There is No Biblical Support for Young Earth Creationism

Responses: >> "You have already lost by conceding Gensis 5 and by stating if it stands on its own then there is no biblical basis." Excuse me?? How about you actually READ my debate: "this set of verses CANNOT STAND ON ITS OWN without the addition of other genealogies in the Bible." >> "For this debate you have lost due to the overwhelming biblical evidence in ALL OF ITS GENEOLOGIES." This statement makes me laugh. There are many, MANY genealogies in the Bible, most of which are in outright conflict with one another, and most of which give NO AGES FOR THE PEOPLE. Let's examine just a few of the problems with the Biblical Genealogies and my opponent's "source": 1) There are no ages given for people/childbirth in the following Genealogies: a) Genesis 29 b) Genesis 30 c) Matthew 1 d) Luke 3 e) Exodus 6 f) Genesis 41 2) His Source relies on extra-biblical conjecture and personal beliefs. "I believe this new pharaoh is Ahmose I. He defeated the Hyskos rulers and took over the throne of Egypt. Merytamun, his daughter was wife of Amenhotep I and is possibly the one who saved Moses from the Nile. " "I believe the Pharaoh of the Exodus is Tuthmose III (r. c. 1490-1436)." 3) Much of the genealogies conflict other parts of the Bible. Genesis 6:3 states "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." Thus, nobody born after the flood should live past 120 years. Noah and his sons were born before the flood, so they are probably fine. Yet we see the following "lifespans" for Biblical Characters all born after the flood: Arphaxad, 438 Salah, 433 Eber, 464 Peleg, 239 Reu, 239 Serug, 229 Nahor, 148 Terah, 205 Abraham, 175 Ishmael, 137 Isaac, 180 Jacob, 147 Levi, 137 Kohath, 133 Amran, 137 An appeal to the lunar Hebrew year is inneffective - a lunar year is only 11 days shorter than a Terran year. Furthermore, Genesis states that "And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood." No other people are recorded entering the ark. Thus, everyone born after the flood is the product of an incestuous relationship. Compare Matthew and Luke's genealogies. There are 28 generations between Jesus and David in Matthew's and 43 in Luke's!!! Furthermore, there are no ages given for these people. One is left wondering at the huge discrepancy in generations, regardless of the (unclear) notion that one genealogy is of Mary and one of Joseph. 4) The source ignores 2 Peter 3:8 The verse reads "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Thus, we start at his sources first post-creation day (3999 BC) and add the 7000 years of creation, and get a creation date of 10999 BC - almost 1000 years OUTSIDE the YEC date range. Oops. ******************************************** An appeal to any Biblical genealogy containing characters in the chapters without birth ages, characters after the flood living longer than 120 years, or containing other intra-biblical contradictions is inadmissible, as it is flawed evidence. Furthermore, my opponent's source is Biblically incomplete, as it relies on the ages and reigns of Pharaohs combined with the writer's conjecture that these MAY be the proper persons matched to the proper times. My opponent's argument can be summed up as: "If you ignore Biblical inconsistencies and accept some conjecture on extrabiblical sources, here is a possibility." Sadly, extrabiblical conjecture and inconsistencies does not fulfill the resolution. AFFIRMED ******************************* On a side note: >> "I have to ask though, where did you think all of those "Christian looneys" came up with the estimated date? Conjecture and ignoring inconsistencies in the Bible?? As well as ignoring a mountain of scientific evidence to the contrary??? As well as ignoring the notion that a day to God is like 1000 years???