The Instigator
Pro (for)
19 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

If the earth is young, God created evidence of it being old.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,572 times Debate No: 8149
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)




This debate is about the religious doctrine of Young Earth Creationism (YEC), whereby some people believe that the Bible says that the earth was literally created about 6,000 years ago. I am not in this debate arguing that that doctrine is necessarily false. I am arguing that if it is true, then when God created the earth he put in place a vast amount of evidence that the earth is many millions of years old. Moreover, the evidence is well coordinated, in that diverse evidence points to a consistent time line for events in the earth's history. The evidence cannot be explained by scientists having made just a few key mistakes.

The scientific evidence that the earth is old includes:

1. The formation of sandstone.
2. The formation of limestone.
3. The formation of caves in limestone by carbonic solution.
4. The formation of stalactites and stalagmites in caves, by evaporative deposition.
5. The slow erosion of sandstone by stream flooding.
6. Slow erosion by the freeze-thaw cycle.
7. The slow weathering of hard minerals like granite.
8. The mineralization of petrified wood.
9. The sculpting of mountains and valleys by glaciation, missing in the tropics
10. Slow erosion by inflorescence.
11. Sedimentation in layers in which less-dense and more dense materials alternate
12. The formation of ice cores showing several hundred thousand seasonal cycles
13. The building of volcanic islands
14. Continental drift evidenced by matching coasts and mineral characteristics
15. The rise of mountains by continental subduction.
16. The decay of radioactive materials, including, for example, Argon39/Argon40 that does not depend upon knowing the original amount of an isotope. About twenty independent isotopes pairs having different half-lives support a common time line.
17. The rings indicating the seasonal growth of coral
18. The many reversals of the earth's magnetic fields as captured in lava flows
19. The visibility of light from stars that are more than 6,000 light years distant
20. The plastic folding of the earth's crust shown in rock layers

There are many more, but this establishes the point. It's conceivable that scientists could have made mistakes in believing that one or two pieces of evidence imply an old earth, but the amount of evidence is so substantial that it is not conceivable that mistakes were made in every case. Moreover, one time line is consistent with all the evidence, so it would not just be having made dozens of mistakes, but having the errors consistently support a common time line.

I will grant that it is possible that the earth was created 6,000 year ago. In fact, it could have been created last week, provided the creation included all the evidence of a much older earth. The resolution affirms that possibility.

What the resolution accomplishes is to preserve the study of geology and important aspects of physics, chemistry, and astronomy, which otherwise would have to be discarded as baseless. Geology in particular would have to be almost completely abandoned. Yet geology has proved to be a useful science, related not only to the history of the earth in general, but for mineral exploration, for dealing with volcanoes and earthquakes, and for reconstructing climate history.

The resolution is affirmed.


Thank you to my opponent for creating such an interesting debate.

As a YEC myself, I do believe that the Earth was created ~ 6,000 years ago. I also believe that there was a global flood as described in the book of Genesis. Therefore, I will divide your evidence into three groups. First, things caused by the Flood, second, things that can be explained through various theories about the nature of time, and finally things that do not actually provide evidence that the Earth is old.

Group one

Evidence 1-7 & 9, 11.
All of these deal with various types of rock and rock formation.
Sandstone and limestone are both sedimentary rock, meaning that they were laid down by water. With all of the upheaval, plus the fact that the entire earth was covered in water, there are no issues with having enough material. (this also, incidentally, explains the vast number of fossils found in limestone). The different layers are due to changes in the way things settled (you yourself stated that less dense and more dense materials alternate, which is what one would expect in moving water)
The erosion of sandstone and granite as well as the sculpting of mountains and valleys would then be caused by the water surging and then withdrawing, which would have happened relatively rapidly and with quite a bit of force.
The cave formation is a lot easier to explain once you assume vast amounts of water flowing through, which would contain rock particles as well.

Evidence 8
The mineralization of petrified wood was done rapidly. Otherwise, it is hard to explain how the wood held its shape for five years, much less thousands. This would be relatively simple in the flood, where the water was rich with minerals.

Evidences 13, 14, 15, 18, 20
These are all due to the massive amounts of volcanic activity occurring during the flood. Scripture states that "the springs of the great deep burst forth" (Genesis 7:11) This also answers the question of where a lot of the water came from. The water coming out of the ground would have been strong enough to rip the continents apart and raise mountains. It would have also caused the formation of volcanic islands and the lava would have bent as it cooled (forming the bent rock mentioned in 20. And, after all, how do you bend rock that isn't still partially melted?) This also explains the reversals in the Earth's magnetic field, either because the lava simply changed direction after it captured the polarity, or due to activity in the core.

Group Two

There are two theories about the Earth's location in the universe. Both are the result of the so-called "Red Shift," which is an example of the Doppler Effect and shows that every object in the Universe is moving away from us. One theory is that space itself is expanding, like a balloon, so that every object is moving away from every other object at an equal rate. The other theory is simply that the Earth (or, more accurately, the Milky Way) is in the center of the universe. This matters, because it would mean (due to the Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity as it applies to gravity) that light actually travels slower on the Earth than it does in the rest of the Universe. Therefore, since a light year is based on the speed of light, the stars are not actually more than six thousand light years distant. The space between them is that size, but the speed of light changes between them.

This is actually a stickier issue. It is entirely possible that the rate of decay has not been consistent, as, like all reactions, decay does depend on certain variables. Not being a nuclear physicist, I will not pretend to understand how these reactions work.

Group 3

Evidence 6 and 12
Both of these relate to the warm cold cycles. However, the assumption is made that these cycles are summer/winter summer/winter. An equally valid assumption is that these cycles are simply warm/cold warm/cold. It is the erosive effects of these cycles that cracks concrete, and I know that my new basketball court is not thousands of years old. Freezing and thawing will produce the same erosive effects whether the time period is once a year, or five times a day. The expansion of water when it freezes means that any water inside a crack will push the crack further apart, causing the erosion.
The layers in ice cores are caused by water melting, then refreezing. You could have six layers in one day.

I do not believe that it is necessary to throw out any of the sciences, however, I believe that the ideological assumptions that underpin some of the conclusions that have been made by them are invalid. One cannot assume that just because something works a certain way now, it will always work that way or always has worked that way.

Therefore, the earth is young, but God did not create evidence of it being old.
Debate Round No. 1


I appreciate Con's taking on such a wide ranging debate. I think it is important to understand the full scope of YEC.

I believe everything I have claimed in geology is referenced in standard texts like Renton's "Planet Earth," and also in his college-level geology course on DVD, "The Nature of Earth."

In the following, when I claim there is "no way" I mean there is no method known to science.

1. Sandstone starts with sand. The process to get sand-sized grains from disintegrating granite takes millions of years, and there is no other process. There is no way to transport the very large quantities of sand required in less than millions of years. Sand only moves when there is active rushing water, not deep under water. The grains must be fused into sandstone in millions of years under high pressure.

2. Limestone is composed of calcium carbonate. The only source for that is the skeletons of sea creatures, mainly tiny diatoms. To get that many takes millions of years. Fusion of the particles into stone take millions of years under high pressure.

3. Limestone caves are not created by erosion. They are made my water seeping into tiny cracks. The picks up CO2 and is very slightly acid, so it slowly dissolves the rock over millions of years.

4. Stalactites could not have been formed by erosion. they are deposited by very slow evaporation of dripping water.

5. The Grand Canyon, for example, is thousands of feet deep. It took 4.5 million years to erode the sandstone with a continuously flowing river. there is no mechanism for it to happen in 40 days.

6. We can observe now how fast the freeze-thaw cycle breaks large large rocks into small ones. It takes millions of years to get what we have.

7. Granite is really hard. It weathers at the rate of an inch every 100,000 years. Observed weathering could be from a flood.

8. Wood is held in place by being quickly buried in mud. Lack of air keeps in from rotting. The mineralization process takes millions of years.

9. If flooding caused the effects equivalent to those of glaciation, we would see the effects in tropics, which we don't. Mountains nearer the poles show more effects than those below the latitudes where glaciers reached in the ice ages. Besides, floods have very little effect on granite.

10, Oops, I meant efflorescence, a process that flakes off the surface of rocks in desert areas. "As groundwater evaporation [through the rocks] continues just below the surface and more salts precipitate, the growth pressure exerted by the crystals causes cracks to form parallel to the surface." (Renton, op cit) The flakes fall off as "talus." It is an incredibly slow process that does not occur at all under water.

11. If you shake up some stuff in water, the light stuff goes to the top. That's not what we see in sediment layers. The layers include very light materials like pollen and, in estuaries, fish scales in layers with heavier materials. The types of pollen and fish scales in a particular layer indicate both the season and the climate when the layer was formed, providing a climate record back more than 30,000 years. A flood would not disperse spring pollen in separate layers from winter pollens, repeating over many thousands of layers.

12. the ice cores are from Antarctica and Northern Greenland, where there has never been any thawing at all. The variations come from seasonal precipitation patterns. Moreover, the trapped CO2 cross-checks accurately with radiocarbon dating.

13. Volcanic activity does not work nearly quickly enough to create islands in less than a very long time. The lava is too viscous to flow quickly. A new Hawaiian island is building and is fairly near the ocean surface, but still will not emerge for 30,000 years.

14. Continental drift carries once-contiguous deposits of sandstone far apart. Volcanism does not create sandstone. Moreover, volcanism cannot move whole continents around quickly. The contents are still moving at about an inch per year. That tracks with the motion of the Hawaiian Islands over 65 million years, with the oldest islands have weathered the most.

If the water came out of the ground, then that was clearly divine intervention as there is no physical law that accounts for that. Also ordinary water has no where near enough energy to move a continent. Note also that the continents have drifted apart and then back together many times. One flood, even a miraculous one, could not do that.

15. Rock doesn't float, so water cannot raise mountains.

16. A natural nuclear reactor in Africa has been used to establish that radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years. Nothing affects rates of radioactive decay: not melting, not chemical reaction, not vaporization. If something did affect decay rates it would have to speed up some isotopes by a factor of a million, on down to others by a factor of ten, and each in such a way that the dates each produced still agreed with each other. there are some theories that decay rates might be changing with the expansion of the universe, by an amount too small to detect. If so, that wouldn't provide the large factors needed, and it would be the same for all isotopes, not the widely differing factors needed.

17. Coral grows with seasonal variations. The seasons are determined by the orbit of the earth, not weather.

18. The magnetic field reversals occurred at significantly different times, captured in different lava flows. One period of mass volcanism would show the same magnetic field in all lava flows.

19. The distance to stars is most readily determined by simple geometry. The angle to the star is measured in one season, then six months later when the earth is one the other side of its orbit. That gives the distance to many stars proving an old earth. Another method, for distant stars, uses "standard candles" like type 1a supernovas. The brightness of the star is determined by its observed physical properties, and then the distance by the apparent brightness. Red shift is not a primary method.

If the speed of light has been measured using astronomical objects far from earth, so we know it is not different away from earth. If it were, that would be an inexplicable violation of special relativity and we would consequently lose most of modern physics. General relativity says that light is affected by gravity, but the effect is far too small to detect with earth's gravity. It is observed by light being deflected by stars. Gravity affects the direction, not the speed.

20. Material like rock can indeed be folded without breaking, due to properties of plasticity. Basically, if it is bent slowly enough while under pressure it doesn't crack. Folds are often observed in sedimentary rock, which was never heated after formation. Continental drift depends upon an underlying plastic layer upon which the continents "float" -- but only very, very slowly.

Currently there is only enough water on earth to account for a flood 200 feet higher than current sea level. If the flood eroded the tops of 15,000 mountains, then something inexplicable added an enormous amount of water, then removed it. Moreover, there is no process by which 40 days of water could do anything measurable to granite, or even sandstone. One could blast a fire hose on granite for 40 days and nothing would happen beyond it getting wet. Granite weathers mainly due chemical attack from the atmosphere on the non-quartz components, a slow process.

Keep in mind that if each of the 20 items cited is the result of some error, then the next thing to explain is why all the errors are consistent. Sediment layers agree with isotope dating and so forth.

The resolution is affirmed.


1. In the flood, there would have been active rushing water initially, as well as strong currents moving the whole time. We are talking about enough water to flood the Earth in only 40 days and nights. The rate that the water would have come in would be enough to transport the sand, then the depth of the water and volcanic activity would have created the necessary pressure.

2. First, the flood resulted in large numbers of animals dying, which would have provided the materials to create limestone. Again, the enormous amounts of pressure from the water would have been enough to form the limestone. Second, it is entirely possible that some limestone WAS created with the Earth. This would not be evidence for it being old. Rivers were also created, and even though we can see how rivers form today, that doesn't mean that the existence of other rivers is proof that the Earth is old. It is simply a mistaken assumption that because something is formed a certain way today, that is the way it was always formed.

3. TODAY limestone caves are not created by erosion. There is no way to show that the caves were not initially carved by erosion (at least in part), then rounded out by acidic water flowing through them.

4. I agree that Stalactites are not formed by erosion. However, with a higher calcium concentration in the water, the growth rate of stalactites would be accelerated. This could easily have happened with the water covering the Earth and minerals sinking to the bottom.

5. Ahh... the Grand Canyon. Interesting, usually I see the Grand Canyon used to make the opposite argument. It can be seen from the slope of the sides that it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have existed for 4.5 million years. The continuous erosion would have destroyed the ninety degree angles. Instead of the river making the canyon, the flood made the canyon, then the canyon made the river.

6. First, you are assuming that all of the erosion is caused by the freeze/thaw cycle. Second, this assumes that the freeze/thaw cycle is constant, rather than variable.

7. I believe that your statement is a concession. ("Observed weathering could be from a flood") If you intended it otherwise, please explain how the weathering could not be accelerated by massive amounts of water at high velocity.

8. Under heat and pressure, this too would be accelerated. And even lack of air can't make it last for millions of years.

9. The effects would be dependent on currents. Also, differences in when during the flood the mountains formed (due to differences in tectonics) would also play a large role.

10. A google search for "efflorescence AND erosion" returned mostly results about preventing it from happening to pavement. I'm not sure how it works in the desert, but if they are concerned about it being an issue in recently placed pavement....

11. You aren't just shaking stuff up. You are also hitting at different times. And there is no consistent order for where things lie in sediment.

12. The precipitation patterns are not necessarily consistent, nor do they follow any strict rules.
And Carbon dating is only effective if you know what the concentration of carbon was in that era. If carbon levels don't change, I feel like someone should tell the media.

13. During the Flood, there would have been massive amounts of volcanic activity, including extreme amounts of pressure (which would increase the flow of lava). This would have allowed islands to be formed.

14a. I do not disagree that continental drift occurs. I also do not disagree with the fact that the continents are moving at about an inch a year, I merely argue that this rate is slower than it was in the past.

14b. Yes. The Flood was divine intervention. The entire debate presumes that God has the power to create. That would imply that divine intervention is possible.

14c. No, ordinary water does not have the power to move continents. However, the volcanic activity that accompanied that water does.

14d. What evidence do you have that they have drifted back and together again many times?

15. I agree that tectonic activity raised the mountains.

16. I do not understand how widely differing factors are needed. If both atoms are believed to show 100,000 years, but instead are only 100 years old (I picked numbers at random), that is only a factor of a 1,000 difference for each of them. No differing factors are needed.

17. "The skeleton formed in the winter has a different density than that formed in the summer because of variations in growth rates related to temperature and cloud cover conditions."
Temperature and cloud cover are weather.

18. One of my arguments is that the lava itself could have moved. Also, rapid changes in polarity would have been captured differently.

19. I am not disputing distance to the stars (although the margin of error is huge, since you have an extremely skinny triangle to use for the trigonometry) I also never argued that red shift was a method of determining distance, since it has nothing to do with distance, but rather velocity. My argument is that TIME is effected by gravity. Our location in the universe results in time itself being different. Also, the stars used to be slightly closer (though not enough to make a large difference for age calculations).

20. Your argument does not contradict the idea that the rock could more easily (and more quickly) be bent while it was still new.

21. I agree. However, I would argue that the mountains and valleys were created largely by tectonic activity during the flood and immediately after. It is unnecessary for the water to reach 15,000 feet.

22. How are you estimating the initial size of the granite?

I disagree that all the errors are consistent. For example, you stated that the Grand Canyon took 4.5 million years to form, yet you also stated that the Hawaiian Islands are 65 million years old. While logically consistent (I'm not saying that one disagrees with the other), these errors cannot be used to give a uniform age of the Earth.
Debate Round No. 2


Con has constructed a list of explanations almost entirely without reference to established science. The topic of the debate is that YEC cannot be reconciled with established science. So if Con, for example, proposes that the Grand Canyon could have been cut by rushing water in less than 40 days, then he ought to reference a scientific text or journal article that shows how that could be possible. Current science claims that the rushing Colorado River, laden with abrasive sand, took 4.5 million years to do the job. Con's unsupported assertion that it could have done in a few days is not remotely responsive.

I asked Con to explain how it could be that scientific mistakes in twenty different areas could randomly lead to one consistent time line. Con never addressed that question.

On to the specific points:

1. Con did not explain where the sand would come from. The natural process derives sand from granite by chemical weathering, a process taking hundreds of millions of years. If a few days of rushing water can carve the Grand Canyon, we should see new canyons forming all the time. Erosion is really a million times slower than con supposes.
The sequence is volcanoes > granite > sand > sandstone > upheaval > erosion > Grand Canyon. How was all the sandstone created then eroded in a few days?

2. Florida, for example, is made almost entirely of limestone. So Con's explanation is that enough dead animals washed away in a few days for the skeletons to create Florida. There could not possibly have been enough animals for that. If the limestone was created with the creation of the earth, then the resolution is affirmed. I acknowledge that the earth could be young if God created evidence it was old.

3. Limestone caves could not originally have been created by mechanical erosion, because that would require a tunnel through which water carrying abrasive sediment is rushing. Limestone has only tiny cracks when formed, and the water seeps in very slowly, typically the advance is about a foot per year. Slow moving water cannot carry sand to they is no possibility of erosion. Limestone caves are today only formed by chemical action, so supposing a completely different method acting only in the past affirms the resolution.

4. The calcium concentration in the water is limited by the solubility of the calcium, which is very low. Therefore there is no time at which it could have been high enough for rapid formation of stalactites. The caves had to be first formed when the limestone was below the water table, then they had to be drained before stalactites could begin forming.

5. The sequence again: volcanism makes granite that erodes to sand that is carried to the ocean, then sandstone is formed, the sandstone is raised up, and a canyon is eroded. Explain how all that happens in 40 days. Note that there is virtually no erosion under water. Why can't we take a fire hose and cut a 5000 foot slice through sandstone in a few days today?

6. No, I did not say all erosion is from the freeze/thaw cycle. Efflorescence is another method, one that works in deserts. Chemical weathering decomposes granite. However, there is no known mechanism that breaks down rocks with anywhere near the speed of the freeze/thaw cycle, and we know even that is very slow.

7. Sorry for the typo. Obviously the weathering of granite could not be from a flood. Water at high velocity has no effect on granite, because the material is so hard. Blast a fire hose on a chunk of granite for a month (or a year or a century) you will get wet granite, but no erosion whatsoever. Granite is a mixture of minerals formed by volcanic action. Chemicals in the air erode some of the minerals in granite, which ultimately frees the nearly-impervious quartz crystals. A flood would block the air, actually slowing the disintegration. The quartz crystals are then sand, which is why it takes hundreds of millions of years to form sand.

8. Provide a peer-reviewed scientific reference as to how wood can be mineralized quickly. You assert it is possible within the realm of current science. Keep in mind that the organic material is completely replaced by rock.

9. There is virtually no erosion by undersea currents, because the currents very rarely travel fast enough to pick up abrasive material. Currents are only produced by flooding near a river mouth, but in a great flood, as supposed, the world would soon be covered in water ending erosion. There are characteristics of glacial erosion, like the angular shapes of the Matterhorn and Grand Tetons that cannot be produced by moving water erosion. Also, very large masses of material are moved by glaciers that cannot be moved by water.

10. I said I could not find a good reference on the net, so I copied the explanation from a text and gave references off the web. I'll try again to explain it briefly. Water carrying dissolved minerals seeps very slowly through rocks. Near the surface of the rock, if the atmosphere is dry, the water evaporates and the dissolved minerals form crystals. As the crystals grow they exert pressure on the rock. Eventually the rock surface flakes off parallel to the surface. Since this is most important in deserts, the flakes are not sweep away by water and tend to pile up as talus at the base of the rock. This is a very slow process that is stopped by water. The amount of erosion by efflorescence shows that the earth is old.

11. Shaking up sediments and hitting them helps sorts by density, so it does not explain how pollen grains could be sorted in layers by season. The claim that there is no consistent order in sediments is false. Fully-ordered sediment cores have been found in lake beds at more than two dozens locations around the earth, confirming that the earth is much older than 6,000 years.

12. Con makes unsupported assertions that Antarctica has variable seasons. No, carbon dating does not depend upon the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. It does depend upon variations in cosmic radiation, but that's less than a 10% uncertainty that's been calibrated. Even uncalibrated, it correlates well.

13. Con asserts nature was dramatically different in ways inexplicable to science. That affirms the resolution.

14. Con asserts that in past that there was a mechanism that allowed continents to drift hundreds of thousands of times faster than any method known to science. That supports the resolution, that God changed the laws of nature. The resolution concurs that divine intervention is possible, and moreover, that if the earth is young that divine intervention makes it appear old. Con agrees. Standard texts, such as referenced, explain continents having joined and separated multiple times.

15. Tectonic activity can only work slowly because in is driven by convection currents in extremely viscous magma.

16. The half-life of uranium is 700 million years, that of carbon 6,000 years. To get the uranium measurements of 13.7 billion years down to 6000 years, uranium must have decayed over a million times faster than now observed. But to get carbon measurements of 45,000 years down to 6000, it had to have decayed less than ten times faster. There are a couple dozen isotopes with intermediate half lives. But the dates of objects as measured with different isotopes cross check, so each must have sped up at a different rate.

17. I suppose that in some sense summer and winter differ only by weather. But in modern times, nothing shorter than a seasonal variation affects coral growth, and it is cross-checked with isotope dating.

18, 19, 20, 21 make claims unsupported by science, not referenced by any reputable source, and completely inconsistent with science.

The erosion of sandstone in the Grand Canyon took 4.5 million years by moving abrasive-loaded water; the Hawaiian Islands are isolated basalt.

Cons claims are ad hoc and completely unsupported.

The resolution is affirmed.


Flare_Corran forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Flare_Corran 8 years ago
My apologies. I've been putting my argument together, and thought I could get home in time to post it today.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
Con has been logged in to the site, so I take his forfeit as a concession.

My purpose in this debate was to get YEC to seriously consider the position that YEC can be sustained by allowing that God could have put the evidence for an old earth in place at the time of creation. No one has ever cited anything in the Bible that precludes that possibility. Once a person understands that the mere existence of dust implies an old earth by natural processes, that should be acceptable. It is not my position to try to explain why God might do that, but perhaps he wants humans to use reason to understand nature. The position I suggest allows YEC believers to be scientists, which is otherwise not possible except in some niches.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
this, I don't understand. How is "half-life" related to magnetic fields? The fields are periodic, reversing between positive and negative over time. I suspect that someone not familiar with the subject supposed the magnetic filed was in a single exponential decay, then incorrectly worked backwards to what in would have been 20,000 years ago. No physics professor could possibly make that mistake. The likely true assertion is that only recently the decay is exponential. that's quite possible.

"Based upon the study of lava flows of basalt throughout the world, it has been proposed that the Earth's magnetic field reverses at intervals, ranging from tens of thousands to many millions of years, with an average interval of approximately 250,000 years. The last such event, called the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal, is theorized to have occurred some 780,000 years ago."

The professor seems to be saying that we may be up for one of those flips now.
Posted by thisoneguy 8 years ago
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
Sorry, I meant "efflorescence." I corrected and explained it in the current round. I couldn't find a good web reference so I copied a passage from a textbook. It's interesting.

BTW, I referenced a DVD course in the debate. It is really good at explaining geology. The company regularly puts it on sale for <$100, so maybe a school could be talked into buying a copy.
Posted by Flare_Corran 8 years ago
My apologies, I intended to put this into my argument.
Could you explain what you meant by inflorescence causing erosion?
I was unable to find any information on the topic.
Posted by Flare_Corran 8 years ago
I'm not going for semantics, I just wanted to be sure that it wasn't necessary for me to have intricate knowledge of every one of your examples. I'll do my best, but I only know so much.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
Flare, Right, I have the burden of proof to show that the evidence proves an old earth. You don't have to prove the earth is young, only that the evidence doesn't prove it is old. It might, for example, be in doubt.

Please don't try out some clever trick of semantics, or whatever, as debate tactic. I'm hoping for a debate based upon evidence.
Posted by Flare_Corran 8 years ago
If I accept this debate, it is not required that I argue that it didn't happen, just that it didn't necessarily happen, correct?
I wouldn't have the BoP?
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
the earth is millions of years old , duhhhh lol.

any man who argues against it religious or not , is a fool.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
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 
Vote Placed by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
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:60