The Instigator
MrWright
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MrSense
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is There Scientific Evidence of a Multi-Billion Year Old Earth?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,329 times Debate No: 48443
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)

 

MrWright

Con

Opponent MUST be an adult and/or able to affirm knowledge that there IS "Scientific Evidence" (i.e. geological testing, scriptural, Historical, Archeological, etc.) that the earth is Billions of years old, citing reliable sources and/or references, and PROVEN (i.e. tested and confirmed as TRUE, CONSISTENT and LEGITIMATE) FACTS. And, I will likewise deny such an affirmation.
MrSense

Pro

Earth scientists have devised many complementary and consistent techniques to estimate the ages of geologic events. Gradual rates of mountain building, erosion of mountains, and the motions of tectonic plates imply hundreds of millions of years of change.
Radiometric dating, which relies on the predictable decay of radioactive isotopes of carbon, uranium, potassium, and other elements, provides accurate age estimates for events back to the formation of Earth more than 4.5 billion years ago.
All these different techniques compliment each other. Although some scientists still debate about the origin of the earth, scientists do not debate on the age of the earth as the evidence is rock solid. To deny these facts would equate to refuting gravity or that believing the earth is flat.
Debate Round No. 1
MrWright

Con


I like my opponents “faith” in the “estimation of geologic events”. And, I am so glad he is honest with the FACT that such testing and examination only renders “estimates” rather than FACTUAL and actual data. For instance, the measurements of the building, erosion and motions of mountains and tectonic plates necessitate the assumptions of the beginning points of said mountains prior to the building or erosion processes. For instance, “How tall was this mountain at the time it began to elevate or erode?” They also necessitate the assumption of consistent (unchanged) rate of building and/or erosion through those processes. For instance, “Did the environment of this mountain ever contribute to a slower or more rapid rate of elevation or erosion?” Neither of which, my opponent, nor the geologists have the ability to know or ascertain.


The same is true with the radiometric dating process. With it necessitates the assumption that a given specimen began with a certain amount of uranium, potassium, carbon, etc., and that the decaying process was consistent throughout the entire duration of the specimen. For instance, if at any time during the existence of the specimen the environment contributed to the inconsistency of the rate of decay, if the specimen began with an unusual amount of uranium, carbon, potassium, etc., or even if either level(s) of these had increased due to outside circumstances or contributors, then the results of the testing would be far off, rendering the test completely useless.


However, since TIME is the stronghold of evolution, in that the proponents of evolution must have Billions upon Billions of years in order bolster and prop up the evolutionary theories; therefore, scientific infidels go out of their way to substantiate the so-called legitimacy of such unreliable testing processes, that they may provide for their fallacious unprovable claims of evolution.


Furthermore, the first law of Thermodynamics, in essence affirms that energy in matter can ONLY be transform, but NOT created. The theory of evolution purports the very opposite. The second law of Thermodynamics, in essence affirms that such energy which is generated and transformed become less usable. Evolution, again asserts the direct opposite.


All this means is, as the Bible teaches, that the earth and all it is made up of is wearing down and declining, rather than evolving and growing into new, more usable, viable forms.


MrSense

Pro

Your response was quite amusing and largely irrelevant. First of all just because something is an estimate does not mean it is not fact. In that case anything other than the exact nano second is an estimate so it is not a fact. Scientist estimate the earth to be 4.5 billion years old. How many more decibel places would you like before you would consider it as data?
Surprising as it may be to you scientists have recorded the past environments of the earth and all these have been taken into consideration.
Secondly radiometric decay is constant an does not change. Different radiometric techniques use many different isotope systems with different decay modes and chains. Because different physical forces are involved in varying proportions in the different decay modes, it is very unlikely that all radiometric techniques would be affected in exactly the same way by a change in decay rates. A significant change in decay rates should therefore show up in significant conflict between the results from different radiometric techniques, which is not the case. The results of the different methods all agree with each other. Furthermore, the dates given by constant decay rates can be cross-confirmed by other dating methods such as ice-core samples, sea-floor spreading, and so on. It is precisely the reliability of the correlation between these various methods that make them all so credible.
I am not giving evidence to support evolution.. I am simply giving you evidence on the topic of the debate. I'm glad you brought up the first Law of Thermodynamics which in itself shows us that Creationism is BS.
The bible also teaches that there"s an invisible man hiding in the sky watching us, listening to our thoughts and we have to trust him that he exists because if we do we go to a cloud in the sky with everyone else who believed in him and died and if we don't believe in him we go to a place where we burn in agony for eternity.. and gay people are evil.
Debate Round No. 2
MrWright

Con

I am eager, and look forward to debating you on the Existence of God, after this.


However, I do not deny that constant rate (all things being equal) of radiometric dating. Yes, the rates are constant. Nevertheless, my argument is that the reliability of the results necessitate that environmental, circumstances and events such as; floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and cosmic storms, in no way contributed to the carbon, radiation, uranium levels of specimens being tested. For instance, cosmic radiation transforms nitrogen-14 into the radioactive isotope of carbon-14/radiocarbon. Radiocarbon react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which becomes part of the atmosphere, thus entering the water cycle and plant life by respiration and then, animal life through feeding. Such occurrences alter the amount of isotope levels, making them higher than the previous levels.


Therefore, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to test such geologic specimens, according to a set, “fixed” rate of decay and expect accurate or reliable results.


Consider the fallacy, unreliability and bias of the geologic testing methods which yield calculations in the Billions of geological years.



  • Ø Submarine basaltic rocks from Hawaii, known to have formed less than 200 years ago, by the potassium-argon method, estimated from 160 million to almost three billion years old (Funkhouser and Naughton 1968, 4601).

  • Ø Freshly-killed seals have yielded ages upwards of 1,300 years, and mummified seals, dead only about thirty years, have yielded ages as high as 4,600 years (Dort 1971, 210)

  • Ø Creation, Evolution and the Age of the Earth, documented a case where muscle tissue from a mummified musk ox was dated at 24,000 years, while hair from the same carcass dated only 7,200 years. (Jackson, 1989a, 13)

  • Ø The shells of living mollusks have been dated at up to 2,300 years old (Keith and Anderson 1963, 634).


Dort, W., Jr. 1971. Antartic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6.


Keith, M.S. and Anderson, G.M. 1963. Science, August 16.


Jackson, Wayne. 1989a. Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth. Stockton, CA: Courier Publications


So, you see the geological testing methods which evolutionary scientist rely so heavily upon PROVE to be greatly flawed, unreliable and even prejudicial.


Concerning you blast against Creationism; since the Law of Thermodynamic hold that matter nor energy is either being created or destroyed, it confirms what the scriptures teach (that is; that creation has finished and the earth is wearing out and degenerating). BUT, the Laws of Causality, which hold that every effect MUST have an adequate cause that is both superior and anterior to itself. This means that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the worlds, the earth and everything in them originated from an intelligent design and designer. And, the Laws of Biogenesis teach us that ALL life came from living organism of like components and that NO living organism takes its origin from anything non-living.


MrSense

Pro

The age of the earth is not estimated from any singular test. Of course some test results can be flawed. Not every test is 100% accurate. The number scientists have come up with is from an abundance of test results completely unrelated. Perhaps 99 of the tests pointing to one number 4.5 Billion years and only one saying otherwise which is extremely likely had a flaw. It is very easy to contaminate an experiment especially dealing with radio carbon dating. You merely stated some cases where the test's were clearly flawed. We can tell a test is likely to be accurate when it compliments many other tests of completely different nature which the "water cycle" would not affect.

"matter nor energy is either being created or destroyed, it confirms what the scriptures teach"

In fact matter can be and is created/destroyed all the time. The full law is that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed...only converted from one form to another.

In quantum mechanics particles arise out of nothing all the time.

Just because your experience has not exposed you to these phenomena, experiment proves they're true

The claim that there is something called "the Law of Biogenesis" is a misunderstanding of an actual biological principle. The actual principle in question simply states that modern, complex life in the current environment doesn't spontaneously arise from inanimate materials. It says nothing about ancient, simple life under completely different conditions.

Abiogenesis refers specifically (and only) to hypothesized processes under those different conditions that might have led to rudimentary life arising, through of processes of organic chemistry, from substances which are defined as non-living.
In many respects, the definitions of living and non-living are arbitrary. In reality, the dividing line between the two is both narrow, and fuzzy. For example, viruses are generally defined as non-living. But they certainly do exhibit many of the characteristics of life. Particularly when compared to purely chemical processes.

In the end what is more plausible? The scientific theory or a man in the sky did it which doesn't even answer anything as who created the man?
The man in the sky has always been used to fill a gap in scientific knowledge. A gap that is always shrinking as time goes by.
Debate Round No. 3
MrWright

Con


My opponent is under the illusion that even ONE of the scientific geological test renders an absolute and totally accurate conclusion to the age of archeological/geologic samples. When in fact, that major blunders cited in my previous argument not only show the mere fallibility of these test. But, these major blunders emphatically expose the very, fallacy, vast unreliability of the test as well as the prejudice with which scientists in the evolution/atheistic communities handle the specimens, testing procedures and results which they yield.


I ask my opponent to name even ONE scientific testing system or examination which is absolutely 100% accurate and reliable. And, which of these tests is accepted by even “a majority” of the scientific community as absolutely 100% accurate and reliable in determining the ages of geological specimens?


Furthermore, the major blunders which were cited earlier were in no way “isolated occurrences”. But, that represent the inherent inaccuracy and unreliability of the testing systems themselves. And there are an abundance of examples of such major blunders from ALL the known testing system used in the scientific community. And, I can cite many of them.


My opponent also alleges that life indeed CAN arise or come forth out of non-living or inanimate objects. Such an idea contradicts and is in complete violation of the known, recognized and accepted scientific law of Biogenesis which affirms that life comes ONLY from pre-existing life and NOT from non-living, inanimate objects or material. And there has NEVER been a scientific test or experiment which resulted in non-living objects or materials yielding living organisms.


“MrSense” needs to cite the name or names of the scientists, the laboratory, those who funded the test and the publication(s) which published these findings; that is, if indeed he is willing to make the claim that life can indeed come from inanimate objects.


Furthermore, absolutely NO materials (quantum or otherwise) arise out of nothing. The law of Cause and Effect states that EVERY material effect MUST have an adequate cause that anterior and superior to itself.


I sure hate the fact that you’re offended by the existence of God. But, you might as well get used to that proven fact. Because, after this earth and everything in it is dissolve with fervent heat, eternity will become every man’s reality.


MrSense

Pro

MrSense forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by anon898 3 years ago
anon898
Had a comment, now it's gone. I don't believe I insulted anybody...
Posted by MrWright 3 years ago
MrWright
Where you at, "Sense"? Time is winding down on ya...
Posted by MrWright 3 years ago
MrWright
Don't know what you mean, "anon". never seen your comment and don't have the ability to "delete" any.
Posted by anon898 3 years ago
anon898
Is my comment deleted? Did I hit a nerve?
Posted by MrWright 3 years ago
MrWright
WELCOME to the polemic platform "MrSense"! I anticipate a very intense, yet elucidating and illuminating exchange. I hope and expect to be presented your most convincing rock-solid arguments toward your proposition. And, I will likewise respond accordingly.
Thank you for accepting!
Posted by VaLoR 3 years ago
VaLoR
@MrWright, are you accusing me of changing my age? If I was taking bluesteel's advice I would have changed my aged to 25 or older. I registered on this website 6 years ago when I was 18 years old.
Posted by VaLoR 3 years ago
VaLoR
Damn. Beat me to it.
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
Where is Lawrence Krauss when you need him!
Posted by MrWright 3 years ago
MrWright
SURELY 4k characters is enough to make a written argument, especially one you're so confident of proving. You're not gonna send me over the river and through the woods trying to figure out where you're going with an argument. Just get to the point and prove your position.
Posted by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
Make the maximum character count higher, like around 8000+. 4000 isn't going to cut it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.