Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, Earth is Older than 10,000 Years Old
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I do not understand why people believe in Young Earth, despite the vast majority of evidence saying otherwise. I am extremely comfortable with pro side of topic, even if I have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
- There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
- All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time... The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
- Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
- Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
- A recent survey of the rubidium-strontium method found only about 30 cases, out of tens of thousands of published results, where a date determined using the proper procedures was subsequently found to be in error.
- Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
- The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.
- Quantum Mechanics are observed to be true on Earth
- Quantum Mechanics say that everything you see exists for the sole reason that you are observing it, and it is impossible to understand anything physical in its purest form, for you would need to observe it(Will source later)
- Thus, it is basically impossible to say how old the universe really is, and concluding that the universe is older than 10000 years is meaningless
the length of an existence extending from the beginning to any given time[8]This is the most appropriate definition for this debate here, respond to disagree
Evolution is so powerful that the Supreme Court ruled that creationism was not fit for teaching, already fulfilling my case even on a legal basis [2]. In addition, 97% of scientists support evolution [6]. In a criminal court case, if 97 out of 100 scientists say a man murdered another man, this is far beyond a reasonable doubt. Keep in mind that even Trial by Jury only requires majority vote with 12 members. It's impossible for con to win here.
- There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
- All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time... The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
- Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
- Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
- A recent survey of the rubidium-strontium method found only about 30 cases, out of tens of thousands of published results, where a date determined using the proper procedures was subsequently found to be in error.
- Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
- The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.
But Quantum physics is not the basis of my arguments. Recall that my arguments are based on geology, radiometric dating (atoms still larger than quantum level), evolution theory, all of which are far larger than quantum physics' observation based experimentation.
Obviously you cannot always have eye witnesses. But countless murderers have been arrested due to blood analysis, DNA analysis, all of which are only indirect observations. Based on Con's logic, we cannot even convict these murders. Remember that my premise is based off of legal analysis. This is clearly absurd. Extend my framework.
I do not understand why people believe in Young Earth, despite the vast majority of evidence saying otherwise. I am extremely comfortable with pro side of topic, even if I have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Next con makes an insane argument that only the present exists. But this is only concerning human perception. Obviously we can only experience the present. There is no way to time travel and experience the past or the future. That does not negate the "age" of something that happens. And if the past/future didn't exist, that would mean that causation also doesn't exist.
But clearly, if it rains today then it will still be wet "later" (or, in the "present" as con would like to claim). Time being a one way street has zero impact on the "age" of something. His source also supports that the world is based on the observer. We observe the ice layers. We observe evolution happening even now. We observe using radiometric dating. How else would we prove that the earth is older than 10,000 years?
- Conclusions
- There is no past as we only experience the present, according to the science concerned with spacetime
- My opponent's argument is only about that the world appears to be over 10000 years old to us, but with knowledge in which it is seen true EVERYWHERE, we can essentially know that the universe is 0 years old.
- Vote Con and have a nice day. I rest my case.
Con claims that murder is a social construct, while time is not. Yet we defined the time passing relative to the Earth's spinning on its axis, and many criminal cases are based upon actions that took place in the past. Using his iron man that only present exists, it would be near impossible to punish any one for the murderous actions, and they would not have killed someone because "the past doesn't exist", and thus you cannot prove they violated a crime beyond reasonable doubt.
There is a big difference between experiencing the age of earth (which wouldn't make sense -- every single second, we are living in the "now" of Earth, so Earth's "age" for us would only be 0 as Con claims), and the experts' claims about Earth's history and past. Notice how Con's metaphorical and philosophical nature of "time" does not defeat the scientific Age of Earth. Should we now claim that I am also 0 years old and apply Minor Legality rules because of philosophy? Should we consider that The big Bang occurred 0 seconds ago, rather than 13 billion years ago? Such claims are astounding and absurd.
Because the scientific standard of Age is based upon the assumption of Earth's ruthless rotation around the sun, ignoring our subjective observation, ignoring our opinions. It is a fact that Earth's age is above 10,000 years old.
- A field of science which my opponent agrees as true demonstrates that the past isn't set in stone, and it is certainly plausible that the world is created just now, making that the resolution, which calls for 100% certainty that the Earth is older than 10000 years, impossible to prove.
- Ironically, the resolution does not call for human understandings of time, so it is rational to use the objective interpretation of time, which --- concludes an illusion. Time doesn't exist, so the universe is 0 years old, making that Pro failed to prove his resolution.
- Pro had given examples of issues that would NEED the human interpretation of time to be solved, while this is an issue in which the objective understanding of time is rather needed. As a result, all he had against the concept "Time doesn't exist(A concept supported by science)" is to be nullified.
- Even if a year is defined as the time for the Earth's full rotation around the sun, it is still impossible to prove that with 100% certainty(implied by the resolution), the Earth is older than 10000 years, because then the Earth is simultaneously more than and not more than 10000 years old, making Pro, whatsoever, IMPOSSIBLE to prove his resolution fully.
- Con has used Science to win against Pro
- Vote CON.
He appeals to one single pop science article, and a Huffington Post article, both addressing experience and smaller Quantum physics based experimentation.
- Experts say that (assuming time exists) Earth is over 10000 years old(Appeal-to-authority)
- My sources are just two articles(but my point have completely demolished his, and he has yet to put forth a constructive rebuttal that can defeat my idea)
- It is absurd to assume that time doesn't exist for human lives(Reductio-ad-absurdum, and strawman, which does not defeat my idea as a result)
my legal framework is powerful because the standard for "age" depends on our assumption that the past exists.
Will con assume that a loving consensual relationship between two legal adults is pedophilia because they are both "zero years old"? Of course not. Will he manage to crack the entirety of science, presuming that all elemental isotopes decayed zero seconds ago?
- More authentic evidences also agree with my stance
- What appears to be over 10,000 years old isn't necessarily over 10,000 year old, says science itself which can overturn my opponent's evidence
- My opponent never used any evidence with science to disprove my argument, merely Reductio ad absurdum, which is misinterpretation
- My opponent's evidence only proves that the world APPEARS to be over 10,000 years old, despite that time doesn't exist and the "past" isn't even set in stone
- So it is possible that the world is created just now and we think it is that old
- My opponent had made fallacies throughout the conclusion of his entire debate
- My opponent had confused the relative intepretation of time with the objectivity of time, a misinterpretation, which doesn't carry any practical value against my argument
- My opponent failed to disprove me, vote Con
Sources:
It's obvious. The science by Pro was overwhelming in both numbers and quality. Quantum mechanics is not even comparable to other research fields with regards to "time it has existed as a field" or not even how much it is understood or the implications explained. His attempt at the end was too late, Pro got no time to analyze it. Pro showed an overwhelming and undefeateable amout of evidence and explained the exact sciences which proved his point.
Arguments:
Pro successfully proved how the earth is older than 10.000 years - even humans lived 10.000 years ago.
Con countered by undermining time as a concept. He said that time objectively does not exist - yet I quote him:
"Murder is a social construct, and time isn't. Using human methods of operation to solve human issues such as murder cases work for all of them."
So if time does not exist - but is a human concept, why does he not apply that logic to "murder"? Pro rightfully addresses this inconsistency.
Con admits that social constructs work to solve human problems. But since time is a social construct, as is "beyond doubt".
It does not get any less suspicious when he ignores the COUNTLESS definitions of time already know to human beings. His argument was that we could only experience the present - and that the past does not exist. I am in my full right to critique Con's argument. I am not finding new information, but his point makes no sense. If humans experience time then time exists - this is easy logic.
Con critiqued Pro:
"You didn't and adding it now is a moving the goalpost fallacy."
Yet he himself moved the goalpost - by changing the resolution to "time exists" instead of "the earth is less than 10.000 years"
I cannot see how Con would win. Even his argument that time does not exist does not prove that the earth is "0" years old
Conclusion:
Since Con's entire argument is based on a new, controversial field of science - Pro clearly had the advantage. I give the source and argument points to Pro.
I give the conduct point to Con, just because of the creative Idea and to not be too conclusive - he fought well.
Intell, your opponent in the debate treated the first round as though you were a Christian. I perused your profile. You claim to be an atheist. Thus I did not think you would have any interest in answering those questions about God since they would not apply to your circumstance. I also wanted to test your opponent's (Undefeatable's) 1R in regards to the reasonableness of his truth claims. I want to add my thoughts after the debate vote has concluded. Do you have an objection?
I'm not sure who you are addressing?
What is going on here?
YOU: "[a] also... why do you trust the bible more than scientific experiments? [b] Can you sufficiently reproduce the miracles supposedly performed? [c] Can you actually verify the veracity of the person's statement and the history, [d] like Undefeatable claimed he could prove beyond the LEGAL requirement, [e] as if earth being older than 10,000 was a pedophilia/murder case?"
***
[a] It is a matter of authority. Why do you (supposedly) trust scientific experiments that no one was there to witness, cannot be repeated, that work on models of the most likelihood? You bank on your "authorities" being right. You (possibly/probably) look to exclusively naturalistic explanations. I do not, because, without a God or gods, you run into a completely different problem, as identified by Thomas Aquinas and later added to by Cornelius Van Til, John Frame, and others. That problem is with your presuppositions starting point and what it rests upon. You build upon a more unlikely beginning that deals with no agency, no intent, just pure random chance happenstance. How likely is that? I say very unlikely, more likely impossible.
[b] No, I'm not God. I can't work against the natural order. HE, as a SUPERNATURAL Being, can.
[c] Your statement is vague to me. I'm not following. Which "person" are you speaking of? Do you mean God's words in history? I can do that to a reasonable degree of proof, but it depends on what you will accept with proof. I have learned that a person cannot be convinced against their will. It is like talking to a wall.
[d] 1. With legality, it may be legal but is it right/true to what is real? For instance, abortion is legal but is it right?
2. With legality, the same standard used by a court of law can be used of the eyewitness accounts of the Bible, as demonstrated by Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, and who also wrote an authoritative three-volume work on the law called, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, which set the bar for eyewitness testimony in a court of law. So, if Undefeatable wants to cite a legal standard "beyond doubt," I would note that one as a starter for my case.
[e] What? I do not follow your analogy or whatever it is you are trying to convey.
also... why do you trust the bible more than scientific experiments? Can you sufficiently reproduce the miracles supposedly performed? Can you actually verify the veracity of the person's statement and the history, like Undefeatable claimed he could prove beyond the LEGAL requirement, as if earth being older than 10,000 was a pedophilia/murder case?
https://folk.ntnu.no/krill/bioko-references/Kuhn%201962.pdf
Amendment: "Origins are not one of those things" [that can be repeated].
What scientists measure are scientific models that we believe best correspond to what happened. Thomas Kuhn explains that models can experience paradigm shifts once the anomalies build-up and a better explanation is found.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=thomas+kuhn+you+tube&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3cp6pEzx3uw
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=thomas+kuhn+you+tube&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DL70T4pQv7P8
YOU: "The bible tells nothing about the age of earth. https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~bodla101/religion/ageoftheworld.html"
***
Yes, the Bible does through logical inference. Adam was created at the beginning of creation, per Jesus, who should know.
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, God created them male and female.
John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature because he is a liar and the father of lies.
The devil deceived Eve in the Garden.
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “[ai]Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness;...” 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them...; and it was so. 31 And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.
The man and woman were created on the sixth day of creation. Jesus speaks of Adam as a literal person, not some figurative idea. The genealogies in Luke 3 treat Adam as a literal person and with others in that lineage; we have facts regarding their literal existence. Sin is attributed to an actual person, Adam, and with his sin, death upon humanity.
As for the genealogies, they go back in time only so far, to the beginning of creation. Jesus' lineage is traced back to Adam.
YOU: "And also... mere *bias* to negate geologists? I haven't seen another topic where 97% of experts are slanted towards the wrong way."
***
Science is concerned with the natural realm, with things that are measurable and can be repeated. Origins are not one of those things. Scientists work from a naturalistic perspective. They use quantitative measurements, sensory measurements. They come short on the question of why in many areas of investigation. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why the BB? What agency caused it? Is there something more than the physical realm? How does something devoid of consciousness become conscious?
As for geology, I believe what the science was built upon, uniformitarianism, is wrong. I believe catastrophism offers a better explanation of the fossil record. There are many anomalies with uniformitarianism and a problem with its basic tenant that the present is the key to the past. As for the uniformity of nature, why if there is no God or agency and intention directing the natural world? Things just happen. Why should they be uniform? Why the laws of nature?
https://www.britannica.com/science/uniformitarianism
The bible tells nothing about the age of earth. https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~bodla101/religion/ageoftheworld.html
YOU SAID: "[a] you just directly contradicted yourself. You arbitrarily picked out earth created in six days as literal and a ton of other stuff as figurative.
"No, it is up to the reader to determine where a figurative and historical narrative is being used, as they would with any other document."
***
[a] No, basically I said that there is both literal and figurative language used in the Bible, and a person must determine which kind is used when reading a passage. Genesis 1-11 is mostly narrative. Here is the question again. You quoted my answer above:
Q: Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
Exodus 20:8-11 (NASB)
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your [a]resident who [b]stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
1. If God's days are not the same as His people's days, how long is a Sabbath rest for them?
2. What use does an eternal being have of time? Time is for us, as are days and seasons. They serve as signs in prophecy and a warning that we only have so long on this earth.
Genesis 1:14 Then God said, “Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall [u]serve as signs and for seasons, and days and years; 15 and they [v]shall serve as lights in the [w]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
***
you just directly contradicted yourself. You arbitrarily picked out earth created in six days as literal and a ton of other stuff as figurative.
"No, it is up to the reader to determine where a figurative and historical narrative is being used, as they would with any other document."
And also... mere *bias* to negate geologists? I haven't seen another topic where 97% of experts are slanted towards the wrong way.
As for your questions about God -
"Question For Con"
- Is there any proof of God?
Many proofs. The Bible claims to be a revelation from God. It deals with many historic people, places and events, and prophecies about future events that ring true to the prediction.
- If God exists, why would he fool us to make the world appear much older than they really are?
He did not fool you. The Bible does not state or infer any such thing. It says plainly that He created the heavens and earth, and He created in six days. He made a human being Adam, fully formed, not as a fetus. He created a "garden" with fully formed trees just by speaking these things into existence.
- If Creationism is true, how does Evolution actually work?
It means there is no such thing as macro-evolution (or Darwinian evolution), where we evolve from a common ancestor. We believe we were made as beings who can change within our kind to adapt to our environments through our diets and environmental conditioning (skin pigmentation does not mean we are less human or our different shapes of faces or bodies). We believe as Christians that we are all equally human. Darwinian social evolution creates class divisions. It creates some beings who are "More" human than others.
- If Noah's Ark occurred, why can't we find this Ark? The size must match at least one of our largest ships ever created.
There are lots of things we can't find from antiquity. Just because we can't find it does not necessarily equate to its non-existence.
- What would it take to change your mind (or if you are playing devil's advocate, overcome your argument)?
Proving the Bible does not teach a relatively young universe.
- How old is the universe?
I don't know, yet I believe it is very young. Like you, I was not there for its beginning. I look at the evidence in the present from the past. Unlike you, I do not necessarily believe that the present (what we view the distant past from) is the key to the past. Like you, I realize the evidence is interpreted, and usually from a strictly naturalistic perspective. I do not work from such a view.
- Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
No, it is up to the reader to determine where a figurative and historical narrative is being used, as they would with any other document.
- Why do you assume that animal death only began to happen after Adam ate the fruit?
The Bible states that death came or entered the world from the sin of Adam. Before Adam sinned, the Genesis 1 account records God calling what He made as "very good." I don't know about you, but I do not see death as a good thing. I see life as good.
- Why/How do you think that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?
Presuppositional bias. With the Age of Reason, humanity became the measure of all things. There was a significant shift from God to society. Darwin sealed the verdict with the Theory of Evolution. Now humanity could rationalize away God.
- The Genesis flood: Where did all that water come from? Where did it go?
From the earth and heavens.
- How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements and the consistent correlation with objects of known age?
I question whether the past and the conditions back then are the same as the present. I question uniformitarianism and the geological table. I point to various anomalies around the world that do not fit the dating process and the presuppositional starting points. The focus of science has been in confirming their naturalistic models and theories. I grant that scientists have an abundance of "evidence" that still requires interpretation. It does not come stamped "4.5 billion years old. I also noticed personification presuppositions built into your first round argument when speaking about evolution. As if evolution has human qualities.
While I do not necessarily agree with the 10,000-year-old time frame (too wooden and specific for what I believe the Bible infers), I do find the YEC belief more compelling than the OEC belief, as and for a Christian. Since science looks strictly at the naturalistic perspective, there are many questions that is cannot answer with any more clarity than the basis of a presupposition. After the debate voting is over, I would like to take a stab at your first round of evidence by breaking it down and showing that what you cite as "the facts" (just the facts, ma'am) is not as conclusive as you think it is.
Or rather, the experiments that prove my point has already happened.
I am sorry, but the experiments that support your case never happened.
I can prove that to be false. According to Einstein, time exists but it is a part of the universe.
Therefore, the amount of spacetime that the earth covers is:
- 1,083,206,916,846 cubic kilometers
-4.3 billion years
If we are strictly applying regular scientific methods, then the earth is at least (4.3 x billion x insane number) CkY (cubic kilometer years) XD
Your resolution only works for particles, even Undefeatable understood that your nonexistent "time" is only nonexistent to particles smaller than atoms
That is incorrect, you are detecting the paths and sequences of planks of things of that nature, but to apply that to time is to make the fallacy of composition, time is not reliant on planks or any other particle's paths. It is a force that constructs the fabric of space, furthermore, the studies you cited have been... well, let's say elaborated.
The human mind is wired to think that there is time when there isn't.
Also, just because humans "experience" time, it doesn't mean that time exists. In objectivity, Earth is not over 10,000 years.
In other words, there is no human to interpretation. When someone is convicted of murder, since science tells us that space does not exist, the murder didn't happen, even though our consciousness decided it happened.
It hasn't passed a single second since Earth was created, and it just felt to us it was a long time, even though it is not at all.
Again, We are talking about how old the Earth REALLY IS, not how it felt to humans.
Maybe I would have been a better match for you. I have some understanding of your sneaky tactics.
You proved that "time" does not exist objectively. Yet you said humans experience it. Time exists - as a social construct.
And you yourself admitted that social constructs are applicable to human problems.
Therefore, time is worthy of being proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" in legal terms.
I find the vote fallacious.
We are arguing about how old Earth REALLY IS, not how old it feels like to human researchers. I have proved my BoP.
Your reference to Einstein seemed wrong to me. Time was not disproved, just claimed to be a part of the universe like space. It's called spacetime.
You could literally say just the same way:
Since a line is made out of an infinite amount of points with no extension, therefore length does not exist.
Time does not exist. What a theory. Maybe not for a photon XD
To moderators: Benjamin’s awarding to effort is acceptable in my eyes, despite no category for this. There is no need to remove it.
That final round blitzkrieg... I still don’t think that time’s vagueness disproves “age” of something lol. Not to mention pro already asked one billion questions about God and you never answered
your argument is so gibberish man. It's not that the experience of Earth was over 10,000 years. That's not how you define Age. Reminds me of how seldiora takes this kind of debates lol.
Argument that is so simple but so few can think of yet it can prove something = absurd
That is also absurd.
what an absurd argument; I thought you were better than this. Mister Chris knows quite an amount to actually support con side
Also I forgot to change the 2nd and 3rd point of the syllogism after I have discovered that the past doesn't exist. The correct version should be:
"Quantum mechanics suggests that reality is an illusion, and that the past is an illusion too"
"Thus, Earth is 0 years old"
you could say no one's guilty of anything, but my Framework Expert addressed the equivalent.
(Plus, false information/indoctrination can be a crime, not to mention the Supreme Court decision)
There's also 40% of people statistic, but there's a significant difference between giving evidence in court and having 40% be unconvinced, rather than uninformed public.
If you can think what I am thinking, then perhaps you really are undefeatable.
Good luck. *laughs evilly* You're gonna need it.
I’m impressed by your audacity. Young earth creationism papers are slim to a handful
Nah. Not young earth creationism.