The Instigator
danlewis789
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SNP1
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
SNP1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 656 times Debate No: 49396
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

danlewis789

Con

I saw you comment on a post and now i want to debate you (:.
I think your stance is Evolution/Big bang with no God?
Mine is God Created everything 6000 years ago. Want to do this?
First round is acceptance.
SNP1

Pro

As decided in the comments, these are the rules of the debate:

1. Source information
2. No religious or atheist websites
3. The Bible is not evidence
4. No new arguments in the 5th round
5. Burden of proof is shared

I also recommend the following, but it has not been agreed upon:
1. If one of these rules is broken, loss of conduct.
2. If rules were broken in all rounds by an individual, award no points.

In the comments it was also decided that this debate would be about the age of the Earth. Con is arguing that it is 6000 years old, I am arguing that it is older.

It was also decided that I should start my argument in this round, so here we go.

There have been four different independent radiometric dating methods used to date rocks at the Grand Canyon to 3.7-3.8 billion years old. There have been rocks dated to around 3.4-3.6 billion years old in southern Africa, Western Australia, and the Great Lakes region of North America.

http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...

We can also see the number of impact craters that we have on Earth. These are rare, asteroids large enough to leave these craters do not make it to Earth that often. There are around 184 confirmed impact craters on Earth. If the world is only 6000 years old then there would have been a period where asteroids were much more common than they are now. Another problem is the size of some of these craters. Some of them are so large that they would cause mass destruction on life.

http://www.passc.net...

Sorry that I do not have more right now, but I will bring more into this debate later.
Debate Round No. 1
danlewis789

Con

Ahh very insteresting.
Here is one of my evidences for a young earth. Have you heard of C-14 Dating? C-14 is an isotope of the element Carbon, and is created when some of the suns energy hits Nitrogen in the atmosphere to make the isotope. It has a very short half life of just under 6000 years. Eventually the amount of C-14 created and lost to decay would equalize in a state known as equilibrium.
Willard Libby was the man who created the process of Carbon dating. He made some very serious assumptions. He assumed the earth was millions of years old, so the the C-14 equilibrium was already reached. The amount of C-14 has actually increased in the atmosphere over the last couple hundred years. Now, Libby calculated that it would take about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium, which it hasn't. This means the Earth is less than 30,000 years old. Also, because the amount of C-14 dating in the atmosphere is changing, it is not a reliable source of dating.
http://www.chem.uwec.edu...
(Bottom couple Paragraphs explain this problem).

http://www.google.com...

The picture you see here is of a petrified tree running through multiple rock layers. Just Google "petrified trees" and you will find pictures of them. They have been found all around the globe. In this picture, you can see that the tree runs through multiple layers. By the law of superposition, all of the layers the tree runs through are different ages. This means it would take millions of years for the tree to be encompassed by the rock. Problem number one is that trees fall over when they die. Not right away of course but they cant last millions of years. It is impossible for the layers to be different ages if the tree runs through all of them. Petrified trees prove that they were encompassed by a rapid burial from rock layers being formed very quickly. Maybe from a global flood. (:

I only used two pieces of evidence because you only used two. Should we just stay even with evidence through the debate?
And I'm not sure... was i supposed to disprove your points of evidence?

I can tell already this will be fun. Thanks for accepting!
-Dan
SNP1

Pro

You bring up carbon dating, however I never mentioned carbon dating. C14 is not always an accurate dating method, but that is why we have hundreds of types of dating methods. As you can see in my first link from round one the radioactive parent elements used to date rocks and minerals are:

Parent/Daughter

Uranium-235/ Lead-207
Uranium-238/ Lead-206
Potassium-40/Argon-40
Rubidium-87/Strontium-87
Samarium-147/Neodymium-143
Thorium-232/ Lead-208
Rhenium-187/Osmium-187
Lutetium-176/ Hafnium-176

These are a lot more reliable for dating minerals and rocks.

http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...

C14 is not used to date minerals or rocks. Because of that C14 is not able to be used to prove or disprove the age of the Earth.

You then bring up a petrified tree but your only evidence for why that would show a young Earth is a picture of the tree. You did not provide a source for why that would disprove an old Earth. They are also known as Polystrate tree fossils. Geologists have been able to explain these for quite some time now.

Since you did not source anything but a picture, I will simply give a source to explain this and only touch on it a bit.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org...

The trees could easily have been fossilized in multiple layers because of many conditions. Large trees can stay upright for decades after they die, some of the upright fossils have rotted away interiors as well.

Volcano ash that buries trees could easily cause them to form as they did, and if they were buried in a marsh then they are nearly immune to rot, allowing for them to be fossilized as they did.

For a better and more in depth explanation you can check out the link I provided.

Another point for an older Earth is coral. Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and grow upon the residues of their calcareous remains. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 18 million years.

http://www.greatadventures.com.au...
Debate Round No. 2
danlewis789

Con

How are scientists able to easily observe half lives of isotopes accurately. They assume the isotope has decayed at the same rate, for all of history. Science assumes no outside sources have interfered with the decay, or for example washed some of the isotopes away. If the Earth were billions of years old, then a lot could happen in that time period to screw up results.
I didn't bring up Carbon dating as an actual dating method, I brought it up to show how C-14 numbers in the atmosphere is increasing. Meaning that the decay and production of C-14 in the atmosphere hasn't reached equilibrium.

The picture of a tree is one of many examples of any fossils that run through multiple rock layers. I just wanted to show you an example of what i was talking about. I was disproving how the rock layers cannot be different ages. You bring up a valid point of how they could be stuck in a marsh or buried by volcanic ash, which is plausible. My point is that these trees are found everywhere through the earth. Many are actually not found by volcanoes, or marshes. They are spread out within different ecosystems. Some trees have been found underground in some places in Alaska or Antarctica, suggesting a rapid relocation of the organisms. Just Google it.

One more thing I have to bring up is that the earth's rotation is slowing down.
If the earth was billions of years old then why hasn't it slowed completely yet?
What has caused it to loose rotational speed?
What is an old universe believer's explanation for this.

You cannot use the Great Barrier Reef as evidence for the age of the earth. You need to look at both perspectives. It probably would have taken the reef millions of years to grow the size it is today, but God could have made the reef and let it grow from there. He didn't plant one tree or one blade of grass to populate the world with.
You assume the Reef must have started with one organism or however small you thing it was, when also God could have made it the way it is, letting it grow.

-Dan
SNP1

Pro

None of the new arguments were sourced. We agreed that all information must be sourced.

Why should the half-life have changed over the years? You provide no sources to how they could have changed or why they should be thought to have changed.

The trees argument needs to be sourced, I also left a link that showed there are ways that that could happen, I did not have to mention every single way though.

You did not provide any source for the Earth's rotation speed slowing, but I will address it anyways. The Earth's rotation speed is decreasing that it gains 1.4 milliseconds about every 100 years. That is .0014 seconds every 100 years. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old by current estimates. That means that the Earth's fastest day would have been 17.5 hours longer. A day of 41.5 hours is no problem for an old Earth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

In order for you to say "God could have made it that way" you need to provide sources that God actually did it.

Con provided no sources for his previous round, even though we agreed to use sources for all claims. There is only one more round where we can provide new evidence.
Debate Round No. 3
danlewis789

Con

danlewis789 forfeited this round.
SNP1

Pro

All points extended, entering the rebuttal round. No new points can be made.
Debate Round No. 4
danlewis789

Con

danlewis789 forfeited this round.
SNP1

Pro

My opponent has forfeited twice in this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by danlewis789 2 years ago
danlewis789
Sorry man i got tied up and couldnt post my agrument. I was planning on making it a beefy argument which lead to delay.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Whoops, accidentally clicked add instead of subtract on my calculator. Either way it still is not a problem for science and the point doesn't even matter since he did not source his information.
Posted by Sswdwm 2 years ago
Sswdwm
Just a point of info SPN1, the earth day would have been shorter, instead of longer in the past.

It was actually one of the proposed mechanisms for the formation of the moon although this is now largely discredited :-)
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
No, religious/atheist websites will be biased. If you cannot find evidence outside of religious websites then you should not debate the topic.

I am still preparing everything.
Posted by danlewis789 2 years ago
danlewis789
I think we should be able to use Athiest/Religious websites if they are owned by a large group or organization and not just a troll sitting on a computer. Its hard to look up young earth evidences website because mostly everyone who believes in a young earth are religious
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Okay, I will post it tomorrow though. I need to get it typed up and sourced.
Posted by danlewis789 2 years ago
danlewis789
No, you already accepted. Introduce your first opening argument
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Round 1 is acceptance only, correct?
Posted by danlewis789 2 years ago
danlewis789
Go ahead. Remember the specific topic
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
That is fine, but remember these rules:

1. Source information
2. No religious or atheist websites
3. The Bible is not evidence
4. No new arguments in the 5th round
5. Burden of proof is shared

agree?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by demonlord343 2 years ago
demonlord343
danlewis789SNP1Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I was moderately disappointed by Con in this debate. He had a really good start, but then he just started to slack... This gave him the loss... Pro made one point though that I must disagree with. You do not need evidence for a hypothesis such as God made the Corals. A hypothesis like that is philosophical, and thus, any evidence for that hypothesis will remain that way. Con then would have been forced to use the Bible. So, if anything, it seemed like a conduct strategy from Pro in order to win. Other than these few, good debate for the first part..
Vote Placed by Thoughtispower 2 years ago
Thoughtispower
danlewis789SNP1Tied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro made some very interesting arguments counter acting everything that con has stated, while con proceeds to throw out unmentioned material into the debate. And as for spelling and grammar, there were numerous flaws in cons debate.