Context is everything, and I don't think it's controversial to state that the laws handed down to Moses to govern the Israelites were meant to be taken literally. The Mosaic laws are presented in the Bible as having been provided directly to Moses by God and are meant to be followed by the Israelites for their part of keeping their covenant with God.

In responding to Satan's temptations, Jesus expressed the wisdom of the scriptures. The Old Testament is part of our Bible and we are meant to read it and benefit from its wisdom and lessons. But Jesus wasn't quoting it as a science book and claiming that the earth is 6000 years old.

I'm not gonna weigh in on the topic at hand, as I honestly have more questions than answers at this point in time.

But, Husky mentioned that his reason for posting this was wanting to improve his debating skills, and on that I will comment.

I commend you, Husky, for wanting to improve your skills at debate, as honestly, they need a lot of improvement.

First of all, while most often talked about in written form, like on here, but also true even in speech, if you are repeating (or writing) the words of someone else you MUST cite your source. I know you're only 15, and are homeschooled, but I would hope that by this point your parents (or whoever is teaching you) would have introduced to you the importance of proper citations or references. See, when you write posts like the ones you re-quoted today above, without stating clearly that those are the ideas of someone else, it makes it look as though you are claiming those to be YOUR words or YOUR thoughts. And they're not. You're just repeating what someone else thought and said. In writing, doing this is known as plagiarism, and it can get you expelled from college. It's that serious. Additionally, it discredits you from the get-go. How can anyone believe someone that they've already caught lying? (Now, I know you didn't intentionally mean to lie, but using someone else's words as your own amounts to that). Now, white obviously realized that those were not your words, and figured out where they were from, but there are likely others on this very thread that DID believe those were your words... see how that's being untruthful?

That out of the way... the definition of debate. Merriam Webster's provides several definitions here. Let's consider a couple of those.

: a contention by words or arguments
: to turn over in one's mind : to think about (something, such as different options) in order to decide
: to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments

In my opinion, those definitions make it pretty clear that in order to be successful at debating, you must consider, and think about, the arguments made by those on the other side. Your replies on this thread make it pretty clear that you really are not doing so. Now, to consider and think about those other arguments does not mean that you have to agree with them, by any means. I don't agree with everything that anyone on this thread has said (not even Savell, ) But I've thought about them all. And if I was interested in being better at debating someone that held the opposing viewpoint, I would be more than just thinking about them, I would be researching them. As well as doing a lot more scientific research into YOUR beliefs.

Going to pick on white again here for a minute, but I want to use as an example the post he made where he directed you to several video series, and a book, as well as introducing a lot of information that may or may not have been familiar to you. He gave you links, or advice on where to find the material he recommended, as well as recommending you do some of your own research. In a debate, you would have done some research, even if it was just quick research, and came back with a rebuttal to the facts he stated, supported by referenced facts of your own. Or, at the very least, have come back with research-supported questions. What you did, was ask questions that appeared to come from your own mind, without any facts or evidence to support why you believe your questions were relevant to his statements. You later said you were doing a lot of research in order to reply to his statements.

But it seems as if whenever someone (not just white -- could just as easily be waggler, NorthwesternYote, Foxpaw or whoever) offers you factual information, you just want to state that they are wrong because the Bible says so. And Husky, that's not debate. That's wanting to argue.

Now, you have asked a lot of questions, too, and I view that as a good thing, and enjoyed reading the replies that you got to the questions. Unlike you, however, I entertained the idea that at least some of those answers could have at least a basis in truth. Husky, for the most part, you can do that without losing your faith. If someone says that, for example, matter was formed by a collision of photons, your internal reply to that should be "can that be true?" not "that is not true." See what I'm saying? For that matter, maybe God is what caused those photons to collide and form matter in the first place.

This has been a very interesting discussion, but it's definitely been more discussion than debate. You have been given a lot of information by a lot of different people on here that should give you plenty to think about and research, not just for the next few days but for the next few decades.

In summary, to improve your debating skills: be sure to differentiate between your thoughts and the thoughts of others, be prepared to back up your statements with researched factual information, if you can't do that, state that it is merely your opinion. If someone says something you believe is untrue, don't state such unless you have factual information that can cast doubt on their statement. Ask questions, but have reasons for asking them. For example, say: "If science has proven that XYZ is true, than how is it possible for ABC to happen/exist/whatever.

I'm glad you want to improve your debating skills. Not sure what is available in your area, but maybe there is a debate club or something offered through one of the local schools you could join, even if not a member there?

Thank you for the advice Angela. You have brought to my attention some things I need to work on.

As to everyone else, those statements that I posted were not my ideas or words. They were from Answers in Genesis. I have been taught how to cite my sources, but neglected to so in this case. I apologize for using someone else’s words as my own without saying so.

If you all could put a pause on this debate for a few days while do A LOT more research and study on this topic, I’ll try to come back with a better understanding of what is being said. Thank you everyone!

Parrots are annoying. A burglar breaks in to a nice house in the ritzy part of town. After going thru a window the burglar hears a voice "Jesus sees you". Again he hears "Jesus sees you". Then he sees it is coming from a parrot, he tells him"Your just a parrot" what do you know? Then out of the corner of his eye he notices in the dark corner a set of glaring eyes. Those eyes just happened to belong to a doberman named "Jesus".

Question: Are we really suppose to know? Question #2 Will we in the end?

Alright, let’s try this again!

You previously mentioned C14 dating right, White? If so, how can scientists know what the starting amount of carbon was in each specimen they study? In order to date something accidentally they would need to know the starting amount of carbon so they can determine how much of it had decayed.

When going into a debate, a little research ahead of time on the oppositions view helps

I'm still waiting on your timeline
And then we can examine the geological aspects of your claim

Will do Wetdog. I forgot about that. But I’ll see what I can put together.

If you were to look up how carbon 14 dating works you wouldn't have had to ask this.

I have read that scientists use the C14 and C12 ratio to figure out how much C14 was in an organism at the time of death. The problem with the theory is that the C14 and C12 ratio is not stable and therefore is an inaccurate way to calculate age. Evolutionists say that after the Big Bang it would take the earth about 30,000 years to reach carbon equilibrium in the atmosphere. The carbon levels are still not stable, which means the earth the earth may not be as old as you say.

Some of us don't have the time to read all those articles. Others can't because of our physical limits.
There was a well off business man that was busy all the time. It was getting close to Christmas and since he had no time for his aging mother he thought it would be nice to get her a gift and money was no object.
Well his mother was almost blind and could no longer see to read and her son knew how much she loved to read the Bible. So he bought a parrot that had been sent to the best of schools for learning. The guy thought that would be a great gift for his dear old mother. All she would have to do would be to quote the book, chapter and verse of the bible and the parrot would read it to her or even quote some verses. So he paid top dollar for the bird and had it delivered to his mother a few days before Christmas. Well since her son was too busy to see his mother at Christmas, he waited a few after the holidays and when he got the time he called her and asked her how she liked the bird he sent her. Her reply was that it was alright but it was a little too tough to eat !

You misunderstand. The 14c and 12c ratio is useful specifically because the RATIO is NOT stable. The change in the ratio is what gives the measurement of the time elapsed.

12c IS stable so of course the ratio changes as 14 c gets smaller....... after the death of an organism.

You could also measure the amount of Nitrogen 14. 14C decays into 14N and 14N IS stable. So you can look at a sample and by measuring 14N you will know how much 14c has decayed and therefore the time span.

So if you want to believe Doug Batchelor that the measurements are inaccurate.......then you could also conclude that the Earth may be a lot older.......not younger.

Your problem, and Doug Batchelor's problem, is that carbon 14 dating has been tested and correlated against other methods of dating.....like dendrochronology. The counting of tree rings. There is actually a correction curve that is used to adjust for POSSIBLE variations in the initial ratio

Your other problem is that the Earth's carbon cycle has nothing to do with the big bang. Since the Earth didn't even exist until 9 billion years after the BB. And, the Earth's carbon cycle is a closed loop that recycles carbon atoms over time. It has nothing to do with the BB

The half-life of carbon is just 5,730 years. Since that is the case, how do evolutionists get millions of years out of the dating process?

Need to do your homework here Husky. But in short, at 5730 years half is gone. Now after another 5730 years another half of the remaining half is gone.... and so on and so on and so on. The point in which it could no longer be measured is around 60,000 years. The most accurate results are within the first 20,000 years or so.