Instigator / Con
3
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Topic
#727

Does Science Disprove A Young Earth?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

killshot
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
14
1489
rating
3
debates
33.33%
won
Description

No information

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

The resolution here, is that science disproves a young earth. While I accept science proving that the earth is young would be valid to affirm: simply negating evidence that proves the earth is old is not sufficient.

C14: Con argues that C14 may not be indicative of an old earth as the amount of C14 in the atmosphere may have started at 0 and increased.

Pro provides sourced explanations of how the values of C14 can be confirmed - he then goes on to list a number of the other dating mechanisms, and also points out that tree ring evidence separately disproves the idea that C14 levels have been rising during the period of dating

The dating portion is dropped by con, and con merely dismisses the tree ring argument with a source, with out using specific examples or arguments.

Blue stars.

Cons argument is that blue stars should all have burned out by now. Pros rebuttal is that stars are being created all the time according to science. Cons rebuttal is that this hasn’t been observed to which pro rightly hammers home the observational evidence

Cons problem here is that the science appears to say that the stars have continued to form - con is arguing against the science - not that science shows his position is accurate.

Age of the universe.

Pro points out that the science indicates the universe is old, and the speed of light tends to indicate the universe can’t be old.

The resolution is about the earth, however, not the universe. So even if I accept the old universe, it doesn’t refute the resolution. As a result, I will not include this as confirming or negating the resolution.

Cons rant about science presuppositions was likewise ignored for similar reasons.

3additional points.

Pro raises 2 new and additional points in round 3, offering little argument. As pro made little effort to justify these, primarily asserting it with a source, I will not treat these as warranted.

Prediction:

“I asked my opponent to give me an objectively verifiable and novel prediction that a young earth makes exclusively. He admitted he can’t. End of story, debate is over.”

Pro asks for a prediction made by young earth. Not only did con not do so, but explained that he can’t.

As scientific explanations are required to be both supported by observation - AND falsifiable, the admission that there is no predictions that are possible means that young earth can implicitly be scientifically rejected.

Con offered no data or evidence for which he could reasonably conclude that the earth is young, the only attempt was c14 which was mostly contradicted with pros more scientific data and explanations.

Pros explanation of c14, and corroborating dating mechanisms imply the earth is not young, despite arguing outside the resolution for the majority.

As a result, pro is the only one who moved the needle in their direction. With con being particularly lacking.

Arguments to pro.

Sources: cons argument against pros sources was devastating, pointing out the inherently flawed and dishonest position taken by AiG, and other sources used by con.

Pros source cite multiple scientific sites, his radiocarbonand general dating arguments were sources from the nature.com journal, Berkeley and Arizona edu. A variety of academic sources lend substantial weight to these arguments, and demonstrate the rebuttal in a way that cons inherently (and self admitted) biased sources do.

Reviewing the ICR and creation links - both of these also have similarly boasted inherent biases in their about pages - and can be similarly discounted as either valid or unbiased scientific sites.

This means, the entire scientific basis for cons position is rendered wholly unreliable by the biased non-scientific sites used: but pros argument was massively bolstered by his own scientific sources.

Sources to pro.

Conduct: in round 3, pro attempted to mount a gish gallop by throwing multiple points and statements at pro, expecting him to refute them.

On their own, this is not sufficient for a conduct violation. What pushes this over the edge is pros primary arguments and rebuttals were both explained in detail, with links to the evidence, and what lends the position credibility.

While con starts out this way, he relies heavily on the dishonest sources, offering little in objective explanations and mostly speculation pulled directly from those links. This set up an inherently asymmetric debate - where pro was required to provide scientific day - and con could just throw out unsupported speculation, linked to a biased source and claim they were equal.

I feel this strategy was wholly unfair in what was billed as a science debate and makes it easy for con to drown out pros points with little effort and little truth to the counter-claims.

As a result, Conduct to pro.

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

Con begins

"I am arguing that science does prove Christianity, or at least supports it more than Atheism."

Well, atheism refutes Christianity so that's a pretty low bar. Science could entirely disprove Christianity and still support Christianity (say, as a psychological outlet) more than Atheism does.

C-14 (R1) Con

C-14 Con argues that the amount of C14 absorbed by living beings may have been dramatically increased in the past due to fluctuations in the magnetic field. Pro acknowledges some change in the magnetic field have been documented and accounted for and tested against a variety of alternate dating methods. Pro asks for evidence supporting C14 ratios that might support YE, Con does not offer any. Con questions the validity of counting tree rings, Pro offers evidence that dendrochronolgy is a well established scientific dating method.

Con's offense amounts to: C-14 levels vary, therefore the dramatic increases necessary to make C-14 is at least possible though Con does not suggest how. Pro argument that C-14 variations are calibrated by a number of alternate measures is far more compelling.

Blue Stars (R1) Con

Con argues:

Blue stars only live for a few millions of years.
The Universe is 14.6 billion years old.
Therefore, the maximum age of the universe is a few million years.

Pro argues that present blue stars were created long after the big bang. Con argues that there is no proof that new stars are ever created. Pro calls Con's bluff with some fairly commonplace recent astronomical observations.

Red Shift (R1) Pro

Pro uses the constancy of the speed of light and the principle of redshift as measurements in evidence that the universe has been expanding for 13.8 billion years. Con argues that the speed of light might not be constant but admits this argument is weak. Con argues that the writers of the Bible might have been referring to Cosmological Local Time but in spite of the analogy I cannot fathom what Pro intends by this nor how it supports YE.
Con argues that as yet undetermined variables might distort red shift measurements. I suppose that's likely but the scale itself precludes YE time scales. (Say the universe is only half as old as we thought, that is still 8 orders of magnitude longer that YE theory supposes).

Religious Dogmatism (R2) Pro

Pro questions the scientific credentials of Con sources. Con call this ad-hominem. Certainly, there's not much on these sites that might withstand scientific peer review but peer-reviewed journals aren't going to hold up Con's case so where else is Con to go? I think I have to agree that Pro's sources are more consistent with the scientific method while Con's sources are more consistent with religious doctrine. Con hurts his case by limiting most of his research to a few sites primarily devoted to the promotion of religion. Sources to Pro.

Mainstream (R2) Pro

Pro appeal to scientific consensus in general. For some of the phenomenon Con suggests- hanging light speeds, increased carbon, no new stars- huge sectors of the scientific community would need to be very wrong. Con calls this circular reasoning but Con is wrong.

YE (R2) Pro

Pro argues that YE theory does not follow scientific process- the Earth's age was derived by adding up the ages of characters in literature written before the advent of astronomy, geology, chemistry, physics, etc. Con does not refute this.

In R3, Con throws 4 new arguments with little support or explanation or detail.

Lack of Salt
Soft Tissues in Fossils
Faint Sun Paradox
Equilibrium

Neither side ever mentions these again, so I'll ignore them as well.

Con never nailed a single offensive argument. Pro sums it up by asking for a single testable, objectively verifiable prediction from YE which does not come. Going by this debate at least, Science disproves a Young Earth.

Con was generally about as dismissive of atheists and scientists as Pro was of christian doctrine. I didn't find that conduct impaired the debate's readability.