The Instigator
undefined
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
my_original_username
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Intelligent Design

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...
undefined
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,028 times Debate No: 11055
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

undefined

Pro

The beginning of my argument is that our dating methods are faulty. Radiometric dating is the most commonly used dating method on igneous rocks, not sedimentary which is the rock type that commonly contains fossils. Radiometric dating measures the decay of unstable parent atoms into stable daughter atoms. To measure age they have to make 3 assumptions. First the initial conditions of the substance is known. In radiometric dating this means that we know how many parent atoms (unstable ions) were present and it is assumed that no daughter ions were present. The second assumption is that the sample hasn't been altered by any other forces. The third assumption is that the decay rate of atoms is constant. Although these assumptions have to be made we can't be sure about any of them. A simple example of radiometric dating is an hourglass. Normally when an hour glass has half the sand in the top and half in the bottom it would be assumed that 30 minutes have passed. However this makes the assumptions that no sand was in the bottom when the hourglass was started (daughter atom already being present), that no sand was added or taken out (altered by other processes), and that the size of the neck never changed (decay rate). Now in an hourglass some of these things are impossible because it's a closed system, but in nature anything can happen. Radiometric dating will only accurately age igneous rocks from perfect conditions. There is even practical proof that radiometric dating gives inflated ages. A group of scientists used radiometric dating to age rocks created in the Mt. St. Helen's eruption and these rocks gave ages that were much higher than 30 years.
Carbon-14 dating has similar problems. Carbon 14 is the dating method used on once living organisms. Carbon dating measures the transformation of C-14 into Nitrogen, this transformation takes place because C-14 is unstable. While an organism is alive it takes C-14 though eating. Although C-14 is being changed into N while the organism is living it is being replaced with more C-14. When it dies C-14 intake stops but C-14 continues to transform into Nitrogen. Carbon dating requires 3 pieces of knowledge to figure out an age. The first is is how much C-14 the organism started with. To figure this out scientists use a modern similar organism and compare the level of C-12 to C-14 they then assume this is how much C-14 the dead organism had. The second part is to figure out how much C-14 is left. Finally in order to compute an age scientists have to know the half-life of C-14, or the amount of time it would take half of the C-14 to become Nitrogen. The problem with dating is we don't know if conditions on the earth were the same billions of years ago to figure out if we can use modern organisms to find out how much C-14 dead organisms should have started with. Because of all this Carbon dating is accurate only to about 1,000 years and only when the sample comes from perfect conditions. Even in ideal conditions carbon dating has another problem that makes it hypocritical. The two isotopes of carbon used to figure out how much C-14 an organism started with, C-14 and C-12, aren't in equilibrium, something that only should have taken about 30,000 years.
my_original_username

Con

Okay Carrie... I read this and I have to say it was interesting but that I know nothing of that subject, like we talked about so I'm just going to try to bring up some new points to debate about? :D

Okay so, first of all, I am not denying that there is a "God" and that "He" didn't have any "hand" in creating the universe, but I am saying that Adam and Eve didn't exist and weren't the first people.

Adam and Eve, according to the bible, were created roughly 6000 years ago, which would mean that the world was created 6000 years ago, which is scientifically NOT true. Dinosaurs, fossils, even human body parts show that humans evolve. Evolution of species DOES happen; we have the appendix, why? For what? At one point in time, the appendix had a specific function.

Also, if Adam and Eve WERE the first humans, does that mean that they bore every race? Africans? Asians? Caucasians? Latinos? Also scientifically impossible.

If Adam and Eve were the first humans, were they "made" with basic knowledge? Like how to speak? And if so, what language did they speak?

Adam and Eve is meant to be a story of symbolism, an allegory. It is not a historical story.
Debate Round No. 1
undefined

Pro

I'm okay with you bringing up new points the dating stuff is pretty heavy reading, it takes some time to understand. I do realize that you believe in God and that he had a hand in creating the universe.

"Adam and Eve, according to the bible, were created roughly 6000 years ago, which would mean that the world was created 6000 years ago, which is scientifically NOT true."
Why can't this be true? My former argument was proving that the science that we use to determine the age of the earth is faulty. The end said not only is the science faulty but one of the faults that uniformatarianists (everything happens at a slow constant rate) choose to ignore proves the earth can't be older than 30,000 years. "In Dr. Willard Libby's, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby's calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state." (answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible) That site explains my first argument much better than I ever could I suggest you read it for fun. :-)

"Dinosaurs, fossils, even human body parts show that humans evolve. Evolution of species DOES happen; we have the appendix, why? For what? At one point in time, the appendix had a specific function."
Evolution of a SPECIES does happen, but evolution from species to species does not. If it did why haven't any new species evolved in recent years. And yes I suppose things can happen that will make it so two different population of a species won't mate if separated for long enough but they still remain the same species. "Recent discoveries have also proved that the appendix plays an important part in the body's health. It aids in digestion and produces antibodies that defend your body against bacteria. Some studies have shown that the appendix has an important role even before a person is born." (answersingenesis.org/articles/kw/appendix) And as long as you mentioned fossils in order to have the fossil record that is present today we would need a catastrophe like Noah's Flood. In order to have fossils form a body has to be buried while alive or very recently deceased and buried quickly if you look at the fossil record around the world you would notice that there are way to many fossils for that to happen everywhere even over millions of years. There is other evidence for the flood as well and it also helps explain other things that stumps uniformitarinists.

"Also, if Adam and Eve WERE the first humans, does that mean that they bore every race? Africans? Asians? Caucasians? Latinos? Also scientifically impossible."
Again why impossible? All humans can breed with each other so there isn't any problem with all of our DNA co-existing in one body. And if all the races did come from different "parents" how did they end up so much the same? After the separation at the Tower of Babel people had to split up. Obviously when you live with the same group of people in the same area your features of that culture start to look similar. In Africa most of the people are "black", and "black" people have a higher chance of survival so eventually all of the "white" people die out because they were didn't have the gene for lots of melanin in they're skin. However, in Alaska you have the opposite situation where the "black" people can't survive as well. Just like you can breed dogs for specific traits people could do the same thing. (answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-there-different-races)

If Adam and Eve were the first humans, were they "made" with basic knowledge? Like how to speak? And if so, what language did they speak?
Yes, Yes, and I don't know the bible doesn't say, and no one that's around now was there to find out.
my_original_username

Con

my_original_username forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Pro will take this as con never presented material refuting Pro's horrific analyses of radio metric dating. All of Pro's points can be refuted with high school text books. Con had an easy win, but did not deliver. Pro, I will take the Con on this or any other ID/Young Earth Creationist position.
Con forfeited a round - conduct pro
B/A - Con
S/G - Tie
CA - Pro
Sources - none offered - tie
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Pro has done nothing to affirm the resolution. Poking imaginary holes in dating methods =/= proving intelligent design. Con hasn't presented anything impressive either, though.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Hope that helps, my_original_username. Read up on the subjects on hand. :)
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"n order to have fossils form a body has to be buried while alive or very recently deceased and buried quickly"

http://www.talkorigins.org...
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"If it did why haven't any new species evolved in recent years."

lols

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Even that's a very basic list.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
undefinedmy_original_usernameTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
undefinedmy_original_usernameTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40