The Instigator
firemonkey6775
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Miserlou
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

Macro evolution

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,437 times Debate No: 2120
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (10)

 

firemonkey6775

Con

Simple as this Evolution is impossible because the earth could not have existed for more than 6-10 thousand years and there for no evidence that evolutionest have are valid and there for evolution is impossible.
Miserlou

Pro

Hello again firemonkey.

You cited this as the reason macro evolution can't be true:

"earth could not have existed for more than 6-10 thousand years"

Why not? There is no evidence that the Earth CAN'T be older then 10,000 years, but there's a lot of evidence to say that it can. All the fossils that are found to be millions of years old are determined as such using carbon dating, which is a legitimate scientific process.

Therefore macro evolution is quite possible, and there is evidence to support that it's not only possible but true.
Debate Round No. 1
firemonkey6775

Con

i would like to thank all of you that have taken an interest in my debates and or taken one of them up for those of you who did not get one and wish you would have i will have another set of them coming when i finish this set in about a week. Special thanks to solo for taking up 2 of my debates. Ok my debate will be posted in one piece which is a general statement because many of you made the same argument. I would appreciate if you would be so kind to read any of the other debates so that I don't end up copy pasting the same argument several times

First my general argument ok next I don't want to here about carbon dating ok because all that says is that the fossils are in the earth and because how far down they are we know how old they are. This then immediately posses the question well how do we know that. Here is the answer creationist receive well that's how old the dirt is. This posses the question "how do you know that." here is the answer we receive oh well its cause off the fossils that are in it then we say well you just told me you date the fossils by the dirt which you date by the fossils. isn't that the same thing as saying we date the fossils by the fossils and there fore I say well then cant i say the fossil is 6,000 years old and there for the dirt is and then the fossil is. Those who would like to post links that would explain this in a scientifically provable way please. Ok next many of you brought up the fact of me not providing evidence for the earth being under 10,000 years old

1.The gravitational fields of the sun and stars pull cosmic dust toward them known as the pointing-Robertson effect. Our sun sucks in 100,000 tons a day if our son was more than a couple million years old all the dust would be gone better there is still some in our system and estimation sets it that 10,000 years of dust has been sucked out .
2.ok second you say well no duhh it would take light billions of years from the farthest star to get here. (well this part not scientific but religious if god created it couldn't he have light were he wanted it if he created the universe) ok also it has been scientifically proven that light is slowing down and 6,000 years ago the light from all the stars would have arrived in three days in time for animals to start seeing it.
3.ok now the hottest stars burn well really hot and if we were to go back more than 100,000 years they would fill the entire universe currently and from what I have read monkeys were evolving into humans must be monkeys wearing real good sun screen
4.ok here is my two favorites the moon we all believe in the moon I hope. Ok well the moon has been slowly moving away 2 inches a year ok so 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been 142,045 miles closer to earth hmm let me check that would mean that the earths gravitational field would suck the moon down and ka boom no more life on earth.
5.next the Eagle(the piece of the Apollo space craft that landed on the moon) was designed to land in 6 ft of moon dust which would roughly line up with some millions and billions of years but no there was � of an inch (easly visible go look at any one of the pictures of the moon foor print) well guess what that is the 6-10 thousand year period.

Ok well there you go
Miserlou

Pro

" I don't want to here about carbon dating ok because all that says is that the fossils are in the earth and because how far down they are we know how old they are"

That's not how carbon dating works. That's how scientists initially guess at how old something is when they're in a giant hole digging. Carbon dating is measuring the levels of radioactive materials in fossils; all radioactive elements have specific half-lives, and they can determine how much of an element was there, how much of it is left, and then based on the half-life how old it is. So yes, carbon dating is legitimate.

1. All I'm going to say is that there's a lot of dust in space. A lot. 100,000 tons a day is an impressive amount, but it doesn't mean that the dust would be gone by now. Besides, I thought we were talking about the Earth's age, not the sun's.

2. I didn't bring this up, but I'll respond to it anyway. Light travels at different speeds depending on the distance, so, no not all of it would arrive in three days. Proxima Centauri, the next closest star to Earth after the Sun, is 4.2 light years away so it currently takes 42 years for light to travel here. The speed of light slowing down seems like a legitimate theory, but it is highly likely that the change is not dramatic enough for light to arrive in three days 6000 years ago. Maybe the light from Proxima Centauri, but there are many stars in the sky, a lot of which are incredibly far away. Even with such a dramatic change, some of them are still too far away for their light to have arrives so early.

3. Huh? Heat isn't something that just sits in the corner and piles up. It dissipates in space eventually, keeping the levels fairly constant. Also, stars don't just get hotter and hotter, they cool off too.

4. You're assuming that the moon has been moving away since the beginning of time. First, the moon was caught in the Earth's orbit, then it started moving away.

5. That is dust on the very surface. There is an estimate 5 million tons of moon dust within its sediment that has collected there over billions of years, and the estimated levels of dust per year concur with levels on Earth (of course, the amount of dust that stays on Earth is different due to the dramatic climate differences between the Earth and the moon). Even a creationist paper agreed that this wasn't proof http://www.talkorigins.org...

You have not proved that the Earth is only 10 or 6 thousand years old, and since that was your only argument against macro evolution there is no reason not to believe it.
Debate Round No. 2
firemonkey6775

Con

you said that maybe the sun the sun sucked in diffrent amount of dust so i can say so maybe carbon has decaide at diffrent points ok then another question why then when someone recently dead is carbon dated to 14,000 years.

ok well that is pretty much it for your evidence oh and well you dont like my evidence what ever ok but you cant just dismiss those like that and then say well no duhh carbon dating is true... ok then i pose you with a last question how do you really come to believe that you come from a fish or single celled organism
Miserlou

Pro

"you said that maybe the sun the sun sucked in diffrent amount of dust so i can say so maybe carbon has decaide at diffrent points ok then another question why then when someone recently dead is carbon dated to 14,000 years."

I didn't say that it sucked in different amounts, I said that there was enough dust to go around to refute your argument in Round 1 that all the dust from our solar system would be gone.

As to the recently dead argument, when did that happen? I have never heard of that happening, nor could I find any information about when I looked it up.

"ok well that is pretty much it for your evidence oh and well you dont like my evidence what ever ok but you cant just dismiss those like that and then say well no duhh carbon dating is true"

You only contested two of my points, one of which was off from what I said and the other of which I doubt the reality of. And as for dismissing them, I did research what I didn't know about. As for carbon dating, I explained to you that it works differently from what you thought; you haven't given any real evidence against it because you didn't know how it was actually done.

"ok then i pose you with a last question how do you really come to believe that you come from a fish or single celled organism"

Well, it makes sense. Mutations happen in organisms all the time, and a changing environment combined with millions of years can add up to some very varied creatures.

That is my opinion since you asked. But I rest my case that there is no substantial evidence that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, but since there is evidence that it is billions of years old then macro evolution is a possibility.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Yeah. That carbon dating vs. radiometric dating error drives me nuts. It's a mar on an otherwise spotless argument. You don't radiocarbon date fossils you do it on living material not rocks. Further, it works for at most 50,000 years due to the half-life of the carbon involved.
Posted by cjet79 8 years ago
cjet79
Correction:
Just curious...when did we start using carbon dating to determine the earth's age? As far as i know scientists have been well aware of its limitations and they use other substances with much longer half lifes to prove *the earth's age*.
Posted by cjet79 8 years ago
cjet79
Just curious...when did we start using carbon dating to determine the earth's age? As far as i know scientists have been well aware of its limitations and they use other substances with much longer half lifes to prove carbon dating.

Simple proof of the earth's age: helium. Only way to get it on earth is through radioactive decay. The amount of helium on earth cannot be accounted for in a 10,000 year period.
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
Cobjob (and firemonkey): So dinosaurs and men lived together I assume? Did men put saddles on their backs and ride them like horses, too? It must have been fun, huh!
Posted by firemonkey6775 8 years ago
firemonkey6775
tahnk you cobjob (must be 25 charcters in length)
Posted by Cobjob 8 years ago
Cobjob
Carbon dating is a good dating tool for some things that we know the relative date of. Something that is 300 years old for example. But it is far from an exact Science. It is somewhat accurate back to a few thousand years, but carbon dating is not accurate past this. Thirty thousand years is about the limit. However, this does not mean that the earth is 30 thousand years old. It is much younger than that. (1)

Because of the earth's declining magnetic field, more radiation (which forms C14) is allowed into the earth's atmosphere.

Willard Libby (December 17, 1908 – September 8, 1980) and his colleagues discovered the technique of radiocarbon dating in 1949. Libbey knew that atmospheric carbon would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years. Because he assumed that the earth was millions of years old, he believed it was already at equilibrium. However each time they test it, they find more c14 in the atmosphere, and have realized that we are only 1/3 the way to equilibrium. (1)

- What does this mean? It means that based on c14 formation, the earth has to be less than 1/3 of 30,000 years old. This would make the earth less than 10,000 years old! (1)

Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same. But there is more carbon in the atmosphere now than there was 4 thousand years ago. (1)

Since carbon dating measures the amount of carbon still in a fossil, then the date given is not accurate. Carbon dating makes an animal living 4 thousand years ago (when there was less atmospheric carbon) appear to have lived thousands of years before it actually did.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Because evolution is cool?

Lol.

I could win ten arguments on macro evolution at the same time with different and interesting arguments on each of them.

I did win many on whether "In God We Trust" is unconstitutional on coins. Although, one I'm currently tied on and another one I'm losing on even though those two arguments were forfeited.

Evolution isn't cool it's an accurate scientific theory.
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
And you're missing the point of debating. Your opponents all responded with sincere arguments, but you address nothing they say in a point/counterpoint structure - you post the EXACT same words, whereas they are trying to debate. Stop wasting other people's time - you may want to return to grammar school as a way to use your time more productively, as well.
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
Once again - punctuation exists; study up on it.

The "proof" has been given to you again and again by your opponents literally spelling out what radiocarbon dating is and how it works. The point cannot be made any more clearly. It is common scientific knowledge. That's the end of it.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Biowza 8 years ago
Biowza
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Defenestrator 8 years ago
Defenestrator
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by cLoser 8 years ago
cLoser
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by sysman 8 years ago
sysman
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Idontcare 8 years ago
Idontcare
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by righty10294 8 years ago
righty10294
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by andrewbary 8 years ago
andrewbary
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Miserlou 8 years ago
Miserlou
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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