Instigator / Pro
19
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Topic
#2584
The Universe is Older than 10,000 Years
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
6
Better sources
6
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
3
4
After 4 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
WesleyBColeman
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
22
1520
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Description
-BOP is Shared.
-Please no Solipsism.
-Please no Kritiks.
Definitions for the context of this debate:
-Universe - All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
--Year (Earth) - The time taken by the earth to make one revolution around the sun.
These terms are not to be redefined at any point during this debate.
I look forward to an interesting debate.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you WesleyBColeman for accepting this debate. I look forward to an interesting discussion.
The universe is definitely older than 10,000 years. My argument is simple:
1.) The Universe can't be younger than the time it takes for light to reaches us.
2.) The speed of light in a vacuum has been consistently measured to be just shy of 300,000,000 meters per second [1].
3.) The distance light travels in a vacuum in one year is a lightyear.
4.) The distance to Standard Candles can be measured accurately, and is used to measure distance to galaxies.[2].
5.) The distance to the standard candle in this measurement is 8.1 megaparsecs, or 26,420,000 lightyears [3].
6.) Therefore, the Universe cannot be younger than 26,420,000 years.
--------------------
I await my opponent's response.
Con
#2
PREFACE
I would like to first thank my opponent Sum1hugme for the invitation to have this discussion on the topic of the age of the Earth and the Universe. Thanks to everyone reading and evaluating the facts brought to the table. I urge you all to look at the data anew and see if either the “Old-Earth '' or “Young-Earth '' theory is best befitted by it. As debate of an “Old-Earth'' and a “Young-Earth'' implies, this is about one area of the Darwinian and Christian worldview. However, in this debate, I wont be arguing for the existence or nonexistence of God or Jesus Christ, yet I will be using the framework (creationary) that the Earth was created, by God, in 6 days and has been around for less than about 10,000 years and my opponent will be using a different framework (evolutionary) that everything was created over a period of approximately 4.5 billion years for the Earth and 13.8 billion years total for the universe. There will be other debates to discuss the God of the Bible, Jesus, or a theistic worldview in contrast to an atheistic naturalistic worldview. We will both put forward the evidence for and against our chosen framework. Decide the winner based on whomever makes the best case for the evidence fitting their appropriate age-framework.
This opening statement is broken up into three parts. The first section, “The Flood”, is one of the most decisive lines of evidence for a young Earth so I will spend the majority expanding on its nuances. It will pertain to evidence in regards to rock sediment layers, the fossil record, polystrate fossils, formations that supposedly have taken billions of years like the grand canyon, rising mountains, or moving continents, and prove how all these phenomena are best explained within a short period of about a year through the process of the flood and the events that took place afterward. The second section, “DNA / Genetics”, will be more or less mentioned here but not in-depth. It will show the theory of genetic entropy, explore research on mutation science, and disprove the form of macro-evolution that most old age apologists espouse. Finally, the “Rebuttal” section will look at evidence that pertains to the creation and development of the Universe and life on Earth. All segments will have the aim to prove that the Biblical framework is a more likely candidate that is trusted historically, and to disprove the theory of an old Earth.
THE FLOOD
This first evidence isn’t intended to prove the Biblical flood, but demonstrate that cultures around the world have a flood story. I am backing up a worldwide flood with corroborating histories and myths. There are well over 300 flood myths. If the creation timeline is true, we can infer the ancestors of all these different people groups were indirectly told the accounts from Noah and his family all the way down to modern time. The stories were embellished by different cultures in different ways, some to an unrealistic mythic extent, but the essence is the same throughout.
For some examples, you can look to the continent of Africa, which has relatively few flood legends, African cultures preserving an oral tradition of a flood include the
Kwaya,
Mbuti,
Maasai,
Mandin,
and Yoruba peoples.
In North American cultures there also have flood myth including the
Choctaw,
Ojibwe,
Menomini,
Algonquin,
Mi'kmaq,
Anishinabe,
Ottawa,
Cree,
Knisteneaux,
Nipmuc,
Hopi,
W̱SÁNEĆ,
Comox,
Anishinaabe,
Inuit,
Nisqually,
and Eskimo peoples.
Then the list goes on all over the world in
Egypt,
the Middle East,
the Ancient Near East,
Mesoamerica,
South America,
China,
India,
Korea,
Malaysia,
Philippines,
Thailand,
Medieval Europe,
Finnland,
Polynesia,
etc.
It took Noah about 100-120 years to build the ark to God’s specifications. The ark’s size was about 154 meters (525 feet) long, 25.5 meters (87 feet) wide and 15 meters (52 feet) high with three decks divided into rooms. Recent studies estimate the total number of living and extinct kinds (Similar to the nomenclature of a biological family in taxonomy) [1] of land animals and flying creatures at about 1,500. With the “worst-case” scenario approach to calculating the number of animals on the Ark, this would mean that Noah cared for approximately 7,000 animals. 7,000 animals in the space of one and a half times the length of a football field, and four stories high. That checks out. [2]
The amount of water recorded checks out. In the Bible it says 'the tops of the highest mountains were overflowed by about 15 cubits (22 feet)'. The tallest mountain on the Earth is Mt. Everest, at 29,035 feet above sea level. As Andrew Seidel, an atheist attempting to debunk the flood, says here:
“That means that there had to be 813,875,076 miles³ of rain for the biblical flood. To put that in perspective, the oceans have about 321,000,000 miles³ of water. All the water on earth only adds up to about 332,500,000 miles³.
So for the biblical flood to have happened, the water on earth had to miraculously multiply by about 250%.”
~ Andrew L. Seidel [3]
Then, it looks like God does provide miracles. The Bible says that the 'fountains of the great deep' were opened and the rain fell from the heavens for forty days and forty nights. In a 2008 study, led by Steven Jacobsen a Northwestern University professor, a research team uncovered an underground reservoir of water within layers of Earth’s crust indicating the amount of water underground as an estimated three-fourths of the water on the Earth.
“If all the ringwoodite in the transition zone is as damp as the samples that Jacobsen and his team detected, that layer would hold three times as much water as all of the Earth’s oceans combined, reducing their share from 96.5% of all known water to a relatively paltry 24.8%. In other words, the ringwoodite discovery could quadruple the amount of water found on Earth. A blue planet, indeed.”
~ Eleanor Nelson [4]
If all the facts surprisingly check out about the Biblical flood, where’s the evidence in nature? The Bible states the waters rose a hundred fifty days until all the high hills under the of the Heavens were covered and the mountains were covered. We’re told that all land-dwelling air-breathing life perished except for those on the ark. We should, therefore, expect to find billions of dead plants and animals buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth? And that’s exactly what we find. Billions of fossils buried in rock layers all over the Earth.
- We find whole rock layer sequences deposited rapidly in quick succession. The walls of the Grand Canyon, from the tapeats at the bottom to the kyba limestone at the top, supposed to represent three hundred million years of slow and gradual sedimentary deposition. When the plateau was pushed up, the rock layers were bent and folded - but they were folded without fracturing. They had to be soft, if they were bent without fracturing. That means they could have only just been deposited. Therefore, the three hundred million years could never have happened. All those rock layers had to have been deposited in quick succession during the flood year.
- Sea life buried high in mountains on the continents. Marine creatures that live in the ocean are found on mountains like the Makhonjwa Mountains that were supposedly formed 3.6 billion years ago. Plate tectonics is not the answer. These formations all over the world are burials for sea creatures that are not much older than and nearly identical to the modern sea creatures we see today. There are shellfish with limestone minerals contained in them that can only come from salt water i.e. the open ocean. [5]
- Long transport distances of sediments. The Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon. The same grains are believed to have been washed and transported a great distance far north from at least Wyoming. The Navajo sandstone in Zion National Park, the huge white cliffs, the same grains are believed to have been eroded and washed all the way from the Appalachians right across North America. These sediments travel from large reserves and stretch to a lower geographical position.
- Rapidly buried plants and animals. We find fossils of fragile creatures that would require a near instant burial such as plants, bees, bats, fish -- that haven’t finished having their meal of another fish also buried and fossilized, ichthyosaurs -- birthing to babies and they’re fossilized, and delicately preserved jellyfish. These things are found in mass, yet literally necessitate an instant burial.
- Rapidly deposited sediment layers across the continents. There are universal layers of sediment such as the redwood limestone layer. In that layer are many fossils. It is most obvious at the Grand Canyon. Yet that same limestone layer is found at the same place over in Pennsylvania, England, the Himalayas, etc. The chalk beds are another example. The Cliffs of David, Europe, the Middle East, Caslick Stan, Texas, the mid-Western United States, Western Australia, etc. The coal beds of Pennsylvania and West Virginia are also found in England and Europe right across the Ural Mountains. So wherever minerals are concentrated, they form identical layers in the expected place. The order of the layers for instance, doesn’t change if a layer is missing or added.
- Rapid or no erosion between sediment layers. For instance, in the Coconino sandstone in the Hermit shale there is a knife-edge, flat, featureless boundary between those two rock layers for miles through the grand canyon, yet the evolutionary geologists would have you believe they are separated by ten million years missing at that boundary. What would have happened during ten million years of weathering and erosion? You’d get a topography and not a flat featureless boundary. At the bottom of the Grand Canyon, the tapeats sandstone sits on the pre-flood rocks and we have evidence of huge erosion there. With boulders being picked up from the underlying rock layers indicating rapid erosion. There are many examples of this kind of rapid forming and erosion happening in both Washington (Best seen at Mt. Everest) and New Mexico.
DNA / GENETICS
It is first important to recognize, geneticists have proven that genomes rarely can add new information. There are 60 to 70 point mutations per generation on average. Point mutations are mutations through the process of DNA/RNA replication. Of those, 0.002% of them are beneficial to the organism. An even lower percentage of these “beneficial” mutations are agreed to have added new information. In order for a DNA strand to add new information, it must, theoretically, have a genome duplicate in some way and not undergo deletion. Then, it must recover the original strand in some capacity. Based on this common knowledge and an extrapolation of the number of average generations through time, it can be estimated that it would take hundreds of billions of years to evolve an animal to become a distinguishably different animal (what would be seen as a change in family in taxonomy).
“No human geneticist doubts man is degenerating.”
~ Dr. Kondrashov (Personal Communication)
“We’re inferior to cavemen, our fitness is declining at 1-3% per generation.”
~ Dr. Crow (Science)
“We’re degenerating at 1-5% per generation.”
~ Dr. Lynch (PNAS) [6]
“In terms of theory, and of actual biological data, they agree that biological systems should go down - not up. Almost none of those [mutations] are beneficial, think about typographical errors, you always lose information with basically zero benefit. Most mutations are deleterious, but most of them are only slightly deleterious. Slightly deleterious mutations are deadly because mother nature can’t see them and natural selection can’t filter them out so they accumulate like rust on a car.”
~ Dr. Sanford (S & F Podcast)
This proves evolution doesn't have solid footing, and the Darwinian mechanism is fallacious, therefore the theory of 4.5 billion years fails. This becomes more relevant when examining eras such as the “cambrian explosion”. Marriam-Webster defines it “the unparalleled emergence of organisms between 541 million and about 530 million years ago at the beginning of the Cambrian Period.” The issue appears when examining that paleontology has put forth a 1 billion - 10 million year time span for animals to evolve from the Proterozoic layer to the Cambrian layer and there are millions of species that appear in the Cambrian layer that have no obvious ancestral connection to the animals below it.[7,8]
There are also other complications to the time scale including, but not limited to fossilized trees called polystrate fossils that go through multiple sedimentary layers dug-out by archaeologists (polystrates have been found to have formed in weeks), rock compounds as well as fossils have less density and are larger, the higher they are in the sediment formation, and many dinosaur fossils are found with bone marrow and blood cells indicating a recent burial. This all builds a strong case that all these species were in fact alive at the near same time with no reason for billions of years.[9]
"There are 1 over 10 to the 77th power [variations of a genome]. If every organism in the history of the planet is estimated ten to the fortieth organisms. Ten to the fortieth possible mutations against a search space ten to the seventy seventh strong. You can search one ten trillion trillion trillionth of the possible combinations. You are more likely to fail to find one of the functional combinations even considering every possible organism that ever existed on Earth."
~ Dr Sephen Meyer [10]
A QUICK REBUTTAL
I commend my opponent for doing good research into the arguments against creation. However, this argument is not a knockout blow. I actually agree with all but the first premise of my opponent's opening argument. The reason I’d argue the Universe can be “younger than the time it takes for light to reach us” is because it is in the creation framework that God created all things in their mature form. This includes creating adult humans instead of two adolescents, plants to produce fruit, animals to coexist with microorganisms and bacteria in their bodies, and life to reproduce. I will admit that pro has a good argument here, but the idea of creating mature life is very Biblically founded and fits snugly into the “Young-Earth” narrative as well. Remember, we are looking at the evidence to determine the best explanation. The fact that light takes time to travel doesn’t prove that God couldn’t have created it in a mature state and the evidence I have provided today sufficiently overpowers this contention.
“When God finished creating Heaven and Earth and the Universe, God looked at all that he had made and said it was good. God had created the perfect environment for man to reside in, for he had created the earth and all that was in it for man. Therefore, God would have created a mature earth.”
~ Jerry Blount [11]
Thank you to everyone reading and considering my position. I am looking forward to Sum1hugme’s rebuttal.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thank you WesleyBColeman for your response.
----------
0. GISH GALLOP
My opponent has opened with a flurry of points about the young earth and evolution for us to discuss. I simply don't have enough space to tackle each individual flood myth and each individual quote mine, so I will instead focus on the main overarching problems with my opponent's case.
----------
1. REINTERPRETING THE RESOLUTION
"I would like to first thank my opponent Sum1hugme for the invitation to have this discussion on the topic of the age of the Earth and the Universe. Thanks to everyone reading and evaluating the facts brought to the table. I urge you all to look at the data anew and see if either the “Old-Earth '' or “Young-Earth '' theory is best befitted by it. As debate of an “Old-Earth'' and a “Young-Earth'' implies, this is about one area of the Darwinian and Christian worldview"
Here my opponent has reinterpreted the resolution from "the Universe is older than 10,000 years" to, "the Earth is older than 10,000 years." Here I will succinctly rebut all of my opponent's arguments in a single sentence: The Earth could be only 6000 years old and the Universe still be at least 26,420,000 years old.
"...my opponent will be using a different framework (evolutionary) that everything was created over a period of approximately 4.5 billion years for the Earth and 13.8 billion years total for the universe."
This is simply not my case. My opponent is using evolution as an umbrella term for all the sciences he doesn't agree with. My framework is that the Universe can not be younger than the time it takes light to reach us. If there is light reaching us from 26,420,000 lightyears away, then it look the light that many years to get to us.
----------
2. FAILED REFUTATION
"The reason I’d argue the Universe can be “younger than the time it takes for light to reach us” is because it is in the creation framework that God created all things in their mature form... I will admit that pro has a good argument here, but the idea of creating mature life is very Biblically founded and fits snugly into the “Young-Earth” narrative as well."
My opponent seems to argue that the god of the Bible created the Universe in such a way that starlight would simply appear far away. This is completely unsupported and is nothing more than an ad hoc rationalization that dips into the realm of reality denial, when the claim that "the universe is younger than 10,000 years" was refuted. This rationalization greatly increases my opponent's burden of proof, because they must now demonstrate that this god exists. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe he actually created the Universe to look old, but it really be young. I say we should stick with what we can observe to be true, than attempt to rationalize away those things we observe to be true. Additionally, this would make the god of the Bible intentionally deceptive, which I'm sure my opponent would dispute.
----------
3. ARBITRARILY CHOOSING THE BIBLE
"There are well over 300 flood myths. If the creation timeline is true, we can infer the ancestors of all these different people groups were indirectly told the accounts from Noah and his family all the way down to modern time. The stories were embellished by different cultures in different ways, some to an unrealistic mythic extent, but the essence is the same throughout."
My opponent claims that there are over 300 Flood Myths from around the world, but arbitrarily decides that the Biblical flood story is the only one that is the correct one, since all his "evidences" of the Biblical Flood could apply to many of these other myths.
----------
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, The Universe is definitely older than 10,000 years. All my opponent did was try to prove that the earth is young, but the earth's age has no bearing on the Universe's age. His best attempt at refuting my argument was shown to be nothing more than a rationalization after his claim was shown to be false. My argument has not been refuted, and observation shows that the Universe is at least 26.420,000 years old. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Con
#4
PREFACE
I would first like to thank my opponent again for this interesting discussion. Sum1hugme brought up several excellent points in his rebuttal which I would like to explore in great detail. I will now reiterate an important point from the preface of my opening statement.
“I will be using the framework (creationary) that the Earth was created, by God, in 6 days and has been around for less than about 10,000 years and my opponent will be using a different framework (evolutionary) that everything was created over a period of approximately 4.5 billion years for the Earth and 13.8 billion years total for the universe.”
It is very important that we not gloss over that point. Both pro and con are using what is known as a presuppositional framework. That is to say, either the naturalist: which includes the “Big Bang”/ Multiverse, abiogenesis, Macro-Evolution via common ancestry, and likely no supernatural element; or the creationist: which includes creation/Creator, adaptation of “kinds”, and Biblical historicity such as the resurrection and the Flood. My opponent does not have to “prove” the Big Bang or any other components so long as they can show they have better explanatory power. In that case, neither do I have to “prove” God or anything in the Bible is a fact. So long as I can show it has better explanatory power (meaning the evidence makes the most sense in my framework), I have won the debate. The same truth applies to Pro if his framework has better explanatory power after the arguments given.
RESOLUTION INTERPRETATION
“Here my opponent has reinterpreted the resolution from "the Universe is older than 10,000 years" to, "the Earth is older than 10,000 years." Here I will succinctly rebut all of my opponent's arguments in a single sentence: The Earth could be only 6000 years old and the Universe still be at least 26,420,000 years old.” ~ Pro
This is a fair point on its face, yet as I explained in the quick rebuttal section, the creation framework has the Universe as created in six days along with the Earth. To quote the Biblical creation framework’s handbook:
“In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.” Genesis 1:1
So in other words, pro claims I am making a compositional fallacy of equivocation when, rather, the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth are synonymously tied in the creation framework.
“This [using the evolutionary framework] is simply not my case. My opponent is using evolution as an umbrella term for all the sciences he doesn't agree with. My framework is that the Universe can not be younger than the time it takes light to reach us. If there is light reaching us from 26,420,000 lightyears away, then it looks like the light that took many years to get to us.” ~ Pro
The evolutionary, Darwinian, or naturalist framework is the only framework that asserts an old Earth and an old Universe. First, in order for an “old Universe” to be practical, evolution and other naturalist processes must work practically in said Universe. If we can prove that any of the critical naturalist processes do not work practically, then we can conclude that therefore an “old-Earth” is not practical. This, however, will only get us half the way there. We also must show that the “young-Earth” framework is practical. You have seen evidence of the Biblical Flood that indicates it is practical. You have not seen any good indication herein that naturalism is practical let alone more practical than creationism.
“Evolutionary framework” is a colloquial name that is commonplace with the scientifically minded. To say that the Universe is at least 26,420,000 years old you would either demand evolution or coincide God. In which case, if there is a God, then there is no need for God to follow naturalist laws and it is then most likely, based on the flood evidence provided, that the Biblical creation framework is true. In this theoretical scenario, say that you have coincided there is a God. In that case, there would be no need for light to have traveled that estimated amount of time. God could create it all in an instant (and there is good textual evidence that God did).
Essentially, either evolution is true or there is a God and the Universe is young.
REFUTATION
“My opponent seems to argue that the god of the Bible created the Universe in such a way that starlight would simply appear far away. This is completely unsupported and is nothing more than an ad hoc rationalization that dips into the realm of reality denial, when the claim that "the universe is younger than 10,000 years" was refuted. This rationalization greatly increases my opponent's burden of proof, because they must now demonstrate that this god exists. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe he actually created the Universe to look old, but it really is young. I say we should stick with what we can observe to be true, then attempt to rationalize away those things we observe to be true. Additionally, this would make the god of the Bible intentionally deceptive, which I'm sure my opponent would dispute.”
This concept is by no means ad hoc. This is supported by the “literary interpretation” of Genesis. God begins the Biblical framework by explaining that the Earth, Universe, and light were all created on the first “day”. The word day, or in Hebrew, יום (yom) is commonly interpreted as either a 12 or 24 hour day. [1]
“1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.” Genesis 1:1-5
I would contest that saying “He actually created the Universe to look old” is simply speculative and ad hoc since, in the creation framework, God did not create the universe to “look old” he created it to be mature. To suggest, as a fact, something merely of conjecture about the Universe such as ‘It looks old’ does not increase the burden of proof of my argument. You said it yourself, “I say we should stick with what we can observe to be true.” We cannot prove the Universe is young or old with the subjective concept of what it looks like. The God of the Bible is not deceptive, He is in fact very clear about the age of the Earth and how it was made.
WHY THE BIBLE FLOOD-MYTH?
“My opponent claims that there are over 300 Flood Myths from around the world, but arbitrarily decides that the Biblical flood story is the only one that is the correct one, since all his "evidences" of the Biblical Flood could apply to many of these other myths.” ~ Pro
There are many reasons that the Biblical flood myth is more compelling. For instance, it is a world flood. I have provided detailed arguments for why a world flood follows logically based on physical and historical evidence. Also, in the Biblical story of the Flood, all the specific details of the ark and external circumstances are detailed and consistent when taking it as a historical narrative. The Biblical flood likely also came before other well known flood-myths. [2]
By examining the vessel structures of these ancient near-Eastern accounts, you find impractical versions of the arc such as a basket (Simmond’s Ark) or a box (Gilgamesh’s Ark), but in the account of Noah the boat is made to similar specifications of a modern cargo ship. A model of Noah’s Ark was tested on the open ocean and found seaworthy in this study. [3,4]
All the story elements “check out” as I mentioned in my earlier argument. Again, the Noah story is written such as a historical account with no embellishments and a matter-of-factness that sets itself apart from the other classical myths.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, my opponent has given no reason for any reader to think that the Naturalist framework is better supported by the evidence, therefore the Universe is younger than 10,000 years. If Pro can not defend a critical naturalist process such as evolution, then there is no reason to vote for naturalism here. Again, to reiterate: Without naturalism the only answer is a creator. If there is a creator, there is good evidence provided that the Universe is young. Therefore, by coinciding to any creation process by result of rejecting naturalism, which by definition is coinciding to any form of creator, pro coincides to young-Earth in its entirety.
Again, thank you to Pro for this very fun and engaging debate. Thank you to each and every voter who is considering my position. I look forward to hearing Pro's response.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, my opponent has missed the mark again. I am not advocating for a presuppositional framework as my opponent states, thus his dichotomous presentation fails. I am not supporting a Naturalist framework, and certainly not the way my opponent defines it (that being every science he doesn't agree with). My framework was laid out in my opening statement, that the universe cannot be younger than the time it takes light to reach us. My opponent has not contested that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum.
____________________
COUNTER-REBUTTALS
__________
- CR1
"It is very important that we not gloss over that point. Both pro and con are using what is known as a presuppositional framework. That is to say, either the naturalist: which includes the “Big Bang”/ Multiverse, abiogenesis, Macro-Evolution via common ancestry, and likely no supernatural element; or the creationist: which includes creation/Creator, adaptation of “kinds”, and Biblical historicity such as the resurrection and the Flood."
My opponent has created a straw man, a false dichotomy, and cemented my point about using evolution as a term for all the science he disagrees with. Only now, instead of evolutions, he uses the word naturalist for describing those same sciences. I am not advocating for the framework of naturalism, but rather that light travels at a constant speed.
"My opponent does not have to 'prove' the Big Bang or any other components so long as they can show they have better explanatory power. In that case, neither do I have to 'prove' God or anything in the Bible is a fact. So long as I can show it has better explanatory power (meaning the evidence makes the most sense in my framework), I have won the debate."
My opponent can win this debate if'n they can refute my opening argument, which he has made no attempt to do besides, (paraphrasing) "God could've made it look old, but it really be young." This doesn't refute the core argument, known as the "starlight problem," because it would be impossible to tell if god was deceiving us. So unless my opponent can prove that the light from this distant star is younger than 10,000 years with anything other than blind conjecture, he cannot win the debate.
__________
- CR2
"To say that the Universe is at least 26,420,000 years old you would either demand evolution or coincide God."
Evolution is a theory of biodiversity, not cosmology. Evolution has nothing to do with the age of starlight. This is also another false dichotomy with several flaws: 1. Evolution does not equal atheism, 2. There could be no god and the starlight be as old as it appears, 3. There could be any configuration of god(s) and evolution still happen anyways.
"based on the flood evidence provided, that the Biblical creation framework is true. In this theoretical scenario, say that you have coincided there is a God. In that case, there would be no need for light to have traveled that estimated amount of time."
This would mean that the starlight appears old, but is really young, and therefore god is being intentionally deceptive. My opponent is left to either concede that god is deceptive (which undermines his credibility when he says he made it young), or that the universe is actually old as it appears. That is, unless he can demonstrate that light somehow doesn't travel at a constant speed in a vacuum.
"God could create it all in an instant (and there is good textual evidence that God did)."
My opponent's argument essentially boils down to, "God made the Universe look old, but it is actually young," and Biblical Literalism. There has not been a single solid attempt made against my argument.
"Essentially, either evolution is true or there is a God and the Universe is young."
Of course, evolution being true has nothing to do with the age of the Universe or if there's a god.
__________
- CR3
"I would contest that saying “He actually created the Universe to look old” is simply speculative and ad hoc since, in the creation framework, God did not create the universe to “look old” he created it to be mature."
What's the difference between a mature-looking star that's a few million light years away, and an old-looking star that's the same distance? This is an ad hoc language shift to avoid the central issue: that my opponent has no real refutation to my core argument.
___________
- CR4
"There are many reasons that the Biblical flood myth is more compelling. For instance, it is a world flood. I have provided detailed arguments for why a world flood follows logically based on physical and historical evidence. Also, in the Biblical story of the Flood, all the specific details of the ark and external circumstances are detailed and consistent when taking it as a historical narrative. The Biblical flood likely also came before other well known flood-myths."
Ugh, fine. Since you listed six, I will list six reasons the Biblical flood couldn't have happened.
"1. The stair-stepped appearance of erosion of sedimentary rocks in the Grand Canyon with sandstones and limestones formed cliffs and shales forming gentle slopes cannot happen if all these rocks were deposited in less than one year. If the Grand Canyon had been carved soon after these rocks were deposited by a worldwide flood, they would not have had time to harden into solid rock and would have been saturated with water.Therefore, the sandstones and limestones would have slumped during the carving of the canyon and would not have formed cliffs. (Hill et al. 2016)
2. Salt and gypsum deposits, more than 200 feet thick, occur inthe Paradox Formation in Utah just 200 miles north of the Grand Canyon, and these deposits are the same age as the Supai rocks in the Grand Canyon that were supposedly also deposited by Noah’s flood. Similar salt deposits, up to 3,000feet thick, exist in various places on all continents and inlayers of all geologic ages, and these deposits can only be produced by evaporation of sea water. Such evaporation couldn't have happened in repeated intervals in the midst of the 40days and 40 nights of raining and during the supposed continuous deposition of sedimentary rocks by a worldwide flood and in which the only drying and evaporation is said to have occurred at the end of the flood. (Collins 2006, 2009,2012; Hill et al. 2016)
3. Sand dunes with giant cross bedding occur in the Mesozoic Rocks in Zion National Park and are further evidence that desert conditions occurred at the time of the supposed flood.(Senter 2011; Collins 2017)
4. Fossilized mud cracks occur in the Cambrian Tapeats Formation on top of the Precambrian Vishnu schist at the bottom of the canyon and indicate that drying conditions existed during the alleged worldwide Noah’s flood, and these drying conditions occurred at the very beginning of this supposed flood. Although mud cracks can also form in mud under water by compression that squeezes out water from the mud, such compression is not likely to occur during a flood.Moreover, fossilized mud cracks are found in other formations that were supposedly deposited during Noah’s flood, and these mud cracks occur in red shales that coexist with salt and gypsum layers. Therefore, these mud cracks were likely formed in deltaic mud flats that were exposed to the atmosphere where their iron-bearing minerals reacted with oxygen in the air to form red hematite. (Collins 2006; Senter2011; Hill et al. 2016)
5. Raindrop prints occur in many places around the world which could not have been formed or preserved if the muds (now insoles) containing these prints were deposited under water during Noah’s flood. (Senter 2011; Hill et al. 2016)
6. Nests of dinosaur eggs are found in several places around the world, and it is illogical that dinosaurs could have had enough time to create these nests and lay their eggs while they were fleeing from rising waters to reach higher ground. (Senter2011; Hill et al. 2016)" [1]
"By examining the vessel structures of these ancient near-Eastern accounts, you find impractical versions of the arc such as a basket (Simmond’s Ark) or a box (Gilgamesh’s Ark), but in the account of Noah the boat is made to similar specifications of a modern cargo ship. A model of Noah’s Ark was tested on the open ocean and found seaworthy in this study."
Funnily enough, I was taught in Christian School that Noah's ark was box shaped, and that the box shape (Gilgamesh's you said was impractical) was divinely inspired because on a world flooded, there's no need to do anything but float until it's over.
"Again, the Noah story is written such as a historical account with no embellishments..."
The entire story is an embellishment.
__________
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Universe is undoubtedly older than 10,000 years, if we are going with what we can prove to be true and independently verifiable. My opponent however, has completely failed to refute my core argument, that the universe can't be younger than the time it takes light to reach us. Additionally, he continues to try to paint me into a framework I am not upholding, and this is a straw man fallacy. This straw man is constructed in an attempt to structure a dichotomous framework that would be more favorable to my opponent, but this requires a blatant reinterpretation of the resolution into something it isn't. I will not accept this framework and challenge him to engage my actual argument. I await his response.
Con
#6
PREFACE
Thank you for your response Pro and for everyone taking the time to read. My opponent started his rebuttal by saying “Unfortunately, my opponent has missed the mark again.” I will now demonstrate that, in fact, my opponent has merely deceived himself here. He is avid that he does not advocate for a presuppositional framework, yet he has little in the way to back it up. Firstly, he does not define the term correctly.
“I am not supporting a Naturalist framework, and certainly not the way my opponent defines it (that being every science he doesn't agree with).”
I clearly have defined it as the naturalist processes that answer the questions of how everything is the way it is. These are evolution, the big bang, abiogenesis, etc. If my opponent rejects naturalist processes, then he has no leg to stand on when he advocates that light had to have traveled the speed of light to reach Earth.
“My framework was laid out in my opening statement, that the universe cannot be younger than the time it takes light to reach us.”
I ask you, what are the implications of that framework? If the universe cannot be younger than the speed of light, that assumes that no creator interfered with light and that naturalist processes must have occurred for light to have been created. A godless world necessitates naturalism. The Merriam-Webster defines naturalism as:
“A theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance specifically: the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.”
“My opponent has not contested that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum.”
Correct. That is because I agree. However, I disagree with your first premise that “the Universe can't be younger than the time it takes for light to reach us”.
____________________
- CR1
“My opponent has created a straw man, a false dichotomy, and cemented my point about using evolution as a term for all the science he disagrees with. Only now, instead of evolutions, he uses the word naturalist for describing those same sciences. I am not advocating for the framework of naturalism, but rather that light travels at a constant speed.”
Not at all. As a naturalist, Pro espouses all of these aforementioned beliefs. Whether or not light traveled the speed of light to get to the Earth or God created light in its mature form is the disagreement here. Unless my opponent concedes God, Pro is by definition a naturalist. To be a naturalist, the naturalist processes should be more convincing than the explanations of the creationist. If Pro cannot defend the seeming flaws in the naturalist worldview, then the old Earth stance simply falls.
“My opponent can win this debate if'n they can refute my opening argument, which he has made no attempt to do besides, (paraphrasing) "God could have made it look old, but it really is young." This doesn't refute the core argument, known as the "starlight problem," because it would be impossible to tell if god was deceiving us. So unless my opponent can prove that the light from this distant star is younger than 10,000 years with anything other than blind conjecture, he cannot win the debate.”
Pro misconstrues my argument here. There is scriptural evidence that God made the plants animals and the environment to be livable for Adam and Eve in 6 days. Creating light to be immediately visible to the Earth is not making it ‘look old’ in the same way that creating adult animals and mature plants to care for and eat, respectively, is not creating a life that ‘looks old’. It simply is mature and it was created mature. Is God deceiving by creating adults instead of youth that wouldn’t be able to fend for themselves?
This is a non-issue that I have already explained.
The light was created in an adult state meaning it reached the travel length needed to complete God’s intended purpose for it. I’ve already laid out my evidence for this in the opening. My opponent has not rebutted it to this point. As far as what God can do, God is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial being that can speak something into existence.
The monotheistic God of the old testament (Judeo, Christian, Muslim) is the only God with the capability to create the world in this fashion. All three religions take the Torah account to be a factual description of creation. Therefore, I will make an argument for this kind of God's existence. (This is a summary from Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae.)
An argument from motion -
- Evident to our senses in motion—the movement from actuality to potentiality. Things are acted on. (Note that the argument proceeds from empirical evidence; hence it is an à posteriori or an inductive argument.)
- Whatever is moved is moved by something else. Potentiality is only moved by actuality. (An actual oak tree is what produces the potentiality of an acorn.)
- Unless there is a First Mover, there can be no motions. To take away the actual is to take away the potential. (Hence, which came first for Aristotle, the chicken or the egg?) (E.g., the reason a student has the potential to be awake is that he had (actual) toast for breakfast. Toast has the potential to keep the student awake. But (actual) bread has the potential to become toast, and actual grain has the potential to become bread. Actual water, dirt, and air have the potential to become grain. To take away any of these actualities is ultimately to take away the potential for the student to be alert.) (Aquinas is not rejecting an indefinite or an infinite series as such, the idea is that a lower element depends on a higher element as in a hierarchy, not a temporal series.)
- Thus, a First Mover exists.
An argument from an efficient cause -
- There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
- It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
- To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
- If there is no first cause then there will be no others.
- Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).
An argument from necessary Being -
- Since objects in the universe come into being and pass away, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time.
- Since objects are countable, the objects in the universe are finite in number.
- If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence. (Nothing can come from nothing—there is no creation ex nihilo) for individual existent objects.
- But, in fact, many objects exist in the universe.
- Therefore, a Necessary Being (i.e. a Being of which it may exist) exists.
____________________
- CR2
"Evolution is a theory of biodiversity, not cosmology. Evolution has nothing to do with the age of starlight. This is also another false dichotomy with several flaws: 1. Evolution does not equal atheism, 2. There could be no god and the starlight be as old as it appears, 3. There could be any configuration of god(s) and evolution could still happen anyway."
This is not a false dichotomy. If naturalist processes are proven unlikely compared to supernatural explanations, then you should concede a God if you maintain any form of intellectual consistency. Naturalist processes are the processes put forth to explain the creation of everything through the lens of naturalism. Therefore, if you reject naturalist processes, you reject naturalism.
All that Pro has done is infer that the Universe is old based on the fact of the speed of light. That is a hypothesis and may or may not be true. Whereas, I have given a great deal of evidence to indicate that light was more likely created and therefore negates Pro’s first premise.
To answer your three points on the issue:
“Evolution does not equal atheism”~ Pro
I agree. Atheism is the disbelief in a God and evolution is a naturalist process that atheists espouse. My argument still stands.
“There could be no god and the starlight be as old as it appears”~ Pro
Not based on the evidence shown herein. It is a ‘possibility’, but you have done little to show it as likely or even feasible.
“There could be any configuration of god(s) and evolution still happen anyways”~ Pro
I agree. However, I’m arguing that it didn’t happen based on the evidence provided against the theory. I am also arguing that by using the Biblical God specifically, we find a better creation theory.
"This would mean that the starlight appears old but is really young, and therefore god is being intentionally deceptive. My opponent is left to either concede that God is deceptive (which undermines his credibility when he says he made it young), or that the universe is actually old as it appears. That is unless he can demonstrate that light somehow doesn't travel at a constant speed in a vacuum."
God says the Earth was created in an allotted time and in a certain way, how is that deceptive? I imagine that Adam and Eve appeared ‘old’ as well. This is because they were created as adults. Just like light, they were made in a mature state. There is no need to demonstrate that “light somehow doesn't travel at a constant speed in a vacuum” because I agree with the science of the speed of light in a vacuum. This doesn’t contradict the Biblical account at all. Perhaps what confuses you is that the Earth was created pre-middle-aged (or mature or adult) but has existed for a short period of time. We are, in a sense, not calling the Earth young in the manner of appearance but in that of age which should seem obvious to anyone reading the debate prompt. In the same fashion, Adam was young although he was created as an adult. This hopefully shouldn't be a problem when we use the word ‘young’ to describe Earth anymore as you now know it is not referring to looks or physical appearance but that of age specifically.
"Of course, evolution is true has nothing to do with the age of the Universe or if there's a god."
Not at all. Evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, and other naturalist processes are reasons to disbelieve in the young Earth model. Without them in a naturalist’s arsenal, the naturalist has no positive claims to the age of the Earth nor any naturalistic basis for the creation of the Earth. Without evolution specifically, pro has no reason to believe that animals were created from a single-celled organism naturally. If this did not happen, the only alternative is that animals were created by God. Therefore, if you concede evolution is wrong, you concede God’s existence.
If there is a God, then there is compelling evidence that the God of the Bible is the one true God. Therefore, either evolution is true or there is a God and the Universe is young.
There is, however, a problem in science known as the “horizon problem” that would indicate that the data we have on light speed contradicts the “old earth” theory. Dr. Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist, plainly lays out the issue here.
“The Big Bang, the alternative to biblical creation, also has a similar type of light travel time problem of its own. It’s called the horizon problem. It has to do with the cosmic microwave background that we see streaming from the distant regions of the universe. We find that it’s very uniform, and that shouldn’t be because, in the big bang model, we should have different temperatures in different places. Why is it so uniform?Obviously, light energy had to travel from the hotter regions to the colder regions to equilibrate those temperatures, but there hasn’t been enough time, even in the 13.8 billion years there’s not enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other. That results in a light travel time problem for the big bang theory. It’s not a problem for an infinite God to get the light to travel from distant galaxies to earth.”~ Dr. Jason Lisle
__________
- CR3
"What's the difference between a mature-looking star that's a few million light-years away, and an old-looking star that's the same distance? This is an ad hoc language shift to avoid the central issue: that my opponent has no real refutation to my core argument."
Nothing. That’s why saying that it ‘looks’ a certain way is ad hoc. You just proved my point, funnily enough.
__________
- CR4
1. After the flood, there were great lakes, reservoirs of trapped floodwater, that eventually broke to form the canyons. This accounts for the stair-stepped appearance. Also, the Bible does in fact say that the waters of the flood dried up after 40 days. There is evidence, in the higher elevated sandstone layers, that a massive lake had existed until running a stream of water out to sea. The movement of water in similar observable scenarios differs massively from your hypothesis. A study in Texas indicates that canyons are formed rapidly and not overtime and all examples are shown to have cliff-like edges. [1]
2. This is an assumption made by old-Earth geologists. However, these salt deposits can have occurred during the flood. There is evidence for this in the canyons near Mt. St. Helens. [2]
3. & 4. Both of these misdate the Biblical flood at around 2500 BC when in reality correct Biblical reading dates the flood at 3105 BC. That combined with using faulty dating methods such as radiometric dating and carbon dating which have been proven to be unreliable since the 80s. [3]
5. Arguably the opposite is true. According to this secular article, a flood is actually the only way to preserve a raindrop fossil. [4]
6. Dinosaur is noted as being alive after the flood, so they had plenty of time after the flood. That is a null point, read Genesis.
"Funnily enough, I was taught in Christian School that Noah's ark was box-shaped and that the box shape (Gilgamesh's you said was impractical) was divinely inspired because in a world flooded, there's no need to do anything but float until it's over."
Then you were taught wrong and could easily look at the scriptural evidence. This is antidotal and holds no grounds here.
"The entire story is an embellishment."
On the contrary, as I have previously pointed out, all the facts of the Arc are consistent with modern science. However, all other Arc tales have glaring problems such as the examples I mentioned. Pro’s hyperbole indicates he is either uninformed on the story of Noah’s arc, or he is confused as to what constitutes an embellishment.
__________
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Universe is undoubtedly younger than 10,000 years, if we are going with what we can “prove to be true and independently verifiable” as my opponent says. My opponent, however, has failed to make any good argument for a naturalist approach but merely stated a fact that both our viewpoints can explain. He explains it through naturalism, and I explain it through creationism. If my opponent continues on this trajectory, there will be no debate on who brought forth the better arguments and who continued to rehash the same null point. Thank you for your time, Pro, and thank you to everyone reading. I look forward to my opponent's next rebuttal.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Thank you WesleyBColeman for this debate, it's been pretty fun.
_____
EVOLUTION =/= ATHEISM
"He is avid that he does not advocate for a presuppositional framework, yet he has little in the way to back it up. "
My opponent's argument depends on structuring a dichotomous framework, where two options are presented as the only possible options. On the one hand, my opponent groups together scientific models and explanations that don't require supernatural intervention in their explanation and calls them "evolutionary" or "naturalist". Naturalism is the assumption that there is nothing outside of nature, and rules out deism by necessity. These explanations of natural phenomena and processes simply don't require supernatural intervention as a component of their explanatory power; they do not need to assume naturalism. To juxtapose this straw man, he posits biblical creationism, which also rules out deism by necessity. The fact that these natural processes and explanations are consistent with deism defeats my opponent's falsely dichotomous framework alone. As none of his arguments for god's existence indicate anything past a deistic god.
Therefore, these theories of natural processes are not naturalist, because they do not rule out the possibility of the supernatural; but, a supernatural element is superfluous to the explanation.
Examples of the false dichotomy:
" To be a naturalist, the naturalist processes should be more convincing than the explanations of the creationist.""The monotheistic God of the old testament (Judeo, Christian, Muslim) is the only God with the capability to create the world in this fashion."
Of course literally any religion that believes in an all-powerful god would fit this latter description.
Then there's the attacking of the straw man of the "naturalist worldview":
"If Pro cannot defend the seeming flaws in the naturalist worldview, then the old Earth stance simply falls."
Example of the straw man being stuffed:
"I clearly have defined it as the naturalist processes that answer the questions of how everything is the way it is. These are evolution, the big bang, abiogenesis, etc"
These other theories of other phenomena posit longer periods of time than I am positing here, but that doesn't matter because descriptions of biodiversity, cosmic origins, and the origins of life don't have to be assumed to measure the distance to Cepheid Variable Stars. But my opponent's own definition of naturalism refutes his straw man:
"A theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance specifically: the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena."
It defeats him because I am not claiming that natural laws are adequate to account for all phenomena; but instead, that natural laws are enough to account for this specific phenomena. His best attempt has been a falsely dichotomous, self-defeating framework, and some arguments for god's existence and noah's flood. None of these arguments however, actually give any indication that anything supernatural has interfered with the distance to that star, or the time it has taken for the light to travel that distance.
_____
PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT
A lightyear is a measure of distance. If a distance can be reliably measured, and that distance consists of some number of lightyears, then that same amount of time in years necessarily has to elapse for the light to cover that distance.
My opponent concedes this fatal point:
" ...I agree with the science of the speed of light in a vacuum."
The age of the light is a logical derivative of the distance to the light-emitting body. So my opponent is necessarily arguing that god, by some unnamed mechanism, created the Universe to look like the distance,and therefore the age, to things are different than they are.
_______________
FINAL REBUTTALS
_____
- FR1
" If the universe cannot be younger than the speed of light, that assumes that no creator interfered with light and that naturalist processes must have occurred for light to have been created."
Since a creator to make the light look old (or mature if you'd prefer) is superfluous to the explanatory power of the speed of light, the burden falls on my opponent's shoulders to demonstrate that the laws of physics were broken at the time of creation to make the star look far away. I could concede god in a deistic sense and this explanation would still be adequate to explain the age of the light that is reaching us.
"There is scriptural evidence that God made the plants animals and the environment to be livable for Adam and Eve in 6 days...Is God deceiving by creating adults instead of youth that wouldn’t be able to fend for themselves?"
To answer the question first, yes, if one was trying to determine the age of the people, but they were created to look older than they were, that would be deceptive.
- Deceptive: Giving an appearance or impression different from the true one; misleading [1].
If the people appear old, but are young, that is deceptive in the same way that making the star appear far away and old, but it really be young and/or close is deceptive.
The idea of scriptural evidence is only applicable in the realm of the scripture itself. In the same sense that there is literary evidence that the ring was given to Frodo. This doesn't indicate that Mount Doom is a literal place, or that events of The Lord of the Rings are factually accurate.
_____
- FR2
Me- "What's the difference between a mature-looking star that's a few million light-years away, and an old-looking star that's the same distance? This is an ad hoc language shift to avoid the central issue: that my opponent has no real refutation to my core argument."Opp.- "Nothing."That’s why saying that it ‘looks’ a certain way is ad hoc. You just proved my point, funnily enough.
Therefore, this argument of god creating the star and its light to "look mature" and creating it to "look distant\old", even though it's not according to you, are exactly the same. Therefore, this language shift is an attempt to sidestep the central issue.
_____
- FR3
The flood stuff -
1.
"After the flood, there were great lakes... A study in Texas indicates that canyons are formed rapidly and not overtime and all examples are shown to have cliff-like edges."
To quote the article my opponent cited, " 'The Grand Canyon was formed as the Colorado River slowly wore down the bedrock. That probably took millions of years though,' said geologist and study co-author Michael Lamb of Caltech in Pasadena, Calif."
2.
"This is an assumption made by old-Earth geologists. However, these salt deposits can have occurred during the flood. There is evidence for this in the canyons near Mt. St. Helens."
My opponent's hand-waving dismissal of this point as an "assumption" ignores the contradiction of there being intervals of evaporation, when noah's flood posits only a single drying event. This occurring at Mt. St. Helens doesn't address this basic contradiction of the noahic flood myth to reality. My opponent's unbiased scientific source, "evolutionisamyth.com," doesn't even have the word "salt" in it. Its section on Mount St. Helens does not address the issue I presented.
3. and 4.
"Both of these misdate the Biblical flood at around 2500 BC when in reality correct Biblical reading dates the flood at 3105 BC. That combined with using faulty dating methods such as radiometric dating and carbon dating which have been proven to be unreliable since the 80s."
These points were that there were deserts in the world during the time the flood supposedly happened, and that mud cracks are extremely unlikely to fossilize in a major global flood especially. Also, my opponent just dismisses the dating methods with a single posted source, so I will affirm them similarly. Carbon dating is accurate as far as it can actually date [2], and radiometric dating is reliable as well [3]. They are reliable because their methodologies have been tried and proven repeatedly.
5.
" Arguably the opposite is true. According to this secular article, a flood is actually the only way to preserve a raindrop fossil."
My opponent's source states it would require a gentle shower and a gentle flood, not a catastrophic one, in order to fossilize raindrops. Noah's flood entails relentless torrent for forty days and the most catastrophic flood event in history.
6.
"Dinosaur is noted as being alive after the flood, so they had plenty of time after the flood. That is a null point, read Genesis."
Dinosaurs aren't noted being alive after the flood, unless you're basing that off a loose interpretation of the "leviathan" or "behemoth" in Job. "Read Genesis" does nothing to substantiate this baseless claim, and it should be disregarded for the reason of being baseless.
_____
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, my opponent has founded his argument on constructing a straw man to attack, then juxtaposing his case against the straw man in an attempt to create a falsely dichotomous scenario where one "worldview" is somehow made plausible by the straw man "worldview" being implausible. My core argument stands as virtually uncontested and completely unrooted, while my opponent's arguments essentially boil down to: God, by unspecified means, made the universe look old, even though it's young, because the Bible says so. There is no argument here, the Universe is older than 10,000 years. Everything about what we know about reality that's relevant to the question indicates this to be the case. The faint "possibility" that the biblical god could be deceiving us and breaking the laws of physics is nothing compared to the overwhelming reliability of the model without this superfluous element.
VOTE PRO!
Con
#8
Thank you to the readers of this debate! I hope you have enjoyed it and that we have provided valuable insight into this matter. A big thank you Sum1hugme for the invite to this debate, I agree it's been pretty fun and insightful. I hope to participate in more debates with you, Sum, in the future.
_____
EVOLUTION =/= ATHEISM
Again, I have no problems agreeing with that statement. Evolution is simply a process within the majority of atheists' world views and all current naturalistic worldviews. Yet frankly, it had to have happened if there was no God or else there is no natural reason for any life to exist at all. I agree evolution is not, however, a worldview such as atheism, but to argue this point does nothing for Pro’s case.
“These explanations of natural phenomena and processes simply don't require supernatural intervention as a component of their explanatory power; they do not need to assume naturalism.”
My opponent confuses my argument. I did not state that Pro is a naturalist because he believes in naturalist processes. Rather, he is a naturalist because he does not believe in supernatural processes. Therefore, my opponent does, in fact, assume naturalism (by virtue of the definition).
“To juxtapose this straw man, he posits biblical creationism, which also rules out deism by necessity.”
By using the Bible and my specific variation of creationism, am I not excluding other creationist views (See David Berlinski). I have demonstrated that the Genesis account is well-grounded in addition to creationism to provide evidence of the seven-day creation. However, by asserting naturalism Pro has left out all beliefs associated with the supernatural and therefore has excluded deism.
“The fact that these natural processes and explanations are consistent with deism defeats my opponent's falsely dichotomous framework alone. As none of his arguments for god's existence indicate anything past a deistic god.”
The fact is that there is natural evidence that results from supernatural causes. My opponent is using deceptive language shifting by inserting the words “natural processes” when the reality is that none of the events I’ve made arguments for could happen without a creator or some supernatural occurrence. Pro simply hasn't shown that naturalist processes are more in line with the evidence.
For the world Flood to have happened at all one requires a supernatural agent, for instance. Therefore, I have not made any arguments for processes that could happen naturally and my opponent has not taken sufficient time to examine them to a meaningful extent.
"Of course, literally, any religion that believes in an all-powerful god would fit this latter description. [i.e. the only God with the capability to create the world in this fashion.]"
Of course, and the religions are, again, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. These are the religions that at least fulfill the requirement of a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and all-powerful God capable of creating the existing cosmos.
“...but that doesn't matter because descriptions of biodiversity, cosmic origins, and the origins of life don't have to be assumed to measure the distance to Cepheid Variable Stars.”
Again, if Pro can’t back up these other naturalist processes, then his house of cards falls. If Pro concedes the naturalist explanations for biodiversity, cosmic origins, and the origins of life are false then he concedes naturalism is false. That's self-explanatory. If Pro disavows naturalism then he gives no reason for you to vote for his position, since he has already conceded to the supernatural and therefore God and therefore a seven-day creation model (This is true based on the inductive arguments made for God).
“It defeats him because I am not claiming that natural laws are adequate to account for all phenomena; but instead, those natural laws are enough to account for this specific phenomena.”
Again, as you see here, my opponent is okay conceding to supernatural causes in some instances. What he may not understand is his argument is lost by conceding in any instance.
_____
“The age of the light is a logical derivative of the distance to the light-emitting body. So my opponent is necessarily arguing that God, by some unnamed mechanism, created the Universe to look like the distance, and therefore the age of things is different than they are. Since a creator to make the light look old (or mature if you'd prefer) is superfluous to the explanatory power of the speed of light, the burden falls on my opponent's shoulders to demonstrate that the laws of physics were broken at the time of creation to make the star look far away. I could concede god in a deistic sense and this explanation would still be adequate to explain the age of the light that is reaching us."
Pro argues that if we can see stars many lightyears away and if the light is always a constant speed (That speed being a lightyear), therefore we should expect older stars then actually exists if light traveled to Earth in a day. However, this is not the fatal flaw my opponent would like you to think it is. While, yes, I agree that light travels the speed of light it does not necessarily have to on a one-way trip.
There is a principle known as the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC). ASC is similar to ESC (Einstein Synchrony Convention) in that they both have the end result of the round trip of the speed of light being the same. Einstein Synchrony Convention measures both the distance to and from the source of light and the viewer as equal time. The difference with ASC, then, is time dilation on a one-way trip. Here are both equations with epsilon (ε) used to denote the one-way speed of light. For ESC the value of ε = 1/2, with light traveling at the same speed in all directions. In Dr. Jason Lisle’s ASC ε = 1 and light travels at infinite speed towards the observer and c/2 away (for ε = 0 light would travel towards the observer at c/2 and at infinite speed away).
“The reason that the one-way speed of light cannot be objectively measured is that you need a way to synchronize two clocks separated by a distance. But in order to synchronize two clocks separated by some distance, you have to already know the one-way speed of light. So it cannot be done without circular reasoning.” [1]~ Dr. Jason Lisle
Therefore, we may likely be seeing distant stars in real-time. My opponent has no good argument here.
_______________
FINAL REBUTTALS
_____
- FR1
"There is scriptural evidence that God made the plants, animals, and the environment to be livable for Adam and Eve in 6 days...Is God deceiving by creating adults instead of youth that wouldn’t be able to fend for themselves?"To answer the question first, yes, if one was trying to determine the age of the people, but they were created to look older than they were, that would be deceptive.
Yes, it would be deceptive to your expectations (one of a naturalist), but you can not conclude God is being deceptive when nature requires adult creatures to initiate the ecosystem. You completely missed the point of that remark.
"If the people appear old but are young, that is deceptive in the same way that making the star appear far away and old, but it really is young and/or close is deceptive."
People weren't made "old", the first man and woman were made about the age of young adults. There's no Tom-foolery on God's part here. He didn't deceive Adam and Eve into thinking that they had been around for 20 years. Also, whether or not God is deceptive is entirely irrelevant to whether he exists and does nothing for your argument.
“The idea of scriptural evidence is only applicable in the realm of the scripture itself. In the same sense that there is literary evidence that the ring was given to Frodo. This doesn't indicate that Mount Doom is a literal place, or that events of The Lord of the Rings are factually accurate.”
We only go to scripture for more specificity. For instance, nature proves to us there was a world-flood event. We look to the Bible for the historical account of that world flood event.
_____
- FR2
Me- "What's the difference between a mature-looking star that's a few million light-years away, and an old-looking star that's the same distance? This is an ad hoc language shift to avoid the central issue: that my opponent has no real refutation to my core argument."Opp.- "Nothing." That’s why saying that it ‘looks’ a certain way is ad hoc. You just proved my point, funnily enough.""Therefore, this argument of god creating the star and its light to "look mature" and creating it to "look distant\old", even though it's not according to you, is exactly the same. Therefore, this language shift is an attempt to sidestep the central issue."
The star is not “old”. I will grant that it “looks old”, but that doesn’t mean it “is old”. If Pro is to argue that because it “looks old” it, therefore "is old", then we do have a problem of language shifting. I however am simply using the word “mature” since it is more precise and cannot be confused with age. Pro is the one trying to slip in semantics here.
_____
- FR3
The flood stuff -
1.
"After the flood, there were great lakes... A study in Texas indicates that canyons are formed rapidly and not overtime and all examples are shown to have cliff-like edges."To quote the article my opponent cited, " 'The Grand Canyon was formed as the Colorado River slowly wore down the bedrock. That probably took millions of years though,' said geologist and study co-author Michael Lamb of Caltech in Pasadena, Calif."
Yes, I realize I cited an evolutionist. However, that does not in any way refute the point I made. The article states that, although all observed canyons happen very rapidly, he personally believes that the Grand Canyon formed millions of years. That just screams cognitive dissonance to me. Also, if Pro truly believes that the “Colorado River slowly wore down the bedrock” then how do you explain the cliff edges of the canyon? We should expect a smooth slope if it has eroded over millions of years. This is a sad attempt at sabotage, and my opponent should have never taken the bait.
2.
"This is an assumption made by old-Earth geologists. However, these salt deposits can have occurred during the flood. There is evidence for this in the canyons near Mt. St. Helens..."My opponent's hand-waving dismissal of this point as an "assumption" ignores the contradiction of there being intervals of evaporation when Noah's flood posits only a single drying event. This occurrence at Mt. St. Helens doesn't address this basic contradiction of the Noahic flood myth to reality. My opponent's unbiased scientific source, "evolutionisamyth.com," doesn't even have the word "salt" in it. Its section on Mount St. Helens does not address the issue I presented.
It is an assumption. You simply have no reason to verify that multiple occurrences of drying needed to occur. The link was extra reading on more reasons why Mount St. Helens is modern evidence of the ancient flood occurrences. I recommend that you reread the document.
3. and 4.
"Both of these misdate the Biblical flood at around 2500 BC when in reality correct Biblical reading dates the flood at 3105 BC. That combined with using faulty dating methods such as radiometric dating and carbon dating which have been proven to be unreliable since the 80s."These points were that there were deserts in the world during the time the flood supposedly happened, and that mud cracks are extremely unlikely to fossilize in a major global flood especially. Also, my opponent just dismisses the dating methods with a single posted source, so I will affirm them similarly. Carbon dating is accurate as far as it can actually date [2], and radiometric dating is reliable as well [3]. They are reliable because their methodologies have been tried and proven repeatedly.
They have been tried repeatedly. I’ll give you that. Yet carbon dating doesn’t seem to accurately date anything and it certainly can’t date back to the flood. Here is a quote from even a fellow naturalist such as yourself.
“At least to the uninitiated, carbon dating is generally assumed to be a sure-fire way to predict the age of any organism that once lived on our planet. Without understanding the mechanics of it, we put our blind faith in the words of scientists, who assure us that carbon dating is a reliable method of determining the ages of almost everything around us. However, a little more knowledge about the exact ins and outs of carbon dating reveals that perhaps it is not quite as fool-proof a process as we may have been led to believe.” [2]
5.
" Arguably the opposite is true. According to this secular article, a flood is actually the only way to preserve a raindrop fossil."My opponent's source states it would require a gentle shower and a gentle flood, not a catastrophic one, in order to fossilize raindrops. Noah's flood entails relentless torrent for forty days and the most catastrophic flood event in history.
This is a plain misreading of the text. The flood of the Bible was described as not reaching its peak in height until the 40th day. This flood was most certainly nowhere near as catastrophic as the most catastrophic flood event in history. It was certainly the largest, but it occurred over such a long period that everything from raindrops to jellyfish could easily have been preserved. A larger flood is in no way correlated to a more damaging flood. It’s clear my opponent is grasping at straws here.
6.
"Dinosaurs are noted as being alive after the flood, so they had plenty of time after the flood. That is a null point, read Genesis."Dinosaurs aren't noted as being alive after the flood unless you're basing that off a loose interpretation of the "leviathan" or "behemoth" in Job. "Read Genesis" does nothing to substantiate this baseless claim, and it should be disregarded for the reason of being baseless.
Not baseless, God brought two of every animal onto the ark. It’s clearly written right there in Genesis. The "leviathan" and the "behemoth" in Job are just two other good examples. Also, not just in the Bible. There is an exhaustive list of evidence for dinosaurs alive after the flood dates of genesis. I advise anyone who’s interested to look at this (admittedly bias) light reading here.
_____
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, my opponent has ended with a bang. From rhetoric to poorly reasoned arguments, he has done his very best to keep his arguments afloat -- and there’s something noble about that. However, my opponent had lost his footing on every objective he set out to accomplish. His initial main argument’s first premise remains completely debunked from an objective standard. At the very least, one with integrity can not vote Pro. In addition, I have provided many resources that indicate that supernatural causal occurrences have taken place in the past and are in fact more plausible than ones put forth by naturalists. Your choice is easy here.
VOTE CON!
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:
First of all, I note an important point, the presupposition nature of this debate.
IMO, Proponent's (Pro) strongest argument was the Universe's age as judged by lights speed (R1). Contender (Con) countered in several ways. Indirectly, he undermining the Universe's dating method's reliability by questioning the dating method for a part of it, the Earth (4.5 billion years). Another was the time it would take DNA/RNA replication. A third is Dr. Jason Lisle's, the "horizontal problem." The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention principle addresses P4. Con identified that the speed of light cannot be determined in one direction but relies on a two-way measurement. Finally, the Thomas Aquinas argument was the coup d'etat.
The take from these arguments; something is off. Thus, human standards and measures are in question, begging from the present to the past.
I felt Cons R1's rebuttal regarding the speed of light a little lacking. It did not develop the argument for the rate of the Universe's measured expansion seen in starlight distances now as opposed to then (Premise 4). (i.e., A universe/balloon analogy in which two dots [representing stars or points of distance] on a balloon expand and increase the length between the two as air is added, questioning whether the expansion rate is accurately calculated in the present looking back to the past. More air would fill the balloon faster, increasing the distance quicker). As Con pointed out, God put the starlight into place in one day (R2). Thus, in the BB model, the acceleration would have embodied that time frame - one day, not billions of years in determining the age. Thus starlight either appeared mature, or the expanding Universe's pace was faster in the beginning, are other explanations that counter P1. P1 and P4 (Pro - R1) are the problem areas of the Pros argument.
Cons R1 "rebuttal" included the significant presuppositions nature of the evidence. He developed this argument in every future round. Con reminded Pro that both sides examine the issue with worldview baggage and bias - the creation framework opposing the "Naturalistic" framework. The creation view holds the belief in a mature universe. Thus, Pro countered whether God is a deceiver, focusing his argument on the appearance of things rather than maturity. I thought Con responded adequately. But this brought further questions to mind. Is the naturalistic view sufficient in determining the age? In R3, Con enhanced the presuppositional side of the argument. His presentation here went unanswered by Pro and, IMO, is at the heart of this debate. That argument from Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae is:
1. The argument from motion (Whatever is moved is moved by something else/Unless there is a First Mover, there can be no motions...).
2. The argument from efficient cause (...nothing can be the efficient cause of itself/If there is no first cause then there will be no others...).
3. The argument from necessary being (...objects in the universe come into being and pass away/If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence...Therefore, a Necessary Being exists.).
A++
These three queries, IMO, make the presuppositional nature of Pros entire argument questionable.
Of Pros R1 five premises, Con correctly focused on Premise 1 as not being adequately demonstrated in future rounds.
P1. The Universe can't be younger than the time it takes for light to reaches us.
Please note, Pro never explains why the speed of light is as it is - its nature. What makes that speed possible? The constant is assumed possible in/by a naturalistic worldview, the worldview Pro offers for the age of the Universe - Naturalism.
Pro argued that He is not looking at this from a naturalistic position was thoroughly refuted. Pro is doing what he claims he is not, as Con demonstrated. For instance (as a side excursion), Pro did not give an adequate reason as to why his view was anything other than a naturalistic framework, as pointed out by Con ("...he is a naturalist because he does not believe in supernatural processes."). Pro does not believe...or does not use. Pro solely used a natural argument. End of discussion.
Pro believes the speed (the constant) is what it is because of chance happenstance - no intent or purpose. Poof! That is quite a presuppositions assumption and leap that demands support that never materialized.
I thought Pros' other charges were adequately fended off by Con.
Thus, I believe Con had the better argument and reasoning.
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:
A few things about PRO. First off, I appreciate that he honed in on a single contention, whereas CON spent most of each round oscillating between several and it was a bit difficult to keep track at times. Bringing only one item to the table is a pretty dicey tactic, however, and even though it allows you to concentrate on a consistent line of attack, if it isn't well kept or fortified enough then it's going to falter. PRO's fatal blunder and ultimately what cost him the victory here is the fact that he put all his eggs in the light-speed basket so that his entire case either stands or falls with it. In the end, it fell, I just didn't find his rebuttals very convincing, plus the whole idea was moot to begin with as CON rightly pointed out.
For CON, as I said he had a myriad of different contentions he brought with him, and to be honest he made his BOP a lot more strenuous than it needed to be; the first round seemed a bit like shotgun argumentation to me, which admittedly got better as the debate moved forward but was still present. After reading everything I feel like CON spent the majority of the time housekeeping and doing maintenance for the initial points he raised. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but I think he could have condensed it more to lessen his own load and to save the reader some fatigue, in turn giving him more space to focus on fleshing his rebuttal of the decisive lightspeed topic, since that's what PRO hinged his entire case on by his own admission. That being said, for a quasi-jumbled case, it was remarkably organized and coherent. I felt lost at times but I was still able to follow along and comprehend what was being said. Just from skimming through the debate, I could already tell who won more points for sources. CON was obviously well-versed in this issue, coming in with two robust, highly-researched points that he clearly spent a lot of time setting up and preparing.
Since both sides are saddled with a BOP for this one, it's going to have to go to CON. His overall case was much more meticulous, grounded, and expansive than his opponent's, as I said if you're going to stick with only one argument it needs to stand against some ruthless scrutiny, which in this case PRO's didn't. CON's explanation and allusion to Adam and Eve being created as adults is enough to prove that God can (and has) created things in their more mature form without engaging in deception, thus destroying PRO's viewpoint (or at least his particular articulation of it.) I'm giving conduct to CON, as he actually made an attempt to reply to everything that was leveled against his position. It's hard to say the same for PRO, who barely interacted with CON's case and didn't provide a cogent defense of it. It almost seemed more halfhearted.
All in all, very interesting debate! Great job to both sides.
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:
This is a case where I really want to make arguments worth 2 points instead of 3, to give con due credit for the quality case he offered.
That said, pro drilled down on a single point, and framed the defenses to require either nonsense or God to be a deceiver who actively wants the observable evidence to indicate a much older universe (not merely stars created in their mature light emitting state, but that said light is sped up to reach us 2,642 times faster than it otherwise would). So either the universe is at least 2,642 times older than 10,000 years, or the creator of it wants us to think it is due to the setup, or the creator wants us to ignore observable evidence of his creation... Therefore, the intuitive conclusion is the one that doesn't logically and morally contradict itself; as much as creation by a deceiver is within the realm of possibility (merely less likely).
I am slightly torn on if con committed a Gish Gallop or not, as he never did anything to imply he wins the debate if each flood myth isn't proven... Yet the evidence as presented does look a lot like a Gish Gallop... So identifying it as that seems a fair way to try to move past it, but I don't believe con was commiting a conduct violation associated with true Gish Gallops.
Pro did very well on the general reply to the creationism/evolution arguments, with the age of the earth being unimportant to the age of the outside universe (as much as con did well on presenting the YEC arguments).
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:
Incredibly enough, pros singular argument is enough to uphold his entire argument. I buy all of cons arguments except his refutation of speed of light, and that the universe age is equal to age of the earth. I buy that pro’s support of evolution is slim to none. I buy that there is a plausibility that God exists where pro failed to disprove. I buy that there is quite a possibility of a flood that pro failed to poke enough holes in. But all of these are useless if you can’t point out a legitimate reason besides time dilation gibberish. It is not too only argued that we see the light from 13 billion years ago, but also that the measurement itself proved that our separation of 13 billion years mean that the light travel itself must have been at least this long. In addition, con provides no reasons why God would fool humans into believing a wrong age of the universe. For these reasons, I toss the vote to pro. Perhaps a debate about Earth’s age would be more interesting...
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5735-response-to-pga-2-0
Okay, thanks!
Yes, there is quite a bit there, so I will make a post and link it here so you can find it easily. Seems more appropriate than discussing it here.
Sum, I thought it was an interesting and well-fought debate since the subject does interest me. I am still interested in your views; now the debate is over. How do you justify not use an exclusively natural as opposed to a supernatural view (thus, the presuppositions nature of your argument) in interpreting the evidence? What was faulty thinking on either Wesley's or my part regarding the speed of light argument, and I am interested in your view on how the expansion (fast or slow) of the Universe could adversely affect its age. I am also interested in how you would answer the Thomas Aquinas issue?
Nah it wasn't meant to be a shot man. Oro had just commented "proof that you don't have to be right to win a debate." On a "trump will win the 2020 election" debate.
Thank you for the debate! I was told this platform was majority secular, so I half expected to lose this one from the beginning just by virtue of taking an unpopular opinion. I am surprised I won probably as much as you, but personally I feel your comment below is bad form. Whether or not I am right (clearly I think that I am) is partially irrelevant to the win, but it says something about you and your character to feel the need to make this remark after the fact that you may not have intended it to. No offense taken however and I believe the sentiment had no ill-will. Again, you were an exceptional opponent and I am honored to have participated in this debate with you.
I think this is the best example that you don't have to be right to win a debate lol
SUM: "I made it very clear that I am not advocating a worldview. I even allowed deism because that's all my opponent's arguments indicate. But even under deism there was [no] real refutation of my core argument. It feels disingenuous to continuously label my position as naturalism rather than simply contingent on observable data."
***
Sure, I understand. You may not advocate one, but you hold one. You view the world in a particular way. That way examines the world through a mixture of science and scientism, in the case of origins. Models (theories) are built and tested as to their plausibility, and the ones that most fit or are most plausible are generally accepted. You expressed what you think is the reasonableness of such a model in discussing the universe's age. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out when too many anomalies are found, the paradigm shifts to a new model that better explains the occurrence.
BUT, during the debate, you exclusively used a naturalistic explanation. Wesley pointed out some of the hidden assumptions of that framework. The key (to my mind) was the presuppositional nature of the argument since no human being was there to witness the birth of the Universe. Thus, an interpretation of the evidence is needed. The Universe does not come stamped 13.8 billion years old. The scientific interpretation is solely naturalistic. This adds a problem to its explainability, as the Thomas Aquinas R3 argument laid out. From what we witness, every motion is preceded by another motion within a closed system. But what caused the BB, if that is the explanation? Then there is the problem of why? That cannot be answered from within a naturalist's worldview, IMO. What is the intent or agency behind the Universe? According to naturalists, there is none. Things happen for no REASON. Naturalists keep finding reasons in the Universe for the way things are, but cannot find meaning for the Universe itself, just any number of speculations. If there is no mind behind the Universe, why would we find meaning for it? It is a mindless, meaningless entity with no agency behind it. Things happen. Chance happenstance. What does chance have the ability to do? I like giving the analogy of rolling dice. The dice do not roll themselves. There is an agency behind them. You, a mindful being are that agency. A personal being designed them. Expecting six repeatedly (the uniformity of Nature, or the laws of Nature) are thinkable in theory but undemonstrable in practice. Try rolling a six indefinitely (the sustainability of the Universe or natural laws that we DISCOVER, not invent). It is only a matter of time (probably the first roll) before another number comes up besides six. So what you can theorize in your mind cannot be demonstrated in practice without agency, without intent, without first fixing the dice to make the constant six appear every roll.
The same with an infinity. That cannot be demonstrated in practice or from within the confines of time (timeless). You could never count to infinity. So, logically, there is an explanation in theory, but not practically once God is eliminated; it cannot be lived or demonstrated. The Thomas Aquinas part of the argument sealed it for me. It laid bare the presuppositional nature of your natural argument. I would have liked you to have addressed those three points. Not only that, there are alternative explanations to the current natural beliefs that raise questions as to the plausibility of other aspects of your argument, such as the speed of light and expansion of the Universe. The balloon analogy is the example I used. How fast you blow the balloon determines how quickly the distance between the two dots separate. Can we be sure the Universe has always expanded at the rate it is now? We live in the present, looking back on the past. Taking these and many more factors, I believe God is the better or most plausible explanation.
When you say, "It feels disingenuous to continuously label my position as naturalism rather than simply contingent on observable data." Well, what are you OBSERVING? Are you observing the natural world, the natural universe? Second, are you bringing the supernatural into the argument in any way or excluding it?
I made it very clear that I am not advocating a worldview. I even allowed deism because that's all my opponent's arguments indicate. But even under deism there was on real refutation of my core argument. It feels disingenuous to continuously label my position as naturalism rather than simply contingent on observable data.
What is more, I do not believe there is such a thing as complete objective neutrality by subjective human beings on such a philosophical position as the one you are debating - the age of the Universe. We come with a bias. A naturalist, atheist, or secularist is not objective in the way they look at the evidence on such a subject, neither is Christian, theist, or pantheist. We all bring baggage to any discussion. We all build on our core presuppositions, the ones everything else rests upon, and both sides of the debate tend to look for things that confirm these most basic presuppositions. I have noted that with all of the voters to date. They, and I, have biases. There are great thinkers on both sides of the aisle. The question is, which is more REASONABLE and logical?
The fascinating thing is how ideas and worldviews influence the way we think. Ideas build, each concept upon another concept, precept upon precept, from the core on up. We usually build on where we start, but sometimes we cheat and borrow from opposing worldviews on some issues. Are our worldviews regarding specific positions justifiable? The accepted paradigm is usually the way that the majority look at the information available. Ideas have consequences. The Age of Reason shifted the paradigm for the majority in the West with humanity becoming the measure of all things, away from God. Thus, for most Westerners, the information is funnelled through the acceptable paradigm. Revolutionary thinkers challenge the accepted paradigm and norm. In my opinion, truth should be the aim for all of us, but that is very difficult to discern. This is one of those areas, IMO. More often a debate is about winning which can detract from the truth.
YOU: "While I do not think your vote is grounded in good reasons, I do not consider it unfair because you were persuaded by my opponent arguments. Caleber's vote awarded both conduct and sources which I think is unfair."
I think it makes for an interesting discussion because I think the opposite of your view. That is, my vote is grounded in good reason, especially when it is grounded in a knowable necessary being, not a contingent being. Not only this, what does a naturalist ground their core beliefs upon, a blind, indifferent random chance happenstance Universe. How naturalists get to reasoning beings leaves a lot in the imagination. Thus, the nature of our presuppositions is very different.
While I do not think your vote is grounded in good reasons, I do not consider it unfair because you were persuaded by my opponent arguments. Caleber's vote awarded both conduct and sources which I think is unfair.
I'll try to get a vote in here, I'm kind of curious how this debate went now.
YOU: "While there's a lot wrong with what you said, I suppose I shouldn't argue with you in the comments about it. Thank you for voting."
I'm okay with it because these are weighty issues that need to be understood, plus the debate is over, not in progress. But because the vote is still ongoing you might want to wait, depending on how strongly you feel about the issue? If you have concerns my feeling is that they should be expressed at some point. I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with a vote or an issue. I don't know how Wesley thinks about it, but I would definitely question something I felt was unfair or not true. That is the way I am. If you feel this is awkward discussing here then a personal correspondence is okay with me also. The point of expressing yourself here is that others get to hear both sides of the issue on the relevant point, as it relates to the debate. Is that unkosher? Of course, a thread could be used to further the discussion. I am swamped with one I initiated, however. I am just taking a break from it.
While there's a lot wrong with what you said, I suppose I shouldn't argue with you in the comments about it. Thank you for voting.
Thanks for your vote and your very detailed response! I would argue, further more, that a young-Earth disproves naturalism from the get-go by virtue of disproving naturalist processes. Without naturalist processes there's no hope of expecting the accepted naturalist processes of the creation of the universe. There are many arguments I didn't get to (that I may in a future debate) and I'd send you links to some articles online if you're interested. Thanks again!
Thank you for reading and voting. Conduct generally is in regards to behavior in way of etiquette rather than performance. It seems your criticism best fits "arguments". Then again, I am relatively new to this site so I may need a second opinion. However, it seems Sum1hugme agrees. I appreciate your criticism and I will put it to good use in upcoming debates!
Sum: Thank you for voting. But the speed of light is not assumed, I referenced an experiment that demonstrated it, and it is consistently measured at that speed in every single experiment ever. My opponent agreed to the speed of light being constant, which necessarily means the distance is the light-year distance.
***
He agreed it was, but it is measured from two directions. He made that point, I believe. We 1) see the stars out there and 2) measure the speed of light to and back from the stars for accuracy. You can't measure it accurately from one direction is the point here.
Two things:
1.
"Since lengths and time-durations are not absolute but are relative to velocity, Einstein’s physics is often referred to as “relativity.”
2.
"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.
For example, if light travels from A to B and then back to A, it will always take the same amount of time to make the trip (because its speed is always the same), and that time is objectively measurable. However, the time it takes to go just from A to B or from B to A is not objectively measurable. So the speed of light in one direction must be stipulated."
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/distant-starlight-thesis/
This site also takes into account your P4 argument.
On top of that, it is assumed that the speed of light we witness now from an expanding Universe (matter in motion) is the same it was at the beginning of the Universe, or at least calculable (always the same constant - no miracles allowed, which creation week was said to be), AND that the current supposed rate accurately calculates the rate of/from expansion at the BB. Thus, the distance between a star and planet Earth could have increased far more than we suppose it did if the expansion happened faster than we calculate it did. That would reflect in the Universe/balloon analogy by how fast we blow the balloon up. We are in the present, looking back at the past. Thus, the relative present/recorded history (the only thing you have as your witness) is the key to the past for your worldview. With the rest, you bring your presuppositionalism to the table, your naturalistic worldview. As observed via the natural realm exclusively, science becomes the god in determining everything if humanity excludes God.
Actually scratch that, looks like I no longer have to option to delete and recast. Guess it doesn't really matter at this point since CON's victory was pretty much cemented by the most recent vote.
I'll recast my vote without the conduct deduction. I still don't think you did a very good job with your refutations/responses, but I don't want my vote to be deleted forcefully for being improper. Maybe I just don't understand how "conduct" is interpreted on this site.
I found the debate entertaining and well-articulated by both sides. The spelling and grammar were good and so was the conduct, in my opinion.
From Cons R1, I think arguing a "Gish gallop" by Pro is unreasonable. Con only included TWO MAIN POINTS or headlined arguments, the Flood, DNA/genetics, and then a rebuttal of Pros first round. He gave those headlined points evidence to back up his claims. In stating an argument, evidence, in the form of premises, needs to be delivered to support it in its validity and soundness, and I see nothing wrong with what Con did.
Pros point about Con reinterpreting the resolution was a good one ("the Universe is older than 10,000 years" to, "the Earth is older than 10,000 years", and the argument by Con did not follow in refuting an old universe except in the rebuttal from later rounds). A more suitable resolution to date would have been, "The Earth is not older than 10,000 years," as Pro points out. But the debate did not end there and Con was able to justify his position to an extent.
Cons point is that the questioning of the dating methods for the Earth brings doubt regarding the dating methods for the age of the Universe. With all the paradigm shifts in thinking will the currently thought of age of the Universe remain what it is now?
Pros point about "the time it takes light to reach us" is fallacious because the logic does not necessarily follow, and these R1 five premises (I thought) should have been developed further). If, as Con supposes, the Universe, like the Earth, was created in a mature form at the same time, or that the speed is measured only from one direction, or the rate of expansion of the Universe is the same as it was in the beginning that undermines the premise. Thus, there are variables that counter that argument (P1). Con argued from a biblical worldview in that we earthlings have the illusion of vast eons of time because of where we start as humanity as the measure.
So, it would then depend on which worldview one uses to interpret the age of the Universe and raises the question of which is right?
Pros argument is that bringing the biblical God into the equation now requires proof of such a God over all others. The "I say we should stick with what we can observe to be true" is not necessarily true either. (I may observe a mirage and believe it is true. Just stating something is observable does not necessarily make it real.) The Laws of Logic are not observable, but without these laws, nothing could be made sense of. No human being was there to witness/observe the universe coming into existence, or when. That is interpreted by a multitude of factors, on how the data or evidence is understood. With origins, both sides bring presuppositions to the table since neither were here. One such question is, without a necessary intentional agency, why we would even have a universe. Without such a necessary being, why is not answerable.
These are just some of the contentions I thought of in reading the debate. I have many more.
Thank you for voting. But the speed of light is not assumed, I referenced an experiment that demonstrated it, and it is consistently measured at that speed in every single experiment ever. My opponent agreed to the speed of light being constant, which necessarily means the distance is the light-year distance.
I addressed that in CR3, FR1, and FR2.
There was a considerable objection, the analogy of Adam and Eve is enough to rebut your primary argument, and no I don't remember you really interacting with CON's case at all. You quibbled a bit here and there, but nothing substantial was offered and as a result, I think the prize has to go to the contender.
I addressed essentially every point raised, and there was no considerable objection to the argument I had made. I did not violate the rules.
Thank you for voting, but I don't think the conduct point was deserved.
The way the debate was set up makes it so both sides have a BOP, and an obligation to at least try to rebuff whatever their opponent has to offer. It didn't have to be comprehensive or as extensive as what CON had composed, but I would have liked to see much, much more from PRO in that regard. You don't get to tell someone they need to prove something and then hole yourself up in your little one-point argument when they do, without addressing anything they raised. The rules were clear and I don't think PRO followed them, so I'm docking conduct.
I'm not going to talk about your argument point, but I'm not 100% convinced by your conduct. It could be that Pro is overwhelmed and is uncertain how to respond fruitfully to it.
For example, if he was up against Whiteflame about ... IDK, Belt and Road Initiative, with Whiteflame laying out an entire plan, and Sum1 only focused on the core with glancing remarks about the overarching argument, I still wouldn't take away conduct. Similarly here, he is definitely at least trying to tackle some of the ideas, even if he drops important parts of Con's arguments. Even if you dropped entire arguments, that would infer you're just a bad debater rather than having bad manners. It just seems confusing to me to take away conduct for that.
Grammar correction for my vote, near the end of the last paragraph: " who barely interacted with CON's case and didn't provide a cogent defense of his own"
Anyone else feel like voting?
Ah, I see. Yes, I regret laying it out like that. It's kind of stupid-looking also.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Basically you wrote your own arguments instead of giving analysis of this debate...
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
FLRW
Added: 11 hours ago
Reason:
Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years. Scientists have scoured the Earth searching for the oldest rocks to radiometrically date. In northwestern Canada, they discovered rocks about 4.03 billion years old.
You listed what felt like 50 different cultures. That is what I was pointing to, and concluded while similar in appearance, it was not a true Gish.
Ok! Thank you for clarifying! I will try to spend more time breaking down the implications of my arguments in future debates. Again, thanks for voting! :)
stop adding arguments to pro. Only Con mentioned all of your methods.
I didn't mean that the text itself was gibberish, but the way you presented it was muddy and unclear.
Thanks for your vote and constructive criticism! I suggest you follow the hyperlink cited in the "time dilation gibberish" section. It is an article written by Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D.) the founder of ASC. For Pro's argument to be true, distant light had to have traveled using the ESC. It further pokes holes in his argument, but my initial rebuttal was sufficient through the span of this debate. However, there's no right to call it gibberish as it is known science even among the secular community. But I understand your perspective on the matter! Again, thank you for voting!
I would like to clarify that I was not trying to call my opponent's character into question or recommend he be deducted conduct.
“I am slightly torn on if con committed a Gish Gallop or not, as he never did anything to imply he wins the debate if each flood myth isn't proven... Yet the evidence as presented does look a lot like a Gish Gallop... So identifying it as that seems a fair way to try to move past it, but I don't believe con was committing a conduct violation associated with true Gish Gallops.”
As I write in the debate, “the Noah story is written such as a historical account with no embellishments and a matter-of-factness that sets itself apart from the other classical myths.”
Simply put, I argued for the historicity of the Bible to further back the claim of the creation-week (that the Universe and everything in it had been created in six days). So, it hardly meets the qualifications of Gish Gallop. I thought I’d clarify since you did accuse me of it and I have the right to defend my own character. I appreciate your consideration and time. Thanks for voting!
I have reported your vote since the reasoning that you have stated is in no way correlated to the arguments given on either side and clearly shows bias.
thank you for voting
A small note:
Pro's case for the age of the Earth not determining the rest of the age of the universe, could be used in a young earth debate to dismiss that old light so long as the earth itself is the focus rather than the greater universe.
Absolute pleasure! Thanks for the invite!
Thank you for this debate.
Thank you for your vote
This ones tough since con did a ton of research and you only used one argument
Thank you! I have been pretty busy with college, two jobs and holidays, but I'm nearly there. I appreciate your patience and thank you for the reminder!
Dont forget man, there's only 12 hours left
It's good man sometimes I take the whole two weeks