Instigator / Pro
14
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2803
Earth’s Age is More than 100,000 Years Old
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
Undefeatable
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1774
rating
98
debates
77.55%
won
Description
A slight harder counter argument to YEC.
We are obviously talking about our plant Earth.
Burden of proof is shared. No quantum physics arguments allowed. No trolling. No semantic arguments. No kritiks.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thanks Con.
The premise is: Earth is greater than 100,000 years old.
I noticed I accidentally included a typo in the premise, missing an "e" from Planet. This is not intended, of course. Earth age scientifically calls towards the planet's age, rather than any "plant". There is obviously no plant named "Earth".
As one of my previous esteemed opponents Jarret Ludolf states [source]:
This idea is known as Grice's Razor.“Senses are not to be multiplied beyond necessity” — Paul Grice [2]Grice is saying that you must look at the context; the ‘literal’ version of what is being said shouldn’t be taken in isolation. Let’s look at a quick example:David: Kate — Are you coming to the sprint [mistyping "Sprint"] planning meeting?Kate: Let me just grab a coffee…While Kate didn't literally say she would come to the sprint planning meeting, it is conveyed that she will by the context of the answer. Similarly, even though I mistyped "planet" to become "plant", it is also conveyed by the context. To quote MisterChris:"Respond to what I meant, not what I said"
Even legal standard supports this idea: "You should assume that the parties intended the words in their contract to have their usual and ordinary meaning unless you decide that the parties intended the words to have a special meaning". [Source]
Hence, with the capitalization of "Earth" as a formal statement of our planet's name, and with no plant having such name, in addition to all google searches leading up to our planet as a result, we can safely conclude that Grice's Razor combined with legal backing, that we are talking about planet Earth.
Now onto my argument.
Geological Evidence
European oak trees have been used to build a 12,000-year chronology. [7] The ice cores combined with the rock layers reveals 160,000 annual layers of accumulation, proving that Earth must be at least one million years old for the sediment and ice. [2] Indeed, "Below the visible layers of snowfall, by comparing chemical isotopes with other studies, scientists have drilled ice cores deep into glaciers and found ice that is 123,000 years old in Greenland and 740,000 years old in Antarctica." [8] Next, the changes in Earth's surface proves that the Hawaiian Islands' tallest volcano must've taken about 500,000 years to grow to its present height. [2] With the new crust forming, the rough estimate is at least 1500 million years, far greater than 10,000 years old. [2]
Not only so, "Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years). " [9] If the Earth itself says that it is over 10,000 years old, why should we doubt geology?
Radiometric Dating
Using the half life of various elements, the isotopes of potassium prove that "rise of humans about 2.5 million years ago, the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, the appearance of animals with hard shells starting about 540 million years ago, and other key transitions in life on Earth are usually dated in this way" [2]. A famous expert also cited 7 additional ideas to back up this claim [5]:
- There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
- All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time... The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
- Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
- Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
- A recent survey of the rubidium-strontium method found only about 30 cases, out of tens of thousands of published results, where a date determined using the proper procedures was subsequently found to be in error.
- Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
- The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.
Unless Con refutes the accuracy of radiometric dating, this stands powerfully.
Evolution
Evolution is a theory proven by countless scientists and experts. The most common evidence cited is the fossil record, and evidence plain to the eye. As one study notes, "A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin's finches. The ancestors of these finches appear to have immigrated from the South American mainland to the Galápagos. Today the different species of finches on the island have distinct habitats, diets, and behaviors, but the mechanisms involved in speciation continue to operate." [3] In addition to this, thousands of fossil organisms have proved that microbial life was already in existence 3.5 billion years ago.
The distribution of species prove that, if Earth was only 10,000 years old, we would see brand new species every single day, based on the pattern. Or for no apparent reason, the specie variation stopped and the laws of evolution suddenly decided to change for no apparent reason. This seems beyond absurd to the highest order to me.
In addition, even molecular biology supports evolution. As the same paper notes, "During the next two decades, myoglobin and hemoglobin sequences were determined for dozens of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, worms, and molluscs. All of these sequences were so obviously related that they could be compared with confidence with the three-dimensional structures of two selected standards—whale myoglobin and horse hemoglobin. Even more significantly, the differences between sequences from different organisms could be used to construct a family tree of hemoglobin and myoglobin variation among organisms. This tree agreed completely with observations derived from paleontology and anatomy about the common descent of the corresponding organisms." The molecular clock is so useful that it has been used to go beyond paleontological evidence, providing other animals' relatives and proving evolution beyond a reasonable doubt.
Evolution is so powerful that the Supreme Court ruled that creationism was not fit for teaching, already fulfilling my case even on a legal basis [2]. In addition, 97% of scientists support evolution [6]. In a criminal court case, if 97 out of 100 scientists say a man murdered another man, this is far beyond a reasonable doubt. Keep in mind that even Trial by Jury only requires majority vote with 12 members. It's impossible for con to win here.
Conclusion: The scientific and expert evidence, if presented even in criminal court case, would destroy any opposing lawyer, regardless if they use the Bible, emotional arguments, or otherwise. The rigorous evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth is over 10,000 years old. As I have only used expert sources and true evidence, the opponent cannot use the Bible, as it is written not by experts. The opponent cannot use unfounded claims, news sources, nor even semantic arguments. Because each of my papers use similar words -- strong evidence, strong support, Earth's Age, billions, so on and so forth. I eagerly await his argument.
Question For Con
- Is there any proof of God?
- If God exists, why would he fool us to make the world appear much older than they really are?
- If Creationism is true, how does Evolution actually work?
- If Noah's Ark occurred, why can't we find this Ark? The size must match at least one of our largest ships ever created.
- What would it take to change your mind (or if you are playing devil's advocate, overcome your argument)?
- How old is the universe?
- Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
- Why/How do you think that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?
- The Genesis flood: Where did all that water come from? Where did it go?
- How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements, and the consistent correlation with objects of known age?
- What scientifically factual information can you supply to support your contention that the universe is less than 10,000 years old?
Other sources in comments
Con
#2
Thank you, Undefeatable
SETUP
The rules
Here are the restrictions my opponent has put on me:
Burden of proof is shared.No quantum physics arguments allowed.No trolling.No semantic arguments.No kritiks.cannot use the Biblecannot use unfounded claims,
This enormous list of restrictions essentially makes it impossible for me to fulfil my BoP. I, therefore, declare that the BoP is ONLY on PRO. Voters, if you think of voting PRO because my BoP was not fulfilled, then instead give me the conduct point as I accepted this impossible challenge. Also, I think it is fair to say that if PRO breaks any of his own rules then he should automatically lose the conduct point -- any voter with integrity would accept that.
Earth’s Age is More than 100,000 Years Old
This can only mean that PRO wants to show us why there is ABSOLUTELY no way the earth can be less than 100.000 years old. If he cannot defeat any and all doubt to the resolution he will loose.
EXPOSING PRO
PRO has already broken his own rules multiple times.
No Kritik
Kritik: "philosophically-based argument which questions fundamental assumptions underlying the arguments, positions, or presentation of one side in the debate." [1]
PRO Kritiked my position:
- the opponent cannot use the Bible, as it is written not by experts.
- PRO has thus broken his own rule.
No semantics
Semantics: The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. [2]
PRO used semantics:
- we can safely conclude that Grice's Razor combined with legal backing, that we are talking about planet Earth.
- PRO has thus broken his own rule for the second time
Cannot use unfounded claims
Unfounded: lacking a sound basis [3]
PRO made a lot of claims lacking a sound basis:
- Unless Con refutes the accuracy of radiometric dating, this stands powerfully.
- CON does not need to show why radiometric dating is not accurate. He needs to show why it is irrelevant. This claim from PRO is not sound or founded.
- The distribution of species proves that, if Earth was only 10,000 years old, we would see brand new species every single day, based on the pattern.
- PRO ignores the basic fact that YEC is not including evolution in their theory. PRO made an unfounded claim.
- In addition, even molecular biology supports evolution.
- PRO ignores that YEC assumes each animal was created by the same God. Thus, molecular biology does NOT support evolution against YEC. Molecular biology only supports YEC and evolution as a single category. Molecular biology proves that either YEC is correct or evolution is correct. PRO has made an unfounded claim yet again.
- the opponent cannot use the Bible, as it is written not by experts
- PRO ignores that YEC is a religious view. The Bible is supposedly written by God himself. PRO asserts that God is not an expert - and unfounded claim.
- The size must match at least one of our largest ships ever created.
- It's impossible for con to win here.
- I am currently winning since PRO is breaking all of the rules that prevent me from presenting a good argument.
Conclusion
PRO has broken most of his own rules and stands to be judged for doing so. He should be punished by the voters giving CON the conduct point (and also the grammar one).
I will now make a noble attempt at rebutting PRO's arguments while honouring the restrictions set in place for the debate.
REBUTTALS
If the Earth itself says that it is over 10,000 years old, why should we doubt geology?
This is a non-sequitur. He claims "the earth says", but then attributes the facts to geology. I conclude that the earth doesn't "say" it is 10.000 years old, geology does. We can be sure that GEOLOGY measures the earth as being more than 10.000 years old.
The rigorous evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth is over 10,000 years old
The earth LOOKS more than 100.000 years old. That does not prove that it IS. If YEC is true then God created the universe, and God can easily make the universe look old.
- Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
PRO's own sources provide a fitting answer: "You should assume that the parties intended the words in their contract to have their usual and ordinary meaning unless you decide that the parties intended the words to have a special meaning". [Source] ..."Respond to what I meant, not what I said".
If PRO want to claim that the Bible, written by our glorious and almighty creator, would contain lies -- then he is mocking the religion of Christianity and our Lord and saviour.
Doing so would be "an intentionally offensive or provocative post" - classified as a troll [6]. And subsequently, PRO would be breaking another one of his rules: No trolls.
By questioning the authority of God PRO would also be breaking his other rule: No Kritik.
you are playing devil's advocate
When did God become the devil? I am defending God, not the Devil. PRO has, with this statement, been a troll and thus broken his own rule.
Question For Con
PRO has made a lot of questions I cannot answer because I cannot use the Bible.
However, I can answer this one: - Is there any proof of God?
You bet there is.
YEC IS CORRECT
P1: If the Bible is true then YEC is correct
P2: The Bible is true
P3: YEC is correct
P1: If the Bible is true then YEC is correct
I want to provide scriptural evidence but the rules say I cannot. However, the voters must agree that YEC must be assumed to be the position of the Bible.
P2: The Bible is true
To believe in God is not blind faith, it is a reasonable faith. The cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, and many other proofs for the existence of God have been discovered. One of the most notorious sceptic and atheist ever, Andrew Flew, converted to Christianity because of what he saw as scientific evidence for an intelligent creator[13]. God is the uncreated creator of this universe. His existence is not arbitrary but a necessary element in any worldview that includes the belief in a universe with a beginning. Since science and philosophy agree that the universe has a beginning it is reasonable to assume the existence of God. There are also many other philosophical arguments for God that make it reasonable to have faith in his existence [stanford].
The records of Jesus exist in the new testament. They are reliable because they were written by authors who were his friends or spoke with eyewitnesses. Many other historical documents have confirmed the story, in addition to archaeology [6] [7]. C.S Lewis explained how Jesus could not be just a moral teacher, he would either be Lord, an evil liar or crazy [14]. In other words, if the New Testament is historically accurate then it is reasonable to believe that Jesus is Lord. Thus, one can be a Christian (follower of Christ) by simply applying reason to historical facts. To claim that the divinity of Jesus should be accepted blindly would be to reduce it from fact to fiction, from glorious truth to meaningless speculation. Since PRO has no intention of calling Christianity meaningless speculation he must accept it as reasonable faith. Anything else would be Kritik.
Miracles are events not predicted by the laws of physics, they have a supernatural cause. They cannot be proven or disproven scientifically, but they can be confirmed through historical evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Let us not forget that the disciples themselves were indeed always very sceptical. But the evidence for miracles, if you believe in God, is overwhelming. Christians claim to experience miracles all over the world to this day. And the evidence for the resurrection is so overwhelming that Lewis Wallace (1827-1905), when he tried to disprove it, instead changed his mind [15]:
In fact when it comes to proving or disproving the resurrection a lawyer is better suited for the task than a philosopher or even a theologian.Wallace studied the evidence and concluded — contrary to his predisposition — that Jesus Christ did indeed rise from the dead and was seen by His disciples
ARE THERE ALTERNATIVES?
PRO asks me why God would create a universe that LOOKS old.
The first law of thermodynamics asserts that energy must be conserved [britannica.com]. This means that energy cannot be created or destroyed - only switch from one form to another. So without a first cause, the universe is infinite in time in both directions - and both before the Big Bang and after the heath death is the universe filled with nothing but endless entropy. But God is the first cause, he is omnipotent, and he can create energy from nothing. He is the necessary creator of the universe as the cosmological argument proves. Science cannot provide a first cause, because science does not allow an immaterial force to create energy. The Big Bang Theory does not provide a sufficient explanation that is not God. The Big Bang was not random but highly fine-tuned to the power of 10^10^50-100 => for EVERY cosmological constant [source]. Thus, the Big Bang would still require God to happen.
THUS ==> Science is NOT the final authority with regards to WHEN the universe starts and stops -- GOD IS.
Now, the question still remains: why did God create the world 10.000 years ago rather than 14 billion years ago?
But is there any difference at all? In fact, no. There is no difference between a universe that was created 10.000 years ago and a universe created 14 billion years ago. Both universes have popped into existence with no cause but God. If PRO can think that the BIG BANG created the universe, then he asserts as a truth that a first cause exists. But in doing so, he also admits this fact: that it is arbitrary which moment the universe pops into existence. And since God created the universe, an act science cannot explain, then GOD knows when that happened. And God tells us that it happened 10.000 years ago. Since science cannot operate beyond that initial creation, only God knows the correct answer to when the earth was created.
SUMMARY
- Science asserts the need for a first cause
- God is that first cause
- An old universe and a young universe are the same if they both have a beginning - which they do.
- YEC is what God has revealed to humanity
- Science cannot detect this initial creation, but it MUST have happened.
CONCLUSION
Science is only valid between the start of the world and the end of the world.
The universe is NOT more than 100.000 years -- at least not beyond reasonable doubt
YEC is a very reasonable alternative to the popular BB theory - especially for Christians, Muslims and Jews which FAR outnumber naturalistic atheists.
QUESTIONS FOR PRO
- What happened before the Big Bang. Is the universe infinitely old?
- Why did Big Bang happen rather than a black hole being created?
- How did evolution start without life to begin with?
- How can a human have a mind if an atom cannot have a mind?
- Is there a soul or is life completely and utterly meaningless?
- If God did not create the universe, what first cause does PRO believe in?
Round 2
Pro
#3
Voters should note that my warning to Con not to use the bible was to attack his source's credibility, rather than set a strict rule. Of course, Con is free to do whatever he wishes, but if he uses a book translated a thousand times over and written centuries ago, then he severely reduces his own credibility.
Con assumes that questioning the bible is a "kritik". But he has not proven that the Bible as credible as my argument. Let me repeat, my strong phrasing is more assertive but near equal claim that the Bible should simply be dismissed in the face of thousands of studies and scientists. Therefore, there is no Kritik here.
Con assumes my clarification in round 1 was a semantic argument based on meaning of words, but a correction on "plant" to "planet" seems reasonable rather than redefining what Earth truly means.
Con thinks many of my claims are unfounded, but merely because there are alternate explanations does not mean they have zero reasoning whatsoever. Recall that he has not even attempted to attack the soundness of my evidence.
Geology
Con tries to bat away my figurative speech by interpreting it as if Earth is literally speaking. He has not negated this evidence. Extended, as Con dropped this.
Other dropped arguments
Radiometric DatingUsing the half life of various elements, the isotopes of potassium prove that "rise of humans about 2.5 million years ago, the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, the appearance of animals with hard shells starting about 540 million years ago, and other key transitions in life on Earth are usually dated in this way" [2]. A famous expert also cited 7 additional ideas to back up this claim [5]:
- There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
- All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time... The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
- Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
- Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
- A recent survey of the rubidium-strontium method found only about 30 cases, out of tens of thousands of published results, where a date determined using the proper procedures was subsequently found to be in error.
- Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
- The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.
EvolutionEvolution is a theory proven by countless scientists and experts. The most common evidence cited is the fossil record, and evidence plain to the eye. As one study notes, "A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin's finches. The ancestors of these finches appear to have immigrated from the South American mainland to the Galápagos. Today the different species of finches on the island have distinct habitats, diets, and behaviors, but the mechanisms involved in speciation continue to operate." [3] In addition to this, thousands of fossil organisms have proved that microbial life was already in existence 3.5 billion years ago.The distribution of species prove that, if Earth was only 10,000 years old, we would see brand new species every single day, based on the pattern. Or for no apparent reason, the specie variation stopped and the laws of evolution suddenly decided to change for no apparent reason. This seems beyond absurd to the highest order to me.In addition, even molecular biology supports evolution. As the same paper notes, "During the next two decades, myoglobin and hemoglobin sequences were determined for dozens of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, worms, and molluscs. All of these sequences were so obviously related that they could be compared with confidence with the three-dimensional structures of two selected standards—whale myoglobin and horse hemoglobin. Even more significantly, the differences between sequences from different organisms could be used to construct a family tree of hemoglobin and myoglobin variation among organisms. This tree agreed completely with observations derived from paleontology and anatomy about the common descent of the corresponding organisms." The molecular clock is so useful that it has been used to go beyond paleontological evidence, providing other animals' relatives and proving evolution beyond a reasonable doubt.Evolution is so powerful that the Supreme Court ruled that creationism was not fit for teaching, already fulfilling my case even on a legal basis [2]. In addition, 97% of scientists support evolution [6]. In a criminal court case, if 97 out of 100 scientists say a man murdered another man, this is far beyond a reasonable doubt.
Con's core argument
voters must agree that YEC must be assumed to be the position of the Bible.
Con assumes that merely because I dismiss the Bible is because it is opposing my view. But the age of earth is ambiguous with regards to Bible, with an unknown set of age. I did not want this to become a religious argument about existence of God, and that is why I encouraged Con not to use the Bible.
Con argues "Since science and philosophy agree that the universe has a beginning it is reasonable to assume the existence of God". But this seems absurd. Why would you assume the beginning is personal, timeless, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent? Adding upon so many elements for a "maximal being" adds upon an absurd burden of proof onto Con.
Next, Con assumes that historical accuracy means the same thing as scientific accuracy as well. The articles speak nothing on how said "miracles" may defeat said archeological records and other ideas. Otherwise, if something 6,000 years old looks 4 billion years old, then wouldn't Jesus's bones also radiometrically be dated near 3 billion years as well? None of the writers nor sources are scientific experts and thus their impact on my evidence is very little. He pulls his argument to talk of resurrection, but does not state how this impacts scientific experimentation at all.
Con says the universe is incredibly fine-tuned, but this does not mean there must have been a creator. It seems absurd that the "fine tuning" would allow for only one planet among light years to be habitable, despite the "goldilocks zone" being relatively large. In addition, the "fine tuning" of dangerous parasites and bugs that eat people's brains also make Con's argument fallacious. Fine tuning in its nature assumes that all numbers have an equal random chance of being selected, but what if the universe just happened to be that way? It would just be as likely as any other configuration.
- What happened before the Big Bang. Is the universe infinitely old?
We don't know. I say the universe is older than 13 billion.
- Why did Big Bang happen rather than a black hole being created?
"The event occurred everywhere in space, not actually a point. In particular, the energy was uniformly distributed everywhere. The net gravitational potential was therefore near zero, and there was no one point to which everything could collapse." [source]
- How did evolution start without life to begin with?
Scientists theorize it begun with RNA, which was chemicals that formed the reactions for the basis of life. [source]
- How can a human have a mind if an atom cannot have a mind?
- Is there a soul or is life completely and utterly meaningless?
Loaded question, even if you have no soul, I personally believe you can set your own purpose for life. Either way, I don't think this is relevant to the debate.
- If God did not create the universe, what first cause does PRO believe in?
The Big Bang, of course.
Con dropped these questions:
- If God exists, why would he fool us to make the world appear much older than they really are?
- If Creationism is true, how does Evolution actually work?
- Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
- Why/How do you think that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?
- The Genesis flood: Where did all that water come from? Where did it go?
- How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements, and the consistent correlation with objects of known age?
- What scientifically factual information can you supply to support your contention that the universe is less than 10,000 years old?
Con
#4
Thank you Defeatable
RECAP
Rules
PRO has broken his own rules, and the defence of his statements do not address the critique I raised towards them. PRO has dismissed his own rules to save himself.
Premise
PRO has contradicted himself multiple times. He calls this a science debate but the description states that it is a debate about YEC. PRO has asked me religious questions but he himself does not want to talk about religion or philosophy. I am very confused. Theological questions are not the topic of the debate, the topic is theology vs naturalism. Therefore we must still assume that the Bible supports YEC - that is the premise.
First cause
PRO has made his position clear: he believes that the Big Bang is the first cause that created the universe. I believe the first cause is God.
REBUTTALS
the Bible should simply be dismissed in the face of thousands of studies and scientists.
PRO ignores that if GOD wrote the Bible then its authority is far greater than that of science. PRO must debunk God or Christianity in order to win.
I personally believe you can set your own purpose for life
Your personal belief doesn't matter in this debate. Show me scientific evidence that "meaning" exists in your naturalistic world.
Recall that he has not even attempted to attack the soundness of my evidence.
I don't need to. Without a sound philosophical foundation, PRO cannot claim science is a valid way to understand the world.
Con is free to do whatever he wishes
Well, then I will present the fact that scientifically speaking, time doesn't evidently exist: "According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn’t correspond to physical reality." [nature.com]. --- "But while useful, there is no strong scientific evidence showing this physical view of time is actually true. After centuries of debate, theories and experiments, physicists still can’t agree on what time actually is or whether it even exists outside of the human mind." [4].
Scientists theorize it begun with RNA, which was chemicals that formed the reactions for the basis of life.
That doesn't answer my question. RNA is a complex organic molecule that only exists in living (or former living) beings. RNA doesn't simply pop out of nowhere. And the chemical "pounds" that supposedly contained RNA would not spontaneously create a cell to surround the RNA. And without a cell RNA is completely and utterly useless. Evolution needs a stable population and access to energy to start off, something which PRO has not established as true to the RNA world. PRO has failed to defend this plot hole in the naturalistic story.
The event occurred everywhere in space
If PRO critiques me for using the Bible as a source then he is a hypocrite. PRO's source here is zibadawa-timmy. A random internet user is not more reliable than the Bible.
the "goldilocks zone" being relatively large
PRO is confusing two terms. The "goldilocks zone" is the distance a planet must be positioned from its star in order for water to exist in all three states of matter [nasa.gov]. Because of the pure amount of planets in existence, this MUST happen regardless of how unlikely it is. But the fine-tuning of the universe is in another category. For example, if the gravitational constant changed by a factor of 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 there would be no stars or galaxies at all [2]. The same level of necessary fine-tuning applies to all important numbers during the Big Bang. In other words, our planet existing in the goldilocks zone is like winning a lottery while fine-tuning is like throwing a bunch of pencils on a wall and the pencils accidentally paint Mona Lisa on impact. The former is unlikely but the latter is impossible.
For not wanting to discuss religion, this argument seems suspiciously religious. PRO, Instead of attacking a specific theology please attack Christianity. If PRO wants to have a religious argument he can make another debate. This is a futile attempt at distracting the debate from theology vs naturalism to theology vs theology. YEC is the official position of the Bible, at least that is what we must assume in this debate since most Christians and believe so.
an absurd burden of proof onto Con.
I have fulfilled that BoP by showing why God exists and why Christianity is the correct religion. You are just critiquing theological though, not Christianity.
- If God exists, why would he fool us to make the world appear much older than they really are?- Why/How do you think that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?- If Creationism is true, how does Evolution actually work?- How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements, and the consistent correlation with objects of known age?
It is impossible to make a world that does not look old. I will prove this later in this post.
- Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
I already answered.
Con tries to bat away my figurative speech by interpreting it as if Earth is literally speaking
Blatant lie. I showed why SCIENCE, not EARTH, says that earth is 4.3 billion years old. Science cannot speak either, so I don't know how PRO can make this accusation.
The articles speak nothing on how said "miracles" may defeat said archeological records and other ideas.
They don't. They simply prove that God exists and talks with humans. And if that is true then God, being omniscient, has greater authority than science.
Otherwise, if something 6,000 years old looks 4 billion years old, then wouldn't Jesus's bones also radiometrically be dated near 3 billion years as well?
PRO completely misunderstands the YEC position. It is not about time going faster, it is about God creating the universe. And all universes must LOOK old.
He pulls his argument to talk of resurrection, but does not state how this impacts scientific experimentation at all.
This just proves that God wrote the Bible. And if God, who never lies, tells us that YEC is correct then it is.
Con argues "Since science and philosophy agree that the universe has a beginning it is reasonable to assume the existence of God". But this seems absurd.
Say that to these atheists who converted solely because of science and philosophy: [Josh Rasmussen, PhD]; [Andrew Flew; Britannica]; Also, consider this quote: "Philosophers of religion possess expert knowledge on the arguments for and against God’s existence. The arguments for God’s existence are just overall more convincing and render God’s existence more probable than not." [3]. Although there is a selection bias, this stands powerfully. Especially since atheists ofter try to debunk God.
CHRISTIANITY
He has not proven that the Bible as credible as my argument
Last round I simply proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the Bible is valid using historical evidence. PRO has not disputed the validity of the Bible using evidence, he simply calls for it to be rejected. His claim that the bible was translated thousands of times is a blatant lie, as are his other groundless assertions about it. The Bible is archaeologically sound and has been proved reliable countless times. In fact: "Aside from the internal evidence that Scripture is what it claims to be—the very words of God—is a growing body of external evidence that supports its reliability as a document." - PROs view of the Bible is a myth [1].
The question is whether or not God is a part of history or simply a hoax. As stated earlier, Jesus DEFINATELY rose from the dead -- with over 400 witnesses all of which supported the story of the resurrection. If PRO wants to use the legal standard of truth he must accept the resurrection as a historical event. Lawyers have studied the story and found it to be true, a point which PRO did not rebut.
The same standard applies to most of the other stories of the Bible. Most of the important stories and meetings with God in the Bible had hundreds and thousands of witnesses. Such stories cannot be fabricated, one does not simply indoctrinate an entire nation of adults. I might convince a naive person that miracles happen in Africa, but never that HE travelled through a desert with miracles happening left and right all the time. In conclusion, the Bible is a credible historical source and God interacts with humanity. This has not been challenged by PRO.
Why would you assume the beginning is personal, timeless, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?
We do not assume but conclude that God has these traits. Through philosophy, we can conclude that the first cause must be eternal, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. The traits of God as honest, righteous and loving is how God has revealed himself to humanity. Maybe God is simply fooling us, but there is no doubt that God has revealed himself to humanity. The evidence is in the Bible and continues to this day - just read the stories of Christians like Billy Graham. Miracles proved to the disciples that Jesus is Lord, and miracles proved to the Israelites that God is Lord. To summarize, God has been proved to be personal, timeless, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
SCIENCE HAS LIMITS
I agree that science shows us a world that LOOKS 13 billion years old. But that argument is irrelevant because science is not an authority with regards to when the universe came to be. PRO's attitude to science shows a fundamental weakness in his position. He is not urging for science, but Scientism. Scientism rejects the boundaries of science. It tries to use science to answer what science cannot answer by definition. PRO is using science incorrectly, as he tries to explain when the universe was created. This is completely absurd, as science cannot explain what happened before the laws of physics became active.
P1: Science requires the laws of physics to be constant
P2: The universe has a beginning so the laws were not always constant
C: science is not always valid
The Big Bang theory admits that "all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time" [phys.org]. However, the laws of thermodynamics state that energy cannot simply appear out of nowhere [britannica.com]. Science could be used to calculate an eternal row of cause and effect extending all the way to infinity. In other words, according to the laws of physics, the Big Bang is NOT the start of the universe like PRO claims. Subsequently, we can conclude that PRO's naturalistic worldview is internally contradictory. He claims that the universe started with the Big Bang but his source, science, contradicts itself on this issue.
CONCLUSION
ANY universe would look old - regardless of how it was created. If the universe has a beginning then science cannot explain when it began.
But guess who could explain when the universe came to be...
God (▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿)
The age of the earth is a theological question rather than a scientific one. So we can conclude that the earth is NOT obviously more than 100.000 years old. PRO must debunk my philosophical argument, not insist on using the field of science which causes a contradiction when answering this question. PRO has simply asserted as a fact that science is the ultimate authority, but he fails to back up his trust in science with philosophy. This renders his argument invalid.
merely because there are alternate explanations does not mean they have zero reasoning whatsoever
I accept that PRO's claims have a bit more than "zero reasoning whatsoever". However, that is not sufficient for winning this debate.
Round 3
Pro
#5
I will take a step back, and avoid making new arguments as it is the final round. And I believe I do not need any new arguments.
Firstly, do not give conduct point to Con, despite his claim that I broke the rules. He has not shown how precisely I am making assumptions out of thin air (making a Kritik). The Bible is merely one book compiled by religious believers. All the evidence for old earth would overcome its length by a hundredfold at least. The more evidence you have supporting your case, the more credible you are. In my case, I have thousands, if not millions, of experts proving the age of the earth.
My conclusion is that the scientific rigor and the studies are not to be dismissed merely because of a slight probability of God, or the Bible's historic accuracy. He hasn't spoke of its scientific evidence, nor of actual passage that proves of the Earth's age. He relies on fine-tuning, but it seems far more reasonable to me that a benevolent designer (as required from Bible's talk of holiness and greatness) would make the constraints far more flexible than exterminating mankind, if wrong by proportion of 10^10^123. In addition, the mere existence of current evolution is dropped by Con, and hence the difficulty for beings to adapt and survive further enhances the idea that the intelligent designer is dubious at best.
Con's argument is grandiose and seeming powerful, but it misses the bigger idea.
Why is geological records inaccurate?
Why do radiometric methods correctly measure the vast majority of known items within the realm of 6,000 years, but Con would dismiss it once we breach beyond the 100,000 year mark?
Why is evolution wrong?
The *impact* of my arguments holds far stronger weight overall, because it is the most logical and consistent way to explain the world. Both con and pro agree there can be some scientific standard in the world-- Con relies on the archeological experts to support the bible's historic claims about Jesus's resurrection and the generic events that occurred. But the big problem is he has to prove the age of earth is young despite the vast amount of evidence presented against it.
He has failed to provide explanation for why Jesus's existence lowers the age of the earth by millions of order of magnitude. Even though science isn't always valid, never has a theory been presented with such soundness and still refuted. Recall that all cases "beyond a reasonable doubt" with over 97% of scientists agreeing would be a near unanimous consent. And if voters look through Con's sources and ideas, they will find that the New Testament is yet still a revision over time and changing often. The difficulty to differentiate between symbolism and literal interpretation can be difficult in specific passages. Hence, the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt regarding this topic.
Remember that Con has shown zero evidence and *assumed* the Bible directly tells us literally how old the earth is. Voters should vote for me due to this alone. Thanks for the debate.
Con
#6
Thank you PRO, and thank you, readers.
FINAL CRITIQUE
I wanted to only summarize but PRO's final round forced me to rebut him a bit.
the New Testament is yet still a revision over time and changing often
What is this? It's a blatant lie. The meaning of the Bible has settled thousands of years ago. The language of new versions of the Bible is changing as language does worldwide, but the meaning stays constant. "People on the street often raise the objection that “the Bible has been translated so many times that there is no way to know what it originally said.” This, however, is exactly opposite the truth!" [carm.org]. Yes, regular people might not read the Bible exactly as it was written but the experts can read the ancient languages and knows EXACTLY what was written. PRO's argument is based upon a lie.
Remember that Con has shown zero evidence and *assumed* the Bible directly tells us literally how old the earth is. Voters should vote for me due to this alone.
PRO claims that theology is split on the issue of the age of the earth. PRO forgets that according to science time doesn't exist. Thus, if PRO wants to claim that he should win because theology is split, then he should lose even more because science is split on whether or not time even exists. I feel like PRO is simply playing dirty. He states in the rules that no quantum mechanics arguments are allowed but then goes on to use an OEC argument. But I don't think the voters are interested in this kind of debate where we just point towards internal disagreement in the sides we represent.
CONDUCT
PRO had to prove that the earth was 100.000 years old. In other words, he had to defend his naturalistic view of the universe. He has not done that, he has just proved why naturalists believe in his resolution. It would be like I showed that the Bible supported YEC and then stated "I have won". To me, and to most voters, this should seem ridiculous. Voters should punish PRO for not defending the validity of naturalism - especially when I proved the philosophy of naturalism to be internally contradictory. And that is without even taking into consideration his constant assertion without evidence or sound basis. He claimed that God did not write the Bible, but then never addresses the countless miracles that are undeniable historical events. Instead of defeating the arguments I presented, he showed a cherry-picked source in order to make it a theological argument about what the Bible says. He also tried to make it a naturalistic argument by only focusing on science and not addressing it when I proved philosophically why naturalism is wrong. PRO ignored all of my philosophical evidence and never defended his position from my many attacks - even when I explicitly asked him to. PRO ignored that it is a naturalism vs Christianity debate, and constantly tries to imply that only science is valid reasoning. Also, to call a YEC debate a "science debate" is completely ridiculous. In doing so he already showed complete disregard for both YEC and Christianity -- called Kritik, which was against the rules.
PRO has indeed lost the conduct point.
SOURCES
PRO's sources add nothing to his argument. He could have simply stated "science proves the earth is more than 100.000 years" and it would have been settled. In other words, PRO's argument is equally valid with or without his sources. PRO sometimes used a random internet user as a source, and sometimes he used a cherry-picked OEC website to "prove" that YEC is not supported by the Bible. PRO used a stupendous amount of sources that were not necessary, as his scientific argument was already accepted by everyone. But he never ever used a source to prove his supposedly "good" arguments, like "the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt regarding this topic.". Thus, his use of sources doesn't help PRO at all.
My sources really helped my argument. NO claim or argument I made has been rebutted by PRO. None of my sources (except the Bible) were even mentioned by PRO. My sources include scientific articles, religious and theological sources, philosophical evidence, and historical studies. I used his sources to undermine his argument. Thus, even though I cannot claim that billions and trillions of theological sources support YEC, my use of sources was correct, effective, and far better suited for this type of debate.
Recall the voting policy:
Sources (2 points):Goes to the side that (with a strong quality lead) better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
That science denies YEC is indeed common knowledge. There is also nothing that suggests I did not know everything that PRO's sources state. PRO's sources are irrelevant as the facts they present don't change or even impact our knowledge of his argument.
PRO has indeed lost the source's point.
ARGUMENTS, INTRODUCTION
I want to reiterate the voting policy:
in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Thus, if both me and my opponent fail then PRO loses.
Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
Thus, "science denies YEC" is ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT from PRO. Voters cannot simply give the argument points to PRO because they personally believe that science is more important than philosophy. Any votes that claim PRO won purely based on the scientific argument are breaking the rules on how to vote on this website. Recall that I already accepted "science denies YEC" in the first round. Voters must analyze whether or not PRO managed to connect "science denies YEC" to "YEC is false". I am confident that this type of voter, one with integrity, will overcome their own bias towards science and vote honestly. I am also confident that the only acceptable vote is to vote CON, seeing as PRO had no argument supporting naturalism, while I thoroughly proved Christianity. I will now show why my arguments were better.
ARGUMENTS
1. PRO assumed that if the earth LOOKS old then it is.
My objection:
Science claims that energy cannot start or stop existing, it just moves around. But science also claims that energy started to exist at the Big Bang. Thus, to assume "science is always the truth" is internally contradictory. This alone undermines the validity of PRO's argument. "Science claims the earth is" doesn't prove that the earth IS.
2. PRO claims that the Big Bang is the point at which the universe started to exist.
My objection:
To use science to determine the point in time when the universe was created is futile -- after all, science necessitates that the universe is eternal (Newton second law). I proved that the universe only makes sense if we acknowledge the existence of an immaterial first cause. PRO never rebuts this, so I successfully defeated his argument. The conclusion is that something immaterial made it so that the universe suddenly started existing. The point at which the universe started to exist cannot by definition be determined by science.
3. PRO asked why science is only valid up to 100.000 years ago
My objection:
The same problem applies to science and the Big Bang. To claim that the universe popped into existence 13 billion years ago is equally unscientific as to claim it did 10.000 years ago - PRO never rebutted this. In other words, PRO's position is just as unscientific as mine. Yes, the Big Bang is a theory that is called scientific but it breaks the laws of physics. Yet again, PRO never rebutted this.
Conclusion
The universe was created by an immaterial cause. The point at which it happened cannot be decided with science, and PRO's argument is equally unscientific as mine.
PRO never rebuts any of this. He merely throws groundless accusations at me like "the Bible should be rejected".
My BoP
My burden was fulfilled by God himself writing the Bible. God is both more knowledgeable and more honest than any scientist - if he exists. I proved that God exists using an overwhelming philosophical argument. I proved that God has made countless miracles happen and that he directly interacted with humans. PRO only asserted that "we should take the Bible with a grain of salt" - but he could not support even this simple claim. PRO never addressed that the Bible was written by God, neither does he reject my proof for Christianity and God. His own source proves that a document like the Bible is to be interpreted literally.
Thus, my BoP is fulfilled without reasonable doubt.
PRO's BoP
Although PRO showed that science gives a resounding "NO" to YEC he simply did not show why it matters. PRO failed to prove that science is valid in determining the far past and the beginning of the universe. Again, it would be like if I said "the bible says the earth is 10.000 years old" and then expected everyone to accept that as evidence without backing up the Bible as a source. Even if PRO personally believes that naturalism is more valid than the Bible he never provides a solid foundation for it, even when I raised objections that could potentially undermine his naturalistic worldview as a whole. In conclusion, PRO's single argument was neglected by PRO and I properly undermined it.
The arguments point can only go to CON. Giving it to PRO would be a show of personal bias since PRO literally never defends his worldview that is needed for his argument.
SUMMARY
PRO has not debated in a fair way, and I should be awarded the conduct point. PRO has not used propper sourcing for his controversial claims, but I have, so I should be awarded the sources points. PRO has only a single argument, science. But I forcefully undermined its "absolute" validity and proved that it is irrelevant in this debate. PRO never debunked any of my arguments but I did all of his. His assumptions are internally contradictory while I have used evidence and logic to prove why science has limits that PRO ignores, and that God evidently communicated with humanity. The only good argument from PRO is an attempt to start a theological debate, but that must be discarded as this is a YEC vs naturalism debate. Even still, time doesn't exist - so PRO's argument is wrong regardless of whether or not the Bible is true or which theology is right. I have also proved that ANY universe would look old, so PRO's argument that the world LOOKS old is not valid.
CONCLUSION
Only I have successfully defended my BoP, so only my BoP is standing.
I have proved why PRO's naturalistic worldview is false using only logic. We can conclude that either God created the universe 10.000 years ago or time doesn't exist.
Either way, VOTE CON!
( ಠ ͜ʖರೃ)
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
The argument in question:
Earth’s Age is More than 100,000 Years Old
IMPACTLESS ARGS:
Conduct Argument - dropped - Con uses continuous semantic language such is pointed out by Con, for example; interpreting Pro's claim - "The earth says its older than 100,000" as literal rather than figurative - you find these throughout Con's attempt to paint Con as unconduct worthy - I will revisit this argument in Conduct section to evaluate if this would lower the conduct of Con.
The Argument to the beginning of Life: Ultimately irrelevant to the debate - this does nothing to demonstrate the young-ness or the oldness of the earth to me the voter, perhaps it would work to support some of Con's later arguments, but it ultimately does not provide support for the claim
Time argument: Con argues that time is non-existent, yet the claim says that scientist don't know if time exists objectively in certain realms, this does not actually discredit the idea of science, as Con is using science - why would Con using science to disprove science make me less sure of science- as Pro points out in the final round regarding impact, in this debate, Time is assumed to be true, as the question of age would intrinsically mean that - and Con only ever brings up the argument to question science... perhaps if Con had used it as a kritik, then there would be a different argument, as of now, it does not support Con's argument.
IMPACTFUL:
The argument of god: Con completely ignores the fact that he makes several non-sequiturs, as Pro points out multiple times, I simply am not convinced of a god's existence because Con said that the universe had a beginning - if Con can't convince me that god exists, then I don't buy any of his arguments - even if I buy that Science has limits, why should those limits be in regard to the earth? Please Con you need to link your arguments
The argument of Science vs Theology:
As Pro points out, Con completely contradicts himself by making arguments using science, while trying to debunk science, so if I buy this argument, EITHER I don't buy that the bible is accurate (because all of Con's proof is scientific in nature), and therefore the YEC isn't accurate, OR that Science is indeed a good explanation, and that Pro's arguments hold solid.
Radiometric Dating:
Con fails to directly attack any of Pro's actual arguments, leaving them standing strong by the end of the debate, this gives the win to Pro ultimately
Critique:
Pro - you were way to weak on the last round - yes it is true that your opponent had no linkage, and you did well to point that out - but you left way to many arguments in the water, someone else could have come back in the last round and won this debate - or even Con given another debate - Con you need to link your arguments and make sure that they aren't so flawed, the trolling arguments you used in round 1 makes me want to penalize you on conduct - I wouldn't suggest it.
Conduct:
Almost an entire half of the first round of Con's use semantic arguments to try to rule Pro as breaking his own rules, all dismantled by Pro - as Con barely dedicates a paragraph to it in the last round, I find it likely that Con knew these things were semantic - I'm penalizing Con because of this red herring in regards to the conduct throughout the first round.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
RFD in comments
Perhaps if more of it actually factored into your argument, but you spent so much time away from the actual point of hand - trying really hard to have a "gotcha" with Pro's rules. Perhaps if you focused on a more in-depth kritik? Then that kind of stuff would be excusable.
I still have some hard learning work to do.
Well, then I see. You're right.
"In sum, the voter must demonstrate that what PRO did warranted "a penalty for excessive abuse, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate...""
Take: "distracted from the topical debate" as my essential point here
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Bugsy460 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0:4, 4 points to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
There are two problems with this vote that should be resolved.
First, the voter needs to go into depth on why the conduct point was assigned.
All we get is an affirmation of what CON has stated in debate, but we must get more for the conduct point to be warranted:
"To award any category, a voter must explicitly perform the following three steps:
1. Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
2. Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
3. Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."
In sum, the voter must demonstrate that what PRO did warranted "a penalty for excessive abuse, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate..."
Next, we need more analysis on the contentions throughout the debate.
"To award any category, a voter must explicitly perform the following three steps:
1. Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
2. Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
3. Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."
While the voter sums up a singular argument from CON, he needs to go through in more detail to show why PRO's arguments and refutations of CON's argument ultimately don't hold up in his view.
I asked the other mods on the Discord for feedback, and I got one response essentially reflecting the same view:
"It seems insufficient to me. He doesn’t really cover Pro’s arguments in explaining why he awarded arguments, instead just accepting Con’s arguments without addressing all the counters given by Pro, relying on the statement that “philosophical and historical evidence” support its veracity, a statement which should require some engagement with arguments from both sides. The conduct point is also explained oddly, with the voter chiding Pro for trying to push BoP onto his opponent and engaging in pre-rebuttal."
Do you think that one reason is why you lost the conduct point - its the amount of effort you put into trying to show that your opponent broke his own rules in your first round - each argument being semantic almost entirely - I'm sorry but no - you were penalized for unsportmanlike behavior - especially considering you BROKE quite a few of the rules - the resolution was meant to be scientific, and you turned it into the precise thing the resolution was not supposed to be knowing that - I could have listed far more reasons for your conduct, but that is all I need.
This is all, assuming your right about the latter point btw, which you aren't. The two contentions were entirely separate - it is far more likely you are connecting them for the sake of saving face - which I find even more unsportmanlike
I strongly disagree. Tha statment "Earth cannot speak, geology does" is NOT semantics, but a real argument. It was meant to be coupled with my argument that science cannot determine the start of the universe. But hey, regardless of what semantics you think I used, the conduct point is not justified. If you think I lost, then you can rather give the sources point.
That is one of the most semantic things i have literally ever seen, "Science cannot speak"... stop - you know you're wrong here
Firstly, I never admit anything.
"
""Con tries to bat away my figurative speech by interpreting it as if Earth is literally speaking""
I showed why SCIENCE, not EARTH, says that earth is 4.3 billion years old. Science cannot speak either, so I don't know how PRO can make this accusation.
"
I am not really attempting to use semantics, I am trying to expose the fallacy of equating current scientific methods to "Earth says", while geology is the actual factor and speaker, not the Earth itself. The Earth is not saying that it is old, because YEC also would create an Earth as we see it today, just not through evolution.
Secondly, what does one expect when going into a debate where the rules are literally forbidding every type of argument I could make except the one I made?
I showed why PRO's rules were unreasonable, and that not even PRO could keep them. Not all of my arguments in this regard need to be true and to give PRO the conduct point simply because he made me object to such a humongous list of rules is not in the spirit of the conduct point. Please remove it, I have never even heard of such a conduct violation as "semantics" -- that is a part of the arguments point.
Semantically trying to argue that your opponent broke his own rules while essentially admitting that your arguments are semantic are the definition of unsportsmanlike
I'll admit my last round isn't as strong as it could've been. I lost a bit of motivation lol
Thank you for voting!
However, you must revote and remove the conduct vote.
Voting Policy:
"Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating. Invalid if: Both sides had similar types and/or magnitude of misbehavior, or it is too minor for a reasonable person to be significantly distracted from the topic. Further, a conduct penalty is not warranted for mere dislike of the topical contentions or weak argumentation.
"
I understand if my accusations of breaking own rules were annoying, but they are not a sound basis for such a vote.
I understand. You do what you see as right.
Not really the type of topic that at least one of you wants me voting on. I've got a pretty hard bias on this one.
The reason the Bible being unspecific isn't enough for me to vote in favor of pro is because the fact that most believers believe that means there's an implicit value. That coupled with the fact there's a huge doubt in what science says to the existence of time,I can vote for the Bible.
hahahhaha
Just imagine the nemesis lists of someone like Seldoria or Rationalmadman.
yes, if you win you get to be on Nemesis list. Though I will probably redo this topic.
Why are you calling your "nemesis's" to vote?
Also, if I win, do I get to be on your "nemesis" list?
There is a VERY clear way to figure out what the Bible says about the age of the Earth: the genealogies. So my argument holds. He also doesn't mention how I proved that the naturalistic worldview is self-contradictory anyways.
come one come all, vote if you can, only two days left
but I argued that Bible doesn't state Earth's age very explicitly, and that Con doesn't come up with any evidence, rather assuming that the bible just says the earth is younger than 100,000 years old...
Thank you for voting
RFD
So the first thing I look at in the debate is the question of all of the rules Pro sets up and if they are self violated and so forth. I actually really vibed with the arguments made by Con that Pro was using kritiks and semantics and that should be an immediate loss, but that was dropped for an argument created in the second round that Pro was being generally shitty in how he forced Con to be on a higher pedestal of BOP and that Pro prempts a bunch of Bible answers but then says no Bible. I buy that for conduct. For the argumentation, however, Con is winning on the framing in the sense that I have to look at the Bible validity question and ask if it's true or not. Based on philosophical and historical evidence, it is. Therefore, the Bible saying it's 10,000 years old is literal and supremely true. I also have enough of a doubt on the validity of science to make it easier, but that isn't really necessary for this debate.
Comments for Pro
Be careful trying to redefine yourself from your description. I know you made a typo and it happens, but that is a semantic argument, 100%. Also, make sure you don't drop really important framing arguments, for example, when Con says the BOP is all on you. If he hadn't of also dropped it, that means you have to prove everything, which makes the debate that much harder. Lastly, make sure your on the same level as your opponent. You do really good analysis of the line by line of science, but when the validity of science is questioned, you have to justify that with some empiricist philosophy, not just extend your "facts" as untouched.
Comments for Con
Don't drop really good meta-debate arguments. Your argument about Pro having the entire BOP was dropped by Pro, meaning a basic extension would be an automatic restructuring of my vote in your favor. Also, your argumentation that Pro used kritiks and semantics are automatic wins across the board if you prove them, really hit hard on those, especially the semantic one since the answer Pro used was "I used semantics for good, so it's ok". Next, Pro challenging the Bible's credibility isn't a kritik, especially since it wasn't a rule, just a preempt. A kritik would be more along the lines of "the Bible is an ultimate source, so true or not it's an unfair and non educational tool to debate with" or "the Bible justifies queerphobic violence and debaters who use it should be dropped for that reason". One of those is more a meta-debate kritik while the other is a political kritik, but that proves the point. Lastly, a really good religious argument to use as a really good shield to answers is the Leap of Faith by Kierkegaard, which just says that even if it seems like a bad idea, all will be answered if you accept it.
Really good debate and a really tough decision. If y'all have any questions, either use the comments or DM me.
I know, I just can't control myself with the wise cracks sometimes
also... " he is still learning the ropes of debating"
I've actually had more than 500 debates overall on different websites ... granted, opponents forfeited a lot of them, but I also experimented a lot. Despite my username, I have as much losses as wins overall XD
13 more non spam posts to make a vote. Just giving this a bump so maybe somebody else can vote prior to mine going up
Okay God was first cause and Jesus was resurrected . Great. You should have probably focused on YEC though.
""
You never argued that Matthew mark like and John considered God the divine author of the bible, and you had an opportunity in round 2 to provide evidence for that and refused.
""
Exactly -- the purpose of the debate was YEC vs Naturalism, not YEC vs OEC.
I properly debunked naturalism. Just because there is a slight chance of OEC doesn't remove the absolute undermination of naturalism that I did.
And that God is the necessary first cause, and that Jesus was resurrected.
Pro did not accept the bible. Just the gospels and just that the gospels supported the fact a person performed magic and actually existed and was worshipped.
He didn't prove the conservation of energy. He proved geologic evidence, radiological testing and evolution .
You never argued thatatthew mark like and John considered God the divine author of the bible, and you had opportunity in round 2 to provide evidence for that and refused.
You'll never improve as a debater if you ignore the advice of voters and continue to think you won a debate that you not only lost, but lost extremely convincingly. It wasn't a particularly hard debate to win either either considering he is still learning the ropes of debating
Well, I presented solid evidence for it in round two -- exactly when PRO argued that the Bible could support an OEC
Also, the fact that PRO accepted the Bible, just attacked theology, proves that I didn't need to connect Jesus and YEC.
Well, I presented solid evidence for it in round two -- exactly when PRO argued that the Bible could support an OEC
Also, the fact that PRO accepted the Bible, just attacked theology, proves that I didn't need to connect Jesus and YEC.
The new testament treats God as the divine author of the entire Bible. Again, disallowed. Furthermore, why do you not apply that same logic to PRO. Yes, he showed that the earth looks old but never proved that the conservation of energy proves that it IS old.
If I remember time not existing was not brought up until round 3 when it was too late for new arguments. Plus it was a bare assertion anyway and ai did accept some of your bare assertions in my analysis because they went unchallenged or because pro conceded.
Wrong we assumed YEC was the default position of the bible. Christianity can exist independently of the bible. All that is required for you to be a christian is John 3:16. That verse does not include believing in the entirety of the bible
That kind of appeal to division (like mentioning OEC) is not fair game. That's why PRO disallowed quantum mechanics arguments.
I also showed some sources that prove time doesn't exist - which PRO never rebutted. Those alone should win me the debate -- except if we assume that time exists for science and that God's existence and Jesus miracles prove YEC.
Again, we had as a basic assumption that YEC is the position of Christianity. And I proved Christianity and disproved naturalism.
You cannot give PRO the point of the argument simply because I could not post 2-3 verses from the Bible to complete my argument.
How would proving God is real or that Christianity is true, prove that the entirety of the bible is true? I think you could have proven it, particularly since in round 2 pro stated he was inviting you to use bible quotes and prior to that he accepted the gospels as a valid source of historical events.
Tell me specifically how you connected Jesus to young earth creationism? How would the gospels of Mark Mathew like and John prove that Genesis is correct? More important how did you show that matthew mark like and john's eyewitness accounts of Jesus prove any of the old testament beyond the fact a magician can perform "miracles" and factually existed?
""
The first law of thermodynamics asserts that energy must be conserved [britannica.com]. This means that energy cannot be created or destroyed - only switch from one form to another. So without a first cause, the universe is infinite in time in both directions - and both before the Big Bang and after the heath death is the universe filled with nothing but endless entropy. But God is the first cause, he is omnipotent, and he can create energy from nothing. He is the necessary creator of the universe as the cosmological argument proves. Science cannot provide a first cause, because science does not allow an immaterial force to create energy. The Big Bang Theory does not provide a sufficient explanation that is not God. The Big Bang was not random but highly fine-tuned to the power of 10^10^50-100 => for EVERY cosmological constant [source]. Thus, the Big Bang would still require God to happen.
THUS ==> Science is NOT the final authority with regards to WHEN the universe starts and stops -- GOD IS.
Now, the question still remains: why did God create the world 10.000 years ago rather than 14 billion years ago?
But is there any difference at all? In fact, no. There is no difference between a universe that was created 10.000 years ago and a universe created 14 billion years ago. Both universes have popped into existence with no cause but God. If PRO can think that the BIG BANG created the universe, then he asserts as a truth that a first cause exists. But in doing so, he also admits this fact: that it is arbitrary which moment the universe pops into existence. And since God created the universe, an act science cannot explain, then GOD knows when that happened. And God tells us that it happened 10.000 years ago. Since science cannot operate beyond that initial creation, only God knows the correct answer to when the earth was created.
""
This was in my first post -- it clearly proves that only God knows when the universe was created. The only objection at all PRO raised was a theological one, but that was not allowed. Since PRO never debunked this simple logical evidence ^ I clearly won.
Even in my first argument, I prove that God must have created the universe and that only a theological dispute (disallowed) could destroy YEC.
Thus, it's not correct that I did not connect Jesus and YEC.
""
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
""
This is what the voting policy states as necessary for giving the point of the argument. Yes, if we assumed naturalism then PRO would easily win. But I completely undermined Naturalism and proved Christiantiy. Therefore, my set of arguments far outweigh his.
PRO's argument:
-- the earth looks old
CON's argument:
-- any world would look old, science cannot decide the age of the earth
-- naturalism is internally contradictory
-- only God could create the universe, and the universe is created, so God created the universe
-- God himself says he created the universe 10.000 years ago
I have no clue how the single argument from PRO should win him the point of the arguments. Yes, I wasted some space and his structure was nicer (because of his unfair rules), but I completely undermined his argument and proved why Christianity is correct and Naturalism incorrect. You literally stated that I lost because I did not connect Jesus and YEC. But I couldn't -- the Bible was disallowed. It is common knowledge:
"For anyone wondering, yes the bible does say it is true anyway. The age of the Earth is derived easily using the geneology of Adam and Eve that takes us all the way to Jesus Christ. I am not taking that into consideration this debate, because nobody argued it, but it is a tidbit for anybody curious."
My argument that the Bible is the word of God was never rebutted. Thus, I won. I completely undermined the entire worldview that PRO's argument relies on, and proved why the worldview that supports YEC is correct. You cannot vote PRO simply because of my structure - there is no structure point. I actually showed multiple times why God, whom I proved to exist and talk to humans, would know when the universe was created but science would not.
Essentially, giving the argument point to PRO would be against the rules, my arguments CLEARLY outweigh his.
The only way that PRO made a better case than me was by having a more reliable source, science.
Thus, You cannot possibly give PRO the argument point, you must give him the sources point and me the argument point.
Again I am not qualified to give a vote yet, but there is my RFD and I will add the vote when I am qualified
RFD part 1
Description
I consider an RFD, not only an analysis of a debate, but also an opportunity to educate debaters. So, you’ll see mostly analysis below, but some education as well. Part 1 of this RFD is about the debate description, which is more an education than a portion of the debate analysis. The following quote in particular is what I am going to discuss.
“Burden of proof is shared. No quantum physics arguments allowed. No trolling. No semantic arguments. No kritiks”
The instigator of the debate does not determine who holds the burden of proof. It is entirely inappropriate and I would argue worthy of a conduct violation for even attempting to do it. Though I won’t award conduct points here. In this case, the instigator of the debate is correct, the burden is shared. However if the instigator was incorrect than he would either be taking on too much of the burden or too little.
Denying semantic arguments is bad because semantics is literally how we understand what is being said. In fact if a debate is done properly, both people should be arguing semantics prior to engaging in the debate, so that way they know if they even really disagree. Since that is usually not a practical thing to do, than we need to allow semantics within the arena of the debate it self.
Kritiks are something pointless to even ban. If a judge is tabula rasa as they should be, than it is impossible to prevent them anyway, putting the rule in place seems to be something that would merely confuse inexperienced judges into thinking they are not allowed to award wins to a kritik.
Attempting to disallow quantum physics arguments is also inappropriate for the same reasons as disallowing kritiks.
I am writing this while reading it, so please excuse the lack of structure, but my time is limited.
Round 1 pro
semantics
It’s good that pro makes a preemptive strike by discussing his spelling mistake in the description, but ultimately it isn’t that important and he wastes too much space on it. I suggest in the future, just dedicating one sentence to it and moving on. If con is a terrible enough debater to bring up an argument depending on that misspelling, than just smile, point to your semantics rule and then make the same argument you wasted space on in this round. I know I pointed out how bad it was mentioning a semantic rule before, but in this particular and very rare situation, as a judge I would apply it, because of my disdain for abusing spelling errors by debaters.
geology
Pro uses what he calls Geology arguments, pointing to the accumulation of snow over a period of over 100,000 years or rock accumulation of over 100,000 years and even the estimated age of a volcano according to estimates of how long it would take to grow to a specific height. In the future I would suggest picking one of those examples and using it. This is a gish gallop of sorts and it would be impossible for your opponent to tear down each piece of evidence one by one, because it is quicker to say something like “A study says fact A” than it is to carefully pull apart a study and discuss it’s methodological flaws. If your opponent calls you in this Gish gallop, I would just erase all of your points for the unfairness. As long as he picked one of your examples and tore it apart. This is my second reading of the debate though, and it doesn’t look like he will do so.
RFD part 2
radiological testing
I like the radiometric testing argument. It is focused on one method of testing to show the age of the Earth. However it still borders on a bare assertion, because it lacks a defense of why we should trust it. I think this is part of a problem with kids these days a blind trust in what is perceived as established “science” without a realization that science in general as a method rejects appeals to authority or appeals to conventional or so called established wisdom. Actually discuss the science behind radiological testing next time, to strengthen your case.
Evolution
This by far is pros best argument, he points out that evolution would require a new animal a day to be evolved into in order for the Earth to be less than 100,000 years old and for I don’t like the use of the supreme court. Their rulings have little to do with deciding whether creationism is real or not, and is more about whether parents can force schools to include creationism. Also the appeal to authority pointing out 97% of scientists agree with evolution is not even remotely convincing. Appeals to authority usually aren’t. Experts thought lead was okay to put in make-up, they thought smoking was healthy and they thought you can cure women of mental illness by giving them orgasms. The opinion of experts is considerably less important than the reasons behind those opinions.
Questions
I don’t understand why there are questions at the end of the round. They seem irrelevant. However I am going to assume it is some strategic thing to get con to waste words and character space on things that won’t advance the debate. If it is a strategic thing to place those questions, than I appreciate the gamesmanship by pro, if not than he wasted space for seemingly no reason.
Con round 1
burden of proof
This is annoying. Con is wasting time randomly declaring that pro has the burden of proof. If he laid out a good argument to defend that position, I would accept it, but he merely wastes time bitching the other rules that pro made (which I plan to ignore) are unfair so that means pro should accept burden of proof. I believe burden of proof is shared, but am mostly tabula rasa so can still change my mind if con makes an argument better than “The rules are unfair, so fuck it give pro BOP”. I don’t buy it. Some advice for the future con. Don’t waste so much time giving a shit about burden of proof. After the debate is said and done, BOP really only matters if impacts are precisely even. This only happens in debates where every round is forfeited by both sides. BOP is not very important.
He ends the BOP section by claiming that in order for pro to win the debate he must erase all doubt of the earth being less than 100,000 years old. This is a ridiculous standard and impossible for pro to do. Pro only needs to show the Earth is most likely over 100,000 years old to win the debate, unless con provides a good argument for that not to be the case. Spoiler alert, con doesn’t he just makes a bare assertion here.
RFD part 3
Pro breaks the rules
Con spends a lot of time explaining that pro broke his own rules. For example the semantics rule. Technically con is correct that pro broke the semantics rule. He is incorrect on the kritiks rule. However there is two issues with this. I don’t care about pro’s rules is the first. However the biggest problem is that he doesn’t argue how pro should be punished. This is where I could be convinced to dock pro a conduct point, but the argument is never made. Perhaps it will be in a later round.
Unfounded claims
con says that pro makes several unfounded claims, and yet makes many himself. Con’s hidden premise is that YEC should be disproven by pro, but this is incorrect. Con actually needs to make an argument for YEC.
I don’t even know what con is doing here. Con mentions Noah’s ark being small for example. It is irrelevant as to whether the Earth is over 100,000 years or not and ultimately a waste of time to explain the size of the Ark. Some of the unfounded claims he says pro made, don’t even matter in the context of determining how old the Earth is. For example pro said God was not an expert. Who cares? It is an unfounded claim, but I am not accepting God as an expert unless Con makes a good argument for why God is one, and proves God that God has stated the age of the Earth.
We are now about to enter the section titled rebuttals for con. However Con has not made any positive argumentation. He has not provided any evidence that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old. This means he is entirely leaning on the fact that the burden of proof is on pro. The two problems are that, the burden of proof is actually evenly split here. The other problem is that, if even a single piece of pro’s evidence stands unrefuted, no matter how small than pro wins.
Rebuttals
Con instead of disputing the geological evidence pro gives instead chooses to somehow randomly interpret his words in a literal way they clearly weren’t interpreted to be.
For example pro says
“the Earth itself says that it is over 10,000 years old”
Here is what con mysteriously gets out of it
“He claims "the earth says", but then attributes the facts to geology.”
This is not even a rebuttal, this is just random complaints that pro did not use the word geology as a substitute for the word earth in that sentence. This is made even more odd by the fact that Geology literally means “Study of the Earth”, so swapping out the words would do nothing to change the meaning.
RFD part 4
Con’s next rebuttal is to hand wave pro’s evidence away by basically saying that his evidence shows that the Earth merely appears to be over 100,000 years old. That’s what evidence does con, it shows us what appears to be the truth. Any evidence con provides also would not be absolute proof to a solipsist type of mindset, it would only look like evidence of what he is saying. I suggest in the future not using “The evidence just makes you look correct” as a rebuttal. It is probably the worst rebuttal I have ever seen.
I want to skip the parts of this debate that have nothing to do with proving or disproving the resolution, but some of con’s statements are just absurd. Con, do you really think the term devil’s advocate is supposed to be taken to literally mean you are advocating on behalf of the devil or are you just trolling? If you do have a tough time with these very very common phrases than please google them in the future, so you can know what 99.99% of the population already know. Which is that devil’s advocate just means you are making an argument you disagree with.
YEC argumentation
In this section con has finally got to the positive argumentation that he should have started the round with. Instead of using a typical syllogism, which has 2 premises and a conclusion he instead provides 3 premises. I am going to be generous here and assume P3 was really meant to say C1.
P1
Con points out that if the bible is true than YEC is correct. However he has apparently been handicapped this debate, so he says he can not use bible verses to prove his point. I am going to accept that the bible says this since pro cannot disprove it, as that would require bible verses to do. Something pro has disallowed.
For anyone wondering, yes the bible does say it is true anyway. The age of the Earth is derived easily using the geneology of Adam and Eve that takes us all the way to Jesus Christ. I am not taking that into consideration this debate, because nobody argued it, but it is a tidbit for anybody curious.
P2
I am going to do what I did with pro. I am going to accept all of con’s arguments as true until they are disproven. Con argues the following evidence proves the bible is true.
1. Anthony Flew was a famous atheist and then became a christian on his deathbed so it must be true
2. Philosophical arguments including cosmological argument and fine tuning
3. There are records that Jesus existed such as the eyewitness accounts in the new testament
I would like to see con spend the entire round on these 2 premises and then just wait on rebuttals if he had no room left. These premises can get him the debate win if he doesn’t waste space on irrelevant crap like the size of Noah’s Ark. Con will be a much better debater once he starts doing what I suggest and taking more control of the debate as opposed to being merely responsive to his opponent.
I’d also like to see him expand on why he thinks the above arguments prove the bible, seeing as how he has backed himself in a corner and need to prove the bible true this debate, as opposed to the much easier arguments of just proving the Earth is younger than what scientists believe.
RFD part 5
Pro round 2
Right off the back pro clarifies that he was okay with bible verses being used and invites con to use them. This is a dangerous invitation since rebuttals in a 3 round debate should be limited to round 2 and pro won’t have the opportunity for most of the types of rebuttals that would be available to him in round 3. The introduction pro offers here, I take issue with his lack of understanding what semantics mean. It is the redefining of words, but getting to a more precise definition. It is irrelevant to the debate though, seeing as how con did not argue how we should punish pro for using semantics. If con makes the argument in round 2, I will revisit this.
Con really gave no rebuttals, so this round we don’t really need any defense of his previous rounds arguments. I am looking for pro to offer rebuttals for con’s positive argumentation for P2.
Pro does a good job of this by addressing the philosophical arguments. He points out that the universe having a beginning does not necessitate that beginning being the tri-omni God. Pro points out that the goldilocks zone for fine tuning is large and so fine tuning would not be needed for our universe to evolve to what it is, and also hints at the problem of evil disproving a fine tuning without directly stating it, pointing out brain parasites etc. Pro spends more time addressing Con’s philosophical arguments than he has to. I would have just pointed out they were bare assertions and not spent too much time on them myself.
Pro seems to concede that Jesus was a historical figure who actually performed miracles. However he points out that Jesus performing miracles and existing has very little to do with how old the Earth is. I agree with pro here. Con really needed to show how the fact Jesus existed makes the entirety of the bible true if he wanted this premise to mean anything.
Pro refuses to address the fact that Anthony Flew claimed to believe in God when on his deathbed and barely coherent, and surrounded by family who would be put at ease believing he would go to heaven. Con’s Anthony Flew argument stands.
The rest of pro’s arguments is pointing out con ignored some irrelevant questions. I don’t care Again if this is another strategic attempt by pro to distract con than good on him, if not than it is a waste of time. Either way it is boring and irrelevant to voters, especially when the questions have nothing to do with the resolution.