The Instigator
jh1234l
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Sleezehead
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

Evidence suggests an Old Earth

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,113 times Debate No: 33519
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

jh1234l

Pro


This debate will be on the age of the Earth.


I will be defending that the Earth is old.


Radiometric dating


According to radiometric dating, the oldest rocks on the Earth are about 3.8-3.9 billion years old. [1] However, if radiometric dating is not reliable, then that data is false. Now, I will prove that it is reliable.


1. No big changes in decay rates found


Emery (1972) has found little changes in decay rates, and even the biggest changes are not enough radiometric dating to not be reliable. [2] Plus, the biggest changes reported are not from the isotopes used in the source I cited [3], and are therefore irrelevant.


2. The agreement of different radiometric dating methods


Dalrymple (1986) has found that five different radiometric dating methods agreed on the age of a very old rock.[4] If radiometric dating is not reliable, then different dating methods won’t agree at all.


3. Scientists try to keep it reliable


Isochron dating, which is radiometric dating with an added measurement, has a built in check for contamination. [5]



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


[2] Emery, G. T., 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates" in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22 , pp. 165-202.


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


[4] Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth: A Reply To "Scientific" Creationism, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-110. 76 pp.


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


Sleezehead

Con

This is nonsense! I'll be debating on the behalf of the south!

The earth is only some odd 200 years! Get a brain "moran"! You must be wanna dem fancy scientists making up some limbo jumbo 'bout the earth gettin' warm! Was it called? Global farmin' or some'm like dat? Now you lookey here son, da earth ain't no old! My history teacher, ya mighta heard of'em, JESUS, a white man might I add, sais the world is some 5 years old! This has been proven by them meteorologists!

And you tell them global farmin', atheist, world is old fellers ta keep ther hands off my guns! WHIIIIIIIITE POWEWWWEER!!!! ROOLLLLLL TIIIIDE!
Debate Round No. 1
jh1234l

Pro

"This is nonsense! I'll be debating on the behalf of the south!

The earth is only some odd 200 years! Get a brain "moran"! You must be wanna dem fancy scientists making up some limbo jumbo 'bout the earth gettin' warm! Was it called? Global farmin' or some'm like dat? Now you lookey here son, da earth ain't no old! My history teacher, ya mighta heard of'em, JESUS, a white man might I add, sais the world is some 5 years old! This has been proven by them meteorologists!

And you tell them global farmin', atheist, world is old fellers ta keep ther hands off my guns! WHIIIIIIIITE POWEWWWEER!!!! ROOLLLLLL TIIIIDE!"

My opponent has ignored all of my points and is clearly trolling in a serious debate. Vote pro.
Sleezehead

Con

Vote for me is a vote for Amurricuh.
Debate Round No. 2
jh1234l

Pro

My opponent has refused to mae any case and has ignored my points. Vote me.
Sleezehead

Con

A vote not for me is a vote for terrorism. This of thinks that the world is young. Ignoramus!
Debate Round No. 3
jh1234l

Pro

Con, again, has refused to even attempt to rfute my points. Vote me.
Sleezehead

Con

There is evidence suggesting that my opponent is a communist spy. The reasonable choice is only to vote me.
Debate Round No. 4
jh1234l

Pro

This is intended to be a serious debate, not a troll debate, not a funny debate. My oppionent is clearly trolling and making irrelevent "arguments".
Sleezehead

Con

What's the debate about?
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Sleezehead 4 years ago
Sleezehead
Global Farming, my best work yet.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
My vote is hard against con, but I admit he did make me laugh a good deal. But I can't look at his avatar and keep a straight face.
Posted by Sleezehead 4 years ago
Sleezehead
My last round should win this easily.
Posted by Athill1 4 years ago
Athill1
Define old
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
jh1234lSleezeheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con trolled. Spelling: Pro knew English. Argument: Pro made one, whereas con solely used fallacies. Sources: Pro had a number of them, whereas con had none.
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
jh1234lSleezeheadTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter AgentRocks.
Vote Placed by AgentRocks 4 years ago
AgentRocks
jh1234lSleezeheadTied
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: You are being reported for this.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
jh1234lSleezeheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Full Forfeit. Con didn't show up.
Vote Placed by Formic 4 years ago
Formic
jh1234lSleezeheadTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Have to give it to pro. He actually debated for one round. And con deserves nothing for trolling.
Vote Placed by Skrone 4 years ago
Skrone
jh1234lSleezeheadTied
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: He rocked the spelling.