Debate: Does God exists?
Side: God doesn't exists

"what about it?"You said you were going to prove that "the Bible is divinely ordained". I gave evidence that it not only contradicts basically every branch of science, but it also contradicts itself; if "what about it" is your best retort, I'll consider the debate concluded."Weirdness does not deny factuality"Weirdness does not make factuality either... e.g.: dinosaurs aren't just overgrown lizards link"There is tons of evidence for a gigantic flood"... "dinosaurs is[sic] evidence"Notice that you are now saying "gigantic" rather than "worldwide" because there is no evidence of a worldwide flood. You went on to talk about how old lizards might be dinosaurs not how old lizards being dinosaurs is somehow evidence for a flood."assuming that beings lived longer than normal life spans"... "which we have evidence for as well"And your evidence for that is? And I don't mean suggestions of how humans might possibly have been able to live longer in a magical pre-flood environment, I mean evidence that humans did live extremely long lives. Are there fossils of 1000 year old humans that you would like to share with us?"they were buried by mud and sediment flow. This is why geologists have thought two things: (1) that the dinosaurs were all wiped out in one huge cataclysmic event that encompassed the whole earth and (2) that this event involved water, which is why a meteor hitting the ocean is the theory."The reason they think the event involved a meteor is because of high iridium and shocked quartz at the K-T boundary, part of the geologic column which you apparently do not believe in, not "mud and sediment flow". The theory that Chicxulub and/or other impact craters are associated with the event is the similarity in dating based on methods that you must also deem false to believe the earth is only a few thousand years old. Do you now wish to rely on those same dating methods and the geologic column if you (wrongly) think they agree with you?"trilobyte with human footprint"for anyone interested in facts - the trilobyte/footprint has been debunked for more than 30 years.http://ncse.com/cej/2/4/tripping-over-trilobite-study-meister-trackshttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html"petrified trees through multiple layers of strata"upright fossils are a well-known and well-explained occurrence which in no way refutes the totality of the geologic column."I would have to disagree with some of the biblical dating."Don't worry - the bible disagrees with the biblical dating too. The Masoretic text says there were 1656 years before the flood, the Samaritan text says 1307 years and the Septuagint says 2262 years - take your pick. Or just make one up since that's easier.I do, however, do think it was within a few thousand years, though. If you think the bible is wrong and science is wrong, what do you base your aging on exactly?To cite the things that you have shows a vast amount of willful ignorance and inability to think through the implications of what you (or more precisely the people you are choosing to listen to) are claiming. For instance, dinosaurs being just overgrown lizards would mean that dinosaurs would give birth to lizards and there would be no such thing as dinosaur eggs or baby dinosaurs, do you believe that to be the case? Do you know the ramifications of trying to fit all of the fossils that exist into a few thousand years? all of the volcanic activity? of having the plates move at speeds of up to 45 miles per hour? Do you understand how hundreds of thousands or millions of layers don't happen in just one year (varves, snow layers, rock layers, etc.)? Any thoughts on how bone histology that scientists use to determine the age of those dinosaur (and other) fossils is so completely wrong? Why there is no radiation of fossils from Arrarat after the flood? How all of the animals (herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores) ate after they left the ark? How everything in science is so wrong, but in ways that corroborate each other (more than a dozen radiometric dating methods align with each other, the geologic column lines up with plate tectonics, varve layers show thickness variations consistent with sunspot rhythms, etc.)? Do you give any weight to the decades that actual scientists invest in their research or astronauts who risk their life based on real science before saying something like dinosaur means terrible lizard, so maybe dinosaurs are just old lizards - take that science!...?In order to believe in a recent creation, you have to show not only how every line of dating is false, but also how it is wrong enough to support the age you believe.For example, Hovind and others discount ice layer dating by saying that multiple layers can occur in a given year. Not only does this show their ignorance about how ice cores are dated, but they never address the fact that for the flood to have happened 4361 years ago, an ice layer would have to form more than once every 2 days. (Even 21,900 years since the flood would require more than one snow layer every 10 days.)Biblical literalism will never pass scientific muster. In just the few short chapters before the flood myth the bible says:that there was an earth with water on it before there was a sunthat plants and trees existed before there was a sunthat there was night and day before there was a sunthat the moon is a source of light rather than just reflectivethat birds existed before reptilesthat the sons of God came down and married the daughters of man and had childrenCare to take on the challenge of finding evidence that there was a night and day here on earth before the sun existed?In science, if you disagree with a current theory, you generally familiarize yourself with the related phenomenon and the related evidence. You learn about the hypotheses, forces, measurements involved. You posit that if you are right x will happen and you make observations. If you seem to be right, you forward your findings and methods on to others to review your work and if you still seem right, you publish. If you disagree with an entire field of science, the amount of work required is greatly compounded. If you disagree with every area of science - then breathe a sigh of relief, you are religious and no rigor is necessary because you can just say god did it.Smarter people than you have put forward these kinds of theories for decades and people smarter than I have long since debunked them. Why is it that you feel no obligation to research whether what you are going to say will make you look foolish before you post it?further reading:http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/6flood.htmhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/speciation.html (critique of young earth creation by a religious scientist)http://www.oldearth.org/flood.htm (other old earth creationists)http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/ article/download/44/36  (combining YEC research proves that there was no worldwide flood)http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htmhttp://evolutionwiki.org/http://rationalwiki.org/ 1 2 3 4