank you PRO, and thank you, readers.
FINAL CRITIQUE
I wanted to only summarize but PRO's final round forced me to rebut him a bit.
the New Testament is yet still a revision over time and changing often
What is this? It's a blatant lie. The meaning of the Bible has settled thousands of years ago. The language of new versions of the Bible is changing as language does worldwide, but the meaning stays constant. "People on the street often raise the objection that “the Bible has been translated so many times that there is no way to know what it originally said.” This, however, is exactly opposite the truth!" [carm.org]. Yes, regular people might not read the Bible exactly as it was written but the experts can read the ancient languages and knows EXACTLY what was written. PRO's argument is based upon a lie.
Remember that Con has shown zero evidence and *assumed* the Bible directly tells us literally how old the earth is. Voters should vote for me due to this alone.
PRO claims that theology is split on the issue of the age of the earth. PRO forgets that according to science time doesn't exist. Thus, if PRO wants to claim that he should win because theology is split, then he should lose even more because science is split on whether or not time even exists. I feel like PRO is simply playing dirty. He states in the rules that no quantum mechanics arguments are allowed but then goes on to use an OEC argument. But I don't think the voters are interested in this kind of debate where we just point towards internal disagreement in the sides we represent.
CONDUCT
PRO had to prove that the earth was 100.000 years old. In other words, he had to defend his naturalistic view of the universe. He has not done that, he has just proved why naturalists believe in his resolution. It would be like I showed that the Bible supported YEC and then stated "I have won". To me, and to most voters, this should seem ridiculous. Voters should punish PRO for not defending the validity of naturalism - especially when I proved the philosophy of naturalism to be internally contradictory. And that is without even taking into consideration his constant assertion without evidence or sound basis. He claimed that God did not write the Bible, but then never addresses the countless miracles that are undeniable historical events. Instead of defeating the arguments I presented, he showed a cherry-picked source in order to make it a theological argument about what the Bible says. He also tried to make it a naturalistic argument by only focusing on science and not addressing it when I proved philosophically why naturalism is wrong. PRO ignored all of my philosophical evidence and never defended his position from my many attacks - even when I explicitly asked him to. PRO ignored that it is a naturalism vs Christianity debate, and constantly tries to imply that only science is valid reasoning. Also, to call a YEC debate a "science debate" is completely ridiculous. In doing so he already showed complete disregard for both YEC and Christianity -- called Kritik, which was against the rules.
PRO has indeed lost the conduct point.
SOURCES
PRO's sources add nothing to his argument. He could have simply stated "science proves the earth is more than 100.000 years" and it would have been settled. In other words, PRO's argument is equally valid with or without his sources. PRO sometimes used a random internet user as a source, and sometimes he used a cherry-picked OEC website to "prove" that YEC is not supported by the Bible. PRO used a stupendous amount of sources that were not necessary, as his scientific argument was already accepted by everyone. But he never ever used a source to prove his supposedly "good" arguments, like "the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt regarding this topic.". Thus, his use of sources doesn't help PRO at all.
My sources really helped my argument. NO claim or argument I made has been rebutted by PRO. None of my sources (except the Bible) were even mentioned by PRO. My sources include scientific articles, religious and theological sources, philosophical evidence, and historical studies. I used his sources to undermine his argument. Thus, even though I cannot claim that billions and trillions of theological sources support YEC, my use of sources was correct, effective, and far better suited for this type of debate.
Recall the voting policy:
Sources (2 points):Goes to the side that (with a strong quality lead) better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
That science denies YEC is indeed common knowledge. There is also nothing that suggests I did not know everything that PRO's sources state. PRO's sources are irrelevant as the facts they present don't change or even impact our knowledge of his argument.
PRO has indeed lost the source's point.
ARGUMENTS, INTRODUCTION
I want to reiterate the voting policy:
in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Thus, if both me and my opponent fail then PRO loses.
Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
Thus, "science denies YEC" is ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT from PRO. Voters cannot simply give the argument points to PRO because they personally believe that science is more important than philosophy. Any votes that claim PRO won purely based on the scientific argument are breaking the rules on how to vote on this website. Recall that I already accepted "science denies YEC" in the first round. Voters must analyze whether or not PRO managed to connect "science denies YEC" to "YEC is false". I am confident that this type of voter, one with integrity, will overcome their own bias towards science and vote honestly. I am also confident that the only acceptable vote is to vote CON, seeing as PRO had no argument supporting naturalism, while I thoroughly proved Christianity. I will now show why my arguments were better.
ARGUMENTS
1. PRO assumed that if the earth LOOKS old then it is.
My objection:
Science claims that energy cannot start or stop existing, it just moves around. But science also claims that energy started to exist at the Big Bang. Thus, to assume "science is always the truth" is internally contradictory. This alone undermines the validity of PRO's argument. "Science claims the earth is" doesn't prove that the earth IS.
2. PRO claims that the Big Bang is the point at which the universe started to exist.
My objection:
To use science to determine the point in time when the universe was created is futile -- after all, science necessitates that the universe is eternal (Newton second law). I proved that the universe only makes sense if we acknowledge the existence of an immaterial first cause. PRO never rebuts this, so I successfully defeated his argument. The conclusion is that something immaterial made it so that the universe suddenly started existing. The point at which the universe started to exist cannot by definition be determined by science.
3. PRO asked why science is only valid up to 100.000 years ago
My objection:
The same problem applies to science and the Big Bang. To claim that the universe popped into existence 13 billion years ago is equally unscientific as to claim it did 10.000 years ago - PRO never rebutted this. In other words, PRO's position is just as unscientific as mine. Yes, the Big Bang is a theory that is called scientific but it breaks the laws of physics. Yet again, PRO never rebutted this.
Conclusion
The universe was created by an immaterial cause. The point at which it happened cannot be decided with science, and PRO's argument is equally unscientific as mine.
PRO never rebuts any of this. He merely throws groundless accusations at me like "the Bible should be rejected".
My BoP
My burden was fulfilled by God himself writing the Bible. God is both more knowledgeable and more honest than any scientist - if he exists. I proved that God exists using an overwhelming philosophical argument. I proved that God has made countless miracles happen and that he directly interacted with humans. PRO only asserted that "we should take the Bible with a grain of salt" - but he could not support even this simple claim. PRO never addressed that the Bible was written by God, neither does he reject my proof for Christianity and God. His own source proves that a document like the Bible is to be interpreted literally.
Thus, my BoP is fulfilled without reasonable doubt.
PRO's BoP
Although PRO showed that science gives a resounding "NO" to YEC he simply did not show why it matters. PRO failed to prove that science is valid in determining the far past and the beginning of the universe. Again, it would be like if I said "the bible says the earth is 10.000 years old" and then expected everyone to accept that as evidence without backing up the Bible as a source. Even if PRO personally believes that naturalism is more valid than the Bible he never provides a solid foundation for it, even when I raised objections that could potentially undermine his naturalistic worldview as a whole. In conclusion, PRO's single argument was neglected by PRO and I properly undermined it.
The arguments point can only go to CON. Giving it to PRO would be a show of personal bias since PRO literally never defends his worldview that is needed for his argument.
SUMMARY
PRO has not debated in a fair way, and I should be awarded the conduct point. PRO has not used propper sourcing for his controversial claims, but I have, so I should be awarded the sources points. PRO has only a single argument, science. But I forcefully undermined its "absolute" validity and proved that it is irrelevant in this debate. PRO never debunked any of my arguments but I did all of his. His assumptions are internally contradictory while I have used evidence and logic to prove why science has limits that PRO ignores, and that God evidently communicated with humanity. The only good argument from PRO is an attempt to start a theological debate, but that must be discarded as this is a YEC vs naturalism debate. Even still, time doesn't exist - so PRO's argument is wrong regardless of whether or not the Bible is true or which theology is right. I have also proved that ANY universe would look old, so PRO's argument that the world LOOKS old is not valid.
CONCLUSION
Only I have successfully defended my BoP, so only my BoP is standing.
I have proved why PRO's naturalistic worldview is false using only logic. We can conclude that either God created the universe 10.000 years ago or time doesn't exist.
Either way, VOTE CON!
( ಠ ͜ʖರೃ)
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
The argument in question:
Earth’s Age is More than 100,000 Years Old
IMPACTLESS ARGS:
Conduct Argument - dropped - Con uses continuous semantic language such is pointed out by Con, for example; interpreting Pro's claim - "The earth says its older than 100,000" as literal rather than figurative - you find these throughout Con's attempt to paint Con as unconduct worthy - I will revisit this argument in Conduct section to evaluate if this would lower the conduct of Con.
The Argument to the beginning of Life: Ultimately irrelevant to the debate - this does nothing to demonstrate the young-ness or the oldness of the earth to me the voter, perhaps it would work to support some of Con's later arguments, but it ultimately does not provide support for the claim
Time argument: Con argues that time is non-existent, yet the claim says that scientist don't know if time exists objectively in certain realms, this does not actually discredit the idea of science, as Con is using science - why would Con using science to disprove science make me less sure of science- as Pro points out in the final round regarding impact, in this debate, Time is assumed to be true, as the question of age would intrinsically mean that - and Con only ever brings up the argument to question science... perhaps if Con had used it as a kritik, then there would be a different argument, as of now, it does not support Con's argument.
IMPACTFUL:
The argument of god: Con completely ignores the fact that he makes several non-sequiturs, as Pro points out multiple times, I simply am not convinced of a god's existence because Con said that the universe had a beginning - if Con can't convince me that god exists, then I don't buy any of his arguments - even if I buy that Science has limits, why should those limits be in regard to the earth? Please Con you need to link your arguments
The argument of Science vs Theology:
As Pro points out, Con completely contradicts himself by making arguments using science, while trying to debunk science, so if I buy this argument, EITHER I don't buy that the bible is accurate (because all of Con's proof is scientific in nature), and therefore the YEC isn't accurate, OR that Science is indeed a good explanation, and that Pro's arguments hold solid.
Radiometric Dating:
Con fails to directly attack any of Pro's actual arguments, leaving them standing strong by the end of the debate, this gives the win to Pro ultimately
Critique:
Pro - you were way to weak on the last round - yes it is true that your opponent had no linkage, and you did well to point that out - but you left way to many arguments in the water, someone else could have come back in the last round and won this debate - or even Con given another debate - Con you need to link your arguments and make sure that they aren't so flawed, the trolling arguments you used in round 1 makes me want to penalize you on conduct - I wouldn't suggest it.
Conduct:
Almost an entire half of the first round of Con's use semantic arguments to try to rule Pro as breaking his own rules, all dismantled by Pro - as Con barely dedicates a paragraph to it in the last round, I find it likely that Con knew these things were semantic - I'm penalizing Con because of this red herring in regards to the conduct throughout the first round.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
RFD in comments
RFD part 6
con round 2
I just want to quote con real quick to show his poisonous mindset that will likely end up losing him this debate.
Con “PRO ignores that if GOD wrote the Bible then its authority is far greater than that of science. PRO must debunk God or Christianity in order to win.”
I don’t believe pro is ignoring that. However it is not pro’s job to disprove God or Christianity. It is your job to prove that the bible is reliable to prove YEC. That would mean proving God and Christianity is not enough here, you would need to prove how them being true means the bible is actually the word of God. If the bible is the word of God, and you prove it. You win this debate. However if you merely prove God or christianity correct, than you have not done enough to win.
Another quote by Con “I don't need to. Without a sound philosophical foundation, PRO cannot claim science is a valid way to understand the world.”
This is a great seed to some rebuttals for pro’s scientific evidence. I like it. However it is too little too late. You needed to show in round one why science is a bad way to understand the world or to expand greatly on this argument on round 2. I think you have a good rebuttal for pro’s science based arguments here if you expand on this in a convincing manner. I suggest looking into solipsism for one way that would work at disproving the scientific method, though there are several ways to make this good argument, not just that one.
I like Con’s defense of fine tuning here. He is wrong that the phrase goldilocks zone can only be used in one context, but he explains that the gravitational constant being what it is, is beyond chance. Because the argument comes so late, pro will have a chance to offer a good rebuttal in the following round, but it is unlikely to matter because con really does a terrible job explaining why god created the world less than 100,000 years ago.
Con says “I have fulfilled that BoP by showing why God exists and why Christianity is the correct religion. You are just critiquing theological though, not Christianity.”
Con is correct in some respects. Pro conceded that the gospels were good historical evidence for not only the existence of Jesus but for the fact he performed miracles. I don’t have any arguments for why Jesus being real and performing miracles means that the bible’s assertion of a young Earth is true. We are assuming the bible does say that YEC is true because of Pro’s restrictions, but we need an argument for why the bible is true not for why God is real or whether the gospel accounts of Jesus are historically accurate or not.
I think Con finishes the round strong. He really drives home the point that pro concedes the historical accuracy of the gospels. Con brings up another new point though, and I think he should have brought up earlier. Con says that the Earth must look old, no matter when it was created. Con, please retry this debate with somebody else and take my suggestions, it could be great. Bring this up round 1. In this final round, you don’t expand on this bare assertion either. I was very curious at what the argument behind this is. You must do more than flatly state this. You must provide evidence for your position
RFD part 7
Conclusion and winner
The final rounds of the debate were pretty uninteresting. Pro is correct that he met his burden. He proved that geology, evolution and radiometric dating all agree with the fact that the earth is over 100,000 years old.
While con did prove that God was real and that the new testament accounts of Jesus were accurate, he did not explain how the Gospel of John (or any other gospel) proves that the rest of the bible is accurate. I think Con could have done this because of the constant references by Jesus to the old testament books, but con did not.
I am awarding pro argument points based on the above analysis. I would advise pro to stay away from gish gallop in the future and just focus on radiometric testing or if he is using radiometric testing and geology for example he chooses one example from each and expands on it as much as the character limit allows.
I advise Con to bring up all his arguments in round one and fully elaborate on them in the future, and not just hand wave his opponent’s arguments. He has the seeds from some great debating in the future.
I got you. Have vote written up but need to wait until I have 100 forum posts
This debate seemed to interest you. Would you mind casting a vote? I would appreciate it.
vote bump
What do you think about this debate. Do you have any tips or tricks I could have used or any suggestions about what I did good and what I should have changed?
Vote bump
vote bump
vote bump
vote bump
My real view is OEC. This debate makes for an interesting case where I am the devil's advocate and God's advocate at the same time ( ಠ ͜ʖರೃ)
Yes, I feel prepared to address any issue you have with those theories. After our Big Bang debate, maybe we'll argue Evolution in a formal debate.
We may have to do just that! And as I told Benjamin, I think some of these issues would make for a more beneficial debate by themselves. Then one could more adequately address the soft tissue issue!
I foresee a series of debates in our future.
Well evolution and the big bang are far from settled theories. There are plenty of dissenters who have found issues with those conclusions. Finding soft tissue on dinosaur fossils is a great example. Are we really supposed to believe that soft tissue was preserved in nature for hundreds of millions of years?
"""if the God has revealed that the Earth is young, then the natural data will point us to that conclusion"""
Ok. But which natural data points us to that conclusion? I could have used those.
Nice advice
I personally try to narrow the scope and focus of my arguments. So rather, than briefly commenting on many subjects (e.g. big bang, age of the earth, geology, radiometric dating, evolution, semantics, limits of science, authenticity of the Bible, existence of God, literal vs figurative Bible interpretation), I prefer to address a few key arguments more deeply. That includes answering my opponent's strongest arguments more fully, while sometimes only briefly commenting or ignoring arguments that stray too far from the debate topic. Obviously this is not always possible, but I feel like if you don't really dig into those key issues, voters may tend to just default to their presuppositions.
Practically speaking, I would limit many of those topics to their own debate. In a scientific debate about the age of the earth, I would probably refrain from trying to prove the existence of God and the validity of Christianity. Not because I don't believe that the Bible is authoritative in what it says, but because I am confident that if the God has revealed that the Earth is young, then the natural data will point us to that conclusion. So I agree with your conclusion that because God created the universe and gave us an eyewitness account, His testimony is sufficient. I just would have taken a different approach to this particular debate based on my desire to limit the scope of my argumentation. That's just my personal approach though, probably because I like to keep things simple.
What do you think of my conclusion (▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿) ?
Do you have any ideas on how I could improve my arguments?
I think you have identified some key problems with the "science" of the Big Bang Theory and an old earth. Trying to reconcile the Big Bang with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, as well as promoting abiogenesis are two assumptions we are simply supposed to accept...because, you know, science.
It seems to me we have gotten so used to just accepting whatever scientists say that we have forgotten how to think critically. As you pointed out, PRO's statement about how the earth "says" it is old shows just how blindly people have placed their faith in science. "The earth said it so it must be true!" Sounds more like paganism than science. He made multiple statements about how old the rocks were, but never bothered explaining HOW someone determined the age, or the assumptions involved with their methodology.
Figured I would argue for the other side. What do you think of my argument?
Sources
1. v.gd/doubt
2. evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0226-0
3. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/
4. scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2901
5. sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php
6. pewresearch.org/politics/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/
7. asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF12-06Young.pdf
8. biologos.org/common-questions/how-are-the-ages-of-the-earth-and-universe-calculated
9. pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
The plant earth is less than 100.000 years. They are at most 10.000 years old.
What do you think it means? It can only mean inequality between two numbers. But I updated it in case it wasn’t clear
The age-old question is being discussed:
https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy84NTU2OTEzL29yaWdpbi5qcGciLCJleHBpcmVzX2F0IjoxNjU3OTE1NjMyfQ.xQt3TrgZwPfKkpwSQ4DOQlyL2bsrkZJiq4dcAKkc0_E/img.jpg?width=980
What does "Greater" mean in this context?
Yes, but I am very busy ATM. Would love to participate in something like this in about a week or so.
You still a young earth creationist?