The Instigator
The-Holy-Macrel
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Stalin_Mario
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

How old is the earth?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Stalin_Mario
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,239 times Debate No: 62570
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (3)

 

The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

Pro (me) am for 6,000-10,000 and con (you) are for 45billion+
first round acceptance.
Second to third round arguements
Final round is conclusion.
Stalin_Mario

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate and the best of luck to you.

First soft dinosaur tissue has been found which brings us to the question of how would it have survived millions and millions of years? Awnser: it didn't

Seond question: does our dna similarity with apes signify evolution? Awnser no: we share alot of dna with bananas but we didn't evolve from them.

And----- "Science requires that there's a logical, orderly universe. And that only makes sense if there's a logical, orderly God who created that universe and maintains it in a logical, orderly fashion. You see, if the universe were just an accident, a by-product of a Big Bang, then why would it have any order at all? Why would it obey laws.like the laws of physics that you've heard of? Well, you see, that makes sense if God made the universe, if there's a mind behind it. And that's what the Bible teaches. So science actually requires the Bible to be true in order to work."

Cosmos twist by themselves but if so they would be twisted into unregognition by now.

Therefore the earth is infact less than 10,000 years old.
Stalin_Mario

Con

You're not welcome.

Ah the soft dinosaur tissue argument, a classic. How did the soft tissue survive millions and millions of years? Iron within the dinosaurs' body (which was released all over the body after it died) covered the tissue and preserved it, along with the amazing environment for fossilization it was found it. (1)

We didn't evolve from apes, we evolved with them. Humans and apes share a common ancestor, meaning we evolved from the same creature, just took different paths. Example - fist path they evolved to apes, other path humans. They evolved differently according to their different environments and mutations. Also your banana statement. The fact that we share DNA with bananas just farther proves that we (all living things) came from the same stuff. Bananas share about 40% to 50% DNA with Humans, while about 98% with apes. (2) (3)

Okay even though that quote is very flawed, I won't waste time explaining why, as either way (whether the Universe was made by a God or not) it is irrelevant to the Earth's age. So it make it easier on myself, lets say that God did create the Universe through the Big Bang, that still doesn't prove that the universe or Earth is less than 10,000 years old. There have been countless number of "Gods" long before the Bible was even written, where the people who believed in said Gods thought that that God or Gods created the Earth/Universe. The Bible isn't the first book to bring in the idea of a God, nor the first to bring in the idea of a greater power creating the Earth.

Honestly all of these questions you asked could have been easily answered through a simple Google search, This isn't rocket science!

Here are some questions for you, they should be quite easy to understand without the need to research.

If the Earth is younger than 10,000 years old, then why are there caveman cave drawings dating as old as 40,000+ years?

Why does almost every (99%) scientist accept the evolution theory as fact?

(1) http://www.livescience.com...
(2) http://www.pbs.org...
(3)http://genecuisine.blogspot.com...
Debate Round No. 2
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

1---you didn't provide reasoning why the soft tissue could have possibly survived that long. But thy found a t-rex bone and they said it was at least 160,000 years old. Hmmmm, big diffence as opposed to millions of years.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

2---our relation with bannanas and apes is showing that just because our dna is alike doesn't mean we evolved from or with them.

3---those two combined show that evolution happened extreamely quickly or that god created, Twice?

That is right he made dinosaurs then humans, after all it is the only logical awnser.

4---that wasn't a quote it was a statement said by a minor younger than a ten-year-old.

5---caveman drawings,they weren't drawn by caveman. Carbon dating is inaccurate. This statement is supported by argement 1 (round 2)
Stalin_Mario

Con

1. I did provide reasoning, reread my comment. Also did you even read the aritcle of which you claim says they found a T-rex bone to be 160,000 years old? Clearly you haven't, as that wasn't a T-rex bone that they found and claimed to be 160,000 but a Mastodon bone. Huge difference. (1)

2. That isn't the main evidence for evolution. Not even close. Please educate yourself on evolution.

3. What are you even talking about? It's extremely hard to understand what on Earth you are talking about. Most what you say is nonsense and just shows your ignorance on the subject/subjects. The only logical answer here is that you have no idea what you're talking about and that you are too afraid to learn about evolution properly, is it because you're afraid that if you do that all you believe will be falsified?

4. Please learn what a quote is, as you clearly do not know what it is. Also that quote being said by a kid who is younger than 10 years old just undermines your argument even more.

5. Proof that they were not? You have provided zero evidence to any of your claims. You also didn't answer my other question.

Are you a troll or something? You can't be this stupid. Sorry but that's the truth.

(1) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
Debate Round No. 3
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

Ok, for those who don't understand my arguments I will thoroughly explain them. I will signify important parts in all caps.

First SOFT DINOSAUR TISSUE has been FOUND which brings us to the question of how would it have SURVIVED MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years? Awn ser: it DIDN'T

Soft dinosaur tissue they found BLOOD VESSELS in the dinosaur bone. Everyone will agree if you ask them if a blood vessel is SOFT TISSUE to yes. (assuming the person is intelligent and educated enough to know what one is.)
So it was blood vessels (soft tissue) that DIDN'T survive millions and millions of years. Which means that the dinosaurs had to be a whole lot younger for BLOOD VESSELS (SOFT TISSUE) from a t-rex's bone to survive in time for a scientist.

Therefore the earth couldn't possibly be that old because we found out there were preserved blood vessels (soft tissue) from a t-rex, and assuming you actually read the part where it specifically said it was definitely a T-REX bone they found. Unless you are calling the scientists at north Carolina state and Harvard university people who don't know what they are talking about. That alone is enough to prove my argument.

And a STATEMENT I never said it was a quote said by a TEN-YEAR-OLD like that means you don't have to go to Harvard, go to collage, heck be an adult to know that there is SCIENTIFIC evidence that also supports creationism. Unless you are also calling Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein people who don't know what they are talking about.

I know that isn't the main evidence for evolution, this is about the age of the earth I am not striking down evolution.

I can awn ser my own questions thank you very much.

And you made this debate personal very quickly which is obviously disorderly conduct.

And I am definitely not a stupid person.

And therefore I state that the earth is much younger than millions and millions of years.

BTW: you have to make these connections yourself. il n'y ----- (French)
Stalin_Mario

Con

Already answered the whole "soft dinosaur tissue" question. This is basically what is happening here, you are screaming "What is 2 + 2?" and I say "4", yet you continue to scream "What is 2 + 2" despite already being given the answer.

No, there are two different articles, both of with you clearly didn't read. One article states that soft tissue of a T-rex has been found, and then later explains why. The other article talks about a 160,000 year old Mastodon bone. Learn to read the articles you provide as evidence, or they will backfire you.

Okay, now you're just trolling.

Please vote CON, as this person is clearly trolling or has mental issues which prohibit him/her from being able to debate properly. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

My conclusion: the earth is around 10,000 years old.
Stalin_Mario

Con

An interesting debate. I knew where it was going to go from the very beginning and where it was going to end up. I usually don't like debating these type of people, as I feel it's a waste of time. Anyway, hopefully I included enough to get your vote, I could have done more, but like I said before why bother. Hopefully people who read this debate can learn a few things, if so, then this debate wasn't a total was of time.

Anyway, vote CON. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stalin_Mario 2 years ago
Stalin_Mario
Ah yes I do have to post it in the debate, to let people know. And please, go research what the word quote means, for your own sake. It hurts seeing you still not know what quoting means.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
The-Holy-Macrel
I wasn't quoting i was getting an arguement i found online. And even if i am "trolling" you don't have to post it in an arguement that will affect the debae.
Posted by Stalin_Mario 2 years ago
Stalin_Mario
You weren't being logical. You refused to accept the answer of which I gave you, without any reasoning as to why. I started to accuse of you of trolling when you have refused my answer multiple times and have embarrassingly not known what the quoting someone meant. No one can be that dumb. So the only logical answer at the time was that you were trolling, which isn't uncommon here.

I am not making you look bad, you are doing that yourself.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
The-Holy-Macrel
I was being logical, civil, and in line with conduct. Then you went on and on about how i was "trolling" instead of debating which is what this is. I will apologize for it but you have to admit that you are also wrong for making me look bad.
Posted by Stalin_Mario 2 years ago
Stalin_Mario
How am I making you look bad? All I did was react to the way you were acting and arguing your case.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
The-Holy-Macrel
You are purposely making me look bad.
Posted by Stalin_Mario 2 years ago
Stalin_Mario
What on Earth are you talking about? Cheating? The only way you can cheat on this debate site is if you get on an alt account and give yourself points or ask a friend to only give you points.

You truly are mentally ill. This debate was a mistake.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
The-Holy-Macrel
-arguement-
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
The-Holy-Macrel
That is cheating.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
The-Holy-Macrel
Saltain at the end you try to make my charactor look bad so you win. I am reporting your debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
The-Holy-MacrelStalin_MarioTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refuted none of Pro's statements. Pro had bad grammar. They both had ok sources but Pro could've done a better job.
Vote Placed by CentristX 2 years ago
CentristX
The-Holy-MacrelStalin_MarioTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate is hilarious. S&G goes to Con, Con also had more convincing arguments with actual reliable sources.
Vote Placed by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
The-Holy-MacrelStalin_MarioTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate devolved into a shouting match. However, I can at least use the metric provided to cast my vote. Conduct is tied, both were calling each other names. Con had better grammar, Con actually addressed Pro's points and tried to deliver his own, however Pro continued to repeat his previous argument and failed to address the one's brought up by Con. Con provided sources more reputable than Pro (wikipedia is better than none, but loses to science based websites). Carbon dating is actually quite accurate and it isn't the only method they use. I don't know why it's so hard to believe how old the Earth, and by extension, the universe is. The Earth being 4 billion years old doesn't detract from the bible at all.