The Instigator
jh1234l
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Migs
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evidence suggests an Old 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...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,265 times Debate No: 28784
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

jh1234l

Pro

Experienced debators are reccomended.

The Arguments:

The Earth is generally accepted to be about 4.55 billion years old (plus or minus about 1%) based on scientific evidence. [1]

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204. Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time. [1] This provides a way of knowing the age of the Earth.

The oldest rocks on Earth are dated to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago using several radiometric dating methods, such as the one above.[1] However, this is only a minimal age, as the age cannot be computed directly from material that is from the Earth because evidence suggests that the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface and that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. [1]

Plus, mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 billion years were spotted from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia.[2] This proves that the Earth is at least 4.4 billion years old, and is very close to the 4.55 billion estimate.

Other Dating Methods

As I have proven that the Earth is indeed old, I'll refute some of the other dating methods that give different results.

Ocean Salinity

Dating using Ocean Salinity has suggested a young Earth, but it is not reliable.

The salt in the ocean fluxuates, and the ocean also loses about the same amount of salt as it gains. Another flaw in this system is that the rates of erosion, solution, rainfall, and runoff cannot be measured over large amounts of time.[3] Therefore, it does not provide a reliable age of the Earth.



[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2]http://pubs.usgs.gov...
[3]http://orgs.usd.edu...
Migs

Con


I want to thank you for posting this debate and being willing to debate it. I will respond to all of your paragraphs and your bullet points underneath them.

PLEASE NOTE: I will only be addressing the arguments made by the Pro for why the evidence points to an Old Earth. Because the Pro has to prove that his position is true, I only have to prove that his arguments are false. This would cause you to vote for the Con.

The Arguments

1: You claim that the Earth's age is generally accepted as being about 4.5 billion years old. This may be true of many people, but there are still many scientists who are starting to disagree with this number. While the common-man may never believe this, many scientists are.

2: The entire argument made by the Pro is based on the validity of radio-metric dating. All I have to do is point out the flaws in it. One analogy for radiometric dating is a sandtimer. A sandtimer has 2 sides; when the top gets smaller, the bottom gets larger, and vice-versa. There are many problems with radiometric dating.

a) it is possible for some of the lead or uranium (in this example of radio-metric dating [although it is true of all radio-metric dating]) to leak out. To continue my analogy, the corresponding part of a sandtimer would be the glass being broken. If so, sand can leak out one side without the other side being affected. This would ruin the ratio, therefore rendering the data nill. [1]

b) it is possible for the U or Pb to become contaminated. It is the same with RD (radiometric dating). Uranium could leak out without any lead leaking out. This would skew the data. Also, it is plausible that they are contaminated (chemicals could get in the same way the U or Pb leaked out). This might lead to chemical reactions, further skewing the data. Such skewed data makes it not reliable. [1] Also, not only could chemicals contaminate them, but more U or Pb could be added. This still skews data.


c) scientists were there to measure the amount of lead and uranium in the beginning. The assumption is that there was 0 Pb, and it was all U, yet this is simply illogical. No one was there to measure the amount of daughter isotopes there were. No one is therefore able to determine how much U decayed. This undermines the whole system.

3: I accept what you say about the exact date of the earth's origin is impossible to determine by any current means (human errors).

4: Another problem with RD is that of another assumption. Another assumption made in RD is that the rate of decay (of U) has been the same throughout all of history. This is simply inconsistent with the data. One example, the radioactive decay of uranium in tiny crystals in a New Mexico granite yields a uranium-lead “age” of 1.5 billion years. Yet the same uranium decay also produced abundant helium, but only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals. [2] This simply does not add up unless the rate of decay of the U is 250,000 times higher than it is now. Either RD is flawed, the He dating was flawed, or the rate of U decay was higher in the past.

Other Dating Methods
1: you have not proven that the earth is indeed old
2:Ocean Salinity is one out of many options. This response is not enough.
3: I agree that Ocean Salinity shows a young earth, but it is not the point being made.
4: The same argument is made against RD. You say that it is impossible to see into the past and determine the rainfall, erosion, etc. The same argument is made against RD under The Arguments 2c



[1]: http://www.answersingenesis.org...;
[2]: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative (a book)







Debate Round No. 1
jh1234l

Pro

1It is possible for some of the lead or uranium to leak out. To continue my analogy, the corresponding part of a sandtimer would be the glass being broken. If so, sand can leak out one side without the other side being affected. This would ruin the ratio, therefore rendering the data nill.

However, this assues that the uranium/lead is leaking, and it is only POSSIBLE for it to happen, and con has not proven that it is leaking. Although I have the BOP to prove the resolution, he still has the BOP to prove that it is leaking as the BOP is on the person making the claim.

2.Contamination

Contamination does not explain how radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results essentially at random, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected. [1]

3.Assumption that there is 0 Pb

However, it is not required or assumed for there to be 0 D. (Another symbol for Pb, that is used at the source.) However, the greater the initial D-to-Di ratio, the further the initial horizontal line sits above the X-axis. But the computed age is not affected.[2]

4.Decay Rate

What you said to refute radiometric dating can also apply here. The Helium might have already escaped the crystals, and that was just like how in your sand timer analogy where the glass of the timer might be broken. Also, significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating were ,in fact, never observed. Emery (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. The largest changes reported by Emery are minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.[3]

Other Dating Methods

1: you have not proven that the earth is indeed old
2:Ocean Salinity is one out of many options. This response is not enough.

I have proven that facts point to an Old Earth. Thus Con has ignored about 99% of my arguments.
Ocean Salinity is indeed one out of many options, but my BOP is to prove that the Earth is old, and the other options should be pointed out by con as I do not have the BOP to disove them.

"4: The same argument is made against RD. You say that it is impossible to see into the past and determine the rainfall, erosion, etc."


That was not my whole argument, my other part is that the salt in the ocean fluxuates[4] and that the ocean gains about as much salt as it loses. [4] My opponent has not adequately addressed that. Theefore my opponent's argument does not hold any water.

I think I do not have to put any more evidence on my side in this round, as most of my arguments are still not adequately refuted.

[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[3]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[4]http://orgs.usd.edu...
Migs

Con

1: Leak
The Point that my opponent makes that it is "only POSSIBLE" for U or Pb to leak out. This apparently shows that it will not happen. I have 2 responses to this.
a) my opponent misunderstands me; I don't mean to say that this ALWAYS happens, I mean to say that the possibility makes the credibility doubtable. This possibility makes it unreliable. The chance of this happening is not able to be determined (you cannot know what the chance of a crack in a rock being unless you know the specifics of the rock (composition, mass, etc). Because of this unknown variable, RD is unreliable.
b) Also, I do not have the burden of proof in this instance. Again, my argument is that it can happen. And, as stated above, it is impossible to prove that this always happens; this just proves that it can happen. That is all that is able to be said reasonably.

2: Contamination
I have 3 responses.
a) It does show great ages of time, but, this does not matter. It is possible that all sources have 1 or more of these problems (such as Leaking, Contamination, etc) could have occured. It is very plausible that this is what happens.

b) The argument made is that they all have long ages. The Pro has not brought any figures of the range of the long ages. 1 million could be considered a long age. 50 trillion could also be considered a long age. This is not adequate argument. There are no numbers, therefore, the numbers could be over a very large range that is indeed "haywire" to quote the Pro.

c) Also, his argument does not address my entire argument. The later part of this argument says that chemical reactions could take place that could skew data even further. This was not responded to, therefore it was conceded by the Pro.


3: 0 Pb
I have 3 responses
a) My argument was addressing RD, not Isochronic Dating. If you look at the context of his evidence, it is talking about isochronic dating. Therefore, my opponent concedes the argument in the field of RD.

b) Regarding Isochronic Dating: the evidence brought up is not credible. It was written by Chris Stassen, who is an author for TalkOrigins. I found an article written by him stating his own credentials.
"BS Computer Science, Michigan Technological University, 82. (would have had a minor in Historical Geology, if MTU recognized minors)" [1]
His degree is in Computer Science. Also, his Minor would have been Historical Geology, but (as stated earlier in the article) his highest education is a Bachelors of Science. Yet, I have evidence from Mike Riddle, who cites Dr. Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. in Geology (which I will cite in a minute). The Pro's piece of Evidence was written with the last update being September 17, 1998. My evidence is from September 2, 2009.
c) Isochron Dating is extremely fallible. My evidence (refered to in the last bullet point) states,
"Using the rubidium-strontium isochron dating method, an age of 1.11 billion years was assigned to the oldest rocks and a date of 1.14 billion years to the youngest lava flows. The youngest rocks gave a billion year age the same as the oldest rocks!" [2]
My evidence shows that isochronic dating is also extremely fallible. It also points out that the younger rocks were shown to be older than the older rocks by 30 million years. This is obviously not true, therefore, it also undermines the isochron dating method.
Additional examples will be given upon request.

4: Decay Rate
I have 4 responses to this:
a) Again, note the date of this evidence: 1972. In Sceintific terms, this is extremely long, as discoveries are being made every day. It was written more than 40 years ago.
b) It is impossible for He to have already escaped from the crystals. It is the same thing as saying, "He might have broken out of jail before he got there." I'm not talking about someone's 2nd visit to jail, but someone who's going to jail for the first time.
c) You are correct in saying that significant changes have never been observed. But, this is not needed. It has not been observed in the past hundred or so years, but there were millenia before that in which we have no data. There is evidence that can only be explained if the rate of decay was different in the past.
d) The same argument is made against the existence of your brain (meaning no disrespect). You have never seen your brain. You have never smelled, heard, touched, or (hopefully not) tasted your brain. Therefore, if must not exist. This means that you lose the debate. You can see that lack of observation does not rule out the possibility of existence. This leads to Schrodinger's Cat situations. Therefore, lack of observation cannot be ruled out.

5: Other Dating Methods
1: You have not given sufficient reasons to believe that evidence has proven that evidence even suggests an old earth.
2: I have 7 Responses to this
a) Again, you have not PROVEN that facts point to an Old Earth
b) you cannot prove that facts say anything. Facts do not say anything by themselves; they must be interpreted.
c) Which arguments have I ignored? I have refuted everything.
d) If the Pro meamns to say that I have ignored 99% of his arguments concerning Other Dating Methods, I have not.
e) My argument about rainfall, erosion, etc. still stands REGARDING THOSE THINGS SPECIFICALLY. Because this has gone uncontested by the Pro, this particular argument does stand. Mind you, that it is only regarding those areas mentioned (which does include the "etc."). It is not an argument against the argument that the
f) Again, this is not the rout which I have taken. I am simply pointing out that your arguments "do not hold any water."
g) You have not adequately responded Other Dating Methods. It is simple grammer that says that "Other Dating MethodS. This is not what is done. The Pro has only brought ONE Dating Method, not methodS.

6: Another Dating Method (not methodS)
Population III Stars
All stars function by fusion of Hydrogen, He, Li, etc. Each one creates larger and larger elements. If this is true, there would be stars that contain heavier elements. These would be known as Population III stars. However, there are none of them in the universe. As for the billions of light-years we can see, none can be found. [3] This lack of Population III stars would be apparent with a young universe (which would include a young earth), but cannot be explained with an Old Universe/earth model.





[1]: http://www.antievolution.org...
[2]: http://www.answersingenesis.org...
[3]: http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Debate Round No. 2
jh1234l

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for the response.

1. Leak

If it is leaking, then there should be different results every time, even using the same dating method. If so, why are the results always almost the same?

2. Contamination

I concede this as I have adequately refuted both, because if it did happen, the results won't always be similar.

3. 0Pb

My argument was addressing RD, not Isochronic Dating. If you look at the context of his evidence, it is talking about isochronic dating. Therefore, my opponent concedes the argument in the field of RD.


If you read my opening argument, you will find that "The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204. Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time."


b) Regarding Isochronic Dating: the evidence brought up is not credible. It was written by Chris Stassen, who is an author for TalkOrigins. I found an article written by him stating his own credentials.
"BS Computer Science, Michigan Technological University, 82. (would have had a minor in Historical Geology, if MTU recognized minors)"


The article had sources from reliable places, the writer does not have an influene on it's validity.


c) Isochron Dating is extremely fallible. My evidence states, "Using the rubidium-strontium isochron dating method, an age of 1.11 billion years was assigned to the oldest rocks and a date of 1.14 billion years to the youngest lava flows. The youngest rocks gave a billion year age the same as the oldest rocks!"

Lava is molten rock that is expelled by a volcano.[1] Therefore, when the lava is expelled =/= the age of the molten rock.

It is impossible for He to have already escaped from the crystals. It is the same thing as saying, "He might have broken out of jail before he got there." I'm not talking about someone's 2nd visit to jail, but someone who's going to jail for the first time.

Helium exists only as a gas except in extreme conditions. [2] Gases escapes quite fast, and you have not given a source to prove that the Helium is impossible to escape nor explained why.

The same argument is made against the existence of your brain (meaning no disrespect). You have never seen your brain. You have never smelled, heard, touched, or (hopefully not) tasted your brain. Therefore, if must not exist. This means that you lose the debate. You can see that lack of observation does not rule out the possibility of existence. This leads to Schrodinger's Cat situations. Therefore, lack of observation cannot be ruled out.

However, this is not relevent because if it is observed, then the Earth possibly is not old. However, big changes in decay rates have never been observed. (source in last round.) Thus, this is irrelevent to this topic.

Which arguments have I ignored? I have refuted everything.

You only refuted the erosion, rainfall, etc. You did not refute how that the salt in the ocean fluxuates, and the ocean also loses about the same amount of salt as it gains. [3]

Thus, higher elements can no longer fuse. Plus, because of their high mass, current stellar models show that Population III stars would have soon exhausted their fuel and exploded in extremely energetic pair-instability supernovae. [5] Thus, Population III stars can only exist in the early universe. [5]

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://orgs.usd.edu...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Migs

Con

Migs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
jh1234l

Pro

My opponent has forfeited this round. All arguments extended.
Migs

Con

Migs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
jh1234l

Pro

Extend all arguments
Migs

Con

Migs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
This argument is becoming as old as the earth.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
jh1234lMigsTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Migs forfeit. S&G: tied, no errors of significantly worse character were made by either side. Convincing: PRO provided many good arguments, primarily the convergence of results. In the future, PRO might also benefit from noting that they do not just study whole samples, but specific decay tracks. Con also forfeit. Reliable sources: PRO, as he used scientific sources that were themselves well sourced.