The Instigator
MysticEgg
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
leandro.sanchez
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

It is scientifically probable that the Earth is "young"

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 1 vote the winner is...
MysticEgg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 948 times Debate No: 37793
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

MysticEgg

Con

Hello, everyone!

Welcome to this debate, which is going to focus on one particular aspect of Creationism - the young Earth aspect.

((I appreciate some Creationists can be "old-Earth" etc..., but for the sake of this when I say "Creationist" think of "young-Earth Creationist". When I say "Creationism" think of "young-Earth Creationism."))

So, what do I mean by "young"? I mean between 5,700 and 10,000 Earth years old. This cannot be changed and you accept this is what I mean by "young" by accepting the debate.

Scientifically probable means that Pro and Con must use science to meet their respective burdens. Probable = more likely than any other option. (For the sake of this debate).

The rules are as follows:
1) The first round is not for acceptance only; Pro must present his/her case in the first round.
2) In the fifth round, Pro must state (and only state): "No argument posted here as agreed".
3) The burden of proof is on Pro to demonstrate how the Earth is (scientifically) young. The burden of proof is on Con to counter Pro's contentions and show how the Earth (scientifically) is not young.
4) A forfeit is a loss of conduct; a forfeit is only a loss of conduct.
5) There can be no "Vote Pro" or "Vote Con" at the end of the debate unless one of the debaters consented.
6) Sources are considered accurate unless proved to be otherwise. ((Therefore, Wikipedia, TalkOrigins, AnswersInGenesis etc... are considered accurate, although the reliability of the sources will be up to the voters.))

I believe that's all, so if anyone has any questions, please post a comment! Otherwise, good luck to all, and allez!
leandro.sanchez

Pro

Hello mystic egg I will answer to your debate by proving that age is relative .
Einsteins theory proves time to be relative:
http://science.howstuffworks.com...
What is age?
How much time you exist and if the time that you existed is relative than age is also relative.
If age is relative than the age of the earth is also relative.
For us earth is around 4 billion years old but in an other place in the universe it could be 10.000 years old.
Debate Round No. 1
MysticEgg

Con

Thank you, Leandro, for accepting this debate. I hope we can benefit from it!

"Einstein[']s theory proves time to be relative:
http://science.howstuffworks.com...;

This is something we agree on; I won't attempt to counter it, nor should I.


"What is age?
How much time you [have] exist[ed]"

Close enough.

Well, I fail to see how age can be relative because the present is relative. Age is past tense. Your age is fixed at a certain point.

No. Your age is not relative. Fixed. Now your aging can be affected by time dilation, as Einstein demonstrated. However, your age is fixed. If it was, Einstein would have shown how age was relative, but he didn't, as my opponent pointed out. Einstein showed us how space-time is relative. Not age. Age is past tense.

However, let us consider for a moment if my opponent was correct. What would that mean? Well, it would make his burden impossible. Why? Because of the word "probable" in the title. If my opponent is correct and the Earth is young here and old there and exploding somewhere else; then everything is the same and equal. Meaning that, according to the definition of probability as agreed upon by my opponent means more likely than any other option. However, if my opponent is correct, then it is not probable. Therefore, my opponent cannot meet his burden. For both our sakes, let's hope he is incorrect in this.

Now, onto my arguments.

Contention One: Dendrochronology.

For those that don't know, dendrochronology is "tree-ring dating"[1]. Now, if I can just show that the Earth is at the least 10,001 years old, then I have fulfilled my burden. But I can do better than one year older than fits the definition of young. I give the King Clone desert bush as my example, thought to be ~11,700 years old[2].

Contention Two: Corals.

Corals are much older than 10,000 years old in general. One of the oldest is the Great Barrier Reef itself! It is thought to be at least 40,000 years old, but it could be as old as 20,000,000 years old[3]!

I will leave it at that, because I think my opponent won't try to refute my contentions. I think we will continue to go down the "relativity" route. Nevertheless, to fulfill my burden, these two contentions are here.

Thanks everyone! See you next round!

Source(s):

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] Long-Lived Clones in the Mojave Desert, Frank C. Vasek, American Journal of Botany, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Feb., 1980), pp. 246-255
[3]http://www.greatbarrierreef.org...


leandro.sanchez

Pro

Well I will try to explain why age is relative in the word of modern physics
First what does relative mean ? In this case I will use the first and second definition of the dictionary .
2. Considered in comparison with something else: the relative quiet of the suburbs.
3. Dependent on or interconnected with something else; not absolute. See Synonyms at dependent.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
So your age is relative when compared.
Even my opponent admitted that time is relative and that age is how long you exist.
So if time is relative and age is the time you exist .and if the time you exist is relative that makes time relative.
Age is relative if you were born in 1896 that does not mean that a person born in the same year has the same age as you.
(Well those person should live in different places in the universe.)
As Einstein put it time is like a river it slows down and goes faster as explainded in my previous link.
Now if your time here on earth doesn"t flows with the same speed than in an other pace in the universe than your time is relative compared to the time passed in the other place in the universe.
I will explain these in a Copy paste of this site: http://spaceplace.nasa.gov...
"The great 20th century scientist Albert Einstein developed a theory called Special Relativity. The ideas of Special Relativity are very hard to imagine because they aren't about what we experience in everyday life, but scientists have confirmed them. This theory says that space and time are really aspects of the same thing"space-time. There's a speed limit of 300,000 kilometers per second (or 186,000 miles per second) for anything that travels through space-time, and light always travels the speed limit through empty space.
Special Relativity also says that a surprising thing happens when you move through space-time, especially when your speed relative to other objects is close to the speed of light. Time goes slower for you than for the people you left behind. You won't notice this effect until you return to those stationary people.
Say you were 15 years old when you left Earth in a spacecraft traveling at about 99.5% of the speed of light (which is much faster than we can achieve now), and celebrated only five birthdays during your space voyage. When you get home at the age of 20, you would find that all your classmates were 65 years old, retired, and enjoying their grandchildren! Because time passed more slowly for you, you will have experienced only five years of life, while your classmates will have experienced a full 50 years."
So if your time flow (aging) is different to the others than this makes time relative .As shown in the definition means: Considered in comparison with something else: the relative quiet of the suburbs.
So if Age is not objective (the same everywhere )
For us the earth is 4 bilion years but somewhere else the earth could for them only have existed 9000 years.
I know this is complicated to understand but it is simply how the world works and you better get use to it.
To my opponent I hope I understood what I meant in our previous debate and now understands why his car analogy for time was wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
MysticEgg

Con

Thanks to Pro for his responses; allow me to utterly refute it after some research. ;)

So, right, yes, OK! Age is relative. I consent that. I have been very bad at putting across what I meant to.

TAKE THREE!

So, I have consented that age is relative. Fine. But does that mean that the Earth is young? Nope. Let me show you why.

What is a year?
A "year" is the name we give to the time it takes for our planet, the Earth, to complete one orbit of its star; called the Sun.

So, for my opponent's contention to be correct, he must show how the Earth has completed both ~4.5 billion orbits and between 5,700-10,000 orbits [and no more]. Has he done this? No. He has shown how space-time is relative, and thus how age can be relative. But since these potentials don't apply to the Earth, he cannot show how relatively, the Earth has completed different numbers of orbit.

I walk around in a circle. One orbit.
I do it again. Two.
I do it again etc...

I do it six thousand times. Six thousand orbits.
I do it ~4.5 billion times. ~4.5 billion orbits. I cannot have two different numbers.

Now, age can be relative in the sense that depending on one's velocity, time dilation can occur. But he has not shown how this has happened to the Earth.
It's like saying how oxygen can be solid, therefore the oxygen in my neighbours' kitchen is solid. Yes, oxygen can be solid, but that doesn't mean it all is.

I notice how my opponent has not attempted to counter my contentions, therefore I extend them.
He has withheld comment on my point that should the Earth be all ages at once, his burden of probability is impossible.

I'll leave it at that for now; and I eagerly await my opponent's response(s)!

leandro.sanchez

Pro

First yes time and Age relativity apply to Earth if you remember what relativity means .
2. Considered in comparison with something else: the relative quiet of the suburbs.
3. Dependent on or interconnected with something else; not absolute.
There are places were Time flows slower than on earth so the Time of earth is relative compared to this places in the universe.
Just for clarification time can be slow by to reasons speed or mass (a black hole).
Lets get back to my History between the astronaut and his classmate. For the classmate earth turned around the earth 50 times but for the astronaut Earth only did these revolution 5 times.
You and me agreed that time and age are relative. So time is not absolute there isn"t a clock by witch the universe time guides itself. Time is not objective .
The entire Universe does not share and live in the same time span as we.
Did you now that inside a black hole time blocks it does not advance anymore it is locked for ever in is time if you were in a black hole well you"d be dead but for your remains time outside would be frozen for ever .
How is time changed in a black hole?
Well, in a certain sense it is not changed at all. If you were to enter a black hole, you would find you watch ticking along at the same rate as it always had (assuming both you and the watch survived the passage into the black hole). However, you would quickly fall toward the center where you would be killed by enormous tidal forces (e.g., the force of gravity at you feet, if you fell feet first, would be much larger than at you head, and you would be stretched apart).
Although your watch as seen by you would not change its ticking rate, just as in special relativity (if you know anything about that), someone else would see a different ticking rate on your watch than the usual, and you would see their watch to be ticking at a different than normal rate. For example, if you were to station yourself just outside a black hole, while you would find your own watch ticking at the normal rate, you would see the watch of a friend at great distance from the hole to be ticking at a much faster rate than yours. That friend would see his own watch ticking at a normal rate, but see your watch to be ticking at a much slower rate. Thus if you stayed just outside the black hole for a while, then went back to join your friend, you would find that the friend had aged more than you had during your separation.
(in clear text more you would enter the black hole more your time would go slower compared to you friend outside when you would reach the center time would stop compared to you friends Time would be advancing at a turbo rate)
http://www.phys.vt.edu...
Facts:
Black holes exist.
Black holes existed bevore the earth.
Earth will not last for ever
So to some one that lived in one of these black holes (no one lives inside black holes but just for explaning) That were around longer than earth ,for them earth has alredy be destroyed .Since our time is not the same as he"s than out time goes faster but the person living in the middle of the black hole would alredy seen the end of earth.
Imagin to cars on a 20 kilometer high way one goes at 20/kilometers a second and the other goes 20 kilometers an hour .The one going 20 kilometers a second would reach the end of the highway in one second the other would reach the end of the highway in one hour. Imagin that the end of highway is the end of Earth and the speed of the cars is the speed of time to the person in the faster car earth would for him been destroyed way before Earth were gone for the driver on the slower car .
The speed of time compared to each driver for the driver going the fasters the one in the black hole our time would go at Turbo speed .and for the driver on the slower car the time flow of the driver in the slow.
You must not forget that we agreed that time is relative not objective(same every were)
So in one of this black holes that existed before earth in their time speed Earth has alredy ended so earth is for some one that would be in a black hole(there are no people in black holes just for easier explanation you woud die ) dead over want meant That the Earth was "how long the earth will exist- and not is for them it would be was making the B.o.P for both of us impossible to held because earth for the people in the black hole would not be Is but was .
And in the rule you stated : 3) The burden of proof is on Pro to demonstrate how the Earth is (scientifically) young. The burden of proof is on Con to counter Pro's contentions and show how the Earth (scientifically) is not young.
But for the people in one of these black holes that existed bevore earth ,for them Earth is nothing at present time but was The verb is at the past.
Making our burden of prof impossible to regard because for some one in these black hole Earth does not exist anymore .
So earth is nothing really because to the people in the black hole earth would not be anything at present but for us here on earth now earth is lots of things. But nothing is something and was the same thing at the same time it"s a paradox .
Example: He is alive and he was alive .
Conclusion: it is impossible to say the earth is an age because earth does not exist for people in black holes so earth is nothing.
Is like elephants are pink because an elephant is really pink but the rest are grey .
If you say Earth is something it can"t have been the same thing .Well yeah you can say he is dressed in blue and yesterday he was dressed in blue also. But this does not apply to earth age because for this to be true Earth should stop existing and than come back what is nonsense.
So the burden of prof is impossible to held on account.
GOD luck to my opponent to escape the fact that it is a tie.
Debate Round No. 3
MysticEgg

Con

Thanks to Pro for his responses.

I will go down my opponent's responses one at a time.


"First yes time and Age relativity apply to Earth if you remember what relativity means"
This is a straw man fallacy. I didn't say relativity didn't apply to the Earth; I said my opponent hadn't shown how the Earth had relatively gone round in an orbit both ~4.5 billion times and [only] 5,700-10,000 times.

"For the classmate earth turned around the earth 50 times but for the astronaut Earth only did these revolution 5 times."
No, the Earth would have rotated fifty times: fact.
However, due to time dilation caused by the astronaut's immense velocity; time would go slower for the astronaut. But my opponent suggests the Earth would have actually slowed down in its rotation for the sake of the astronaut. Not true; I fear my opponent misunderstands relativity.

"You and me agreed that time and age are relative. So time is not absolute there isn"t a clock by witch the universe time guides itself. Time is not objective . The entire Universe does not share and live in the same time span as we." Agreed.

My opponent's black hole fact list and scenario are true, but I fail to see how time dilation in a powerful, collapsed star has any relevance to how much orbits the Earth has completed of the Sun. However, when he gets to the "seeing the Earth get destroyed" area; I simply dispute it. If time is "frozen" for the person, then he would not see any change at all, because the light would not reach past the horizon point. Therefore, said being wouldn't be able to see the Earth at all. This analogy is simply false.


"Imagin to cars on a 20 kilometer high way one goes at 20/kilometers a second and the other goes 20 kilometers an hour .The one going 20 kilometers a second would reach the end of the highway in one second the other would reach the end of the highway in one hour. Imagin that the end of highway is the end of Earth and the speed of the cars is the speed of time to the person in the faster car earth would for him been destroyed way before Earth were gone for the driver on the slower car ."

A higher velocity will slow down time around you.

So the faster the car, the slower time will go for you. Time is relative.
So all it means is that the fast car actually completes the "race" at the same time, it is just that, due to time dilation, the fast car has aged less. They do not reach the end at a different time; even though they're going at different speeds. It is weird, but then again, that's relativity!

"it is impossible to say the earth is an age because earth does not exist for people in black holes so earth is nothing."
What? The Earth might not exist for people in black holes, but that doesn't mean objectively, it doesn't exist. Not seeing doesn't equal disbelieving.


Have you ever seen the grand canyon, notre dame [our lady], Morgan Freeman, caves in Vietnam? If you answer "no" to just one of these, does that mean they don't exist; does that mean they're nothing? Of course not!

P1: For people in black holes; the Earth doesn't exist.
C: The Earth doesn't exist. [Non-sequiter fallacy]

Fallacious reasoning isn't an argument.


HoweverFor his final responses, I would ask my opponent to show how the Earth has completed a different number of orbits [alone], without resorting to fallacious reasoning or comparisons. At the moment, my opponent gives examples of how See y'all next round!

J

leandro.sanchez

Pro

Well I will show why I still am still right.
First hilariously my opponent got the definition of year wrong and to be honest so did I and I would have lost the debate if I would not have locked it up .
The definition of a year in this context is : a.
The period of time during which Earth completes a single revolution around the sun, consisting of 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 12 seconds of mean solar time. In the Gregorian calendar the year begins on January 1 and ends on December 31 and is divided into 12 months, 52 weeks, and 365 or 366 days. Also called calendar year.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
You don"t see the difference I also did not see it at the beginning but let me explain it is not the rotations around the sun that count but the time in witch the earth goes trough this rotations.
My opponent even supports this claim:
What is a year?
A "year" is the name we give to the time it takes for our planet, the Earth, to complete one orbit of its star; called the Sun.
It"s not the rotations that count but it is the time those rotations take. Not the rotations but the time those rotations take.
That"s why things like a leap seconds exist to account for the time that it takes to the earth to make those rotations if it would not be the case than why even bother with the time it took the earth to make the trajectory ?
We could simply now we had done the rotation around the sun and that would be sufficient .
Info to leap years: http://www.timeanddate.com...
So i hope that you understand now that my opponent definition of year is wrong it is not the rotations but the time it takes to do those rotations around the sun.
Okay now that we got that important error cleared up I shall explain why that is relevant to our debate.
I will explation why my black hole analogy is valid first my opponent states people in a black hole could not see earth that is wrong.
VSAUCE video response to answer the concerns my opponents concerning my black hole analogy.
Yes, people in a black hole could see Earth.
Not very well as explained in the video but yes.

So now that we now that a year is the time it would take the earth to rotate the sun .
We must get what a second is clear a second is Objective for the people in the time frame where it happens.
A second is an objective measuring of time it is always the same until you compare it to another second .
Lets go back to my previous example: you are in a black hole and your friend is outside the black hole and his watch tikes perfectly and yours also tikes perfectly. Its when we started comparing the to watches is that you in the black hole see you friends watch ticking faster than yours and your friend outside sees your watch ticking in slow motion. But for each of you a second is the same time that passes you always age a second in the time span you are it is when you start comparing to people how where or are in different time span.
A second is always the same for the persons experiencing it but when you start comparing seconds with persons how"s time flows faster or slower for example in a black hole you see that their seconds take more long or go faster compared to your seconds and vice versa .I know it is complicated but it is relativity in all of it"s complexity.
So a second fells the same to every one experiencing it to people that don"t experience it ,it becomes different like the example in black hole where the seconds of the guy outside the black hole are more rapid compared to the person inside the black hole where time flows slower.
So seconds are the same to every one experiencing it but when they are compare to people how are in different time spans for example a black hole and earth then they become relative to each other that"s why the theory"s name is theory of relativity.
Now I have explained Space time and what a year is we can move on.
First ,let"s get this point clear a year is the time that the earth rotated around the sun . a year is the seconds it takes to us for the earth to rotate around the sun. It"s how many seconds it takes here on earth for that the earth rotates around the sun our time span is what counts because lets not forget time like I and my opponent agreed is not objective it is relative so in different places in the universe where it takes less time to them to the earth to rotate around the sun than to us like for example a black hole.
So a year is : 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 12 seconds no matter where you are that is what a year is for us here on earth .
But now imagin a black hole (again?! Well Einstein focused on light speed and black holes not much more )
So imagin a black hole if you paid attention to our debate you will now by now that more closer you get to the center of the black hole more slower your time flows compare to the rest of the universe exept if the rest of the universe is something moving at almost light speed or another black hole.
A year is 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 12 seconds even if that time happens inside a black hole where time would be slowed down relative to the outside universe.
So if this is 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 12 seconds would happen inside a black hole where time lets say was half as fast than the time flow here so 1minute there would be 2 relative to us here on earth.
So one year in that black hole would be two of our years so if 4 bilion years for them it would have been 2 bilion years.
I will have to admit my mistake time is relative but space and matter isn"t even in the black hole the earth would rotate 4 bilion times around the sun.
But the time of the rotation would be dealt in half in the black hole so the earth would have to different ages.
I don"t know if the time in a black hole would be slown down that it would be a half of our time passage speed but time does slow down relative to our time .
Facts are :
-black holes exist
-the planet earth rotates the sun(No , objections I hope )
-time slows down in a black hole compared to the rest of the universe. (no objections from my opponent so far)
-a year is the time it takes to the earth to complete it"s orbit . (I and my opponent disagree)
-time and age are relative (my opponent has agreed )
So even if time is not divided in half like in my example time does slow down relative to time speed here on earth.
And that makes the earth to different ages what is possible considering that I and my opponent have consented that age is relative.
Know I only have to prove that earth is also less than 10.000 years old some where in the universe.
And I will explain this using Black holes .
Now I will explain the center of a black hole more into the interior of a black hole . http://www.livescience.com...
At the center of a black hole is what physicists call the "singularity," or a point where extremely large amounts of matter are crushed into an infinitely small amount of space.
As we know time is slowd because of high speeds and high quantities of mass and density .
A black hole is an huge amount of mass put into a place that is infinitely small.
In clear text it the singularity is so dense that time would be slown down by the infinity.
It is like you would take a year 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 12 seconds and divided by the infinite .
Conclusion: The fact that a singularity exists makes that every age and time length that existed after that the singularity formed is about how long it existed before the singularity plus zero years old relative to the singularity .
But important there was matter before any black holes so imagin you were 45 years old when a new singularity was created than relative to the singularity would be 45 years plus the rest of your age divided by infinite leading to zero .So relative to that singularity you would be 45 plus zero years old .
But there were black holes before earth existed so to the singularity of those black holes every year in earth is zero relative to that black holes singularity.
So some where in the universe in a black hole that existed before earth to the singularity of that black hole the age of earth is zero.
And my opponent did not make any objections to when I stated as fact that black holes existed before earth so yeah earth and me and you are zero years old relative to the singularity makes me fell young .
Debate Round No. 4
MysticEgg

Con

Thanks, Pro. My final responses are as follows:

I para-phrased the definition of a year, and my opponent gives the actual definition (from thefreedictionary.com) as follows:

"The period of time during which Earth completes a single revolution around the sun [its local star]..." ((the rest of the definition is irrelevant for this debate)).

Let's compare mine:
"...the name we give to the time it takes for our planet, the Earth, to complete one orbit of its star; called the Sun." I think my definition was correct, unless Pro wishes to argue tedious semantics.

My opponent bases his whole argument off of this:
"It"s not the rotations that count but it is the time those rotations take."

No. First, the time it takes for the Earth to complete one rotation is called a "day", not a "year". I think my opponent means revolution. In any case, assuming my opponent meant revolution, I can now change it to:


"It"s not the [revolutions] that count but it is the time those [revolutions] take."
Even changing rotations to revolutions doesn't validate this argument. My opponent has changed his burden here. We're not debating on how long it takes; we are debating how many revolutions it has completed; because (for this debate) we are talking about the age. ((However, in other circumstances; I might have agreed with you.)) The time it takes is specified for our planet alone, but the core definition - the fixed part - is the revolution. The time it takes will change with every planet, depending on it's density, size, velocity etc...



So, a year for Mars is: "The period of time during which Mars completes a single revolution around the sun, consisting of ~687 days[1]"

I hope my opponent understands that the definition of a year, while involving the time it takes, is partially irrelevant in this context. Why? We're talking on past tense, how many it has completed. So whether it completed in one second per year or 500 days per year is irrelevant.
As such, my opponent has changed the burden of proof and violated the rules. Also, now that this error is pointed out, my opponent's whole argument topples. I believe he changed the definition to make his argument work - and it might - if that is present tense. However, it isn't. We are talking past tense.



Therefore, my opponent's argument is refuted. Extend my arguments. Only thing left to do is to sign off then.


I would like to extend a thank you to my opponent, leandro.sanchez, for this stimulating and enlightening debate. While he didn't meet his burden; he did show how aging is relative! Another thank to the audience and the voters for reading this through; and a final thanks to the voters for voting!

I'll see you all around!

J

Source(s):

[1]http://www.universetoday.com...

PLEASE TAKE NOTE: I hate to stress this to my opponent but after a previous violation in another debate involving Creationism (wasn't lean that violated the rules, but I will stress this anyway); please take note of rule number two. Serious note, I don't want a repeat that would violate you conduct!
leandro.sanchez

Pro

No argument posted here as agreed
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I should remind you that Creation Based Scientists do not actually practice true Science.
They are Fraudulent and their Evidence has been thrown out the proverbial window.
A Creationist Textbook has been proven by real Scientists as nothing more than Lies.
So, technically in the realm of Real Science, those Creationist Textbooks don't exist.
Creationist Scientists are all scientific dropouts, their concepts and evidence are not supported by real science nor real evidence.
The only place for Creationist textbooks is the garbage bin.
Get some real scientific books, subscribe to Scientific America or New Scientist and Learn!
This will develop your Rational Knowledge of reality and improve your Intelligence.
Reading Creationist junk-anti-science will only reduce your Intelligence.
Because Creation Science is detrimental to Intelligence.
Creationism gets its support by keeping followers ABSOLUTELY DUMB.
That's why Creationist Bodies are against the National Education Scheme that is designed to smarten up all citizens, because they may lose their Dumber than doggy doo, followers.
Posted by leandro.sanchez 4 years ago
leandro.sanchez
it's funny these was supossed to be theology vs science debatte but now it is a full on physics fest
Posted by leandro.sanchez 4 years ago
leandro.sanchez
Well i discoverd that it is a tie .
Posted by MysticEgg 4 years ago
MysticEgg
No it doesn't. This is because all the options would be equal, thus making "probability" impossible.
Posted by leandro.sanchez 4 years ago
leandro.sanchez
should the Earth be all ages at once,then have we all met our burden of prove or have we all failed our burden.
Posted by Aricatos 4 years ago
Aricatos
Incorrect. Evolution based scientists? Maybe because evolution has been something that is the most logical process that organisms have changed/turned into their current form? It's hard after all to find a cure for viruses if you claim they'll stay the same when they change and become resistant to the current vaccines :\.
Posted by glowingdisco 4 years ago
glowingdisco
The Earth is "young" according to what? Creation based scientists and creationism textbooks.

The Earth is "old" according to what? Evolution based scientists and evolutionary textbooks.

The debate is almost impossible
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Projectid 4 years ago
Projectid
MysticEggleandro.sanchezTied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: The Pros arguments were weak, the Con made better arguments that made sense that are backed up scientifically . S/G goes to the Con because the Pro had misspelled words. Interesting debate.