Debate Challenge for PaulRichardson

[Kevin]

Paul, regarding your challenge for skeptics (http://www.geocities.com/defendingthelord/fools), I propose to take you up on the challenge in the format of a formal debate. I will argue that at least one story of an alleged supernatural event in the Bible has a parallel in a story which predates Christianity and that empirical evidence indicates that the universe is older than 1 billion years. I think "predates Christianity" should be defined as before the date of the earliest undisputed New Testament manuscript fragment, p52, which dates to 125 CE. That way we could discuss possible parallels between the Gospel accounts and earlier writings.

I'll be happy to take on the role of arguing in the affirmative that such parallels do exist, and that the universe is older than 1 billion years, if you'll argue the negative.

My proposed format would be:
Opening statement for the affirmative
Opening statement for the negative
1st rebuttal for the affirmative
1st rebuttal for the negative
2nd rebuttal for the affirmative
2nd rebuttal for the negative
3rd rebuttal for the affirmative and concluding remarks.
3rd rebuttal for the negative and concluding remarks.

I'm amenable to adding another round of rebuttals, but I don't want the debate to drag on forever. :)

I'd suggest a time limit of two weeks between responses, so as to allow us each sufficient time to research our rebuttals without causing the debate to drag on forever, and I don't think the limit should be less than one week, because that would simply be too short to properly write a response.

My suggestion for the post limits would be 5,000 words each for the opening statements, and 3,500 words each for the 1st and 2nd rebuttals and 5,000 words each for the 3rd rebuttal and concluding statements, since both a rebuttal and our final thoughts will be under the same umbrella, we might need the extra space.

I'm flexible on the issue of quotations, however, I don't think it should be more than one fifth of the total post (plagiarism and breach of copyright are prohibited generally anyway).

If it's convenient for you, I think we should be able to start the debate in about a month after we finish haggling over the rules of the debate, as that will allow us to slack off during the holiday season and still have time to compose a decent opening statement. :D

Feel free to haggle with me on any of the above, if you wish to. I'm more than willing to take the time necessary to make the debate satisfactory to both of us, although I think I've been quite fair in my suggestions. :)

Regards,
Kevin

[seebs]

I think you run into a problem, which is that OT miracles presumably predate the NT entirely. You might want to work on the way you phrase that some.

[Kevin]

The wording is not mine but Paul Richardson's (http://www.geocities.com/defendingthelord/clock) so I will not be revising it unless or until he wants to clarify it, because I do not wish to misrepresent the point that Richardson thinks is in contention. However, this may be something for him to consider, should he decide to accept my challenge.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi Kevin,

The debate topics sound good, but we'd prefer to keep formal debates focused on one subject at a time. The first topic, on pre-Christian parallels deals with historical arguments while an Age of the Earth debate is a different sort of subject that deals with scientific arguments. Perhaps you could pick one topic for now and propose another formal debate later on the other topic.

Jason

[PaulRichardson]

Thank you for accepting the Hardcore Ministries challenge. I will debate you on the two topics of my challenge. We get two weeks to reply, correct? Is there anything you want to clear up about my challenge before we start? Do you want to make it one debate about the age of the universe and another about pre-christian myths or address both at the same time?

[Kevin]

Originally posted by PaulRichardson
Thank you for accepting the Hardcore Ministries challenge. I will debate you on the two topics of my challenge. We get two weeks to reply, correct? Is there anything you want to clear up about my challenge before we start? Do you want to make it one debate about the age of the universe and another about pre-christian myths or address both at the same time?

Well, the moderator has spoken on this issue, and we'll have to break it up into one debate at a time, so I'd like to start with the age of the universe first, as that seems a relatively basic issue of fact.

Since you had no objections to any of my proposals in this thread so far, I do not think it premature to issue a request for debate now.

Here are the central points in the debate:

Topic: Resolved: Empirical evidence indicates the universe is older than one billion years.
Kevin will take the affirmative, and PaulRichardson will take the negative.
The debate will solely concern the issue of the age of the universe, not how the universe or its laws arose, how life arose, evolution, the existence of god, the divinity/existence of Jesus, nor the eternal fate or salvation status of either participant, etc.
The debate will be eight rounds in the following format:

Opening statement for the affirmative
Opening statement for the negative
1st rebuttal for the affirmative
1st rebuttal for the negative
2nd rebuttal for the affirmative
2nd rebuttal for the negative
3rd rebuttal for the affirmative and concluding statements
3rd rebuttal for the negative and concluding statements

The maximum length of the opening statements and third rebuttals/closing statements shall be 5,000 words each, including quotations, the first and second rebuttals shall be 3,500 words each.
No more than two weeks shall pass between statements.
Relevant quotations from outside sources are permitted, within the bounds of copyright, and as long as they're properly credited, not plagiarized, as long as the quotations do not take up more than 20% of the post. For the first and last statements, this will be a maximum of 1,000 words, and a maximum of 700 words for the first and second rebuttals.
The debate will start on January 20, 2004, allowing us both sufficient time to compose a thoughtful response and do a little research after the holiday season is over.
The debate will use the standard format, with no new arguments presented in the third rebuttals/closing statements.

Thank you to the moderators and to my opponent for being so prompt and helpful in moving this debate forward. :)

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by Kevin
The debate will be eight rounds in the following format:

Opening statement for the affirmative
Opening statement for the negative
1st rebuttal for the affirmative
1st rebuttal for the negative
2nd rebuttal for the affirmative
2nd rebuttal for the negative
3rd rebuttal for the affirmative and concluding statements
3rd rebuttal for the negative and concluding statements


Hi guys,

Not to nitpic or anything, but this is actually 4 rounds (there are 2 statements in a round in a debate with 2 participants).

Paul, do you agree with all of Kevin's suggested parameters for the formal debate? Do you wish to make any amendments? Since you're new to IIDB, I recommend reading FD(CS) Rules and Procedures (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56978) and check out some past and current formal debates (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=17) to see what they're like.

I should point out that an Age of the Universe debate can be pretty broad. Would you guys like to keep the debate focused on astronomy (e.g. stuff like comets, Big Bang cosmology, starlight, etc...), or geology (the age of the earth and geologic time scale), or perhaps keep the debate open ended and discuss both geology and astronomy?

Paul, just to clarify your stance, I take it that your position is of young-earth Biblical creationism? (i.e. the view that the universe is 6000 - 10000 years old, the universe was created in 6 days, as advocated by organizations like Answers in Genesis or The Institute for Creation Research).

Jason

[Silent Dave]

It occurs to me that, since this debate is being set up in order to meet part of a challenge (http://www.geocities.com/defendingthelord/fools), Kevin and PaulRichardson should agree ahead of time what would and would not constitute Paul's challenge having been met. This would not affect the debate itself, which would stand on its own merits, but it would be useful insofar as the reason for the debate is concerned, particularly insofar as Paul a) has set up no criteria over what constitutes "proof" when it comes to the challenge, b) controls the website on which the challenge is written, c) has very strong ulterior motives for not wanting to admit that the challenge has been met (since he is under the impression that doing so would decisively disprove Christianity), and d) will have the last word in this debate. These things make the post-debate status of Paul's challenge seem rather inevitable, regardless of the outcome of the actual debate. I would suggest, therefore, that Kevin and Paul reach, and publish, some sort of gentleman's agreement ahead of time over what would constitute a successfully met challenge.


Dave

[Kevin]

I don't mind a good nitpick, Nightshade. Thanks for clarifying. :) I will await PaulRichardson's response here, as I'm more than willing to discuss either cosmology or the age of the earth. Naturally, if I succeed in demonstrating that the earth is over one billion years old, the universe would have to be at least as old or older. I think I can also make a strong case for the antiquity of the universe on cosmological data alone, so I'm more than willing to discuss one, the other, or both.

SilentDave, your point is well taken. I had thought about just letting the debate stand on its own, but since it is part of a challenge, I would be happy to have a judge rule on whether I have successfully met the challenge, as long as the judge doesn't have any religious predisposition towards young earth creationism, and has a moderate familiarity with the issues involved.

Thank you both for your help and clarifications. :)

Paul, what are your thoughts on Nightshade's, Silent Dave's, and my proposals?

[PaulRichardson]

Everything sounds good to me Kevin. I don't mind having a judge to decide if you beat the challenge. All that must be done is provide evidence of:

1. The universe is over 1 billion years old.
2. Pre-christian myths with similarities to Christian stories.

We can, if you like, leave it up to someone to decide wether you have met this challenge at the end of the debates. I do believe the universe to be 6,000 - 10,000 years old as the ICR claims.

The age of the unverse:

You make your opening statement.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi guys,

I'm assuming that the proposed Age of the Universe debate is open ended and could include arguments from both astronomy and geology, correct? If there are no objections then this is what I presume to be the scope of the proposed debate.

As for Silent Dave's suggestions, I'll leave it up to you guys to discuss what you'd like to do if you want some sort of gentleman's agreement or impartial judge. I'll leave this thread open if you wish to discuss that. Keep in mind that we will make a "peanut gallery" thread in the Evolution/Creation forum (or maybe in the Science/Skepticism forum) for the rest of us to comment on the debate in progress.

If there are no further amendments, then I or Silent Dave will start a debate thread in FDD (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=17) on Jan. 20th.

Jason

[Kevin]

Originally posted by PaulRichardson
Everything sounds good to me Kevin. I don't mind having a judge to decide if you beat the challenge. All that must be done is provide evidence of:

1. The universe is over 1 billion years old.
2. Pre-christian myths with similarities to Christian stories.

We can, if you like, leave it up to someone to decide wether you have met this challenge at the end of the debates. I do believe the universe to be 6,000 - 10,000 years old as the ICR claims.

The age of the unverse:

You make your opening statement.

As Nightshade pointed out, it is customary to keep to one topic during the course of a debate, but I will be more than happy to be a participant in a similar formal debate on the existence of pre-Christian parallels to the alleged supernatural tales in the Bible after the conclusion of the debate on the age of the universe.

I am further content to allow the topic to encompass both the age of the earth and the age of the cosmos as a whole, as long as the current debate solely concerns itself with these issues, and not any other peripheral ones, like the ones I outlined in the RFD.

As to the issue of a judge, I've found that the moderators have previously (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5587) also weighed in after the debate to determine who had made their case best. I find this an acceptable solution if the reasons for the ruling are outlined, as they have been before.

Again, thank you for all your help, and very happy holidays to all. :)

[Silent Dave]

Having acted in the respect of "judge" previously in this forum, I personally would be happy to do it again for your debate, either by myself or in conjunction with other judges.

I would ask, however, that Paul Richardson affirm -- here, in public -- that he will accept my/our decision on whether Kevin has met his challenge as binding, and will clearly mark that his challenge has been met by Kevin on his "fools" website (http://www.geocities.com/defendingthelord/fools) it that turns out to be my/our ruling.


Dave

[PaulRichardson]

Dave,

I will accept your desicion.

[Silent Dave]

Paul--

Just to remove any possible ambiguity, does that mean you will accept my decision as to whether Kevin has met part or all of your challenge as binding, and that you will clearly post that your challenge has been met on your website should that be my decision?


Dave

[PaulRichardson]

If you decide that Kevin has met my challenge, I will post on my website that the challenge has been met.

[Silent Dave]

All right, then. We will hold you to that, Paul.

Nightshade will start a formal thread on the 20th of January, and you may begin the debate then.


Dave

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi Paul,

Forgive me if I'm jumping to conclusions here or singling you out, but based on your posts and your website, I get the feeling that you're somewhat new to the debates regarding the Age of the Universe/Earth.

I'd like to point out that there are higher expecations in the formal debate forum and I would like to bring about content of at least some well thought out (even if fallacious) intellectual substance. It's my hope that those who partake in formal debates here feel that they have enough confidence and knowledge of the material they want to discuss. This is especially so for an Age of the Earth/Universe debate since it gets into some hard sciences and empirical evidences.

Since the debate is scheduled for Jan. 20th, giving you plenty of time, I'd highly recommend studying material from your perspective and ours. You might be familiar with these websites, but here's stuff from the YEC perspective:

http://www.icr.org/research/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

And here's some articles that argue that the Earth/Universe is billions of years old:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

I'd also recommend posting in the Evolution/Creation (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=66) forum every so often to get a feel for what your debate could be like.

Jason

[Silent Dave]

Inasmuch as the website (http://www.geocities.com/defendingthelord/fools) containing the initial challenge which spurred this debate no longer exists, and inasmuch as Paul Richardson is no longer what most people would consider a Christian -- he recently converted to Bushianity (http://www.geocities.com/bushianity/) -- I think it's safe to say that this debate will not proceed.

I'll leave this thread open for the time being, in case I have misread the situation, or in case someone else wishes to debate the age of the universe and/or the existence of Biblical parallels that predate Christianity.


Dave

[Zunedeg]

I was PaulRichardson. Paul Richardson was a creation of mine when I was parodying Christian Literalists.

The admins can easily tell I'm really PaulRichardson from the ISP.

Needless to say since Paul Richardson was just a parody, the debate is off. You can delete this thread.

[Silent Dave]

This thread is now closed, for obvious reasons.

Zunedeg/Paul, next time you decide to parody someone, be careful how far you take it.


Dave

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by Zunedeg
I was PaulRichardson. Paul Richardson was a creation of mine when I was parodying Christian Literalists.

The admins can easily tell I'm really PaulRichardson from the ISP.

Needless to say since Paul Richardson was just a parody, the debate is off. You can delete this thread.

Hello Zunedeg,

I had my suspicions, but I couldn't say for sure so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Nevertheless, trolling (parodying is not the accurate term here) is frowned upon heavily here. The Landover Baptist website, for example, is one thing, but coming to a nontheist forum pretending to be somewhat you're not for your own amusement is another.

I believe you owe an apology to the IIDB. To the theists you tried to portray and for wasting the time of the users, mods, and admins.

I'll be closing this thread as it's strayed from the purpose of the FD(CS) forum. If anyone would like to declare a challenge on the Age of the Earth, feel free to start another thread.

[darn, ya beat me to it Dave. :p]

Jason