The Instigator
Sajoe
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dtaylor971
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

"Life" is LESS than 11,460 Years 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 5 votes the winner is...
dtaylor971
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,235 times Debate No: 41118
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (5)

 

Sajoe

Pro

Premise- all fossils containing any amount of Carbon 14 are LESS than 11460 years old.
Contention-radiocarbon dating fossils as currently calculated is incorrect.

Definitions
Constant(N) - something that is invariable or unchanging. example- the speed of light. Newton's first law of motion states any object, including light, that is in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an unstable and/or external force. Therefore taking into account and removing the universal debris, the speed of light will remain constant.

Half-life- that amount of time it takes for a quantity of a substance to be reduced by half. Equation X/t=X(.5) Continuation Full-life- that amount of time it takes to reduce said substance completely to zero, or twice the half-life. Equation X/(2t)=0

References
http://www.c14dating.com...
http://personal.psu.edu...
http://radiocarbon.org...
http://i.word.com...
dtaylor971

Con

I guess this is going to be an arguments of mathematics, huh?

Ok, first off, the title says that life is less than 11,460 years old. So I'm going to debate that first.

Argument 1: We Have So Many Signs of Multi-Billion Year Old Life Forms
Let's say scientists are right (that's a different debate) and have found fossils dating back to the milti-billion years, like this one [1]. This prokaryotic life form was thought to exist from aproximatley 3.43 billion BCE to 3.4 billion BCE. This is just one example of many microfossils that we have found, let alone the dinosaurs and other somewhat evolved organisms. Take Sue, who is 67 million year old dinosaur [2]. She is another example that disproves this topic. I don't really think that this point can be disproven.

Argument 2: Do You Understand This Stuff? [3]
Do you understand carbon dating? At its half life of 5,730, it is at 50%. At 11,460, it is at 25%, not zero percent. At 17,190, it is 12.5% and so on. For anyone to understand, take this easy math problem(s):
1 2
-- -- = infinity. 0.5/2= 0.25. 0.25/2= .125, and so on. You can divide forever.
0 0
You can not divide in any way by zero. You can't divide by zero and you can't get to zero by dividing. Therefore, carbon dating can stem to the point in which the earth was actually created. Therefore, your point is disproved.

So look, obviously, life is far older than 11,460 years old. I believe in God but also in evolution, but that is a whole different debate. So it looks like you are mistaken on this concept. Thank your for this debate and your time.

[1] http://www.foxnews.com...;
[2] http://science.howstuffworks.com...;
[3] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...;
Debate Round No. 1
Sajoe

Pro

Every definition I can find states the decay rate of C14 is constant. The Laws if Physics state that constants cannot change. It is illogical to claim that the Laws adhere to the first half but NOT to the second half, where the constant decay rate slows down! In my example of the rate of speed at which light travels, unless acted upon by another force, will remain the same, or constant. By the logic you claim is correct lets substitute the speed of light for the decay rate of C14. So a ray of light leaves its source thus starting the clock. This ray if light travels for 5730 years. This ray if light does NOT encounter any other force but for some unexplainable reason it just slows down by half! Is that correct? So now it takes 11,460 years to travel the same distance it traveled the first time. Then again, without encountering any other force and for some unexplainable reason it slows down again taking 22,920 years to travel the exact same distance it traveled the first time and the second time...then 45,840 years then 91,680 years. If that was the real way a constant worked then the earth would never be lit by the sun! That is the illogic of dividing by half each time...it becomes infinite.

So what you are saying is that the LAWS of Physics of a constant, without any external interactions, changes by slowing down for the second half, and for the third half, and for the forth half, ad-infinitum?

My math was correct. X divided by t equals half of X
X/t=X(.5) lets say X is 1 kilo of sugar and t is 5730 years
1 Kilo of sugar divided by 5730 years equals half a kilo sugar.
All the scientists agree that is the definition of half life . Further more they all agree that rate is a constant, but only for the first half. Once it reaches half the constant decay rate breaks all the Laws of Physics by slowing down, thus proving to be a variable and not a constant.

Is that what you are saying?

I am stating that is incorrect and illogical! I am stating that math must be used logically as well!
My continuation states that "Full Life" is that amount of time it takes for a substance to be reduced to zero. Logically if it takes t amount of time to reduce by half then 2t will reduce it to zero.
So my continuation equation is also correct.
X/(2t)=0
1 Kilo of sugar divided by (2(5730)) or 11460 years is zero sugar remaining.
Therefore when C14 is detected in any fossils that fossil is LESS than 11,460 years from the date of its death!
After 11,460 years all the C14 will have decayed back into nitrogen!

I'm sorry but matatical geniuses do not always make logical geniuses!
The clock DOES NOT reset with each half! If it is constant the clock MUST keep running at the same speed. And the clock starts when the organism dies.
dtaylor971

Con

Check out this link:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

You also did nothing against my argument against "Life is older than 11,460 years old." Isn't what this debate is about? Even if you are right about carbon dating, you are not right about the fossils. Ever heard of uranium dating? So since you did nothing to attack what this debate is ABOUT, just state some wrong 'facts' about C14, I stand my place. Please argue my arguments or leave.
Debate Round No. 2
Sajoe

Pro

Except that EVERY time you reset and restart the decay clock you are breaking the Laws of Physics and arbitrarily changing a constant! The sample IS NOT NEW every time it is halfed! Therefore the original start time MUST be used and that is when the organism dies!

The illogic that EVERY half WILL be NEW and therefore take 5730 years to decay is astounding!

Once the organism dies, the ENTIRE amount of C14 begins to decay AT THE SAME RATE. It does not matter how many times one cuts it in half it is ALL still part of the original sample!

Organism A dies the CONSTANT decay rate clock starts and the equation is A/5730=A(.5)
Then you change sample A to a NEW sample B: B/5730=B(.5). As a scientist you KNOW samples A and B are not the same. A is NOT B. Correct? Where did sample B come from? Did sample B come from organism A? NO, it did not! Sample B is NEW! The sample A from organism A is now useless because the entire sample is now 5730 years old from the time organism A died. Since logically sample B is not from organism A, just what is it that is being measured? A/5730=B(.5), B/5730=C(.5), C/5730=D(.5), D/5730=E(.5)
That is NOT mathematically OR logically sound!

One cannot substitute A because of the CONSTANT. Sample A MUST remain IN the equation until it is 0. Once sample A from organism A is zero, THEN you can switch to sample B, presumably from organism B!

A/t=A(.5) A/2t=0

Therefore ANY amount of C14 found in a sample fossil means that fossil is LESS THAN 11,460 years from the time it died. The "oldest" fossils all still contain trace amounts of C14 making the time it lived LESS THAN 11,460 years ago!

"Life" is less than 11,460 years old.
Report this Comment
dtaylor971

Con

Look, you don't understand carbon dating. It is only reliable up to 40,000 years, but seriously, try to understand it. Look at this link, also:

http://science.howstuffworks.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sajoe 3 years ago
Sajoe
Admittedly this is my first debate and yes I was incorrectly using a formula to express a decay rate. I will examine your information and reply shortly.
Posted by Sajoe 3 years ago
Sajoe
Thank you Debaterpillar! I will take a look at it and try it out
Posted by Debaterpillar 3 years ago
Debaterpillar
@Sajoe: And just in case you're really interested in calculating it yourself as I suggested below, the decay rate for C-14 is approximately C = 0.000121 / years, meaning you just have to choose any number for your original sample N(t_0), then we randomly choose t_0 = 0 (setting our clocks to zero) and start the experiment.
Insert 0.000121 for C and any number of years for t, and you will see that N(5730 years) = N(0) * 0.5, just as N(11460 years) = N(0) * 0.25 .
Posted by Debaterpillar 3 years ago
Debaterpillar
@Sajoe:

Yes, the decay rate of C-14 is constant. But the rate of decay is not the same as the number of atoms decaying in a given period of time.
The equation to calculate the number N of atoms that haven't decayed after a given period of time t after a starting time of measurement t_0 is not N(t) = N(t_0) / t . Let's see why:

"the equation is A/5730=A(.5)"
This is revealed to be illogical already when looking at the units. 'A' has no unit, it's a number, say 1000. The unit of '5730 years' is years. Your result will thus have the unit '1/years'. But obviously after 5730 years you don't have any number of '1/years' carbon atoms. You have 500 carbon atoms. The unit 'years' does not appear.

Why is this so?

You are using an incorrect formula. This is obvious from inferring after 11460 years there must be 0 atoms left, and that this would translate into A/11460 = 0. Multiply both sides of the equation with 11460 and you get A=0, meaning that your equation can only be true, if your sample has been zero right from the beginning. Do you see the logical inconsistency?

The correct formula is N(t) = N(t_0) * exp( - C * (t - t_0) ) with C the constant decay rate. This is how the decay rate is actually defined.
Insert 5730 years for t and t_0 = 0, you get N(5730 years) = N(0) * 0.5, meaning after 5730 only half of the C-14 Atoms are left. If you then calculate N(11460 years), you get N(0) * 0.25. Seriously, try it.
Posted by Sajoe 3 years ago
Sajoe
Except that EVERY time you reset and restart the decay clock you are breaking the Laws of Physics and arbitrarily changing a constant! The sample IS NOT NEW every time it is halfed! Therefore the original start time MUST be used and that is when the organism dies!

The illogic that EVERY half WILL be NEW and therefore take 5730 years to decay is astounding!

Once the organism dies, the ENTIRE amount of C14 begins to decay AT THE SAME RATE. It does not matter how many times one cuts it in half it is ALL still part of the original sample!

Organism A dies the CONSTANT decay rate clock starts and the equation is A/5730=A(.5)
Then you change sample A to a NEW sample B: B/5730=B(.5). As a scientist you KNOW samples A and B are not the same. A is NOT B. Correct? Where did sample B come from? Did sample B come from organism A? NO, it did not! Sample B is NEW! The sample A from organism A is now useless because the entire sample is now 5730 years old from the time organism A died. Since logically sample B is not from organism A, just what is it that is being measured? A/5730=B(.5), B/5730=C(.5), C/5730=D(.5), D/5730=E(.5)
That is NOT mathematically or logically sound!

One cannot substitute A because of the CONSTANT. Sample A MUST remain IN the equation until it is 0. Once sample A from organism A is zero, THEN you can switch to sample B, presumably from organism B!

A/11,460=0
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Okay do you know about exponential decay and growth. A rate of decay is an exponential decay. This means it approaches zero but never reaches zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes I understand radioactive decay very well. I think you don"t that is why I have tried to explain to you twice that half of half is a quarter.
Posted by Sajoe 3 years ago
Sajoe
It CANNOT be a "new" sample! Do you not understand how C14 works in the life cycle?

As long as an organism is living it is absorbing C14. Once that organism dies the quantity of C14 becomes fixed. NO NEW C14 can be added and the decay rate clock begins counting down! Once that clock starts it cannot be stopped, slowed down or even sped up! As you yourself just stated the decay rate is constant!

So please explain to me how a fixed finite C14 sample amount with a constant decay rate, suddenly becomes "new"?

That IS THE ILLOGIC being used incorrectly by mathematical geniuses trying to pretend they are also logical geniuses!

The math MUST also be logical! Otherwise the results are pure gibberish!

While the formula being used is "mathematically" sound, it is absolutely illogical and therefore, if I may, gibberish!

Technically speaking that formula states that ANY substance, when measured that way, becomes, "infinite"! Last I checked, the only "infinite" is God!

The correct AND logical formula for a fixed finite C14 sample amount with a CONSTANT decay rate is:

X/2t=0
Posted by Sajoe 3 years ago
Sajoe
It CANNOT be a "new" sample! Do you not understand how C14 works in the life cycle?

As long as an organism is living it is absorbing C14. Once that organism dies the quantity of C14 becomes fixed. NO NEW C14 can be added and the decay rate clock begins counting down! Once that clock starts it cannot be stopped, slowed down or even sped up! As you yourself just stated the decay rate is constant!

So please explain to me how a fixed finite C14 sample amount with a constant decay rate, suddenly becomes "new"?

That IS THE ILLOGIC being used incorrectly by mathematical geniuses trying to pretend they are also logical geniuses!

The math MUST also be logical! Otherwise the results are pure gibberish!

While the formula being used is "mathematically" sound, it is absolutely illogical and therefore, if I may, gibberish!

Technically speaking that formula states that ANY substance, when measured that way, becomes, "infinite"! Last I checked, the only "infinite" is God!

The correct AND logical formula for a fixed finite C14 sample amount with a CONSTANT decay rate is:

X/2t=0
Posted by Sajoe 3 years ago
Sajoe
It CANNOT be a "new" sample! Do you not understand how C14 works in the life cycle?

As long as an organism is living it is absorbing C14. Once that organism dies the quantity of C14 becomes fixed. NO NEW C14 can be added and the decay rate clock begins counting down! Once that clock starts it cannot be stopped, slowed down or even sped up! As you yourself just stated the decay rate is constant!

So please explain to me how a fixed finite C14 sample amount with a constant decay rate, suddenly becomes "new"?

That IS THE ILLOGIC being used incorrectly by mathematical geniuses trying to pretend they are also logical geniuses!

The math MUST also be logical! Otherwise the results are pure gibberish!

While the formula being used is "mathematically" sound, it is absolutely illogical and therefore, if I may, gibberish!

Technically speaking that formula states that ANY substance, when measured that way, becomes, "infinite"! Last I checked, the only "infinite" is God!

The correct AND logical formula for a fixed finite C14 sample amount with a CONSTANT decay rate is:

X/2t=0
Posted by Sajoe 3 years ago
Sajoe
It CANNOT be a "new" sample! Do you not understand how C14 works in the life cycle?

As long as an organism is living it is absorbing C14. Once that organism dies the quantity of C14 becomes fixed. NO NEW C14 can be added and the decay rate clock begins counting down! Once that clock starts it cannot be stopped, slowed down or even sped up! As you yourself just stated the decay rate is constant!

So please explain to me how a fixed finite C14 sample amount with a constant decay rate, suddenly becomes "new"?

That IS THE ILLOGIC being used incorrectly by mathematical geniuses trying to pretend they are also logical geniuses!

The math MUST also be logical! Otherwise the results are pure gibberish!

While the formula being used is "mathematically" sound, it is absolutely illogical and therefore, if I may, gibberish!

Technically speaking that formula states that ANY substance, when measured that way, becomes, "infinite"! Last I checked, the only "infinite" is God!

The correct AND logical formula for a fixed finite C14 sample amount with a CONSTANT decay rate is:

X/2t=0
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by drhead 3 years ago
drhead
Sajoedtaylor971Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro clearly does not understand half-life. If the half-life of C-14 is 5730 years, that means that any given atom of C-14 has a 50% chance of decaying within that time period. This works from any point where the atom is not decayed - at any point in time, the atom has a 50% chance of decaying within its half-life, meaning the clock can be reset whenever. What lets this work is the fact that theoretical probability is not equal to experimental probability, and no consistency can be expected. That being said, Con did a good job of explaining the misunderstanding, and used good sources to back up his explanation.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
Sajoedtaylor971Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Oh lord. Pro presented an argument in R1, which was correctly addressed by Con in R2 by stating that half life is a percentage rate (namely 50%). Pro did not have any rational, nor supported counter to this for Con wins arguments. Both sides present sources but only Con's sources supported their arguments.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Sajoedtaylor971Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate points for most convincing arguments go to Con as he understood the concept of C14 dating. The conduct points are split as both debaters seems to talk past each other and not directly address the issue at hand especially Pro,however Con was guilty of abruptness. The sources used by both debaters were reliable, however Con used his resources in the correct scientific manner and as such deserves the points for not warping the facts.
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
Sajoedtaylor971Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con explains why Pro's understanding of half-lives is wrong in Round 1. Pro's presentation of half-lives involves changing the rate of decay which he claims should be constant, and hence his argument is self-defeating.
Vote Placed by Bruinshockeyfan 3 years ago
Bruinshockeyfan
Sajoedtaylor971Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons arguments are better. My biology textbook agrees with him.