Biblical Creationism is Incorrect

Summary and Voting Issues: 5P1: My opponent, the Neg/Con/Against, has effectively ignored 2P1A, which points out that Biblical Creationism is unfalsifiable unless only actions of God written in the Bible are accepted. My opponent neither accepted nor denied 2P1A and did not attack it, except to state that it is “preachy”. I fail to see how it is “preachy”, if it is, how my opponent refrains from being “preachy” themselves. If my opponent does not accept 2P1A, then my opponent believes in something as unfalsifiable (and thus also provable) as a non-material invisible elephant. There is no way for my opponent to win or lose the debate if they do not accept 2P1A. If my opponent does accept 2P1A, then the Aff/Pro/For can disprove Biblical Creationism, which I have done in my following points. This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For because (a) my opponent effectively ignored it and (b) it proves that Biblical Creationism is unfalsifiable if no constraints are placed on it, and quite falsifiable if constraints are placed on it. --- 5P2: My opponent, the Neg/Con/Against, has effectively ignored 2P1B, which points out that many aspects of our universe are far older than Biblical Creationism's maximum of 6,000 years. My opponent did not respond directly to any of these points, but instead claimed that there are limits to how old the universe could be, which I disproved. (See 5P7.) In 2P1B I brought up 5 examples, none of which rely solely on radiometric dating (which my opponent did attack), that prove that the universe must be older than 6,000 years and thus too old for Biblical Creationism to be true. (Or at least that Biblical Creationism’s ability to predict dates is 0.999999538% (minimum) incorrect.) This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, because it proves that the a literal view of the Bible is flawed and inconsistent with reality, which makes believing in a literally true Bible incorrect, and in turn makes believing in Biblical Creationism incorrect. Furthermore, it disproves Biblical Creationism’s claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old. --- 5P3: My opponent, the Neg/Con/Against, has effectively ignored 2P1C, which points out that the Global Flood predicted by Biblical Creationism has no evidence for it and would be physically impossible. My opponent’s only later mentions of the Global Flood was to the existence of clam fossils on Mount Everest, which I pointed out would be predicted in a non-Biblical-Creationist world due to the rise of the Indian subcontinent, and of the existence of flood mythology in many cultures, which I pointed out was neither evidence for a Global Flood nor remarkable due to the prevalence of floods. In 2P1C I pointed out that (a) that no physical evidence for the Global Flood exists and that plenty of evidence exists against it, (b) the amount of water required for the Global Flood would be more than 3 times the amount on earth, and (c) that it would be impossible for Noah’s Ark (and thus any life) to survive the Global Flood. This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, because it proves that the a literal view of the Bible is flawed and inconsistent with reality, which makes believing in a literally true Bible incorrect, and in turn makes believing in Biblical Creationism incorrect. Furthermore, it disproves Biblical Creationism’s claim that the Earth underwent a Global Flood. Furthermore, it disproves Biblical Creationism’s claim that an Ark carrying enough life to repopulate the Earth survived the Global Flood. --- 5P4: My opponent, the Neg/Con/Against, has effectively ignored 2P2, which points out that the Bible is both internally contradictory and factually incorrect. My opponent’s only response is to claim that 2P2 and 2P3 are contradictory, which they are not. 2P2 points out that the Bible is flawed, and 2P3 points out that, even if the Bible was not flawed, it should not be read in a literal sense, as I pointed out in my response to 3C2C. In 2P2 I pointed out that (a) we must both love and fear God, yet it is not possible to both love and fear God, (b) Jesus’s followers are now dead, contradictory to the Bible, and (c) God is both vengeful and loving simultaneously, somehow. This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, because it proves that the Bible is errant, which makes believing in a literally true Bible incorrect, and in turn makes believing in Biblical Creationism incorrect. --- 5P5: My opponent, the Neg/Con/Against, has effectively ignored 2P3, which points out that the Bible is not meant to be read literally. My opponent’s only response is to claim that 2P2 and 2P3 are contradictory, which they are not. 2P2 points out that the Bible is flawed, and 2P3 points out that, even if the Bible was not flawed, it should not be read in a literal sense, as I pointed out in my response to 3C2C. In 2P3 I pointed out that the Bible is written largely in parables, metaphors, and allegories, which would make taking it literally a flawed view of the Bible. This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, because it proves that the a literal view of the Bible is inconsistent with the Bible, which makes believing in a literally true Bible incorrect, and in turn makes believing in Biblical Creationism incorrect. --- 5P5: I have sufficiently refuted my opponent’s claim that Biblical Creationism should be the default scientific position. My opponent claims that the designed nature of the universe and apparent lack of alternate explanation should force one into defaulting to Biblical Creationism. In responses to 2C1A, 2C1B, and 2C1C I pointed out that “designed-ness” is not objective, which my opponent did not refute, that alternate explanations do exist, which my opponent did not refute, and that if my opponent’s arguments were true then the Creator would similarly need a Creator, which my opponent did not refute. Furthermore, I advanced argument 3P2 to point out that negative atheism i, in fact, the default (and actual) scientific position. This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, both because I have rebutted my opponent’s point while he has failed to rebut my rebuttal and because I have turned this point against the Neg/Con/Against. --- 5P6: I have sufficiently refuted my opponent’s claim that the revised age of the Earth is proof of ideologically-driven research. My opponent claims that the revised age of the Earth is proof that scientists expanded the age of the Earth to make time for evolution to occur. In response to 2C2A I pointed out that my opponent brings no evidence that this is true, that it would be much more likely for a scientist to be driven to find evidence for creationism, and that the increasing accuracy of science is a welcome contrast to Biblical Creationism. Furthermore, my opponent has not refuted 2P1B, which proves that an old age of the earth is justified. This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, both because I have rebutted my opponent’s point while he has failed to rebut my rebuttal and because I have turned this point against the Neg/Con/Against. --- 5P7: I have sufficiently refuted my opponent’s claim that the there are maximum limits on the Earth’s age of under 20,000 years. My opponent has four claims: that spiral galaxies have limited lifespans, that magnetic field decay exists and that magnetic fields could kill life, that the earth’s spin is slowing down and that a slower spin could kill life, and that the moon would have been touching the Earth 1.2 billion years ago. In responses to 2C2C, 2C2D, 2C2E, 2C2F, and 2C2H I provide scientific sources to prove that my opponent is incorrect on all of these claims, and that most of these claims don’t support Biblical Creationism anyways. This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, both because I have rebutted my opponent’s point while he has failed to rebut my rebuttal and because I have turned this point against the Neg/Con/Against. --- 5P8: I have sufficiently refuted my opponent’s claim that evolutionary theory is false and/or unethical because it leads to mass death. My opponent claims that evolutionists kill millions, because “Weak and inferior members of a species should be eliminated for the preservation of superior bloodlines and for the conservation of essential resources.” In responses 3C3A and 3C3B I point out both that (a) my opponent provides no sources, (b) the consequences of knowing the truth don’t change the truth, (c) evolution is a scientific, not an ethical, theory, (d) even if it was an ethical theory, evolution would not support targeted selection, but mere Malthusianism, (e) Hitler killed for notions of racial purity unsupported by evolution that he found in his religious and pseudoscientific beliefs, (f) Stalin and Pol Pot were fervent Communists who killed for purposes of ideology and power, (g) my opponent believes in a God who killed more than 99% of all living beings because of “imperfection” and (h) my opponent supports the eternal torture of people who don’t follow his views. This is a major reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, both because I have rebutted my opponent’s point while he has failed to rebut my rebuttal and because I have turned this point against the Neg/Con/Against. --- 5P9: My opponent’s last speech consists entirely of new arguments in the 4th round, which was agreed illegal in the 1st round. Furthermore, my opponent’s last speech consists entirely of threatening nonbelievers with Hell, insulting evolutionist scientists, and minorly insulting me, rather than any actual arguments in favor of Biblical Creationism. This is a minor reason to vote for the Aff/Pro/For, because my opponent broke our accepted rules. --- Thanks to my opponent for debating and to my judges for reading.