The Instigator
creationtruth
Pro (for)
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)

Age of The Earth (Team Debate)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
creationtruth has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 346 times Debate No: 94358
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

creationtruth

Pro

Team Debate on The Age of The Earth

Affirmative Position (Pro): The Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Negative Position (Con): The Earth is greater than 4,000,000,000 years old.

Team Pro: creationtruth, NothingSpecial99, Theist_1998

Team Con: lannan13, ThinkBig, Ramshutu

Debate Rules:

Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals)
Round 3 - Rebuttals (No Defense of Arguments)
Round 4 - Defense of Arguments (No New Arguments)
Round 5 - Final Rebuttals (No New Arguments, No Defense of Arguments)

*No Red Herrings (http://www.logicalfallacies.info......)
*No Anecdotal Evidence (http://rationalwiki.org......)
*Only Science Arguments (http://undsci.berkeley.edu......)

Both teams agree to these rules upon acceptance of the debate. Failure to adhere to these rules should at least result in the loss of conduct point per the judgment of any prospective voters.

We look forward to an insightful and informative exchange!
lannan13

Con

We accept.
Debate Round No. 1
creationtruth

Pro

Argument From Genetic Entropy

Point mutations per generation are around 75-175 novel mutating per generation of humans [1]. However, there are more types of mutations than substitutions. It is estimated that for every substitution mutation there is at least one micro-satellite mutation doubling the rate to around 150-350 mutations [2].

Now how many bad or deleterious mutations are there compared to the beneficial ones. Below is a diagram adapted from population geneticist, Dr. Motoo Kimura which shows the distribution of mutations. [3]

image1

As seen here, Dr. Kimura shows that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious and more importantly, cannot be selected out of the population. With the distribution, it can be deducted that most, if not all mutations that are passed to the next generation are deleterious. Therefore the human genome is losing functionality over time. Natural selection cannot eliminate all the deleterious mutations because as seen in the distribution, most mutations fall within the shaded region meaning that most mutations are not deleterious or beneficial enough to give an organism a disadvantage or advantage that nature can select. Geneticists are in agreement that the human genome is degrading. The decline of fitness of the human species is calculated to be around 1-2% per generation according to a study by Dr. Crow. [4]

If we were to take Crow's figures and plot them over 300 generations (6,000-9,000) years, it would look something like this.

Image 2

Classic exponential decay. Now if you look at the lifetimes of biblical figures post-Flood, you would see a very similar trend. [5]

Image 3

Given the extremely low chance that the ancient authors of the Bible would fabricate a biological decay curve the data is consistent with the Biblical timeline of the Earth.


Argument From Gravitational Lunar Recession

The argument from genetic entropy in conjunction with lunar gravitational recession shall lend further support for the Biblical age of the Earth.

Quite simply the moon has been accurately measured to be moving away from the Earth about 1.5 inches every year due to both tidal and gravitational interactions. Since the moon is moving away, going toward the past would result in the recession of the moon at an exponential rate as the gravitational force of the Earth would "pull" the moon in at a faster rate as it came closer.

Since the moon is currently spiralling away, in the past it would have been much closer within a timeframe much shorter than 4.5Gy. At less than 1.5Gy ago the moon would have reached the Rouche Limit, a point at which life would not be able to exist on Earth and which the moon could not exist. [6]

Image 4

According to astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle, "Six thousand years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet (250 m) closer to the earth (which is not much of a change considering the moon is a quarter of a million miles, or 400,000 km, away). So this “spiraling away” of the moon is not a problem over the biblical timescale of six thousand years." [7]


Argument From Planetary Magnetic Field Decay


Planetary magnetic field decay describes the process by which Earth's magnetic field, which is produced via current in the metallic core, decays or diminishes in strength over time. This decay is accepted by both secular and creation scientists. "Ever since scientists generated the first global model of Earth’s magnetic field nearly 180 years ago, its strength has decreased by some 10 percent." [8] The key issue of whether or not this supports a young Earth is how the magnetic field could maintain itself for more than thousands of years. Recent records of the International Geomagnetic Reference Field, the most accurate ever taken, show a net energy loss of 1.4% in just three decades (1970–2000). This means that the field’s energy has halved every 1,465 years or so. At this rate, the Earth cannot be much older than about 10 or 20,000 years, which is consistent with the Bible's historical timeframe of the Earth. [9]

Image 5

Our argument from planetary magnetic field decay greatly supports our case and is consistent the other two arguments. We will be happy to expand on and defend our case in the next round. We look forward to our opponent's case.

Our images did not show up so we left image 1, 2 etc. and will try to include them in subsequent rounds.


References

1: Kondrashov, A.S. 2002. Direct Estimate of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases. Human Mutation 21:12-27

2: Ellegren, H. 2000. Microsatellite mutations in the germline: implications for evolutionary interference. TIG 16:551-558

3: Kimura, M. 1979. Model of effective neutral mutations in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444

4: Crow, J.F. 1997. The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? PNAS 94:8380-8386

5: http://tinyurl.com...

6: https://answersingenesis.org...

7: https://answersingenesis.org...

8: https://www.sciencenews.org...

9: https://answersingenesis.org...
lannan13

Con

We would like to thank creationtruth for challenging us to this debate.

Radiometric dating

According to scientific estimates, the Earth is roughly 4.5-4.6 billion years old. How do they come to such a conclusion and under what basis do they make this claim? One of the ways to test this is through radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is a technique that is used to date material such as rocks or carbon by the decay in the radioactive elements. There are over 40 elements that are used for radiometric dating [1].


Figure 2-1 (below) gives a good diagram of how radiometric dating works [2].








The mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time is


D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1)


where


t is age of the sample,

D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample,

D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition,

N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time t (the present), given by N(t) = Noe-λt, and

λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, equal to the inverse of the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope times the natural logarithm of 2. [2]

So, how do we know that these dating methods are reliable? For one, scientists have tested radiometric dating against the historical record. If the dating techniques match up to what we know the age is, then we make a good case for the reliability of such a method.

Mt. Vesuvius erupted in the early afternoon on August 24, 79 C.E. In 1997, scientists from the Berkeley Geochronology Center and University of Naples wanted to test the 40Ar/39Ar method of radiometric dating to see if it could accurately measure the age of this very young volcanic material. Incremental heating experiments on 12 samples of sanidine yielded 46 data points that resulted in an isochron age of 1925 94 years. The actual age of the flow in 1997 was 1918 years. This is only a 7 year deviation from the actual date of the material [3]

Based on the oldest known zinc, radiometric dating has found the Earth to be at least 4.3 billion years old [4]. Furthermore, dating ancient meteorite impact showed the Earth to be around 4.5 billion years old:

The ages measured for Earth's oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age but do not reveal the exact age of Earth's formation. The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite.” [5].

Things older than 10,000 years old

It is incumbent on the affirmative to prove that the Earth is younger than ~10,000 years old. Thus, if we can show that there are objects and items on the Earth that are older than 10,000 years old, we negate that part of the resolution. Although it would not fulfill our burden to show the Earth is ~4 billion years old, it will add a much stronger case for our side.

Example 1: Oldest Desert

The oldest desert on Earth is the Nambid Desert, a desert located in Africa. It is estimated to be 55 million years old [6].

Example 2: Oldest fossil

The oldest known fossils, and most likely the oldest known life form on the planet, dates back to 3.4 billion years. [7]


Ice Core Dating

Throughout the years, as the winters of Earth have grown and grown, ice began to build and build up. This created Mother Earth’s historical record. In the 1960’s, scientists have set out to go and discover the layers of ice that has built up over the years. One of several was sent to Greenland, while some others were sent to Antarctica. The GISP2 project finally finished nearly 30 years later as they ended up with a couple mile long core of ice. This core, in Greenland went back over 110,000 years, while the ones from Antarctica went back nearly 750,000 years [8]. We would have to see that in order for our opponent’s case to hold true, hundreds of thousands of winters would have to be wiped out of existence and these are even including the many ice ages that our planet has endured.


Conclusion

We have proven that radiometric dating is a reliable dating technique. By using this technique, scientists have shown that it is impossible for the Earth to be less than 10,000 years old. We have also shown that the 4.5 billion year old age that is consistent with what the science says. Thus we have fulfilled our burden to negate the resolution that the Earth is younger than 10,000 years and affirm the resolution that the Earth is greater than 4 billion years.


We look forward to team pro’s response.



Sources

1. (http://bit.ly...)
2. (http://bit.ly...)
3. (http://bit.ly...)
4. (http://bit.ly...)
5. (http://on.doi.gov...)
6. (http://bit.ly...)
7. (http://go.nature.com...)
8. (http://go.nasa.gov...)

Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Fx-82ZAPLUS 5 days ago
Fx-82ZAPLUS
Where in the bible does it say the world is 6000 years old?
Posted by NothingSpecial99 3 months ago
NothingSpecial99
I apologize, I didn't think this debate would drag on this far into the summer. I was busy with work, and I have to get ready to move into my college dorm and that messy stuff
Posted by creationtruth 3 months ago
creationtruth
Ok
Posted by ThinkBig 3 months ago
ThinkBig
Creation truth feel free to send me the challenge.
Posted by ThinkBig 3 months ago
ThinkBig
I would like to do a 1-on-1 debate with you.
Posted by creationtruth 3 months ago
creationtruth
I'm willing to give it another go if you are but if not then I will accept a 3 vs 1 or 1 vs 1 challenge on the same topic.
Posted by creationtruth 3 months ago
creationtruth
Apologies. My teammates never responded after submitting their opening arguments.
Posted by ThinkBig 3 months ago
ThinkBig
Another forfeit :/ Creationtruth, do you think it would be easier to just debate one person on it without having to worry about team mates submitting arguments?
Posted by creationtruth 3 months ago
creationtruth
JcMajic2015 - You can challenge me to a debate on the age of the Earth if you like when this debate is over.
Posted by JcMagic2015 3 months ago
JcMagic2015
I actually did the pro side of this for fun in high school. I'd love to take the con side if this falls through. I have a great point that I'd love the pro take on. I don't want to throw it out yet, to be unfair to the pro side if the con side would not have thought of this. (well a few points, but one's particularly good IMO)
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.