Instigator / Pro
6
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2769

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, Earth is Older than 10,000 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
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Undefeatable
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
2
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.