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

Earth is probably younger than 10,000 years old.

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: 3/2/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,630 times Debate No: 48169
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (1)




Only 3 rules will be explicitly defined:

1. Discussing votes with voters during Voting Period is not permitted.
2. Discussing non-meta subject matter in the comment section is not permitted.
3. Citing laymen is not allowed; e.g. Wikipedia & The Huffington Post are not permitted.

I welcome my opponent to the debate!


I accept and look forward to your opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1


A) The Old Testament

Many scholars have, using the Old Testament, independently determined the origin of earth to have been ~4,000 BC, which means the earth's ~6,000 old, considering the ~2,000 since Christ. Isaac Newton, for example, got a date of 3,998 BC.(1)

The Old Testament is credible because it makes numerous specific predictions, many of which have been confirmed and none of which have ever been falsified.

According to Ezekial:

[T]his is what the Sovereign Lord says:

I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you,

like the sea casting up its waves.

They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers;

I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.( ... )

From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army.( ... )

he will set up siege works against you( ... )

they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.( ... )

I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets.

You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken( ... )

(emphasis mine)

According to Isaiah:

I am the Lord( ... )
who foils the signs of false prophets( ... )
and fulfills the predictions of his messengers,

who says of Jerusalem, 'It shall be inhabited,'
of the towns of Judah,
'They shall be rebuilt'
and of their ruins,
'I will restore them,'( ... )
who says of
Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd
and will accomplish all that I please
[Cyrus] will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt,"
and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid."'

I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness:
I will make all his ways straight.
[Cyrus] will rebuild my city
and set my exiles free,

This is what the Lord says to his anointed,
to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of( ... )

you may know that I am the Lord,
the God of Israel,( ... )
I summon you by name
and bestow on you a title of honor,
though you do not acknowledge me.( ... )

I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness:
I will make all his ways straight.
[Cyrus] will rebuild my city
and set my exiles free
( ... )

(emphasis mine)

1. Many nations will come against Tyre.

Since this prophecy, Tyre has been attacked by Niger,(6) Greece,(3)Babylon,(2)and many others, which I can list if my opponent demands it.

2. Tyre will become a bare rock.

3. Tyre will become a place to spread fishnets.

Historian Philip Meyers confirms both: "Alexander the Great reduced Tyre to ruins in 332 BC.( ... ) the site of the once great city is now as bare as the top of a rock -- a place where the fishermen that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry."(3)

4. Nebuchadnezzar will lay seige to Tyre.

Encyclopedia Britannica confirms, "After a 13-year siege (585-573 BC) by Nebuchadnezzar II, Tyre made terms( ... )."(2)

5. The stones, timber and rubble of Tyre will be thrown into the sea.

The science journal, Nature, confirms, "Alexander's engineers used timber and ruins from the old centre of Tyre on the coast to build a [causeway] to the island."(4)

6. Tyre will never be rebuilt.

A city named Tyre exists today, but it is not to be confused with the Tyre referenced by the prophecy, which "was dismantled by Alexander the Great in his famous siege of Tyre and disappeared totally with the change of the coastline( ... )."(5)

7. Cyrus will not acknowledge God.

Cyrus was the King of Persia, a pagan, thus did not worship the God of Israel.

8. Cyrus will allow the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem.

9. Cyrus will free the Jews from exile.

Both confirmed by the historian Josephus, who points out Cyrus was actually inspired to fulfill the prophecies by reading them.(7)

All prophecies were written before the events they describe. Ezekial writes he began prophecying in the fifth year of King Johoiachin captivity. The Chaldeans date the first year of the captivity at 597 BC.(8) This means Ezekial began in 592 BC, but the Tyre prophecies he dates as 11 years after the captivity, which gives us a date of 586 BC. So Ezekial foretold the first seige only a year in advance, but predicted Alexander's seige centuries in advance.

Isaiah's writings are independently confirmed by Josephus to have been written ~150 years before the events described.

B) Helium Diffusion

Zircon crystals were U-Pb dated at 1.5byrs.(9)Half the Helium produced by radioactive decay, that would have escaped by 1.5byrs, was still present.(10)

In 2000, scientists predicted the Helium diffusion rate required to produce Gentry's results while assuming the crystals were 1.5byrs old, and the rate necessary when they were assumed 6kyrs old. Both predictions were published before the actual rate of diffusion was known.

The results of a later experiment confirmed the prediction made under the 6kyr model, and showed the prediction based on the 1.5byr model to be off by a factor of over 100k:

"[The] data strongly support [the] hypothesis of episodes of highly accelerated nuclear decay occurring within thousands of years ago. Such accelerations shrink the radioisotopic illions of years}39;down to [a] 6000-year timescale( ... )."(11)

This demonstrates nuclear decay was faster in the past, rendering unreliable any date derived via conventional radiometric dating. This is because radiometric dating, as practiced, relies on the assumption that radioactive decay has always been constant. Now that this assumption is shown to be false, all dates based on this assumption are not credible.

Aside from undermining the assumptions behind conventional dating, this study also confirms a ~6,000 year age for the earth: the zircon was from Precambrian rock; since rock as deep as Precambrian is only 6,000 years old, the rest of the earth is too.

C) Young Solar System

Physicist Humphreys employed a model of a solar system 6,000 years old to make several predictions about the magnetism of planets.(12)His model used the Old Testament account of Creation, utilizing the fact that God created earth out of water. Here are some of the predictions made ~30 years ago:

  1. Older igneous rocks from Mercury or Mars should have natural remanent magnetization, as the Moon's rocks do.

  2. Mercury's decay rate is so rapid that some future probe could detect it fairly soon. In 1990 the planet's magnetic moment should be 1.8 percent smaller than its 1975 value.

  3. The upcoming Voyager 2 encounters with Uranus and Neptune should show planetary magnetic moments less than the k = 1.0 limit: 8.2 x 1025J/T for Uranus and 9.7 x 1025J/T for Neptune.

  4. [T]he present dipole moment of Uranus would be of the order of 1024J/T.

  5. [W]e would expect Neptune to have a( }39;) magnetic moment, of the order of 1024J/T.

By 2012, NASA had confirmed all five predictions.

Some readers may not understand the implications of the success of Humphreys' model, so let me explain.

In science, when there are a couple competing theories trying to explain the same phenomena, the theory which makes the most valid predictions is the one that is most likely to be correct. The competitor of Humphreys' model is called Dynamo Theory, but it is inferior both in predictive capability and empirical support.

Dynamo Theory is a failure when one compares the number of successful predictions it has made in comparison to those of Humphreys' 6,000 year old model. Humphreys' model has made at least five predictions so far; I challenge my opponent to find even one successful prediction made by Dynamo Theory which has not also been made by the 6,000 year old solar system model.

According to the Earth & Space Sciences department of the University of Washington:

"[T]he crucial element in falsificationism is whether the new theory offers any novel, excess information compared with its predecessor and whether some of this excess information is corroborated."(13)

The Young Earth Model is the new theory (in relation to Dynamo Theory), it offers excess information compared to Dynamo, and this information is corroborated (as shown by the success of it's predictions).

The Earth is ~6,000 years old.

Good luck to my opponent.


(2) "Tyre," Encyclopedia Britannica, 1970 edition.

(3) Phillip Myers, General History for Colleges and High Schools, Boston, Ginn & Co., 2003, 55.


(5) H. Jacob Katzenstein, The history of Tyre, from the beginning of the second millennium B.C.E. until the fall of the Neo b- sBabylonian empire in 539 B.C.E., 1973.

(6) Wallace Bruce Fleming, The History of Tyre, 1915.

(7) Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XI.1.2.

(8) Free & Vos, Archaeology and Bible History, 1992.

(9) Zartman, R. E., Uranium, thorium, and lead isotopic composition of biotite granodiorite (Sample 9527-2b) from LASL Drill Hole GT-2, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report LA-7923-MS, 1979.

(10) Gentry, R. V., G. J. Glish, and E. H. McBay, Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management, Geophysical Research Letters, 9(10), 1129}39;130, 1982.

(11) Humphreys, Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay, Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, (Volume II), 2005.

(12) Humphreys, D. R. (1984). The creation of planetary magnetic fields. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 21(3), 140}39;49.






Your argument about Tyre is virtually nulified by the existence of tje city of tyre today. You mention that the city of Tyre that exists today is not the same city, it is. Here is a map from a christian theological paper (of ancient Tyre) [1]. And here is a map of the modern city of Tyre [2] as you can see it is in the same place.

King Cyrus

You say that "Cyrus was actually inspired to fulfill the prophecies by reading them". This is the definition of a self fulfilling prophicy ("(Of an opinion or prediction) bound to be proved correct or to come true as a result of behaviour caused by its being expressed" -Oxford English dictionary).

Ezekial and Isaiah

The exact dates of the writings of Ezekial and Isaiah are in dispute [3] but even if I (for sake of argument) accept the dates of Ezekial and Isaiah that is one prophicy out of thousands, most unfulfilled [4][5][6][7] I can go on but I think you get the point. Just because part of one prophicy (which is self fulfilling) came true does not justify the old testament.

Helium Diffusion

Russell Humphreys's experiments have not been accepted by the majority of the sientific comunity and has recived vast critizism. Kevin Henke describes Russell Humphreys's dating methods as "are based on many false assumptions (isotropic diffusion, constant temperatures over time, etc.) and the vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, andQ/Q0 values that are used in these 'dating' equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."[8]. The helium problem is not a problem which any mainstream research scientists encounter.

Young Solar System

I was instantly sceptical here when I saw that you needed to site articals by the same man (Russell Humphreys). Again Russell Humphreys's findings have not been accepted by the majority of scientists and here rely on what turned out to be thrust from the spacecraft the readings were taken from [9].

Arguments for the earth being over 10,000 years old


Also known as tree ring dating, dendrochronology works by matching one section of rings from one tree to another section of rings on another tree. By this method a database of tree rings can be created and this allows reaserchers to trace tree rings back as far as 11,000 years[10].

Radiometric Dating

Radiometric dating works by comparing two different compounds. For instance in carbon dating works by comparing the stable carbon isotope, carbon 12 to the less stable carbon isotope carbon 14. When an animal dies it boasts the normal ration of carbon 12 to carbon 14 but over time carbon 14 (a radioactive isotope) decays and this rate can be measured [11]. The accuracy of carbon dating is comfirmed by other dating methods (including dendrochronology) and other types of radiometric dating. There are other types of radiometric dating which also work for much older sample (for instance argon-argon).

[1];(see page 2)
[2];(I don't think this breaks the rules of not citing layman as I am not taking arguments or information just a map)
[3] The Second Isaiah: A New Interpretation by Charles Cutler Torrey
[4] Ezekiel 30:10-11
[5] Isaiah 7:1-7
[6] Isaiah 19:18
[7] Isaiah 45:1
[8] Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates", Kevin R. Henke, TalkOrigins Archive
[9] Support for the Thermal Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly". Physical Review Letters 108 (241101). June 2012.
[10] Dendrochronology. "Science in Archaeology: A Review". AJA 99 (1): 79–142 (1995)
[11] Bowman, Radiocarbon Dating, pp. 10–12.
Debate Round No. 2


Defending my arguments


Ancient Tyre has never been rebuilt. The retroactively-drawn map from Con's “christian theological paperis not credible. As I stated before, Ancient Tyre was lost to the sea. I'll back this up with anothersource. In ~1,000 AD, Benjamin Tudela wrote in a diary of his extensive travels:

A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea.(14)

Ancient Tyre has never been rebuilt. In fact, it cannot be rebuilt. It is under the sea in an unknown location.

King Cyrus

Con dropped this argument. Self-fulfilling or not, the prophecy was successful.

Ezekial and Isaiah

It does not matter if the dates are in dispute; that's not even a prima faciecase for undermining the Old Testament's credibility. Also, Con cannot just cite passages and claim they are busts. He must actually quote the verses in question, and then demonstrate why they are wrong.

The Old Testament's credibility, for the purposes of this debate, has been well established and remains un-refuted.

Helium Diffusion

Con's first argument is an appeal to majority; just because Humphreys has received “vast criticismand his experiments “have not been accepted by the majority of the sientific comunitydoesn't mean any of results or conclusions are wrong. In particular, Kevin Henke's criticisms are not credible because

1) Con has not shown how they are valid other than an appeal to authority (which makes no sense since he's just pitting one PhD's word against the other) and

2) they are not published in a peer-reviewed journal, but rather on the website of New Mexicans for Science & Reason, a non-profit organization. If Henke wants to be taken seriously, he must publish his findings in a scientific journal.

I see no reason to go out of my way to refute claims which Con did not deem worth spending time nor effort asserting.

Young Solar System

Con's presents another appeal to majority. I do not understand his other claim, which is that Humphreys' findings “rely on what turned out to be thrust from the spacecraft the readings were taken from.

I'm sorry, how is this even a prima facie case for why Humphreys' findings are wrong?

Rebutting Con's arguments


Con's source for his claim of an 11,000 year old tree-ring chronology admits it is based on radiometric dating:

We derived an( … ) age of 11,370 dendroyr BP( … ) by linking the end of the pine series with oak at the 8800 BP 14C [radiometric] oscillation( … ).

As my Helium Diffusion argument demonstrated, dates derived from conventional radiometric dating are based on the false assumption that radioactive decay has always been constant in the past. This means that Con's tree-ring chronology relies on unreliable dates, and is thus not credible. It is refuted.

Radiometric Dating

Con did not even make a prima facie case for an earth older than 10,000 years here.


I established the credibility of the Old Testament by showing how it makes many specific, falsifiable prophecies, many of which have been successful and none of which have ever been falsified. Con did not successfully challenge this point, so the date of earth, which Isaac Newton determined from the Old Testament, stands.

Con failed to refute my Helium Diffusion argument, which shows how a crucial assumption behind conventional radiometric fails. Thus, his tree-ring date is not credible because his own source admits it relied on radiometric dating.

Con's "Radiometric Dating" argument neglected to even make a prima facie case for his position, so I did not spend time rebutting it.

Back to Con.





Tyre was rebuilt on the same island maybe a few kilomiters away (a you said it could still be seen) I will let the voters decide whether or not that is rebuilt.

King Cyrus

You must understand that the King Cyrus proficy was self fulfilling, this discounts it as an argument. The persians had a belief in fate and tried to fulfil it when shown a proficy they would try to fulfil it.

Ezekiel and Isaiah

Ezekiel and Isaiah are dated to around 300 B.C. by Charles Cutler Torrey (an archaeologist and historian). This dates them to many years after the death of king Cyrus and the sacking of Tyre, you have not even argued with this dating and insisted that it doesn't effect the accuracy of the proficy which it obviously does.

The Accuracy of the Old Testament

I skimmed over this earlier and thought youwould have read more deeply. As I pointed out there are many many prophecies in the bile. The fact you can only point to two coming true speaks volumes of their accuracy and there are many which can no longer come true, here are some examples (specifically from Ezekiel and Isaiah as those are the books you have sited):

Ezekiel 30:10-11:

“‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“‘I will put an end to the hordes of Egypt by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. He and his army—the most ruthless of nations— will be brought in to destroy the land. They will draw their swords against Egypt and fill the land with the slain."

King Nebuchadnezzar has been dead for 2500 years and doesn't seem likely to invade Egypt any time soon. Egypt was not invaded by Nebuchadnezzar and seemingly never will be.

Isaiah 19:18:

"In that day five cities in Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the LORD Almighty. One of them will be called the City of the Sun."

The language of Canaan has been extinct for over a milenium and this proficy seems like it will not come true.

The Absurdity of Biblical Proficy

The bible claims that YWYH gave humans free will and makes claims of prophicy. The two are mutually exclusive,making claims of free will ("the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.") and yet the whole idea of proficy is based around fate, something which is completly contary to free will.

Russell Humphreys

0.15% of scientists are creationists [1][2], if you want to call this a simple appeal to majority then call it that. I will attepmt to explain why it is not, these scientists are the people who are tasked with gaining an objective understanding of the universe through physical models. Last year through this method these same people landed a rover on another planet and these same people utterly reject the models of Russell Humphreys in favour of those models which allow us to land rovers on the surface of other planets, cure diseases and bring the life expectancy to the highest level in history.

A defense of Dendrochronology

Dendrochronology does not rely on carbon dating and the paper I linked you to doesn't rely exclusivly on it (though it does use it). You still have not provided an argument.

Radiometric Dating

I was hoping that you would provide an objection to my initial premise (why I did not expand further). You provided the standered creationist objection in the dendrochronology section "the false assumption that radioactive decay has always been constant in the past.". The rate of radioactive decay is confirmed to be constant by different methods of radiometric, for instance argon argon dating gets the same date for the same item as carbon 14 dating.

Because the same thing is dated to the same time by multiple different methods of radiometric dating the onus is one you to show that the rate of decay has been shown.

Further more when an item of known age is dated the known date is comfirmed by carbon dating [3].

Radiometric dating can date objects as far back as 4.4 billion years old showing that the earth is older than 10,000 years.

[2] The Long War Against God by Henry Morris

Debate Round No. 3


GarretKadeDupre forfeited this round.


Take my last argument as a closing statement, please do not vote based on the forfeiture.
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Muted 3 years ago
Well con has lost me with his proficy
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
i was testing the site's capacity to properly display check mark symbols. It failed. :\
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
What is this???



Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
Posted by Pitbull15 3 years ago
Wait, sorry. I haven't checked your profile recently. I see you're a Christian. My bad. xD
Posted by Pitbull15 3 years ago
For an atheist you really like to defend this a lot. Kind of like Wylted. Just saying.

So, you're just playing devil's advocate here?
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
darn it
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
just trying something:



Posted by ThoughtsandThoughts 3 years ago
That works too! Okay, I'll remember that comments are never for the actual debate now, haha!
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
Lol it's ok. They should get deleted soon because I reported them.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jakeross6 3 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, mainly, but Pro presented a terrible argument for his position, but the Con did not do very well in refuting these arguments. The debate veered away from Creationism and a Young Earth and on to authenticity of the bible. I will only award conduct to Con for this debate.