Instigator / Pro
7
1616
rating
32
debates
62.5%
won
Topic
#1100

The Earth is older than 6-10k Years old

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Description

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**

R1-Argument
R2-Rebuttal
R3-Defense/closing thoughts and conclusions

Rules are simple
1.No Insults or Personal Attacks
2.No Forfeits
3.No Kritiks
4.No New arguments made in final round
5.No trolling
6.No getting off topic
7.No waiving
8.You must follow the Debate Structure
9.You can not agree with my stance
10.No swears
11.No offensive words
12.No Plagiarism

**ANY violation of these rules merits a loss**

Good luck and have fun

"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

-->
@Ramshutu

I would actually like to read your thoughts on it, after we are finished

-->
@Ramshutu

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.

-->
@MisterChris

In that case, if you want a specific targeted debate on something: say radiometric dating; I maybe able to take some time.

-->
@Ramshutu

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.

-->
@MisterChris

Out of interest, do you believe that? Or just taking the opposing view?

-->
@Ramshutu

Thanks for the vote :)

-->
@Ramshutu

Thx for the vote

12.) palaeontology.

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.

11.) comets.

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

2.) Pangea

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.

-->
@Ramshutu

Thanks!

-->
@MisterChris

I am in the process of reviewing it.

-->
@Ramshutu

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

1.https://origins.swau.edu/q_and_a/radio/questions/q10.html
2.http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/helium.html
3.http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2011/11/dismissing-catastrophic-plate-tectonics.html
4.http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2011/11/dismissing-catastrophic-plate-tectonics.html
5.https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dendrochronology#Creationism_and_dendrochronology
6.http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm
7.https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2016/02/10/perspective-ice-ages-research-demolishes-young-earth-creationism
8.https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02599#Sec7
9.https://www.princeton.edu/geosciences/people/schoene/pdf/4_10_Schoene_UThPb_geochronology.pdf
10.https://phys.org/news/2004-09-uraniumlead-dating-accurate-date-earth.html
11.https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JZ068i014p04281
12.http://www.oldearth.org/argument/G3621_creation_science.htm
13.https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Recession_of_the_Moon#Slower_earth_rotation

-->
@BrotherDThomas

jesus is God, he is part of the son, In the name of the Father, The SON, and the holy spirit

-->
@Dr.Franklin

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?

.

-->
@BrotherDThomas

ok

-->
@Dr.Franklin

.

Dr. Franklin,

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!

.

-->
@BrotherDThomas

1.Catholic
2.sine I was born, been going to Sunday school since I was in Kingdergarden, I'm not revealing my age.
3.Any
4.Son Of God

-->
@Dr.Franklin

.

Dr. Franklin,

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.

.

-->
@BrotherDThomas

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?

-->
@Dr.Franklin
@MisterChris

.
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!

.

-->
@Dr.Franklin
@MisterChris

.

Dr. Franklin,

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

1.http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/ocean_floor_sediment.html
2.https://geochristian.com/2009/10/06/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-6/
3.https://www.nasa.gov/feature/comet-provides-new-clues-to-origins-of-earth-s-oceans
4.https://www.space.com/19275-moon-formation.html
5.https://www.newscientist.com/article/2170015-asteroid-that-killed-the-dinosaurs-caused-massive-global-warming/
6.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbnaes8X4iQ
7.https://www.technologyreview.com/s/418310/a-solution-to-the-faint-young-sun-paradox/
8.http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/comets_disintegration.html
9.https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
10.https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy
11.https://www.london-nano.com/research/magnetic-monopoles-discovered-lcn-scientists
12.https://www.universetoday.com/30296/how-many-planets-are-in-the-galaxy/
13.https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/05/16/the-odds-of-your-unlikely-existence-were-not-infinitely-small/#1c2e239440b0
14.http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Nr38Reasons.pdf
15.https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood#Gathering_the_animals

-->
@dustryder
@Dr.Franklin

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.

-->
@BrotherDThomas

Im not twisting the Bible.Its the truth

-->
@dustryder

I know,its fine by me though

-->
@Dr.Franklin

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.

-->
@Dr.Franklin
@MisterChris

.
Dr. Franklin,

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!

.

-->
@Dr.Franklin
@MisterChris

.
christopher_best,

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! :(

.

-->
@BrotherDThomas

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

-->
@MisterChris

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.

-->
@Dr.Franklin
@MisterChris

.
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!

.

-->
@dustryder

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.

-->
@MisterChris

Even if you credit your sources, copy and pasting someone else's entire arguments is still plagiarism

My constructive is posted!

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Alright, thanks

-->
@MisterChris

Yes,R2 is rebuttals

-->
@Dr.Franklin

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

-->
@MisterChris

I look forward to a good debate! :)

-->
@Alec

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.

-->
@MisterChris

You said you were on a debate team. Do they judge debates the same way they are judged on DART?