Biblical Creationism is Incorrect

Responses: Note: My opponent uses “Con” to represent me, while I am in fact Pro. Please mentally revise when reading these comments. --- 3C1A. “Con states with reasoning that ignores science while claiming all scientific backing for theories which contradict the laws of nature.” If you're stating that I support evolution, then you'd be correct. However, you have not proven that evolution contradicts natural laws and as such I have not ignored science in response to your point; I didn't respond to a point that didn't exist yet, for reasons that should be obvious. --- 3C1B. “Con also asserts that scientific methodology progressively disproves creation. Con ignores the fact that advances in science tend to support the young earth history as recorded in the Bible. Con states: ‘I would like to point out the fact that the ability of science to become more accurate in response to more data is one of its strongest defenses and is what allows it to so accurately describe so much of the universe. This contrasts with Biblical Creationism, which starts with the conclusion that the Bible is correct, will never change or become more accurate, and will never add to the predictive power of human reason.’” Your quote of my statements does not match your claims. I merely stated that science can change and that that is good, while Biblical Creationism relies on an unchanging Bible and that that is bad, not that science progressively will disprove Biblical Creationism. So where have I said this? Those closest that I have come to this statement s, "[Biblical Creationism] has effectively no scientific backing" and "Biblical Creationism is NOT science because i[t] is unfalsifiable", which does not state that science will progressively disprove Biblical Creationism. --- 3C1C. “Con ignores scientific evidence that is indisputably contrary to his position. This is typical for people who claim they are practicing science but in reality are practicing a pseudo-science[.]” *cough* --- 3C1D. This is also why people who erringly use science to attempt to disprove God's ownership over His creation tend to make multitudes of insults and slanders against common sense by equating God with [F]lying [S]paghettti [M]onsters. The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pastafarianism was invented to point out the stupidity of blind adherence and unwillingness to accept scientific evidence against one’s own position, especially when one has no scientific evidence to back said position. I advise you to think about this for a moment. --- 3C1E. “Bill Nye uses this same approach when he cannot answer the findings of his fellow scientists which point out the error of science that tries to prove origins and the rise of life contra[r]y to the laws of physics.” I’m not Bill Nye. I don’t care about what Bill Nye says, or if you can refute it. You’re not Kent Hovind. Do you care about what Kent Hovind says, or if I can refute it? Nope. --- 3C1F. “The last stat[e]ment so ignored by Con which directly shows Con's error in claiming science becomes more accurate in supporting his postitions was at the end of my round two statement........results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years' worth (at today's rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data has since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 ( /- 2000) years." (3) Footnotes: 1.D. Russel Humphreys, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, Andrew A. Snelling, Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay; Article available online at http://www.icr.org.......... 2.The "RATE" project stands for, "Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth" 3.Carl Wieland, RATE Group Reveal Exciting.” I did not, in fact, ignore your point. I labelled it 2C4B and responded to it in the comments, due to character restrictions, as I pointed out at the end of my previous rebuttal. It’s currently on page 2. --- 3C2A. “Con throws out more and more arguments while ignoring principals of logical deductive reasoning as I posted in the beginning of round two[.]” If you’ll notice, I only added two more arguments in the last round. The vast majority of my statements were refuting your points with scientific evidence that invalidates your own claims, which are notably unsourced. See responses to 2C2C, 2C2D, 2C2F, 2C2G, and 2C2H. Furthermore, I attacked the “logical deductive reasoning” that you “posted in the beginning of round two”. See responses to 2C1A, 2C1B, and 2C1C. --- 3C2B. “[A]nd then ignores the fact that improvements in science support the young earth story[.]” I did not ignore it. You have cited no meta-analysis about any supposed increasing level of scientific support for creationism, while I have pointed out that the vast, vast majority of qualified scientists rejects creationism. See response to 2C2B. --- 3C2C. “[A]s told in the Bible (another contradiction of Con's, claiming in his opening statements that Creation is Biblical but it's not in tht Bible, and then spending the whole time of the debate attmepting to discredit the Bible......this is again typical of the nonsensical reasoning of people who are putting their faith in the belief that they will never have reason to fear God)[.]” First off, I spent perhaps 10% of 1 of 5 speeches pointing out that the Bible is flawed, not “the whole time of the debate”. Second off, you have not responded to my points that the Bible is errant, so I have “attmept”-ed and succeeded. Third off, I have a two-level argument against Biblical Creationism on this point. (A) The Bible is flawed, so it shouldn’t be consulted as authoritative anyways. (B) Even if the Bible isn’t flawed, then Biblical Creationism is not found in the Bible. So to prove Biblical Creationism true, you must both prove that the Bible is authoritative and that Biblical Creationism is part of the Bible. This is not nonsensical at all, as much as you don’t like it. --- 3C3A. “Evolution teaches that as species evolve they eventually reach ideal population levels. .... Most evolutionary scientists will claim to be good moral people of course, but the truth is nobody is perfect and all have broken the perfect law of God which forbids oppression and deceit even in the tiniest inner thoughts of our hearts as imperfection is offensive to God.” First off, you didn’t post your sources, so I can’t check them. Second off, this is a blatant argument from consequences and has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of Darwinian evolution. Hypothetical: Telling kids that Santa isn’t real turns them into delinquents. Does the fact that kids might turn into delinquents change the fact that Santa is fake? Nope. Neither does the supposed death toll of evolution. Third off, evolution is a scientific theory, not a moral one. It does not teach humans how to act, nor should it. It simply describes how species change over time as natural selection plays on their genes. This is like claiming that gravity is fake because it tells us that we should drop people out of windows. Fourth off, even if it was a moral theory, this is not how it would be applied. Killing millions is not natural selection, which the harshness of society does anyways without any genocide necessary. If anything, this would support a crude Malthusianism and removal of welfare, not of killing people. Fifth off, Hitler did his actions for the idea of racial purity and for his views of a God, not because he thought that he was furthering the evolution of the human race. (Hitler, in fact, questioned common descent and certain ideas of Darwinian evolution.) Sixth off, Stalin probably killed 6-9 million people outside of World War II, not 60-100 million, which would be about 1/2 of the population of the USSR at that time. While perhaps 20 million Soviet citizens died fighting in World War II, this isn’t exactly genociding them, now is it? Additionally, Stalin and Pol Pot were fervent Communists, and killed for that purpose rather than for “furthering evolution”. --- 3C3B. “In vengence againt His enemies. ( those He created who sought to elevate themselves to be independant of Him) He will purge His creation of the pride which denies His power, and give the rebells what they deserve....fire for the fire of their passions of pride against their Creator, and it's good no know He will not tolerate evil forever but He will confine it all to the fire of hell. Biblical Creationism is correct, as is the Judgement of God is also correct , and His mercy i giving his human enemies time to change their minds and be saved from the fire of hell which was created for the devil and his angels. God Himself took on a body to pay for mankind's sin so He could be satisfied that the death man deserves was paid for when He took it on HImself, and He rose from the grave to justify all who believe and put their trust in Him. People put faith in evolution simply because they don't want to admit that they do not deserve to live.” Dude. Way to get all preachy about being moral, and then literally damning your enemies to eternal torture. ---Again, the rest of my response will be in the comments due to character restrictions.