The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Age of the Earth?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,171 times Debate No: 16790
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)




In this debate, I will argue that the Earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old according to science, NOT 6000 years old according to the Bible.

This round is just for accepting the debate. All arguments begin in the next round.

Round 1: Acceptance, no arguments.
Round 2: Opening arguments, no rebuttals.
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Closing Arguments, no new arguments allowed.


All conditions accepted.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for this debate. I also thank him for giving me a chance to "Re-phrase" As he admits, I have the easy side of the debate and he has no argument. I admit to copying and pacing and I should have used a source. I shall re-do my opening arguments.

Contention 1: Science has proven that the Earth is 4.6 byo

A. Radiometric dating

Science has proven using radioactive isotopes that there are certain rocks, and meteors that are much older than 6,000 years.

The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks).

Radiometric dating, is in fact, very reliable.

B. Problem with starlight

We can see objects and universes that are billions of light years away. Given that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second (186,282 miles per second) we can calculate how far away something is just by using the light that it gives off.

C. The nucleid argument

Nuclides are forms of matter that are radioactive. Each nuclide decays into another form of matter at a certain rate. After an interval of time equal to its half-life, only half of the original material is left. Scientists have found that:
  • Every nuclidewith a half-life over 80 million years can be found naturally occurring on earth.
  • All Nuclides with a half-life under 80 million years do not exist naturally at detectable levels.

D. The oldest living tree is 9,000+ years old;(A lot of evidence in that article. If there was a "Great flood" how could it be still standing? Furthermore, how is it possible that the tree rings do not indicate a global flood?


Given that science has proven an old earth, one can conclude that the Earth is roughly 4.6 byo.

Final Coments

If the Bible is true, God is not the author of confusion. I ask my opponent how there can be confusion with the age of the earth given that there is so much evidence for an old earth?

Back to you, con.


Before I propose my arguments I would like to make a claim. I believe it is very possible that one of the reasons why many people choose to believe in an old earth, is that an old earth seems at first glance to cover and treat many problems in this issue we are debating. In other words, it is the safer opinion, just like it is safer to arrive earlier than it is to arrive later, "Lets get there a year earlier just in case we don't turn up late." Safer but very absurd. However it doesn't justify truth. And that is what we want, the truth.

Argument one: Juvenile Water

As volcanoes erupt, 20% of the erupted material is water, the water comes from under the crust of the earth. Due to the depth of the water, there is very high pressure and having high pressure, it's temperature is very hot. As the water is blasted out of the volcano with other gases, it soars into the atmosphere. This water is called 'juvenile water' because it has never been on the surface of the earth before.

Every time another volcano erupts, more water is added to the oceans - more than before. This then begs the question of how old are the oceans. Scientists observe volcanoes erupting at the estimated rate of 12 each year. Given that as true, it equates to one cubic mile of water each year. The amount of water on earth today including lakes and streams as well as the oceans is roughly 340 million cubic miles. This means that it would take roughly 340 million years, so based on just this one method alone, it concludes that there were no oceans 340 million years ago. And given this, 340 million years ago was right in the middle of the 'age of fish' - according to traditional evolutionary charts. See the problem?

Argument two: Comets

Comets are made from mainly ice, but also from dust, rock and frozen gases. Every passing of the sun, the smaller the comet gets, this is because a portion of it's icy mass is blown off by solar winds which come from the sun. With this information, it is clear that all the comets of our solar system will eventually disappear into particles in space.

Measuring observable comet disintegration, scientists understand that all short-period comets that orbit the sun for around 200 years, would be gone in as little as 10,000 years. Seeing comets today isn't that common compared the the times of the Romans. Concluding that comets are disintegrating quite fast. This results in a problem for the old earth believer, however some speculate that there is a huge 'nest of comets' far in the outer reaches of the solar system. But, no one has seen this 'nest of comets', which is known as an Oort cloud. It has never been observed, but one must be persuaded by such speculation if they aren't going to believe the obvious that the planets (Earth particularly) and the comets haven't been here for billions of years.

Argument three: Minerals in the Ocean

As worldwide erosion is continuing, minerals are dissolved and carried by rivers to the oceans. The concentration of these dissolved minerals increase more slightly every day. As scientists can measure the amount of these minerals in the river water and in the oceans, they can also calculate how long it would take, at present rates, for these elements (gold, silver, silicon, lead, copper, iron etc...) to reach their present concentrations in the oceans.

Out of all the minerals and compounds found in seawater, none of their present concentrations require the assumed evolutionary age of the earth. Yet the evidence does not suggest the elements have precipitated out of solution. The only reasonable conclusion is that the oceans are young relatively and thus so is the earth.

Argument four: Atmospheric Helium

Helium, due to it's weight it rises into the upper reaches of our atmosphere. The amount can be measured, due to the decay of uranium, helium is produced. If earth is billions of years old the atmosphere should be absolutely saturated with helium. In fact we the atmosphere ought to contain a million times the amount there is today, given that the earth is billions of years old.

Using helium to indicate the age is complicated by a number of unknown factors related to losses of earth's atmosphere. By right now, our atmosphere is about half of what a few believe to have existed before the flood. According to some experts, the amount of helium in earth's atmosphere insists that the earth cannot be older than 10,000 to 15,000 years old.


With these four arguments, my opponent must bring them down, disproving each one of them to make the case that the earth is very old.
Debate Round No. 2


Agnostic86 forfeited this round.


GodSands forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Sadly, we both missed a round.
My opponent has not brought up any evidence to support his claims. If he does not have sources, I cannot properly respond.


Sorry, but I am enable to post a proper rebuttal. However just some points; Star light isn't a problem for creationists. Although the theory is not testable, as far as I know, God could have 'stretched' the light from each star to it's maximum distance, as God said 'It was very good.' This being complete and finished. It is a theological argument more than a scientific one, but it makes the cut. Since creationism is a super natural event in the first place, I see no reason why I cannot use super natural answers to give reason for what I believe.

Likewise with star light, tree were created fully formed, and the tree rings are apart of every trees anatomy, either that or you can argue how trees got their unique rings in the first place.

Debate Round No. 4


My opponent has not responded to anything and has admitted he cannot respond.

In addition, he still has not backed up a single claim he made...therefore, I still must assume he made it up.

My opponent contends that "God did it" and cannot back up any of his claims. I have heard of that before. BUT God is not the author of confusion!
Furthermore, I contend that the days in Genesis were not literal 24-hour days, so again, that provides a challenge to him to prove that.

Arguments extended. As far as god stretching out the star light, why would he streach out star light we can only see through telescopes?


None of my arguments have been refuted, and more so, I have not been passionate or willing to dedicate much time to this debate - for that I am sorry. However evolution or old earth theories cannot be proved on reason alone through observation. To prove that the earth is very old and that evolution is true one must observe such and reason there after. Pro has failed to do that, and thus he has not shown any evidence but rather mere interpretation of fact.

Above all, I apologise for my poor performance and lack of dedication towards this great topic.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
Thank you Cliff.Stamp for voting for me.
Posted by gizmo1650 7 years ago
We know time exists
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
"My opponent has not responded to anything and has admitted he cannot respond.
In addition, he still has not backed up a single claim he made...therefore, I still must assume he made it up."

No, I could have responded, I didn't have time to respond properly. You also never said we should give links backing up our arguments - stop using it as a argument in it's self. In the same way I say God did it, you say time did it.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
This debate has been a let down though to be honest.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
Yeah fair enough, but he should have clarified the change. Thanks for pointing that out though phantom.
Posted by phantom 7 years ago
Well he should have said something at least. Its funny though that he copied the first paragraph.
Posted by KeytarHero 7 years ago
I know this is a bit late, but Kohai and Agnostic86 are actually the same person. So if he copied and pasted his argument, then it's an argument he has already made. Not that it matters, because Agnostic86's account has been closed and he now goes by MilitantAtheist.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
Yeah, that is quite a disappointment, and sad.
Posted by phantom 7 years ago
Wow that is clear hard plagiarism from agnostic. Look at his second round argument, then look at the third round argument for this debate

Almost exactly the same.

As a result all arguments he made in that round should be completely disregarded.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
I'm not getting Agnostic86's third round argument, or shall I say, disagreement. I thought we're meant to rebuke each other's arguments on round 3, despite whether we have sources or not.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: This was rather weak debate, each side ignored the other side completely. 1 pt to GodSands as Pro had the burden of proof and it is not sufficient to demand sources or claim an argument is refuted.