The Instigator
thetruthexists
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Creation vs. Evolution.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,050 times Debate No: 25730
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

thetruthexists

Pro

The truth of the 6 day creation and the age of the earth being only thousands of years. Evolution, science or religion?
16kadams

Con


My opponent supports creation.



No win this debate, I must do a few things: 1) Show the earth is NOT young, 2) give evidence for evolution.



1. Evidence for an old earth



The earth is about 4.55 billion years old. Using radiometric-dating methods, the oldest rocks are about 3.9 billion years old. A few rocks are believed to be even 4.1 billion years old, but those are very rare. Although these measurements do not necessarily mean the earth is that old (if we find an old rock that does not equal we are that old), however it established a limit for how young the earth can be. If we have rocks 4.1 billion years of age, the earth cannot be younger then that, the earth must be as old (or older) then any formation found on it. So, in reality, the evidence I gave above proves an old earth. My opponent’s 6,000-year claim is falsified because the earth CANNOT be younger then 4 billion years old, and might be older. With the lowest possible number set to 4 billion, my opponent already loses the age of the earth point [1. http://www.talkorigins.org...]. Wikipedia holds similar information. Using radiometric dating systems on lunar rocks and Earthly materials the earth is in excess of a billion years. The oldest rocks, recently found in Australia, are 4.4 billion years old. So, again, the earth cannot be younger then 4.4 billion years, negating the resolution [2. http://en.wikipedia.org...]



Brent Dalrymple notes, “If the Earth, the Moon, and meteorites were not genetically related and of the same age, there would be no reason for their Pb-isotopic compositions to lie along the same isochron. This is convincing evidence that the planetary bodies, including the Earth, all formed about 4.55 billion years ago.” [3. http://www.talkorigins.org...]



The earth is over a billion years old, the earth is over 4 billion years old, its about 4.5 billion years old. That’s a fact, and the resolution is now negated.



2. Evidence for evolution



Remains of animals in sedimentary rock give great evidence for the theory of evolution. Many extinct species found in these rocks have transitional parts, for example the beginning of a fin or leg[s], and the next layer would almost always have a fully evolved leg or fin. In other words, a finished product. The fossil evidence is irrefutable and proves evolution. This picture explains the point:


http://www.debate.org...;


[5. http://anthro.palomar.edu...]



Genetic changes also proves evolution. “The earth's environments are constantly changing, usually in subtle and complex ways. When the changes are so great as to go beyond what most members of a population of organisms can tolerate, widespread death occurs. As Charles Darwin observed, however, not all individuals always perish. Fortunately, natural populations have genetic diversity. Those individuals whose characteristics allow them to survive an environmental crisis likely will be the only ones able to reproduce. Subsequently, their traits will be more common in the next generation--evolution of the population will have occurred. This process of natural selection resulting in evolution can be easily demonstrated over a 24 hour period in a laboratory Petri dish of bacteria living in a nutrient medium. When a lethal dose of antibiotic is added, there will be a mass die-off. However, a few of the bacteria usually are immune and survive. The next generation is mostly immune because they have inherited immunity from the survivors. That is the case with the purple bacteria in the Petri dishes shown below--the bacteria population has evolved.”[5]



Another diagram of the point, this time genetic changes:


http://www.debate.org...;



[Spura note 5]



Another example:


http://www.debate.org...


[Spura note 5]



CONCLUSION:



--Earth is old


--Evolution exists. Theodosius Dobzhansky once said, “[Biology] without that light [of evolution] it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole.” [6. http://www.pbs.org...]


Debate Round No. 1
thetruthexists

Pro

The ending of this is left off due to the limit. I will also give a rebuttal for genetics in my next argument. and cite ecerything at the end.

Some elements, such as uranium, undergo radioactive decay to produce other elements. By measuring the quantities of radioactive elements and the elements into which they decay in rocks, geologists can determine how much time has elapsed since the rock has cooled from an initially molten state.

However, the deep time ‘determination’ is an interpretation; the actual scientific data are isotope ratios. Each chemical element usually has several different forms, or isotopes, which have different masses. There are other possible interpretations, depending on the assumptions. This can be illustrated with an hourglass. When it is up-ended, sand flows from the top container to the bottom one at a rate that can be measured. If we observe an hourglass with the sand still flowing, we can determine how long ago it was up-ended from the quantities of sand in both containers and the flow rate. Or can we? First, we must assume three things:

An hourglass ‘clock’ tells us the elapsed time by comparing the amount of sand in the top bowl (‘Parent’) with the amount in the bottom bowl (‘Daughter’).

1. We know the quantities of sand in both containers at the start. Normally, an hourglass is up-ended when the top container is empty. But if this were not so, then it would take less time for the sand to fill the new bottom container to a particular level. 2. The rate has stayed constant. For example, if the sand had become damp recently, it would flow more slowly now than in the past. If the flow were greater in the past, it would take less time for the sand to reach a certain level than it would if the sand had always flowed at the present rate. 3. The system has remained closed. That is, no sand has been added or removed from either container. However, suppose that, without your knowledge, sand had been added to the bottom container, or removed from the top container. Then if you calculated the time since the last up-ending by measuring the sand in both containers, it would be longer than the actual time.

Teaching about Evolution addresses assumption 2:

For example, it requires that the rate of radioactive decay is constant over time and is not influenced by such factors as temperature and pressure—conclusions supported by extensive research in physics.

It is true that in today’s world, radioactive decay rates seem constant, and are unaffected by heat or pressure. However, we have tested decay rates for only about 100 years, so we can’t be sure that they were constant over the alleged billions of years. Physicist Dr Russell Humphreys suggests that decay rates were faster during creation week, and have remained constant since then. There is some basis for this, for example radiohalo analysis, but it is still tentative.

Teaching about Evolution also addresses assumption 3:

It also assumes that the rocks being analyzed have not been altered over time by migration of atoms in or out of the rocks, which requires detailed information from both the geologic and chemical sciences.

This is a huge assumption. Potassium and uranium, both common parent elements, are easily dissolved in water, so could be leached out of rocks. Argon, produced by decay from potassium, is a gas, so moves quite readily.

Anomalies

There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known historical age. One example is rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano. Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was ‘dated’ by the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old. 9 Another example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. The ‘dates’ ranged from < 0.27 to 3.5 million years—but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975!

What happened was that excess radiogenic argon ( 40 Ar*) from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature also lists many examples of excess 40 Ar* causing ‘dates’ of millions of years in rocks of known historical age. This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape. 10

If excess 40 Ar* can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?

Another problem is the conflicting dates between different methods. If two methods disagree, then at least one of them must be wrong. For example, in Australia, some wood was buried by a basalt lava flow, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon ( 14 C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by the K-Ar method at c. 45 million years old! 11 Other fossil wood from Upper Permian rock layers has been found with 14 C still present. Detectable 14 C would have all disintegrated if the wood were really older than 50,000 years, let alone the 250 million years that evolutionists assign to these Upper Permian rock layers. 12 [Update: see also Radiometric dating breakthroughs for more examples of 14 C in coal and diamonds, allegedly millions of years old.]

According to the Bible’s chronology, great age cannot be the true cause of the observed isotope ratios. Anomalies like the above are good supporting evidence, but we are not yet sure of the true cause in all cases. A group of creationist Ph.D. geologists and physicists from theCreation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research are currently working on this topic. Their aim is to find out the precise geochemical and/or geophysical causes of the observed isotope ratios. 13 One promising lead is questioning Assumption 1 —the initial conditions are not what the evolutionists think, but are affected, for example, by the chemistry of the rock that melted to form the magma. [Update: it turned out that Assumption 2 was the most vulnerable, with strong evidence that decay rates were much faster in the past. See the results of their experiments in Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth volumes 1 and 2.]

Evidence for a young world

Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived. The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster. Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1 /2000 of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years. A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion. The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1½ inches (4 cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in co
16kadams

Con


Wait, what do we see? Plagiarism? My opponent plagiarized his whole case, readers note: http://creation.com...



Now, I will rebut his case but I think the above shows a lack of character and conduct should go to CON.



1. Defending radiometric dating



1. My opponent’s first argument is that elements, such as carbon, do not have a constant decay. His argument—pressure causes a change in decay—is laughable. Studies have been conducted using pressure techniques and the results are pressures maximum effect is less than 0.2%, which has no impact on dates the size of four billion (my data finds the earth to be 4.55 billion years old, the change, therefore, is nearly nothing and the resolution negated as even the change means the earth is over 4 billion years old). Now, my opponent must assume radioactive decay is not constant and is, on balance, very fast. Scientifically, he has already lost the debate. Radioactive decay occurring at a fast enough rate to cause creationism, the world would melt. A quote, “Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth.”1



2. My opponent’s second point, also, is total hooey. His point is these rocks could have been contaminated and, therefore, their results altered. The parent daughter products cause problems in the results, in other words. Sadly for my opponent, C14’s daughter product is nitrogen, which has no effect in determining an objects age. The main contamination in the specimens is things such as dirt entering the rock. This point does not help my opponent as earthy infestation makes the specimen appear younger, in other words many samples with contamination are older, not younger, so the young earth position is again untenable. So there are only two situations in this argument. 1) The C14 dating is accurate, the world is 4.55 billion years old, resolution negated, or 2) C14 readings are foul, but the contamination almost always makes the age seem younger (so the rock is older), so the earth is over 4.55 billion years old. Either way you view it, young earth creationism is negated as the earth is 4.55 billion years old or slightly higher.2



My opponent criticizes other dating systems (namely uranium). However, many rocks stay “enclosed” and uranium turns into lead 206 (and there is a chain which I will not explain). On balance, the uranium method is accurate as it is confirmed (within 1%) by C14 readings. And due to the fact it is enclosed and turns into lead, even if some does leak out, we can still estimate its age.3 my opponent argues Argon can be contaminated. I don’t see how Argon or uranium are relevant, though, if I have proved C14 proves an old earth and C14 is accurate. So to the voters: point refuted, mainstream dating methods prove an old earth and are accurate.



3. My opponent’s anomalies case is, actually, cherry picking the evidence. The dating on the lava was not dating the lava, rather xenoliths inside the lava. In other words, the laval flow is not that old but the materials in the lava was (and, your argunment makes no sense anyway. Lava from Mt. St. Helens is older then the explosion because it was sitting underground for years…) anyway, my opponents arguments fail because they where not dating the lava itself, rather the other things mixed into it.4And again, this is irrelevant as I have proven C14 to be accurate and C14 proves an old earth. Therefore, I win the debate unless he can disprove C14 dating which he has failed to do. Also, in my opponents case, he accepts the C14 dating (is it 14C? I don’t now…) which states would being 45,000 years old… He just conceded right there as this is over 6000. My opponent then cites the creation institute and throws in the words PHD (I shouldn’t say my opponent, I should be saying the source he plagiarized from). However, the creation institute is highly discredited in scientific communities.



2. Refuting his evidence



Dino blood? What is hilarious is the study claiming this was hugely discredited. The study found a well-preserved bone, and no red blood cells where present. The study merely stated something that looked like blood was in the bones, however looking like and being are two different things. The study even concluded more research must be done, and their results are far from conclusive. In reality, creationist websites are cherry picking their claims in order to promote religious ideals. The New York Times noted, “Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed. Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells, although a chemical stain that recognizes DNA picked up something in the holes where the bone cells would have rested.” In other words, abnormal bone cells, not blood, was discovered. My opponents plagiarized argument merely cherry picks data.5



Evidence for the helium claim is based on outdated techniques and flawed methodology.6 A study in 1996 totally destroys my opponents claim. Helium is a very light atom and often rises to the upper atmosphere and reaches a velocity high enough to escape. The thermal escape for helium almost refutes my opponents point; a second one must be accounted for. Helium in the atmosphere is also ionized and follows the earth’s magnetic lines. When ion escape is considered, “he escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements.”7 In other words, 1/1000 is to be expected and my opponents point refuted. My opponent then uses the weak supernova argument. Stage three supernova remnants are common and six scientific papers in the late 80’s and 90’s prove these events occur and the evidence does not prove a young earth. These studies have also shown the creationist arguments are based on cherry picking, mis-quoting, and false paraphrasing. No scientific basis for my opponent’s position exists.8



Mon recession… Actually, the moon currently and in the past has only been moving away .29-2 cm a year—almost nothing—and based on all published evidence the moon position in relation to the earth is what to expect given the old age of the earth (yes, its normal, not abnormal as pro would have you believe). “As for the real science, remember that science is not a static pursuit, and the Earth-moon tidal evolution is not an entirely solved system. There is a lot that we know, and we do know a lot more than we did even 20 years ago. But even if we don't know everything, there are still some arguments which we can definitely rule out. A 10,000 year age (or anything like it) definitely falls in that category, and can be ruled out both by theory and practice.”9



Creationism fails based on the current moon data, and the only sources showing my opponents point where funded by churches and have been refuted by scientists across the world for methodological problems.



CONCLUSION:



Note, evolution stands undefeated. Also, I would like to note my opponent plagiarized his case… He has given no adequate rebuttal and he has not given any credible or convincing evidence for a young earth. With that, I see it impossible for a pro win and urge a pro vote.





  1. http://www.talkorigins.org...

  2. http://www.talkorigins.org...

  3. http://www.talkorigins.org...

  4. http://www.talkorigins.org...

  5. http://www.talkorigins.org...

  6. http://www.talkorigins.org...

  7. http://www.talkorigins.org...

  8. http://www.talkorigins.org...

  9. http://www.talkorigins.org...

Debate Round No. 2
thetruthexists

Pro

I said, "I will cite everything at the end" I intended no plagiarism. I put my argument on a seperate word document (which had the sources) and it exceeded the character limit. I posted the argument late last night and i was not paying much attention. I apoligize. I ask that this debate to be dismissed and we can debate at another time. As there is a rebuttal for every argument you propose. I understand how i could have shown lack of conduct. Next time i will be sure i have a adequate amount of time to debate with you. Thank you in advance.
16kadams

Con

Even if no plagiarism existed, you cannot merely copy and paste from a source with no quotes. So its really still plagiarism.

Also no, dont dismiss this debate. Why should we? I do not accept your request for a tie. I spent time on this debate and expect results (win or lose).

My opponent has dropped evolution and therefore concedes its existence... and therefore loses. He also does not refute my age of the earth arguments and, therefore, concedes them as well.

CON OBVIOUSLY WINS THIS DEBATE
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by MacGruber 4 years ago
MacGruber
Someone's angry. Adams, I really like this debate. I wish we disagreed on this so we could debate it.
Posted by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
Thats your argument "its my debate"You sound like a middle schooler. You post things all over the place that are not your debates, then lie when people do not agree with you. Its a debate site fool. People are going to disagree. get over it already!
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Why should I shut up? This is my debate.
Posted by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
well 16kadams, I am glad you are the only one around here who is allowed an opinion. I am not sure what you are talking about. I have read scientific journals and the bible. In addition, I have opinions will state them regardless of what your "bombing" mind thinks. So do me a favor and SHUT UP!!!!!!
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Bad bob, ever try reading a scientific journal, and the bible, and make an opinion about evolution?

until that happens, don't attack what we have been taught.
Posted by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
Microsuck, you should read your own comments. Dont believe everything you have been taught. In this case, you are a fool! You also are a bomber!
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
badbob, you're an idiot!
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Lol
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Damn it. I was about to accept!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by hghppjfan 4 years ago
hghppjfan
thetruthexists16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with pro with this case, and all of you did a great job. The only thing that sent me to con was the sources.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
thetruthexists16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Not posting his own argument. Persuasion: Pro not only didn't post his own argument, he didn't respond to Con's argument, aside from asking for a do-over, effectively conceding.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
thetruthexists16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Vote bomb badbob
Vote Placed by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
thetruthexists16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro asked it be dismissed and two fools bombed the debate.stupid Darwinians. I think conduct is tie.pro made honest mistake but I still would have dinged him but con was rude constantly bringing it up.one time is plenty.con also used same tired websiteswikipeadia and talk origins. Pro had better arguments.debate again.pro wins
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
thetruthexists16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes old constantly refuted arguments. In round 3 he basically forfeited not addressing any arguments.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
thetruthexists16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins based upon the fact that Con plagarized and con effectively demolished his case and presented better and more reliable sources. Pro had poor spelling and was difficult to understand. His second round seemed like he was rambling on why radiometric dating was unreliable without giving evidence for the claims.