Can Creationists, Please Explain? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Can Creationists, Please Explain?

Debate Information

A huge fossilised sea dragon has been discovered in the UK.
"(A team of paleontologists) concluded it was an ichthyosaurs - they were warm-blooded, air-breathing sea predators not unlike dolphins, and could grow up to 25 metres long. They lived between 250 million and 90 million years ago."

Given that creationists will stubbornly stand by their belief that the universe is no more than six thousand years old, how can they account for such a glaring discrepancy?

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/huge-fossilised-sea-dragon-found-in-uk-reservoir/ar-AASBOuF?ocid=msedgntp





Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • @Swolliw

    Hey man, I agree with you, but YECers are obviously going to say the dating methods are all wrong...
    NeopesdomOakTownAHappy_Killbot
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1328 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne
    YECers are obviously going to say the dating methods are all wrong...

    The dating methods aren't wrong and all I can say to the nit-wits is, bring it on.

  • Swolliw said:
    @SkepticalOne
    YECers are obviously going to say the dating methods are all wrong...

    The dating methods aren't wrong and all I can say to the nit-wits is, bring it on.

    Agreed, but you and I both know this will be the response. They will maintain certainty in the methods being flawed while continually demonstrating their ignorance of dating methods.
    OakTownA
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • dallased25dallased25 113 Pts   -  
    They will claim conspiracy. You can't reason with nut jobs unfortunately. For example with flat earth nutters, you can have them do experiments, have them talk to NASA scientists, point them to Astronauts and they will claim it's a giant cover up type conspiracy. It's a complete disconnection from reality and a form of psychosis that can only be broken by the person realizing they are nuts...which isn't too likely. People who believe the earth is young believe that the devil has "tricked" scientists or that they are working directly with the devil. So yeah...you can't deal with lunatics on an issue like this. 
    OakTownA
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4244 Pts   -  
    Theists approach this question from a different set of first principles than scientists. There is no discrepancy in their worldview, because their first principles do not lead to the conclusion that these fossils are from 90 to 250 million years ago.

    I am sorry, but this is a very poor argument. Theists themselves use this kind of arguments all the time: "So you are saying that there was a Big Bang... But in the Bible right here it says that the Earth was created by god in 7 days! How does your pet theory account for that? Checkmate, atheists!"
    Vaulk
  • OakTownAOakTownA 104 Pts   -   edited January 11
    There are even Flat Earthers who think NASA doesn't exists, which would be news for my Great Uncle who worked for NASA back in the day where computers took up entire rooms.

    Creationists will do what they always do; deny the facts in favor of their fictitious book. They will pull out old, tired, and rebutted "evidence," like carbon-14 dating on a living animal.

    Also, I would LOVE for a creationist give a working definition of "kind."
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5325 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;

    I think you are completely wrong here, because even if you understand their own views based on their own first-principals and IAW their own epistemic (or even ontological) norms there is still room for major discrepancies. The greatest of which being that their views are not necessarily incompatible with an old earth and evolution because interpretation of the bible or the spiritual calling is inherently subjective and there is room for many different understandings.

    For example, the book of Genesis could simply be interpreted as a spiritual genesis of the faith rather than a material account of the Earth's history. In this way, an old earth, evolution, and all of the associated scientific discoveries might be reconciled with spiritual revelation based on the bible or in the Christian faith.

    TL;DR: Young Earth Creationism does not necessarily follow from the first-principals and epistemic norms touted by Christians who tend to support these conclusions.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1328 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne
    They will maintain certainty in the methods being flawed while continually demonstrating their ignorance of dating methods.

    For sure. But I will always let them know what imbecilic, illogical, self-centered nit-wits they are. If their closest friends won't tell them, I will. 

    See how compassionate I am in providing such a valuable community service?

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1328 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne
    They will maintain certainty in the methods being flawed while continually demonstrating their ignorance of dating methods.

    For sure. But I will always let them know what imb-ecilic, illogical, self-centered nit-wits they are. If their closest friends won't tell them, I will. 

    See how compassionate I am in providing such a valuable community service?

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1328 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    I am sorry, but this is a very poor argument.

    You should stop feeling sorry each time you are wrong and do something about it.

    I find that they have gotten (slightly) more sophisticated in their absurd seven day nonsense...."Well, like derrr, like one of God's days is like thousands of years, that's why".

    Yeah sure, like a few million thousands of years. It is hard for most people (including me) to fathom and understand how long 13.5 billion years is and the incredible time scale we have here. Rome wasn't built in a day and the universe and life  took considerably longer.


    OakTownA
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1328 Pts   -  
    @dallased25
    So yeah...you can't deal with lunatics on an issue like this. 

    I still give it a go though. They have to be told and if only I sow a tiny seed inside their fixed numb skulls, I am content that I have done something to contribute to this great planet.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4244 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    If I thought that my argument was wrong, I would not post it in the first place. I have never said or implied that their first principles are reasonable, or that they follow them consistently. The point is that you are using a statement that some people have derived in order to point out the error in some other people's statement - while these groups came to their statements using completely different approaches. It is like telling someone playing Chinese chess that their moves are all incorrect, because this is not how chess is played - without realizing that they are playing a completely different game.
  • @Swolliw

    See how compassionate I am in providing such a valuable community service?

    ...and humble too! ;-)

    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • dallased25dallased25 113 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @dallased25
    So yeah...you can't deal with lunatics on an issue like this. 

    I still give it a go though. They have to be told and if only I sow a tiny seed inside their fixed numb skulls, I am content that I have done something to contribute to this great planet.

    If they are willing to discuss openly and honest, I will too, but if they are just completely unwilling to consider things that are facts, or outright ignore them, then there's no point, because it means they have no integrity. Once they get to that point, I won't discuss the fact anymore and instead will focus on why they have no integrity and will shine the spotlight there. If I can get them to see how harmful their way of thinking is, then that's the new starting point. But unless you both have a solid foundation on which to base arguments, then it's rather like dealing with someone who claims to see "imaginary people". Unless you can get them to see first that it's all in their head, then you have no starting point to help them get better. 
  • piloteerpiloteer 1484 Pts   -   edited January 13
    @Swolliw

    It's superfluous to try and discredit "creationists" on the grounds that their logic is somehow flawed because of their belief in God. You can't lump creationists in with all the other normal believers and claim to those who believe in God but still accept the universe was not created six thousand years ago that they are wrong about God creating the universe six thousand years ago. They already know that!!!  The vast majority of people who do believe in the Christian God of the bible also believe that the bible is not a science book, and they also do not believe the universe was created six thousand years ago. So what's the point of trying to convince theists of not believing in God by trying to prove to them that science can demonstrate that their book was wrong about how the universe was created when they already know that? They only follow by faith, not their logic. If you want to convince a believer of God that they are wrong, you need to question them on their faith, not on scientific truths. And if you're trying to convince hardcore creationists that do believe the earth was created by God six thousand years ago, I mean....what's the point of bringing up scientific truths to them anyway?!?!they've already proven to you they reject any scientific truths. That's why they're creationists in the first place!!      
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1328 Pts   -  
    @piloteer
    They already know that!!! 

    Do they? (know the universe is not six thousand years old) If they are going to believe anything so outlandish as an invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent master, then they will and do believe in anything that suits their ill-gotten beliefs. The Greatest Show On Earth is not a science book either but the information Dawkins put into it was meticulously researched and checked. The Bible is a load of convoluted anecdotes, myths and outright untruths yet creationists and Christians alike will hang onto every word of it.

    Their usual way out of the "slight discrepancy with time" is to come up with the cockeyed notion that a year to God is millions of years to us and they were talking "God years" in the Bible. Yeah, right. 

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch