The Earth is older than 6-10k Years old
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Full resolution:The Earth is older than 6-10k years old and most likely 4.5 Billion years old. I am Pro.
**This is a scientific debate,not Religious**
**Yes, I am a Christian but I believe in Creation and Evolution simultaneously.**
**BOP is shared**
R3-Defense/closing thoughts and conclusions
Rules are simple
1.No Insults or Personal Attacks
4.No New arguments made in final round
6.No getting off topic
8.You must follow the Debate Structure
9.You can not agree with my stance
11.No offensive words
**ANY violation of these rules merits a loss**
Good luck and have fun
When molten rock cools, forming what are called igneous rocks, radioactive atoms are trapped inside. Afterwards, they decay at a predictable rate. By measuring the quantity of unstable atoms left in a rock and comparing it to the quantity of stable daughter atoms in the rock, scientists can estimate the amount of time that has passed since that rock formed.
Ideally each ring can be precisely dated to the year of its growth. As a result, dendrochronology has served as the standard for the last 10,000 years by which other methods such as radiocarbon are calibrated. Most tree species typically produce annual growth rings characterized by a light-colored earlywood band that grades into a dark-colored latewood band. The following year’s growth ring is sharply demarcated from the preceding year’s growth ring. Although many trees generate rings of approximately constant thickness from year to year, trees sensitive to stressful changes in environmental conditions such as temperature and humidity will produce rings that vary in thickness from year to year. Growth is generally promoted by higher average temperature and high precipitation. It is the sensitive tree species that are the best suited to dendrochronological dating because, to determine when a tree lived and died, portions of its ring pattern are matched to ring sequences with similar relative thickness variations in a standard master chronology
Ice cores provide the most direct and highly resolved records of (especially) atmospheric parameters over these timescales. They record climate signals, as well as forcing factors of global significance such as greenhouse gases and of more regional significance such as atmospheric aerosol content. Until now, ice-core data have been available only for the past 420 kyr, with the longest record coming from Vostok in East Antarcticahese data indicated the similarities of the last four glacial terminations. They showed that glacials and interglacials had similar bounds in the measured properties over the last four cycles. Most tellingly, they showed the very close association between greenhouse gases
South African rocks studied by geologist Ken Eriksson contain ancient tidal deposits indicating that at some point in the past, the Moon orbited "25-percent closer to Earth than it does today."The distance between the Earth and the Moon is 384,403 kilometers, so for Ken Eriksson's work to fit with a YEC timescale the Earth would have to have been receding at a speed greater than 15 kilometers per year. However, the Moon is currently receding from the Earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year.More recent work on Precambrian sediments gives more precise numbers. From Neoproterozoic (620 million years ago) "tidal rhythmites" in Elatina and Reynella, Australia, the Moon's major axis had a value 0.965 ± 0.005 times its present-day value. That implies an average recession rate of 2.17 ± 0.31 cm/yr, a little more than half the present-day rate of 3.82 ± 0.07 cm/yr. Going back further to banded iron formations in Western Australia in the Paleoproterozoic (2450 Mya), one finds a major-axis ratio of 0.906 ± 0.029, and an average recession rate of 1.24 ± 0.71 cm/yr over most of the Proterozoic So for whatever reason, the Moon is now outspiraling relatively rapidly.
Therefore, the thesis of my case will be that:
- Firstly, there is substantial evidence to suggest the Earth is, in fact, 6-10k years old.
- Secondly, there is substantial evidence to suggest that there is virtually no likelihood of a Big Bang/Evolutionary Universe. (As it is given in this debate that if the Earth were 4.5 billion years old the universe would follow the Big Bang Model and that if it were 6-10k years old the universe would have been birthed through Creation.)
There are whole sequences of these hardened sedimentary rock layers being bent and folded, but without fracturing. Tapeats Sandstone, which is 100–325 feet (30–100 meters) thick, is bent and folded 90° in some instances. The Muav Limestone above has similarly been bent. However, it supposedly took 270 million years to deposit these particular layers. Surely in that time the Tapeats Sandstone at the bottom would have dried out and the sand grains cemented together, especially with 4,000 feet (1,220 m) of rock layers piled on top of it and pressing down on it? The only viable scientific explanation is that the whole sequence was deposited very quickly—the creation model indicates that it took less than a year, during the global Flood cataclysm. So the 520 million years never happened, and the earth is young.
But this quandary is even worse for those who deny the Flood. The Tapeats Sandstone and its equivalents can be traced right across North America, and beyond to across northern Africa to southern Israel. Indeed, the whole Grand Canyon sedimentary sequence is an integral part of six megasequences that cover North America. Only a global Flood cataclysm could carry the sediments to deposit thick layers across several continents one after the other in rapid succession in one event.
Faint Sun Paradox:
Evidence now supports astronomers’ belief that the sun’s power comes from the fusion of hydrogen into helium deep in the sun’s core, but there is a huge problem. As the hydrogen fuses, it should change the composition of the sun’s core, gradually increasing the sun’s temperature. If true, this means that the earth was colder in the past. In fact, the earth would have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago, when life supposedly evolved.
The rate of nuclear fusion depends upon the temperature. As the sun’s core temperatures increase, the sun’s energy output should also increase, causing the sun to brighten over time. Calculations show that the sun would brighten by 25% after 3.5 billion years. This means that an early sun would have been fainter, warming the earth 31°F (17°C) less than it does today. That’s below freezing.
But evolutionists acknowledge that there is no evidence of this in the geologic record. They even call this problem the faint young sun paradox. While this isn’t a problem over many thousands of years, it is a problem if the world is billions of years old.
Two other mechanisms can destroy comets—ejections from the solar system and collisions with planets.
Given the loss rates, it’s easy to compute a maximum age of comets. That maximum age is only a few million years. Obviously, their prevalence makes sense if the entire solar system was created just a few thousand years ago, but not if it arose billions of years ago.
It is also proven with the improbability of the universe having been randomly birthed to the fine-tuning required for life:Even absolutely minuscule tweaks in the laws of nature would be devastating for life.
For example, If protons were 0.2 percent heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms.
It becomes clear, that some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be less than 1 part in 10^40000. Imagine shooting a bullet from one side of the observable universe to a 1-inch target on the other. It would have a one out of 10^60th chance of hitting. That compared to 10^40000 is mind-blowing, and impossible to ignore.
1. First, Snelling has oversimplified the processes of rock deformation by stating that it is either ductile deformation of soft rocks, or plastic deformation of soft rocks. It is one thing to simplify a scientific concept for the sake of writing for a general audience, but Snelling has completely mislead his readers on this one.Snelling states that only soft sediments are capable of ductile deformation; that soft sediments will deform like clay, while solid rocks are brittle and only capable of fracture. In reality, most solid rocks are capable of either brittle or ductile deformation, depending on the conditions. Factors that determine which will happen include the type of rock, the amount and type of stress applied to the rock; lithostatic pressure (due to the weight of overlying rocks), temperature, strain rate (fast or slow deformation), type of cement holding the grains together, and fluid pressure.At low temperatures and pressures, such as those encountered at Earth’s surface, almost all rocks deform in a brittle manner. If one applies sufficient stress to these rocks, they will break. As one goes deeper in the Earth’s crust, temperature and pressure increases, and rocks are more likely to behave in ductile rather than a brittle fashion. Some rock types can deform by folding at depths of less than one kilometer if stress is applied slowly. With increasing depth and temperature, more rock types can deform by folding rather than faulting.The Tapeats Sandstone is presently buried beneath up to two kilometers of sediment, and was likely buried more deeply than this at the time of deformation.2. A second problem for Snelling’s argument is that there are a variety of mechanisms by which a solid rock can bend rather than break. Think of a layer of sandstone, such as the Tapeats Sandstone at the base of the Grand Canyon Paleozoic sedimentary pile. A layer such as this can be folded without significant fracturing by several means:
- Intergranular movement — individual sand grains slide past each other
- Intragranular deformation — internal distortions within individual grains, often at the atomic level
- Recrystallization — atoms are rearranged at the atomic level, often in the presence of fluids.Snelling completely ignores these, even though any of them could have been in operation at the time of deformation.3. A third—and very serious—problem for Snelling’s argument is the nature of soft-sediment deformation. He tries to show that intense folding in the Tapeats Sandstone is the result of soft-sediment deformation. But if the Tapeats and overlying formations had been soft at the time of deformation, soft-sediment deformation and slumping would have occurred on a much larger scale than what is seen at this location in the Grand Canyon.When layers of solid rock deform, they maintain their integrity as distinct layers. For example, whether folded or faulted, the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon retains its identity as a distinct layer, without mixing with other rock units. Soft sediments, on the other hand, can respond to stress in a number of ways. In addition to folding, a results of deformation of soft sediments includes different types of soft sediment deformation and differential loading structures, such as intense localized folding, diapirs, sand pillows, and clastic dikes These structures are formed because of the inherent instability of a stack of unconsolidated sediments of varying densities and water contents.Soft sediment deformation structures are common within individual layers of the geologic column, having been formed when these layers were unlithified. For the young-Earth creationists to make their case, however, they need to be able to demonstrate that soft sediment deformation is present in the geologic record on a massive, inter-formational scale. It would not be enough to point out isolated instances of soft-sediment deformation within layers.4. Related to the problem of soft-sediment deformation is the problem with slumping. If this stack of sediments—a few thousand meters thick—were faulted as in Figure 1, one would expect the upper layers to slide downhill under the influence of gravityAs a rule, this sort of thing is not observed in the geological record, and where it is (e.g. Heart Mountain, Wyoming) it clearly occurred in the solid state.
A new study reveals that the water in many comets may share a common origin with Earth’s oceans, reinforcing the idea that comets played a key role in bringing water to our planet billions of years ago.
“dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.”
The very first point in this case is that of supposedly ancient rocks, identified through radiometric dating. This is presented as some sort of proof, although radiometric dating is indeed based in assumption.
It is founded on the unprovable assumptions: that there were daughter isotopes to begin with, that the decay rate has remained constant, and that there has been no contamination.
Regarding the first assumption, geologists have tried to predict the beginning number of daughter isotopes accurately, but this is via the so-called isochron technique, which is still based on the other assumptions I spoke of!
“lava flows that have occurred in the present have been tested soon after they erupted, and they invariably contained much more argon-40 than expected. For example, lava flows on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, known to be less than 50 years old, yielded “ages” of up to 3.5 million years.”He goes on to conclude, “it is logical to conclude that if recent lava flows of known age yield incorrect old potassium-argon ages due to the extra argon-40 that they inherited from erupting volcanoes, then ancient lava flows of unknown ages could likewise have inherited extra argon-40 and yield excessively old ages.”
According to L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin:
“the radioactive decay of uranium in tiny crystals in a New Mexico granite yields a uranium-lead “age” of 1.5 billion years. Yet the same uranium decay also produced abundant helium, but only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals.This means that the uranium must have decayed very rapidly over the same 6,000 years that the helium was leaking. The rate of uranium decay must have been at least 250,000 times faster than today’s measured rate.”
Contamination from wall-rocks as lava is spewed during eruption, the molten rocks beneath volcanoes, and even rainwater is completely unaccounted for in these calculations. Clearly, over spans of billions of years, that leads to huge miscalculation.
According to Snelling, “Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years!”
The second major assumption my opponent throws around is that Pangaea is “proven fact.”
And the assumption that Pangaea having existed, therefore proves an old Earth.
Pangaea is not proven, there is only substantial evidence for a Pangaea. I will therefore give my opponent the benefit of the doubt here and concede for debate purposes that Pangaea existed. In fact, the motion of the earth’s crust is accepted by secular and creationist scientists alike. The difference lies in the time frame over which the movement has happened.
“Dr. John Baumgardner, with the cooperation of others, has used world-class computer modeling to show how the subduction (sinking into the mantle) of the ocean floor could have happened at a quick pace. As the region of cold ocean crust near the continents began to sink into the mantle, it pulled the rest of the seafloor with it. New magma rose up replacing the old along what are the mid-ocean ridges today. In just a matter of weeks, the continental plates could have separated and settled near their present positions.”
“As the magma rose to replace the spreading seafloor, it would have produced massive jets of steam carrying large amounts of water high into the atmosphere. This matches the description in the Bible and provides a mechanism to explain where all of the water for the Flood came from.
Another effect would be flooding across the continents. As the hot, lower-density magma rose, the new ocean floor would have floated higher than the original ocean crust, displacing the water and forcing it onto the continents. This explains how marine creatures were deposited in thick and extensive layers across the continents and how fossils of marine organisms wound up on the tops of the mountains. The secular uniformitarian model has great difficulty explaining these features.”
The third major assumption my opponent makes is that tree-ring dating is infallible.
However, my opponent’s explanation of the process ignores several factors that determine the growth rate of trees and the width of their growth rings—the soils, altitude, water table, climate, seasons, and weather. Droughts, fires, and periods of abnormally high rainfall will impact the growth pattern of tree rings, so a tree will not always have one growth ring per year.
As Snelling writes,
“[In order to date visually,] Scientists must visually compare the appearance of growth rings, noting where some rings appear thicker or thinner. They then match the patterns in dead trees to other trees. In this way, scientists establish a hypothetical series of rings, some thin and some thick, going back thousands of years for each species.”
“this involves massive layers of questionable interpretation. Matching growth rings between different wood samples is called “cross-dating” or “cross-matching.” Though it seems this matching would be easy, counting growth rings is tedious, and visually cross-matching similar ring patterns and specific growth rings from sample to sample is highly subjective. There can be major variations from tree to tree in a forest and, accordingly, in the wooden beams used to build houses. “
“So scientists don’t rely on visual comparisons. They use radiocarbon (14C) dating of growth rings to obtain their approximate age. Then they match this information to the associated pattern of rings in the master tree-ring chronology. However, ironically, radiocarbon dating is calibrated and corrected using tree-ring chronologies. So conclusions about tree-ring ages depend on radiocarbon dating, which depends on tree rings, which depends on radiocarbon dating. Neither tree-ring counting nor radiocarbon dating is conclusive alone.”
This assumption is based on the belief that the layers found are annual in nature.
What if multiple ice layers have accumulated every year? Multiple evidences point to that very thing.
“Consider the World War II fighter plane abandoned on a Greenland glacier in 1942. When history buffs tried to recover the plane 46 years later, they were astonished to find that more than 250 feet (75 m) of ice had already entombed it. That 250 feet held many more layers than the 50 it should have had if only one layer had accumulated every year.And we don’t have to be scientists to know that snow usually leaves more than one layer a year. Snow layers are visible every time snow falls through the winter months. When you clear your driveway or sidewalk of snow, you can see snow layers in the banks of accumulated snow you just shoveled through.”
He goes on to cite Dr. Larry Vardiman, former atmospheric physicist for the Institute for Creation Research.
“He and his graduate students tested alternative possibilities. They examined computer records of known storms to simulate their behavior if the surface of the ocean were hotter, as it was in the early decades after the Flood. (Remember those hot volcanic waters that were released from “the fountains of the great deep” at the start of the Flood? They would have raised the ocean water temperatures considerably.)
These researchers found that huge storms would have swept across polar regions, dumping many inches of snow every week. As the surface melted between these storms, 20 or more ice layers could easily have accumulated every year during the first century or two after the Flood. The same time period saw many dust-producing volcanic eruptions, as supervolcanoes rocked the earth and the planet settled into relative quiet after the cataclysmic upheavals of the Flood. So most of the ice core layers would probably have accumulated during the turbulent centuries of the post-Flood Ice Age.”
Ran out of room, and as Dr.Franklin and I agreed, I will be continuing here:
“another serious procedural error is that there is no distinction in the amount of Helium diffused that separates 3Helium from 4Helium. One may wonder why such a detail would matter; after all, Helium is Helium, right? Most of the 3Helium would not have been caused by decay while most-if not all-of the 4Helium would be the result of decay, so to simply state that a certain amount of Helium diffused from the rock would be inaccurately representing the facts.”
“In the scientific study of continental movement, we learned that there are submarine spreading zones marked by intermittent basalt eruptions that force the continents apart. We also know that the Earth's magnetic field occasionally reverses polarity. As the rock of submarine basalt ridges cools, it records the magnetic polarity of the planet. Basalt on continents does the same thing, but not quite so well. Below is a map of the magnetic reversals recorded from a submarine spreading zone, and the corresponding map of these polarity changes from a stacked series of continental basalts;”
2.Prometheus is 4899 years old (549 too many).
““Layers in lake sediments contain pollen that reveals the identity of the plants growing near the lake at any particular time. Like annual layers of Greenland ice cores, those (termed varves) in lake sediment cores can often be counted visually and in both cases, chronology has been confirmed by ash (tephra) from dated eruptions. Change in climate markedly alters the species of pollen in the lake sediment layers reflecting changes in plant ecology. Very marked changes occurred at the termination of the last known glaciation (11,600 years BP) and even the minor cold period at 8,200 years BP was detected by changes in varve pollen species. However, no change was recorded in numerous lake sediment pollen profiles at or near 4,000 years BP.”
“The electrical conductivity measurement determines the d.c. conductance between electrodes on a fresh ice surface. Dielectric profiling determines the conductivity of the ice at higher frequencies. Both were measured in the field at a temperature of -20 ± 2 °C, corrected.to -15 °C. Data were collected at high resolution and averaged to 1 m. Vertical thin sections were prepared in the field at a periodicity of 10 m, then digitized and analysed using an image analysis procedureto determine the mean grain radius. A 3.4 cm × 3.4 cm strip of ice was melted on a hotplate in the field, and fed into various detectors. Aliquots (1.1-m averages) were also collected from this melting device into clean containers, frozen and shipped to Europe for ion chromatographic analysisf major ions (presented for Termination V). All other measurements were made in laboratories in Europe after the ice had been shipped frozen from Dome C. δD was determinedon meltwater from 55-cm-long sections. This record,still discontinuous for some parts, should be considered as preliminary. Also, we used a ‘quick’ mode (each sample is measured twice instead of four times), leading to a typical accuracy of 1.5‰ (1σ), whereas we aim for a final precision of 0.5‰ over the entire core, as currently obtained for EDC96 (the upper 780 m).
Let's even be generous and let 1 billion sediments be removed by means of river deltas. That's still a net gain of 18 billion tons a year! There is clearly way too little sediment for the Earth to be billions of years.
He says that the ocean floor is proven to be young because of all this activity plus volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. He cites that the oldest sediment found there was 200 million years old. However, the reliability of this date is once again in question because of the fallacy in radioactive dating, and even still it is not the AGE of sediments in question or the ACTIVITY, but the AMOUNT. There is clearly not enough sediments in the ocean. The activity of these sediments is irrelevant.
He says that where the crust is older, there are more sediments. This is only logical, and it is not a point in of itself. The actual point, however, is that this is impossible given the Flood. However, the Flood easily would have randomly dispersed sediment, and then over the course of the time between now and then, more sediments would have been added at a net gain of 19 billion tons/year. Thus, the correlation my opponent speaks of does not refute anything.
He says sediments dissolve over "a long period of time." This is to imply that the sediments could've disappeared over the course of billions of years. I would contend that dissolution of sediments does not happen when sediments are being packed on top of eachother over the course of thousands of years. In order for the sediments to be dissolving, they would have to be on the surface, exposed to the most water. However, with 19 billion tons of sediment packed on them each year, that is impossible.
My opponent closes by saying that sediments are "not a good way of measuring the age of the Earth." What we are seeing through sediments is not what the age of the Earth IS, but what it ISN'T. It is impossible for it to be billions of years.
My opponent cites an author who criticizes Snelling's work. They say that solid rocks are capable of either brittle or ductile deformation, depending on the conditions.
This is true. They explicitly acknowledge Snelling's point: At low temperatures and pressures, such as those encountered at Earth’s surface, almost all rocks deform in a brittle manner. If one applies sufficient stress to these rocks, they will break.
They go on to say, however, that if one goes deeper into the Earth, the temperatures are hotter and there is more pressure, and thus it results in pliable solid rock. The big problem with this, however, is that the heat and pressure would have transformed these layers into metamorphic rocks. Yet Tapeats Sandstone is still sandstone, a sedimentary rock! If one quickly stacks the layers, however, the possibility for 2 km thick sedimentary rocks is very possible.
The author goes on to insist that there are too many ignored mechanisms for rock bending. However, even they acknowledge that the vast majority of rocks deform in a brittle manner at low temperatures or pressures. Under stress, they break. So, a flood is the only logical explanation of how this happened. We can see that the sandstone rocks were under little pressure and temperature as they were not metamorphic, but they are bent. So the only explanation is that they were bent when wet and pliable.
The writer goes on to criticize how the bending happens on a small scale. The bending may happen on a small scale, but the layers are definitely not on a small scale. They span over continents, from North America to the Middle East. Have the secular scientist explain how such uniform layers over the globe could be formed by anything other than a global, uniform event. Then, we can debate the scale of bending.
Next, they argue of slumping. However, I do not see it viable to insist on the influence of gravity when the layers are all quickly manifested and cemented before gravity can truly influence them.
Next, he says that without an atmosphere, the sun's rays would have heated the Earth.
Then, he says that"coronal mass ejections in Earth’s past lead to fewer cosmic rays hitting Earth which lead to less cloud cover. Less cloud cover meant that less sunlight would have been reflected back into space which would have allowed the surface to heat up."
Computer models have been constructed to simulate such a giant impact. The results have strained the hypothesis to the breaking point. One of the new dynamical results is that the debris from the collision would rain back down onto Earth instead of remaining in orbit and forming the moon. To hurl the debris far enough from the earth, the impactor would need to be three times the size of Mars. The results of such a collision are hard to understand, much less model. And if the moon did form after such a collision, the orbit would likely be unstable with a distance of only 14,000 miles above the earth and circling it every two hours. Lissauer also noted the unsolved problem of losing the excess angular momentum.
A third problem is that there is too much iridium to fit with the theory. Although asteroids do have iridium in them, they do not normally spread out the iridium upon impact. (In other words, areas around impacts are not iridium-enriched.) In at least one case, the iridium would have taken half a million years to cover the earth, by evolutionary counting.
"sources would be too much reliant on my personal bias."
I know but I used .edu from top scientists in the world, but whatever
I think this has been my highest quality debate ever
I would actually like to read your thoughts on it, after we are finished
Certainly! Allow me some time to finish up my debate with Oromagi (Which I will do today), and we can choose a topic and get started.
In that case, if you want a specific targeted debate on something: say radiometric dating; I maybe able to take some time.
I am researching both sides and trying to arrive to a conclusion of my own. I am doing that by participating in these debates, and by reading plenty of literature on the topics from both camps.
As for right now, I have some major doubts about the Big Bang theory but I am unsure of whether that would necessarily lead to a Young Earth Creationism.
I do need some continued research into the matter.
Out of interest, do you believe that? Or just taking the opposing view?
Thanks for the vote :)
Thx for the vote
Con argues preservation of microscopic soft tissue within T-Rex bones. Cons argument here feels like its leaping to a massive conclusion: that because some microscopic samples contain preserved remnants - that it’s impossible for the samples to be old.
Pro explains that iron nanoparticles can preserve blood in such a way: cons reply somewhat misses the point: pro suggested the ostrich blood was recognizable after two years: its not clear exactly the level of preservation. Cons response was to imply that two years was the limit of preservation - which does not seem to be the case.
The issue here I have with pro; is that pro could have knocked this out of the park by comparing the relatively common preserved state of 10,000 remains with that of dinosaurs: but didn’t.
Pros response is not too compelling on its own here as a result.
13.) the unlikelihood of the Big Bang.
It’s not clear exactly how cons case here points to a young earth. Even if I buy the argument, it just tells me that the Big Bang didn’t happen - not that the earth is young. As a result, I can’t really weigh this part.
10.) Faint young sun.
Con argues that the sun must have been lower powered earlier in its cycle, as there is no evidence of this in the geological record it must not be old. This doesn’t seem to justify his specific contention of the earth being less than 10000 years old, just not as old as claimed - at best.
I found pros counter argument largely irrelevant. How do comets warm the earth? How did collisions make the geological record appear as it does? Pro needs to quantify a plausible scenario that could answer the question - or provide evidence of some wild variations, and their cause.
Con argues that comets would have all been destroyed if the solar system was not young. Pro talks about the oort cloud and the Kuiper belt but doesn’t explain to me how this explains how the comets we see can be replenished. Even if I accept the Kuiper belt and Oort Cloud as real, pro doesn’t give me a mechanism by which comets can be replenished.
Saying this, both sides are making assumptions. Con assumes that every comment we see has existed in its current orbit since the dawn of the solar system and can’t possibly be perturbed into its current position. Even though pro doesn’t explicitly state that comments can be perturbed over time from their current locations - cons argument doesn’t feel convincing.
8.) Geology. Con argues that the rate of sediment deposits on the sea floor preclude the earth being old.
Pro points out the sediment eroded from land doesn’t all get to the ocean floor, that it is realities on continental slopes, river deltas, etc: and as a result the accumulation in the ocean floor is unreliable.
Cons response largely misses this point, and refers back to his claims that only a limited amount of sediment is removed. While I buy cons point about radiometric dating, the issue is that pros argument is that a limited amount of sediment makes it to the sea floor: and as con isn’t able to quantify how much of the sediment from land gets to the sea floor - this goes to pro.
9.) Rock layers. Con argues rock layers area bent in some areas, and as rock is brittle, it would have snapped, and must not been bent when laid down. Pro points out that applied pressure over time can cause the rock to be bent without breaking. Con objects saying this would make rocks into metaphoric rock; but this leads me to uncertainty ; how much? Pros point is that extra temperature and pressure can allow rocks to bend without breaking: but it is not clear whether this temperature and pressure exceeds a temperature threshold for metaphomorphisis. Con assumes it does - but doesn’t justify it. Secondly, con also appears to dismiss the third point to the case of slumping. The issue for me, is whether to rocks can be soft enough to bend, and then solidify so fast they cannot slump or bent. Pros case here appears reasonable and I was expecting more from con on this point.
Overall, I don’t think con really establishes this point.
4.) Zircons; pro con argues that the dating method has not been validated - this is actually a radiometric dating argument.
5.) Ocr dating. This was used to support a greater than 10,000 year old case. My issue with cons case here is that he explains that ocr can be faulty easily - but doesn’t imo justify why he can be sure every date greater than 10,000 years old is invalid.
6.) impact craters. Pro argues the number of craters is large and there is no reason to be. Con presents a large number of speculative reasons why this could be so. This includes last Tuesdayism, and that bombarent occurred at some point in the last 6000 years. Pro really points out how this is all speculative with no supporting data
7.) Lunar recession. Pro argues that lunar recession points to an old earth, based upon the correlation between tides and the rate of lunar recession. pro argues lunar recession occurred in the past is not compatible with a young earth. Cons response was that the calculation makes an assumption and is indicative of a billion year old earth.
Pro provides a counter to cons objections; that the varves have shown to be accurate to a fairly high precision, that the calculations when accurately performed show up to a 4,5bn year recession.
Pro points out that con contradicts whether the moons recession has sped up or slowed down.
My issues with cons response, is that it seems tenuous; it is an argument that the measurement maybe inaccurate, imo pro needs to square the evidence with a young earth; I don’t think he did this on this points
Pro makes an argument about how the existence of pangea proves the earth is billions of years old. The issue is that pro is arguing based upon continental drift not speeding up substantially; and that the timeframe of Pangea is billions of years.
Pro does better here, I think pro pointing out the mechanics and necessary heat and friction generated by continents and rocks moving as fast as necessary appears a good reason to discount cons explanation: as con appears to concede the existence of Pangea, this leads to a solid plank against cons position - though imo, pro did not do enough to show the billions of years element with this point.
3.) Tree rings/ Ice cores
There were a number of small points pro raised here relating to wats in which we know the earth isn’t 6000 years old:
Trees and ice layers go back further than 6000 years. Con points out some issues with interpretation, and there can be multiple layers/rings, and possibility of error: though it is not clear how this potential speculative error could lead to the actual error, con leaves (heh) this up in the air. For trees con argues that there is circular dating going on. Pro points out that carbon dating is used to confirm ages ; it is not fully clear what pros reputation to the argument that tree rings are calibrating carbon dating, so it’s hard for me to determine who is correct.
I can’t really use pros tree example here; as it’s not strictly pertinent to the exact resolution. If Noah’s flood didn’t happen, the earth could be 6000 years old and those trees 4500.
The ice cores argument I have to say goes to con. Pro says that the ice cores go back 740,000, con argues that layers may not be annual; pro says they aren’t measuring annual layers but isn’t entirely clear the reason the 740,000 number is valid. This isn’t to say it isn’t, but pros response didn’t explain how variability of weather and climate are accounted for in the ice; and for that reason, I can’t accept it.
This debate is especially hard given that I have a substantial background in these debates. It means I know who is doing what, what points are being missed, etc.
I’m going to give a wide range for ties because of this.
Also note I’m really not a fan of going into an external text, or having weird interleaved rounds. This would be much better as a back and forth imo, and much better on one of these topicsz
1.) Radiometric dating.
Pro argues radiometric dating shows the age of the earth is more than 6000 years. Con argues that this dating method relies on a set of assumptions (constant decay, etc), and presents a couple of notional examples as to why we can’t trust it (argon-40 and helium in uranium).
The contamination aspect, and using examples of bad dates help throw doubt onto pros position. While pro has an answer for a couple of these points, pro doesn’t answer the key issue about constancy of radiation - nor explain why we can be fairly certain the rate has not changed and our dates are valid. In this case I find myself leaning con.
I am in the process of reviewing it.
Need a vote within the next few days, could you help?
Just to clarify, in the last argument my opponent points this out:
"My opponent has contradicted himself as well, so is it slowing down or speeding up? This flaw in my opponents argument can't go unnoticed."
I would just like to clarify that this is a writing error on my part, not an error in argumentation! I meant to say "That isn't even considering the fact that the moon's recession rate was FASTER in the past!" I have changed the error!
Sources for R3
jesus is God, he is part of the son, In the name of the Father, The SON, and the holy spirit
MY QUOTE TO YOU: "Why are you lying to Jesus the Christ? Don't you realize He is watching you? (Hebrews 4:13) You cannot be a Catholic and accept that Jesus is only the Son of God, whereas the Catholic faith believes in the Trinity Doctrine where Jesus is God!"
YOUR RESPONSE: "ok"
HUH? Can you clear your up your position? How can you be a Catholic and not accept that Jesus is God?
Why are you lying to Jesus the Christ? Don't you realize He is watching you? (Hebrews 4:13) You cannot be a Catholic and accept that Jesus is only the Son of God, whereas the Catholic faith believes in the Trinity Doctrine where Jesus is God!
2.sine I was born, been going to Sunday school since I was in Kingdergarden, I'm not revealing my age.
4.Son Of God
If you are not to embarrassed about your Christian faith in front of Jesus (Hebrews 4:13), can you answer the following questions to learn more about you and your faith?
1. What denomination do you follow regarding Christianity? Are you a Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, or?
2. How long have you been practicing your said denomination? 1 year, 10 years, or more?
3. What bible do you read; the King James, NSV, NLT, NIV, or?
4. Do you believe that Jesus is God incarnate, or the Son of God?
Remember the following passage to be able to answer the simple questions above: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:16)
Jesus and I thank you.
I use it in quotations, I only do that because some of this science stuff is hard to paraphrase, any evidence the Bible promotes a young Earth?
Look at Dr. Franklin, to make himself look like he is somewhat intelligent, he COPIES AND PASTES articles upon the topic at hand! LOL!!! At least when doing so, the spelling is correct for a change!
Dr. Franklins new moniker is: Dr.C&PFranklin! Priceless truth!
YOUR SATANIC QUOTE AGAIN: "Im not twisting the Bible.Its the truth"
All you have to be concerned about, is the FACT that the Bible DOES NOT promote a 4.5 BILLION OLD EARTH because that would be going directly against Jesus' words, you blatant ignorant fool! At best, it promotes that the earth is 6-8 thousand years old, you pathetic dumbfounded FAKE Christian! Read the chronological order of Jesus back to Adam, FOOL! Then subsequently, do the math from Jesus to the present day. Get it? Huh? Can you add 2+2? Huh?
I have NEVER, and I repeat, NEVER seen such an embicilic fake Christian like you before in all my internet travels, unbelievable!
Sources For R2
What I tend to do is say, "According to ___, '____'"
I made a big lapse in judgement, and I ended up cutting a lot of that out to have enough space for the actual argumentation.
I then elaborate on those quotations in my own words.
Contrary to what you say, my "entire argument" was not copy and paste, but "cards" of evidence strung together by my argumentation.
Did I spare my own elaboration and paraphrasing WAY too much, and end up ripping off other sources? Yes, absolutely.
I regret it and would craft it differently in hindsight. It is plagiarism, but it is not the entirety of my case. I assure you, I did not need to cite sources to write my own arguments, I just assumed it would make things seem more credible.
Also, I never INTENDED to rip off other writers, it never crossed my mind that that was what I was doing.
Regardless, plagiarism or not, it has no relevance over whether my points are valid. They clearly still are.
It was a crappy thing to do on my part, even if I wasn't consciously choosing to plagiarize.
However, it makes no sense to me to dwell on it in an online forum.
Im not twisting the Bible.Its the truth
I know,its fine by me though
Just to be clear here, if your entire argument consists of copy and pasted paragraphs from someone else as in this case, it's still plagiarism no matter how how you quote and cite those paragraphs.
YOUR UNGODLY QUOTE #30: "And tnat's fine, Christopher_best can think it was literal, And THATS OKAY!!!!!!!!!!"
NO IT IS NOT OKAY FOR ANY INEPT FAKE CHRISTIANS LIKE YOU AND YOUR EQUALLY DUMBFOUNDED COHORT CHRISTOPHER BEST TO TAKE THE SCRIPTURES IN THEIR OWN WAY OF INTERPRETATION, BECAUSE WHAT JESUS SAID ONCE, HE DID NOT MEAN FOR HIS CREATION TO TAKE IN MANY DIFFERENT AND CONTRADICTING WAYS, YOU BLATANT SATANIC MINION OF SATAN!!!
Dr. Franklin, with you trying in vain to REWRITE the Bible AGAIN, you are guilty of the following passage AGAIN: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19)
I will be looking forward to you taking the one-way E-ticket ride to the depths of the sulfur lakes of Hell upon your ungodly demise, praise Jesus' revenge in your behalf of ridding yet another fake Christian upon earth!
I can see that you want to be as Biblically ignorant as your Satanic partner in crime, Dr. Franklin, pertaining to biblical axioms! Priceless admitted stupidity on your part, why am I not surprised?
YOUR COMICAL AND REVEALING QUOTE: " I would wager he simply has not been exposed to the solid, rational explanations of Creation but more of blind ignorance such as what you are spewing here."
The ONLY ones that are totally blinded by their biblical ignorance is YOU, and the ever so inept DR. FRANKLIN!!! The both of you are blatant bible ignorant fools when you purport that the earth is 4.5 billion years old! What do you use your bible for, a door stop? Maybe a decoration on your coffee table? This is because you have obviously NOT READ it in its entirety, understood?
The bible teaches, with specificity, that the EARTH, along with mankind, is approximately 6-8 THOUSAND YEARS OLD, and for you to proffer otherwise to the direct inspired words of Jesus on this topic, IS BLASPHEME and you will pay for your insolence upon Judgment Day, praise Jesus' revenge!
Kids, nothing but snot nosed kids roam this forum on DebateArt! :(
They are different forms of Christianity-Catholic,Protestant,Baptist,etc. So there is different ways to enjoy the Bible. I think that 24 hour days to God in the Genesis 1 story is more than the usual. I mean God is so old how can six DAYS equal his great creation. And tnat's fine, Christopher_best can think it was literal, And THATS OKAY!!!!!!!!!!
And no Satan is not working me overtime. Lol
Don't worry about Plagiarism, You cited everything. Thats fine,You can out them in quote bars if you would like. Working on rebuttals now
Dr.Franklin is no such thing, he is not a “fake Christian” for questioning and interrogating the universe. In fact, the God of the Bible invites people to “come, reason with me.” I would wager he simply has not been exposed to the solid, rational explanations of Creation but more of blind ignorance such as what you are spewing here.
Given that without these sorts of arguments being exposed to Christians, it’s easy to see why so many compromise parts of the Bible with secular science in order to remain rational in thought. I was one such Christian. I am not anymore, but only because I had people explaining the rationality of the Bible rather than talking down to me as lesser.
You are counter-productive to your own cause, if anything at all.
The ever so inept, removing one foot to insert the other, Dr. Franklin, continues to be one of the most dumbfounded fake Christians on DebateArt, bar none!
DR. FRANKLIN IGNORANT QUOTE: "Since I claim that that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old than Pangea must be a fact and it is. The evidence is overwhelming"
What is indeed OVERWHELMING, is the biblical fact that Dr. Franklin does NOT read his bible, let alone in understanding its inspired by Jesus' true word. Therefore, he is easily made the continued fool on many of his weak and wishful thinking debates.
A TRUE Christian like myself, has to accept that both the earth and mankind are approximately 6-8 thousand years old if the Bible is being used for affirmation to said propositions, and not the insidious anachronistic Devil Speak that Dr. Franklin spews forth on a regular basis. Once again, the ever so inept Dr. Franklin steps in the proverbial poo once again in proposing the earth is 4.5 billion years old. !!! LOL !!!
Dr. Franklin, to save further embarrassment to your blatant biblical ignorance, isn't it time for a moniker name change for you on DebateArt? Priceless stupidity on your part, and at the expense of making a mockery of Jesus' inspired TRUE words within the scriptures once again.
Satan is certainly working you overtime on DebateArt!
Upon reflection, I should have made an effort to paraphrase. Thank you for pointing that out, I shall be more careful about that. Although it does not detract from my arguments, I overlooked that very lazily.
Even if you credit your sources, copy and pasting someone else's entire arguments is still plagiarism
My constructive is posted!
Yes,R2 is rebuttals
It's a good constructive, I enjoyed reading it. I will get back to you within the next day for sure. For clarification, I am not allowed to quote your case directly until round 2, correct?
I think this is one of my best arguments
I look forward to a good debate! :)
Roughly; it is oral debate, so that's in of itself a difference.
They have ballots where they give each individual/pairs feedback, and give a "reason for decision."
The judging is supposed to be more of "who has better arguments, conduct and sources" and less of "who is more articulate/looks the hawtest."
Those things play a part, but they are not as significant in the judging--similar to what you guys have for grammar scores vs arguments scores.
You said you were on a debate team. Do they judge debates the same way they are judged on DART?