The Instigator
theta_pinch
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Lupricona
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Faster Radioactive decay rates in the past is an unsound argument for young earth creationism

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 4 votes the winner is...
theta_pinch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,158 times Debate No: 45308
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

theta_pinch

Pro

According to young earth creationists radioactive decay rates were faster in the past making the illusion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old while it's really 10,000.

Burden of Proof is shared; first round is acceptance.

NOTE: GOD DID IT IS NOT A VALID REBUTTAL/ARGUMENT!


Lupricona

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
theta_pinch

Pro

UNITS: BED(banana equivalent dose), Sievert(dose equivalent.)

BED: 0.1 microsievert's
HOW RADIOACTIVE IS URANIUM: 10 BED

So that gives a radioactivity of 1 microsievert or 0.000001

Now according to creation models the earth is 6000 years old.
According to uranium-lead dating the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

So 4,500,000,000/6000=750,000

That means that to give the illusion of a 4.5 billion year old earth which is really only 6000 years old uranium needs to be 750,000 times more radioactive than present radioactivity.

750000x0.000001sievert=750 millisieverts

750 millisieverts is enough to cause radiation sickness.

If creationism's argument that faster radioactive decay rates in the past gave the illusion of an old earth; with the radiation level being high enough to cause radiation sickness someone would have noticed that people were constantly getting cancer, fatigue, vomiting, nausea, headache, diarrhea, and dizziness. Remember 6000 years is from the young earth creationism beginning of the universe to one or two hundred years(probably around the time of the discovery of radioactivity) before present. So how could NO ONE even notice all of those symptoms? Since no one ever reported any of those symptoms that means that radioactive decay rates couldn't have been fast enough to decay to present levels in 6000 years invalidating the argument.

SOURCES:
http://www.idigumining.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://modernsurvivalblog.com...
http://www.mayoclinic.org...

Lupricona

Con

The uranium-lead dating methods are used with some arbitrary assumptions.

We cannot know the state at which the rocks formed. It may be that the daughter atoms were there at the beginning, thus making that dating methods invalid.

There may also have been contamination in the past that lead to a gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes.

It is also possible that the decay rates were faster in the past. My opponent shows that he understands nothing about radioactive decay vs. radiation sickness. The issue at hand deals with radioactive decay in rock layers deep beneath the surface. To say that this could affect people with radiation sickness is beyond absurdity.

Also, we can prove that uranium-lead dating is unreliable. Helium dating is much more reliable, as it cannot be contaminated, and it's reduction rate has been reliably tested. Helium dating has been tested on zircon crystals that were dated to have been 1.5 billion years old, but the helium dates showed that the rocks could not have been more than 6000 years old.

My opponent is now going to try to make an argument that the emprical evidence presented by the Creation scientists are untrustworthy because my opponent has a closed mind. He does not base his worldview on empirical evidence, as he denies the emprical evidence presented by Creationists because it disproves his beliefs. If my opponent wants to deny empirical evidence, fine, but don't present yourself as a person who adheres to science.


SOURCES

http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Debate Round No. 2
theta_pinch

Pro

We cannot know the state at which the rocks formed. It may be that the daughter atoms were there at the beginning, thus making that dating methods invalid.

Actually the Zircon crystals Uranium-Lead dating is performed on strongly rejects lead meaning that lead atoms will either not be in their when formed at all or there will be an incredibly small amount.

The zircon mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystalline structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore we can assume that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic--wikipedia

There may also have been contamination in the past that lead to a gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes.

Nope; that doesn't happen with Zircon Crystals because the uranium measured is part of the crystal structure and as stated above: it strongly rejects lead making your argument invalid.

It is also possible that the decay rates were faster in the past. My opponent shows that he understands nothing about radioactive decay vs. radiation sickness. The issue at hand deals with radioactive decay in rock layers deep beneath the surface. To say that this could affect people with radiation sickness is beyond absurdity.

Actually the underlined line is a better description of con. That is because contrary to what con says; Zircon crystals are found all types of rocks meaning that it is NOT simply those deep inside the earth. Therefore con's argument is invalid.

Also, we can prove that uranium-lead dating is unreliable.

Con needs to support this claim.

Helium dating is much more reliable, as it cannot be contaminated, and it's reduction rate has been reliably tested.

Before the use of mass spectrometry in isotopic geochronology, helium dating provided most of the dates used in the early geologic time scales. Helium ages, however, tend to be too low because the gas escapes from the rock. A thermal event that will leave most radioactive clocks relatively unaffected may have a drastic effect on the helium radioactive clock--encyclopedia brittanica

It appears that it isn't as reliable as you say with helium leaking and thermal events that don't affect uranium-lead dating affecting it.

Helium dating has been tested on zircon crystals that were dated to have been 1.5 billion years old, but the helium dates showed that the rocks could not have been more than 6000 years old.

That's because helium gas escaped from the crystals.

My opponent is now going to try to make an argument that the emprical evidence presented by the Creation scientists are untrustworthy because my opponent has a closed mind. He does not base his worldview on empirical evidence, as he denies the emprical evidence presented by Creationists because it disproves his beliefs. If my opponent wants to deny empirical evidence, fine, but don't present yourself as a person who adheres to science.

That is not what I did. I provided modern empirical evidence. I urge you to use modern evidence too. While I will not claim that your information is incorrect simply because it came from a creationist site, I would ask you to use non-religiously biased sites in this debate. I AM NOT saying that your information is wrong because itcomes from a religious site; I'm simply saying that creationist sites sometimes do cherry picking and presenting outdated evidence due to bias and that non-religious sites would likely have more up to date evidence and less biased evidence.
EXPECTED REBUTTAL

Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica are unreliable.

MY REBUTTAL

Please prove that the information given is unreliable from a non-religiously biased website.

CONCLUSION

My opponents rebuttals have not withstood scientific scrutiny.

SOURCES:
http://www.britannica.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Lupricona

Con

Pro: Please prove that the information given is unreliable from a non-religiously biased website.

This is dishonest and irrelevant. I provided empirical evidence that you are ignoring. If you want to continue ignoring it, fine, as I have no idea how to convince you that you need to trust empirical evidence.

Pro: Nope; that doesn't happen with Zircon Crystals because the uranium measured is part of the crystal structure and as stated above: it strongly rejects lead making your argument invalid.

I provided empirical evidence that showed they can be conatimated. You continue to reject empirical evidence. You simply just asserted that it was otherwise.

Pro:
Actually the underlined line is a better description of con. That is because contrary to what con says; Zircon crystals are found all types of rocks meaning that it is NOT simply those deep inside the earth. Therefore con's argument is invalid.

Pro, all of the crystals are found in rock layers. Not on the surface. These will not affect humans. This is a seriously embarrassing argument you keep using.

Pro: Before the use of mass spectrometry in isotopic geochronology, helium dating provided most of the dates used in the early geologic time scales. Helium ages, however, tend to be too low because the gas escapes from the rock. A thermal event that will leave most radioactive clocks relatively unaffected may have a drastic effect on the helium radioactive clock--encyclopedia brittanica

This only argues that there may be affects on the helium clock. This is not observational evidence of that happening. Secularists must try to explain away why the helium dates are much younger than the other dating methods because it demolishes their trustworthiness. If you want to prove that this is true, show some observational evidence of helium leakage.

Actually, the group that tested the argon and helium rates made predictions before they tested them, and the predictions came true. (1). This is a very good argument in favor of refuting the claims made by my opponent. Also, my opponent argues that helium escaped faster in the past. But, if this is true, there should be 2000 times more oxygen in the atmosphere today, but there isn't.


CONCLUSION

In order for my opponent to win this debate, he must continue denying empirical evidence, because once he accepts it, as he can't deny scientific facts, than he must admit that his proposition is incorrect.


(1) http://www.icr.org...

Debate Round No. 3
theta_pinch

Pro

Pro: Please prove that the information given is unreliable from a non-religiously biased website.

This is dishonest and irrelevant. I provided empirical evidence that you are ignoring. If you want to continue ignoring it, fine, as I have no idea how to convince you that you need to trust empirical evidence.


I provided empirical evidence that showed they can be conatimated. You continue to reject empirical evidence. You simply just asserted that it was otherwise.


This only argues that there may be affects on the helium clock. This is not observational evidence of that happening. Secularists must try to explain away why the helium dates are much younger than the other dating methods because it demolishes their trustworthiness. If you want to prove that this is true, show some observational evidence of helium leakage.


Actually, the group that tested the argon and helium rates made predictions before they tested them, and the predictions came true. (1). This is a very good argument in favor of refuting the claims made by my opponent. Also, my opponent argues that helium escaped faster in the past. But, if this is true, there should be 2000 times more oxygen in the atmosphere today, but there isn't.


I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

In order for my opponent to win this debate, he must continue denying empirical evidence, because once he accepts it, as he can't deny scientific facts, than he must admit that his proposition is incorrect.

The Resolution of this debate was whether or not faster radioactive decay rates is an unsound argument. Everything above therefore is a red herring due to it's obsession with contamination which is not relevant to this debate.
EVERYTHING BELOW IS RELEVANT.

Pro, all of the crystals are found in rock layers. Not on the surface. These will not affect humans. This is a seriously embarrassing argument you keep using.

Zircon is ubiquitous in the crust of Earth. It occurs in igneous rocks (as primary crystallization products), in metamorphic rocks and in sedimentary rocks (as detrital grains).--wikipedia

Also

here's a list of some places with the crystals: http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org...
Humans lived around those area's; none of them ever got radiation sickness. If radioactive decay rates were faster then they would've gotten radiation sickness.
It is seriously embarrassing you don't know that. In case you don't know what ubiquitous means; it means: found everywhere.

I will also make one more new argument:

Faster Radioactive Decay Rates are unsound because it goes against the very equations governing the universe: Quantum Mechanics. "Radioactive decay is determined by quantum mechanics – which is inherently probabilistic. So it’s impossible to work out when any particular atom will decay, but we can make predictions based on the statistical behaviour of large numbers of atoms."--Institute of Physics

So to say that radioactive decay rates were different in the past is absurd because quantum mechanics has been proved true as much as something can be proved true in science meaning that you have to deny that quantum mechanics applied in the past and we know it did apply in the past.

I'd also like to give this quote (about uranium lead dating):“the most reliable natural chronometer that we have when we want to look at the earliest part of Earth history.”--Doctor Mueller a geology professor from University of Florida.

CONCLUSION
I just realized the entirety of round 3 was in fact a red herring on the part of con that I didn't recognize until now. Con's only claim about faster radioactive decay rates being a sound argument is that the zircon crystals are found in rocklayers which doesn't prove much since there are places that contain Zircon Crystals where humans have lived. I have also decided to bring up one last argument that has to do with Quantum Mechanics; to deny that argument con is going to have to deny quantum mechanics; one of the most successful theories in history.
Lupricona

Con

I have successfully made an argument that disproves the secular dating methods with radioactive decay rates. I argued that we have a more reliable source for dating- helium. It was predicted that radioactive decay rates were faster in the past, and then it was empirically tested and proven to be true. My opponent erroneously complains that this has to be a red herring because he cannot refute this argument.

My opponent the confuses the difference between the surface of the earth (above ground) versus below the surface (anything in any rock layer). He continues to assert that radioactive decay should affect people. Firstly, he has never proven that his is even remotely possible. There has never been any correlation of people receiving exposure from radioactive crystals underneath the surface. Secondly, even if people were somehow exposed to these, he hasn't proven that it would be enough to cause problems, as his initial source argued that radiation is "hardly the most dangerous substance known to man." My opponents own sources disagree with him.

My opponent then makes a new argument, with a new source, and I quote "Radioactive decay is determined by quantum mechanics " which is inherently probabilistic. So it"s impossible to work out when any particular atom will decay, but we can make predictions based on the statistical behaviour of large numbers of atoms."--Institute of Physics. This source is admitting that it's near impossible to use radioactive decay rates as accurate dating methods, but they can understand the behavior of radioactivity- something wholly different.

CONCLUSION

My opponent ignored my argument and erroneously called it a red herring because it refutes his claims. He has also twice sourced information that contradicts his arguments. My opponent cannot win this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
theta_pinch

Pro

theta_pinch forfeited this round.
Lupricona

Con

My arguments were extended due to forfeit. Since my arguments remain unrefuted, I have successfully refuted the claim that "Faster Radioactive decay rates in the past is an unsound argument for young earth creationism".

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Boesball 2 years ago
Boesball
Even on a forfeit the anti religion guy wins. Shows how unbiased our voters are. (sarcasm)
Posted by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
I still can't wait for someone to accept this.. I want to see how fast they are torn apart by logic.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
Actually I have a different plan to invalidate faster radioactive decay rates. It's secret though.
Posted by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
So I am assuming that you saw the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate.
This should be easy, as the opponent will have to present evidence/research that falsifies natural law. The problem with this debate premise is that the Con has tow routes to make their stance:
A) God did it, which you have banned.
B) Magic.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TF2PRO 2 years ago
TF2PRO
theta_pinchLupriconaTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did FF the first round so conduct will go to con.Pro refuted cons arguments and used far more credible sources con yet to provide rebuttals to quantum. Con had few more errors.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
theta_pinchLupriconaTied
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 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: Con refuted Pro's arguments which were not further defended due to his forfeit; conduct point to Con for the same reason.
Vote Placed by imsmarterthanyou98 2 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
theta_pinchLupriconaTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did FF conduct to Con. But Con would have to dismantle QM and did not have sufficient sources.Found errors in both but a bit more in Con.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
theta_pinchLupriconaTied
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 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: FF