Biblical Evolution of Species/Old Earth

[Jason Gastrich]

I challenge someone to debate the following resolution:

"The Bible teaches the earth is young and the evolution of species did not happen."

I will take the affirmative. Will anyone offer to take the negative?

Sincerely,
Jason

[Prince Vegita]

Ummm, yeah, that's 2 different debates.

[baiting removed - NS]

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Ummm, yeah, that's 2 different debates.

I have to agree. The age of the earth and biological evolution are quite different topics. One deals with stuff like astronomy, geology, and physics, while the other deals with biology, genetics, and ecology. I'd recommend narrowing down the topic a bit.

[Jason Gastrich]

It's one debate if one person believes both or neither of those things.

The central issue of this debate is what the Bible teaches on the age of the earth and (consequently) the evolution of species. All old earth creationists (OECs) believe that both the earth is old and that the species evolved and they believe the Bible supports their beliefs. Young earth creationists (YECs) believe that the earth was created in 6 literal days, that the Earth is young, and that the evolution of species is a myth.

I'm a YEC searching for an OEC to debate. An example of a YEC would be Ken Ham. An example of an OEC would be Hugh Ross.

JG

[Prince Vegita]

Not all OECs believe the earth is anything near the same age (e.g. I've seen a range from anywhere between 50,000 and 4.5 billion years), and not all of them accept evolution (e.g. progressive creationists). Some of them accept so-called microevolution (as do many YECs), some of them accept so-called macroevolution as well (and tend more towards theistic "evolutionists").

Again, this really should be 2 debates since you can't pigeonhole other people's beliefs like that. It may be one debate if you find an OEC that meets your criteria, but it's likely to flip flop between topics in a very annoying fashion.

[Jason Gastrich]

Not all OECs believe the earth is anything near the same age (e.g. I've seen a range from anywhere between 50,000 and 4.5 billion years), and not all of them accept evolution (e.g. progressive creationists). Some of them accept so-called microevolution (as do many YECs), some of them accept so-called macroevolution as well (and tend more towards theistic "evolutionists").

I never said they all agreed on the exact age of the Earth.

All YECs and OECs believe in microevolution. Microevolution is what we have observed and it's a fact. OECs accept macroevolution and YECs do not.

Again, this really should be 2 debates since you can't pigeonhole other people's beliefs like that. It may be one debate if you find an OEC that meets your criteria, but it's likely to flip flop between topics in a very annoying fashion.

Thanks for your input, again. I disagree.

Speaking of annoying, having to talk to you (an atheist) about what you think the debate with me and someone else should be is a bit annoying.

Waiting for an opponent,
Jason

[Toto]

Why is this board an appropriate place for this debate? Why should atheists be concerned with disputes among Christians?

[Jason Gastrich]

Why is this board an appropriate place for this debate? Why should atheists be concerned with disputes among Christians?

Have two Christians ever had a debate on this board? Are they allowed to? Nightshade didn't object and I know that there are many Christians who are members and I also know that they have been in debates on IIDB.

JG

[Prince Vegita]

All YECs and OECs believe in microevolution. Microevolution is what we have observed and it's a fact. OECs accept macroevolution and YECs do not.
Not really, I've met YECs who ardently deny micro. Likewise, not all OECs accept macro. Come to think of it, why do you need to debate an OEC? Any supporter of evolution can debate these points quite nicely. Your initial debate topic certainly does not require an OEC.
Speaking of annoying, having to talk to you (an atheist) about what you think the debate with me and someone else should be is a bit annoying.

Waiting for an opponent,
Jason
If it bothers you then don't respond. As for myself, I like to see the best debates possible on IIDB. Since your initial post was less than clear that an OEC was required, I'm just trying to help. :thumbs:

[Jason Gastrich]

Why would an atheist want to argue that the Bible teaches that the earth is very old and that the evolution of species happened? I think someone who really and sincerely supported that position would debate more passionately than someone who was pretending. I doubt an atheist would even be interested, but you never know.

JG

P.S. How are those nose polyps? Gone for good?

[Prince Vegita]

Why would an atheist want to argue that the Bible teaches that the earth is very old and that the evolution of species happened? I think someone who really and sincerely supported that position would debate more passionately than someone who was pretending. I doubt an atheist would even be interested, but you never know.

JG
I'm sure you can find some scholarly type with a love for the material on this board! At least I hope so!

P.S. How are those nose polyps? Gone for good?
Seeing as how I never had any, they're doing great! :thumbs: You might want to try asking Justin though...

[Jason Gastrich]

Haha. It's been a long time since I talked to either of you, so I guess I got you guys confused. Sorry about that.

JG

[Prince Vegita]

Haha. It's been a long time since I talked to either of you, so I guess I got you guys confused. Sorry about that.

JG
No problem. Undoubtedly Justin is now contemplating suicide, however... :p

[Jason Gastrich]

That would be a shame. Especially after the power of prayer healed his polyps. :thumbs:

JG

[Jim Lazarus]

Toto said:

Why is this board an appropriate place for this debate? Why should atheists be concerned with disputes among Christians?

Actually, I would be very interested. It's one of the subjects I need to write an article about. If Mr. Gastrich should win, that's a point for me. My desire (with all due respect to Jason) is to show that Liberal Christian theology is wrong in its interpretation of biblical text, and that YECism is necessarily true, destroying any hope for any rational individual to uphold the Christian worldview :).

So, looking very much forward to a great performance by Jason in this exchange!!

- Laz

[Prince Vegita]

That would be a shame. Especially after the power of prayer healed his polyps. :thumbs:

JG
Yeah, confusing him and me probably broke his heart since we all know he secretly lusts after me... j/k. I think.

As for the prayer part, I dunno about that, as he did have to go back for at least one more surgery.

We should probably cease derailing now?

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The central issue of this debate is what the Bible teaches on the age of the earth and (consequently) the evolution of species. All old earth creationists (OECs) believe that both the earth is old and that the species evolved and they believe the Bible supports their beliefs. Young earth creationists (YECs) believe that the earth was created in 6 literal days, that the Earth is young, and that the evolution of species is a myth.

Would this therefore be a theological debate? (i.e. no scientific arguments used?)


All YECs and OECs believe in microevolution. Microevolution is what we have observed and it's a fact. OECs accept macroevolution and YECs do not.

Actually, OEC's are "progressive" creationists and reject macroevolution and common ancestry. Hugh Ross rejects macroevolution and common ancestry (though there are some in the ID movement who accept common ancestry such as Behe). If you wanted a theist who accepts macroevolution then (s)he'd be a theistic evolutionist, not an OEC. But for purposes of your debate, an OEC would be the opponent you want. Most TE's would reject the premise that the Bible contains revealed truths about the scientific age of the earth.


Speaking of annoying, having to talk to you (an atheist) about what you think the debate with me and someone else should be is a bit annoying.

IIDB users of any stripe are welcome to participate in the FDP threads to offer relevant suggestions and comments. If you don't like their input, you may ignore them.

Why is this board an appropriate place for this debate? Why should atheists be concerned with disputes among Christians?

I don't have a problem with theist vs. theist debates. Although it's predominantly a non-theist forum, many non-theists do find theological debates among theists interesting.

NS, FD Moderator

[Jason Gastrich]

That would be a shame. Especially after the power of prayer healed his polyps. :thumbs:

JG

[Jason Gastrich]

As long as my opponent believes the Bible claims that the earth is old and the evolution of species happened and wishes to support their position, I don't care about any other details.

JG

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

As long as my opponent believes the Bible claims that the earth is old and the evolution of species happened and wishes to support their position, I don't care about any other details.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks the Bible claims evolution happened.

[Jason Gastrich]

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks the Bible claims evolution happened.

You'd be surprised. I've been talking with a guy who believes it, but he will not debate formally. This, in part, is the reason why I decided to seek someone else to debate. The OECs I've met believe this.

JG

[Silent Dave]

Haven't you padded your resume enough, Gastrich?

(Boy, it feels good to be partisan in this forum again! :D)


Dave

[Common_Cents]

Too bad I'm already in a debate. :D

I am not a biological expert but Jason, since when would did God's "day" become 24 hours? It seems that you are constraining God to not only time but the accepted human view of a "day".

[Jason Gastrich]

Too bad I'm already in a debate. :D

I am not a biological expert but Jason, since when would did God's "day" become 24 hours? It seems that you are constraining God to not only time but the accepted human view of a "day".

RZF,

I have an argument that I could give for that and the word "yom." It's pretty simple, really. However, I will save it for the debate.

When will your current debate be finished? I have a calendar that goes through 2005, so perhaps we should schedule something for the future.

Sincerely,
Jason

[Common_Cents]

RZF,

I have an argument that I could give for that and the word "yom." It's pretty simple, really. However, I will save it for the debate.

When will your current debate be finished? I have a calendar that goes through 2005, so perhaps we should schedule something for the future.

Sincerely,
Jason

It just started but I think it will be a month long thing...

I'll have to see what happens in the future but I'll look back in on this debate and see where it stands later on.

I will say that with me or with someone else you might want to restrict the parameters so that they can't debate this scientifically. For science really goes against this. My main argument would be(yes giving it away:D) that the Holy Bible is about how to get to Heaven not how the Heavens go. I would of course require science to show that God is talking about creating the universe with "days" as a way to describe it in a way that the human finite mind can understand.

[Jason Gastrich]

It just started but I think it will be a month long thing...

I'll have to see what happens in the future but I'll look back in on this debate and see where it stands later on.

I will say that with me or with someone else you might want to restrict the parameters so that they can't debate this scientifically. For science really goes against this. My main argument would be(yes giving it away:D) that the Holy Bible is about how to get to Heaven not how the Heavens go. I would of course require science to show that God is talking about creating the universe with "days" as a way to describe it in a way that the human finite mind can understand.

RZF,

The parameters are negotiable. We'll see who steps up to the plate. The way it's looking, you may be the first.

Sincerely,
Jason

[Travelsong]

Jason, you have stated that you believe creation reveals itself to be young. Assuming you are confident enough in your knowledge of the natural world, why not focus the debate on the scientific evidence? Surely if you believe God intends a literal interpretation of the Genesis account the evidence will bear that out will it not? Methinks me smells a man intent on setting up a debate in his favor with the only intention of posting another "victory" on his website rather than conducting a real evaluation of the facts.

You might as well throw in the resolution "The Bible teaches a geocentric model of the solar system", it's just as an absurd premise for a debate.

[Jason Gastrich]

Jason, you have stated that you believe creation reveals itself to be young.

Yes, I have; not here, though. I have a site called http://yecs.org with links to scholarly articles on YECs.

Assuming you are confident enough in your knowledge of the natural world, why not focus the debate on the scientific evidence?

I'm far more interested in the Bible and what the Bible says than what current, secular science thinks.

Surely if you believe God intends a literal interpretation of the Genesis account the evidence will bear that out will it not? Methinks me smells a man intent on setting up a debate in his favor with the only intention of posting another "victory" on his website rather than conducting a real evaluation of the facts.

Need a tissue? :p

God bless,
Jason

[Sven]

Yes, I have; not here, though. I have a site called http://yecs.org with links to scholarly articles on YECs.

[emphasis mine]
Scholary? I see names like Morris, Austin, Woodmorappe, and even Ken Ham there. If one keeps looking, maybe one even finds links to Hovind...?
No comment.

[Jason Gastrich]

[emphasis mine]
Scholary? I see names like Morris, Austin, Woodmorappe, and even Ken Ham there. If one keeps looking, maybe one even finds links to Hovind...?
No comment.

I'm going to respond to this message, but I'd appreciate it if we could stay on topic regarding the potential debate.

--

Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Hydraulic Engineering (Founder and President Emeritus of ICR)

He has a B.S. from Rice University with honors in Civil Engineering and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Morris majored in engineering hydraulics/hydrology while minoring in Geology and Mathematics. He has served on the faculties of Rice University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Southwestern Louisiana, and Southern Illinois University. From 1957 to 1970 he was Head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). While at Virginia Tech, Dr. Morris was able to get approval for Ph.D. programs in Civil Engineering and Hydraulics. Dr. Morris authored Applied Hydraulics in Engineering, which has been used by over 100 colleges and universities at one time or another. It is still used today as a reference and even the main text in some university classes. As of 1993 and 30 years after the first edition was printed, there was no comparable textbook available.

For detailed information on his accomplishments, etc., click http://icr.org/creationscientists/hmorris.html .

--

Steven Austin, Ph.D. Geology (ICR)

He has the B.S. from the University of Washington, M.S. from San Jose State University and Ph.D. from the Pennsylvania State University, all in geology. His professional memberships include the Geological Society of America, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, the Society for Sedimentary Geology, the International Association of Sedimentologists. He has had professional, peer-reviewed projects at Mt. St. Helens and within the Grand Canyon. Current research is being conducted on mass kill of nautiloids within the Redwall limestone of the Grand Canyon, radioisotopes of Grand Canyon rocks, and earthquake destruction of archaeological sites in the Kingdom of Jordan. In 1999, Dr. Austin published research in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal International Geology Review.

--

Ken Ham, AIG

Ken’s bachelor’s degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) was awarded by the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia. He also holds a diploma of education (roughly equivalent to a master’s degree in America) from the University of Queensland. In 1997 he was awarded an honorary doctorate from Temple Baptist College in Ohio.

--

John Woodmorappe (Geology) has Master's degrees in both geology and biology and has published several papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

--

Are you telling me these people cannot write scholarly articles? Your hand waving is absurd. All of these people even attended secular universities where evolutionism was taught as fact!

Any more off-topic posts will be ignored. I'm looking for a debate opponent.

Sincerely,
Jason

[Dirty Adan]

I'd take up the negative, but I want to see my own proposal through first.

[Jason Gastrich]

Hi Adan,

What is your proposal? Are you an OEC?

Where is Nyack?

Sincerely,
Jason

[justsumner]

Waiting for an opponent,
Jason

After witnessing your performance on IG I won't bother to read this one..

[Jason Gastrich]

After witnessing your performance on IG I won't bother to read this one..

My "performance on IG" was 2 years ago. It was my first live/public debate with an atheist. Plus, I had about one day to prepare as I was thrust on the show.

Since then, I've debated a number of people (see http://debates.jcsm.org ) and I've written a full rebuttal to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (see [solicitation deleted - NS] ).

Needless to say, I've grown a bit since Reggie's show in 2002. On a couple of occasions, I have asked Reggie for a rematch, but he will not give me one. I doubt he ever will, too.

Sincerely,
Jason

[justsumner]

Nonetheless I very much doubt your "proofs" as you call them have changed. You had little to base it on then and I cannot see how your improved style of arguing "a rose is not a rose" will change the substance. Only the name has changed. The emporor still has no clothes. You may find some who have time to debat this, but don't hold your breath. Theist come here all the time to bait....with limited success.

[Jason Gastrich]

Nonetheless I very much doubt your "proofs" as you call them have changed. You had little to base it on then and I cannot see how your improved style of arguing "a rose is not a rose" will change the substance. Only the name has changed. The emporor still has no clothes. You may find some who have time to debat this, but don't hold your breath. Theist come here all the time to bait....with limited success.

Your assumptions are noted. However, Reggie and I didn't discuss what the Bible says on the age of the Earth. This will be the topic of my debate, so your comments and assumptions aren't really pertinent.

Sincerely,
Jason

[Dirty Adan]

Hi Adan,

What is your proposal? Are you an OEC?

I would argue that we cannot read the Genesis creation account as YEC to the exclusion of all other interpretations.

Where is Nyack?

A bit upstate from NYC.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Scholary? I see names like Morris, Austin, Woodmorappe, and even Ken Ham there. If one keeps looking, maybe one even finds links to Hovind...?
No comment.

Hi folks,

For future discussion for or against the integrity of various YEC authors, I recommend taking it to the Evolution/Creation (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=66) forum. Please keep the discussion in this thread relevant to setting up a debate.

Thanks,

- NS, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

SonofFred,

I moved your post to ~Elsewhere~ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=101258). Please note that the FDP forum is intended towards setting up formal debates, not getting into a discussion of people's past debates or backgrounds.

Thanks,

- NS, FD Moderator

[Jason Gastrich]

I would argue that we cannot read the Genesis creation account as YEC to the exclusion of all other interpretations.

A bit upstate from NYC.

Hi Adan,

Would you mind phrasing your proposal in the form of a resolution?

Please either post a brief bio about yourself or email one to me from http://jcsm.org/contact.php .

Sincerely,
Jason

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

TravelSong,

I split and moved your post here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=101313) to the Evolution/Creation forum. Please note that this forum is intended for setting up formal debates, not a discussion or debate of scientific/theological issues.

Thanks,

- NS, FD Moderator

[Jason Gastrich]

Just so you all know, I have not heard from Adan. Therefore, my offer to debate someone is still on the table.

God bless,
Jason

[Sven]

I'm going to respond to this message, but I'd appreciate it if we could stay on topic regarding the potential debate.

[snip]

Are you telling me these people cannot write scholarly articles? Your hand waving is absurd. All of these people even attended secular universities where evolutionism was taught as fact!

Yes, I'm telling you exactly this. Based on the crap they wrote.
Credentials and education are irrelevant - we simply have to look at what they produce. And that's crap, quite simply.

Edited to add: Oops, sorry, Nigthshade, saw your post too late. But since Jason said he won't answer further, this is settled anyway.

[justsumner]

[baiting removed - NS]

[Von Smith]

A thought on this proposal:

Since the resolution is a conjoint statement, anyone arguing the affirmative has to support *both* conjuncts, whereas all his opponent has to do is refute *one* of them (since statements "x and y" are false if either x or y is false), so Jason's opponent could technically argue either for either an OEC interpretation of the Bible OR for evolution of species, but wouldn't have to argue for both.

Von Smith