Evidences given for a young-earth

[tas8831]

Thanks for the heads up. I agree that debate tactics in which you flood a list of arguments are not reliable. However, there are debates where participants stick to a few (e.g., three) arguments each, each side developing rebuttals. It's unfortunate if this hasn't happened to your knowledge, but if you know any that debates (or discussions) not involving floods of arguments, I'd like to see them.

Does anyone know of any other creation-evolution debates/discussions?

Those would be nice, but live, public debates are more about spectacle than substance. I have read a few written debates over the years, but sadly I do not recall who the participants were. I do recall, however, that even in those debates, with "fixed" topics, one or both parties eventually went off topic. On another forum, many years ago, I agreed to a 1 on 1 debate with a creationist in a 'formal debate' section. We had agreed to a SINGLE debate topic, had agreed to support claims of fact with references, etc. My creationist opponent went off topic in his very first rebuttal, and it was a mess from there on. I refused to comment unless he stayed on topic; he declared I had lost the debate because I would not respond to his off-topic comments, and the 'moderators' would not step in..
Point is, good luck with that!

 

[Kilk1]

There are quite a few on this forum alone. But if you do find them you will see that flood advocates keep bringing up old failed arguments and refuse to deal with the evidence that shows their beliefs to be wrong.

In the world of science the flood story is not longer even a bad joke. Defenders of it are eventually forced to lie outright to try to support their claims.

I'll probably need to search my self. (Also for clarification, my reference to "flooding arguments" was not specifically about the global flood but about overwhelming an opponent with arguments.)

 

[Kilk1]

There's lots of them all over the internet, so it mostly comes down to what you're hoping to get out of them.

I'm wanting to get an in-depth discussion of (preferably) a few key arguments from both sides. It doesn't have to be an oral debate; it can be in whatever format. Do you know of any debates fitting this format? If this has never happened to your knowledge, what would you say is the closest thing?

 

[Kilk1]

Those would be nice, but live, public debates are more about spectacle than substance. I have read a few written debates over the years, but sadly I do not recall who the participants were. I do recall, however, that even in those debates, with "fixed" topics, one or both parties eventually went off topic. On another forum, many years ago, I agreed to a 1 on 1 debate with a creationist in a 'formal debate' section. We had agreed to a SINGLE debate topic, had agreed to support claims of fact with references, etc. My creationist opponent went off topic in his very first rebuttal, and it was a mess from there on. I refused to comment unless he stayed on topic; he declared I had lost the debate because I would not respond to his off-topic comments, and the 'moderators' would not step in..
Point is, good luck with that!

Do you know what sites/sources you may have seen them on or anything? Where might I access your debate, if you can recall?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you know what sites/sources you may have seen them on or anything? Where might I access your debate, if you can recall?

Why not ask questions here? Were you aware that the flood was refuted over 200 years ago by early Christian geologists looking for evidence for the flood?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll probably need to search my self. (Also for clarification, my reference to "flooding arguments" was not specifically about the global flood but about overwhelming an opponent with arguments.)

Here is an excellent series of videos that refute the Flood from various different perspectives:

How Aron Ra Disproves Noah's flood - YouTube

 

[Polymath257]

I'm wanting to get an in-depth discussion of (preferably) a few key arguments from both sides. It doesn't have to be an oral debate; it can be in whatever format. Do you know of any debates fitting this format? If this has never happened to your knowledge, what would you say is the closest thing?

My guess is that this debate happened primarily about 200 years ago when some of these observations, discoveries, and ideas were being meaningfully.

The debate did continue into the early 1900's, but was mostly resolved by around 1920 or so.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm wanting to get an in-depth discussion of (preferably) a few key arguments from both sides. It doesn't have to be an oral debate; it can be in whatever format. Do you know of any debates fitting this format? If this has never happened to your knowledge, what would you say is the closest thing?

No, I don't know of anything like that. As @Polymath257 noted, any sort of serious science-oriented debates about this stopped in the early 1900's.

 

[Kilk1]

Why not ask questions here? Were you aware that the flood was refuted over 200 years ago by early Christian geologists looking for evidence for the flood?

That's what I did on this thread. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any creationists here who are arguing their position and interacting. Also, non-structured threads can get overwhelming, so I'd prefer a more structured format, with set rules.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's what I did on this thread. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any creationists here who are arguing their position and interacting. Also, non-structured threads can get overwhelming, so I'd prefer a more structured format, with set rules.

There are no serious debates about this topic. To believe in the Flood one must believe in almost an endless series of magic and a lying God. If God cannot lie then there was no Flood.

 

[Jose Fly]

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any creationists here who are arguing their position and interacting

That's pretty much the case everywhere. The only places/forums I know of where creationists don't regularly employ their preferred tactic of "hit and run" are those that are managed by fundamentalist Christians, for fundamentalist Christians. In places that are run even somewhat fairly, most creationists follow the same pattern: make assertions, dodge questions and rebuttals, leave, wait a bit, then make the same assertions all over again.

And maybe that alone should tell you something about the state of this "debate".

 

[JasAnMa]

The majority of the people on here seem to be against the idea of a young Earth. We're all looking at the same evidence. I'm fairly sure that most of the people mocking the idea of a young Earth have no desire for the Bible to be accurate. That's perfectly fine with me, but just because a scientist comes up with a possible solution for a huge problem certain evidences provide, does not mean they're right. It's easy to say that creationists aren't scientists or haven't even the scientific capabilities of a high school student, meanwhile there are tons of anomalies out there and it's tiresome watching evolutionists continue to force their paradigm onto the days instead of going where the data leads. For the record both sides do this... If we could set the preconceived notions out of the way, we may actually get to the truth one day. If you won't allow for the possibility of less or more time... Your shaping the data and you're eliminating alternate avenues of thinking that may just lead to the truth.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The majority of the people on here seem to be against the idea of a young Earth. We're all looking at the same evidence. I'm fairly sure that most of the people mocking the idea of a young Earth have no desire for the Bible to be accurate. That's perfectly fine with me, but just because a scientist comes up with a possible solution for a huge problem certain evidences provide, does not mean they're right.

Correct. What indicates that they're right is the abundance of available evidence that supports their conclusions.

It's easy to say that creationists aren't scientists or haven't even the scientific capabilities of a high school student,

Easy because it's true.

Well, maybe not the part about "capabilities". But it is a fact that there is no such thing as a "creation scientist" or "creation science" in general.

meanwhile there are tons of anomalies out there and it's tiresome watching evolutionists continue to force their paradigm onto the days instead of going where the data leads.

Would you care to give an example of what you're talking about here?

For the record both sides do this... If we could set the preconceived notions out of the way, we may actually get to the truth one day. If you won't allow for the possibility of less or more time... Your shaping the data and you're eliminating alternate avenues of thinking that may just lead to the truth.

The possibility of a young earth was always included. Then it was eliminated because it didn't fit any of the available evidence.

Why don't you accept that?

 

[tayla]

I've recently read Answers in Genesis's "10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth."

In my opinion this is a terrible source of information. I'm sure you can find rebuttals to all their points; and which are based on actual science rather than torturing the facts to fit the intended answers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The majority of the people on here seem to be against the idea of a young Earth. We're all looking at the same evidence. I'm fairly sure that most of the people mocking the idea of a young Earth have no desire for the Bible to be accurate. That's perfectly fine with me, but just because a scientist comes up with a possible solution for a huge problem certain evidences provide, does not mean they're right. It's easy to say that creationists aren't scientists or haven't even the scientific capabilities of a high school student, meanwhile there are tons of anomalies out there and it's tiresome watching evolutionists continue to force their paradigm onto the days instead of going where the data leads. For the record both sides do this... If we could set the preconceived notions out of the way, we may actually get to the truth one day. If you won't allow for the possibility of less or more time... Your shaping the data and you're eliminating alternate avenues of thinking that may just lead to the truth.

It has nothing to do with "desires". Well except for the desire to know what happened. One has to deny all of the sciences, archaelogy, history, and even mythology to believe in the Flood of Noah. One actually has to go so far as to believe that God lies if one has any science education at all.

This is a serious question:

Do you believe that your God lies to us?

 

[tas8831]

I
#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
The third of the ten arguments is that soft tissue (with red blood cells) have been found in dinosaur fossils. How can dinosaurs living 65+ million years ago still have soft tissue?

Let us, for the sake of discussion, agree that red blood cells were found in a dinosaur fossil.

If this is because 'the flood' was real and that these fossils are only 4500 years old, then why don't ALL fossils have soft tissue and RBCs in them, or at least a majority of them?

 

[tas8831]

Let us, for the sake of discussion, agree that red blood cells were found in a dinosaur fossil.

If this is because 'the flood' was real and that these fossils are only 4500 years old, then why don't ALL fossils have soft tissue and RBCs in them, or at least a majority of them?

I thought that was a reasonable question...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought that was a reasonable question...

Of course it was. That was why flood believers won't answer it.

 

[gnostic]

And verse 1 creates the "heavens" before the "first day"
even starts.
And the Hebrew "heavens" was the sun, moon and stars.

No.

“Heavens” was viewed back then as the visible sky, which the Hebrews viewed the sky as “dome” or vaulted roof or ceiling, hence the firmament.

Genesis make no mentions of sun or stars in the first verse. You are simply making interpretation that are not there in the first verse, meaning, you reading too much into the word “heaven” or “heavens”.

 

[PruePhillip]

No.

“Heavens” was viewed back then as the visible sky, which the Hebrews viewed the sky as “dome” or vaulted roof or ceiling, hence the firmament.

Genesis make no mentions of sun or stars in the first verse. You are simply making interpretation that are not there in the first verse, meaning, you reading too much into the word “heaven” or “heavens”.

It's interesting how we fit things together.
We ALL try to fit things into a coherent picture.
The Virgin Mary account, taken from Isaiah speaks
of a "young woman" according to one line and not
a virgin. But there's various interpretations of virgin
and when Isaiah says "Therefore the Lord himself will
give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth
to a son..." I take that as meaning chaste woman -
otherwise there's no "sign" to the story.

Same with the heaven and heavens. Meaning
depends upon context. And some we simply don't
know, ie the "firmament"
But I am fine with God creating the heavens and
the earth before He began a work upon the earth.
Repetition is an annoying factor in the bible.