The Instigator
debate_power
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
JimmyBoJangles
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Planet Earth is older than six thousand years

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...
debate_power
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,911 times Debate No: 70293
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (5)

 

debate_power

Pro

First round is for acceptance, second round is for opening arguments, third is for further rebuttal, fourth is for conclusions/closing arguments.

Pro has the burden of proof.

Forfeiture is an automatic loss.

No semantics or trolling, please.

I believe that there are some people out there who believe that Planet Earth is at most six thousand years old. I will be arguing that it is not.
JimmyBoJangles

Con

Let's have some fun Mike.
Debate Round No. 1
debate_power

Pro

Thanks to Con for accepting! I am quite sure this will be an intelligent and engaging debate.

My name is not actually Mike (that is, my real first one), but it does actually begin with an "M". Anyway, it's beside the point. I hope the voters will take Con's assumption about my name into consideration when they vote for "Conduct".

Science (the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment) (1) is based on the observations of humans, which are limited by the qualities of the physical characteristics of humans that allow them to observe. Humans can, with all body parts found in the typical human (very generally):

-See
-Hear
-Smell
-Taste
-Touch
(5)

Because humans are limited by these factors, the only type of observations that humans can make are the ones that their physical features permit. Thus, scientific observation is the only reliable type of observation of the physical and natural world, as the characteristics humans use to observe the physical and natural world are inseparable from the physical and natural world.

Now that I have established the credibility of science, I will endeavor to give scientific evidence for the Earth's being older than six thousand years. The burden of proof is on me, as stated in Round One and accepted by my opponent.

The United States Geological Service (USGS) puts the age of Planet Earth at 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old (2). The USGS is managed by the United States' government (3). The USGS' activities are summarized in the following statement:

"As the Nation's largest water, earth, and biological science and civilian mapping agency, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collects, monitors, analyzes, and provides scientific understanding about natural resource conditions, issues, and problems. The diversity of our scientific expertise enables us to carry out large-scale, multi-disciplinary investigations and provide impartial scientific information to resource managers, planners, and other customers." (3)

The USGS' findings about the age of Planet Earth are based on scientific evidence found using the method of radiometric dating (2).

Radioactive decay occurs when atomic nuclei break down spontaneously (2). To be exact:

"As radioactive Parent atoms decay to stable daughter atoms (as uranium decays to lead) each disintegration results in one more atom of the daughter than was initially present and one less atom of the parent. The probability of a parent atom decaying in a fixed period of time is always the same for all atoms of that type regardless of temperature, pressure, or chemical conditions. This probability of decay is the decay constant. The time required for one-half of any original number of parent atoms to decay is the half-life, which is related to the decay constant by a simple mathematical formula." (2)

The fixed probability of decay in a fixed area of time for atoms of a type is obviously a useful asset to scientists, as it is a mathematical constant. Due to decay probability's immunity to temperature, pressure, or chemical conditions, it is possible to estimate the age of the Earth regardless of what temperatures, pressures, or chemical conditions existed on Earth before.

"All rocks and minerals contain long-lived radioactive elements that were incorporated into Earth when the Solar System formed. These radioactive elements constitute independent clocks that allow geologists to determine the age of the rocks in which they occur." (2)

To summarize:
-ALL rocks and minerals contain long-lived radioactive elements
-These elements became part of Earth when our solar system formed
-These elements decay independent of ANY temperature, pressure, or chemical conditions that exist around them
-Each of these elements have a separate decay constant
-Anyone can analyze rocks that contain these radioactive elements and see how much the radioactive elements present have decayed into more stable elements
-Anyone can determine the age of the rock sample being analyzed by applying the decay constant for the particular element present and measuring decay.

So how was the age of the Earth determined through radiometric dating?

"The oldest rocks on Earth, found in western Greenland, have been dated by four independent radiometric dating methods at 3.7-3.8 billion years. Rocks 3.4-3.6 billion years in age have been found in southern Africa, western Australia, and the Great Lakes region of North America. These oldest rocks are metamorphic rocks but they originated as lava flows and sedimentary rocks. The debris from which the sedimentary rocks formed must have come from even older crustal rocks. The oldest dated minerals (4.0-4.2 billion years) are tiny zircon crystals found in sedimentary rocks in western Australia." (2)

So, from the OLDEST dated minerals, using radiometric dating, we know Earth is at least four billion years old, which fulfills my burden of proof.

Furthermore:

"The evidence for the antiquity of the Earth and Solar System is consistent with evidence for an even greater age for the Universe and Milky Way Galaxy. a) The age of the Universe can be estimated from the velocity and distance of galaxies as the universe expands. The estimates range from 7 to 20 billion years, depending on whether the expansion is constant or is slowing due to gravitational attraction. b) The age of the Galaxy is estimated to be 14-18 billion years from the rate of evolution of stars in globular clusters, which are thought to be the oldest stars in the Galaxy. The age of the elements in the Galaxy, based on the production ratios of osmium isotopes in supernovae and the change in that ratio over time due to radioactive decay, is 8.6-15.7 billion years. Theoretical considerations indicate that the Galaxy formed within a billion years of the beginning of the Universe. c) Combining the data from a) and b), the "best, i.e., most consistent, age of the universe is estimated to be around 14 billion years." (2)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)'s Planck Mission studies support this information regarding the age of the universe (4). According to NASA:

"Planck is a European Space Agency mission. NASA contributed mission-enabling technology for both of Planck's science instruments, and U.S., European and Canadian scientists work together to analyze the Planck data.
The map results suggest the universe is expanding more slowly than scientists thought, and is 13.8 billion years old, 100 million years older than previous estimates." (4)

To summarize:

Radiometric dating of rocks that contain decaying radioactive elements prove that the Earth is older than six thousand years, fulfilling my burden of proof.

Thanks again to Con for accepting. Let's hear his opening argument!

Sources:
1. Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English
2. http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...
3. http://www.usgs.gov...
4. http://www.nasa.gov...
5. http://science.howstuffworks.com...
JimmyBoJangles

Con

Well Mike. I hope the judges take your back sided comments into consideration when the vote on conduct. I would like for you to show some besides what scientists say. After all, scientists get many things wrong. Just because these scientists, no matter if they are the cutting edge of today's knowledge of our Earth. Scientists have thought that smoking is good for you because it calms your nerves. However, this is thought by today's scientists to be absolutely ludicrous because smoking causes lung cancer. Who knows maybe in another hundred years scientists will say that the lung cancer was a complete coincidence. No matter how unlikely it seems right now it (people used to think it was unlikely for smoking to be bad for you), it still is a possibility. It's kind of arrogant to think that humans have everything figured out.
Secondly, since either of us was not alive six thousand years ago, neither of us can make the assumption that the Earth is six thousand years old. We only know what we remember, and even that is questionable. How do we know what we are perceiving is true? We perceive by looking at the ground that the Earth is flat, when it is actually spherical. However, since we don't perceive a spherical Earth, we don't actually know that the Earth is spherical.
Debate Round No. 2
debate_power

Pro

Thanks, Con.

Once again, my name is not Mike (please take this second calling of "Mike" into consideration). This is the first rebuttal round.

Con asserts

" I would like for you to show some besides what scientists say. After all, scientists get many things wrong."

My claims are not just what scientists SAY. They are the best of what scientists have FOUND. Why should I not show scientific findings? Scientific findings are based on all the powers of observation that humans possess... oh, yes, because, according to Con, "scientists get many things wrong." Con, would you care to disprove the scientists in question rather than just dismiss them as inaccurate without evidence?

Even if scientists do get "many" things wrong (I do not need to point out that "many" is subjective rather than objective and is subject to personal perceptions. but I will anyway), Con's statement still does not affect the validity of my claims about radiometric dating, as it only addresses the credibility of scientists in general, not the specific scientific facts I discussed.

Con also asserts

"Scientists have thought that smoking is good for you because it calms your nerves. However, this is thought by today's scientists to be absolutely ludicrous because smoking causes lung cancer. Who knows maybe in another hundred years scientists will say that the lung cancer was a complete coincidence. No matter how unlikely it seems right now it (people used to think it was unlikely for smoking to be bad for you), it still is a possibility. It's kind of arrogant to think that humans have everything figured out."

"Arrogant" is subjective, and this opinion of Con's is not substantiated by fact.

First off, I never claimed that "humans have everything figured out." I showed scientific evidence for to support my burden of proof that had nothing to do with "humans have everything figured out." Humans certainly DO NOT have everything figured out; if they did, then no human would need to conduct scientific research or experimentation to analyze the physical and natural world! According to the best scientific knowledge, which is considered knowledge because it is confirmed by all other existing observations, cigarette smoking causes many types of cancer, including lung cancer, and the Earth is older than six thousand years. Cigarette smoking's relation to lung cancer does not contradict the validity of radiometric dating, so both are compatible, and both are substantiated by ALL existing scientific knowledge.

Con makes an argument from ignorance when he discounts existing scientific knowledge because humans don't "have everything figured out". Humans certainly have the age of Planet Earth and the relation of cigarette smoking to lung cancer figured out to the best of scientific knowledge, which Con fails to discredit by never attempting to.

Con has not yet attacked the usefulness or merits of scientific methods of determining facts, so I will not defend those things. Con may or may not think that he is attempting to attack the validity of radiometric dating methods used to determine the age of the Earth, but has not given any evidence against these methods. He seems to be discrediting radiometric dating when he says

"Secondly, since either of us was not alive six thousand years ago, neither of us can make the assumption that the Earth is six thousand years old. We only know what we remember, and even that is questionable."

Sure, neither of us were alive six thousand years ago (judging by my knowledge and Con's admission), but we have radiometric dating, which is proven to be unaffected by temperature, pressure, or chemical conditions. We know for sure that the radioactive elements used in radiometric dating always decay at certain rates. Thus, we know that Earth is older than six thousand years. Con has not yet attacked the trustworthiness of radiometric dating, so my claims regarding such stand unopposed.

"We perceive by looking at the ground that the Earth is flat, when it is actually spherical. However, since we don't perceive a spherical Earth, we don't actually know that the Earth is spherical."

Once again, Con dodges radiometric dating, and tries to argue as if radiometric dating never came into the debate. This time, however, he makes the absurd claim that "we don't actually know that the Earth is spherical."

We do know the Earth is spherical! How else would the Moon's gravitational field be able to cause bulges in certain bodies of water on Earth while simultaneously causing shrinking in others if the Earth were not spherical? The moon orbits around Earth, and its gravitational field, in conjunction with that of the Sun, pulls on the water of Earth (water is made of free molecules and is thus more easily manipulated by gravity than the land which Earth is made of) and creates areas of more water while creating areas of less water at the same time (1). These phenomena can be easily observed on Earth as tides (1).

Furthermore, pictures taken from spacecraft near Earth clearly show a spherical shape (2).

The force of gravity is roughly the same across Earth (2). This indicates that the distance across Earth, from left to right and up and down, is about the same wherever the observer observing the force of gravity is. This implies that Earth has a rough diameter, and thus is a sphere. If Earth were a disk, the force of gravity on Earth would be greatest at the edges of the disk on weakest at its two faces. Gravitation is a function of amount of mass (3), and is affected by an object's shape.

According to physlink.com:

"You can also observe, with binoculars, ships slowly 'sinking' below the horizon as it sails farther and farther out to the ocean, then watch them come back. They certainly didn't fall off the edge of the earth! You can also sail or fly around the world." (2)

I have given evidence against Con's claim that humans do not yet know whether Earth is spherical or not. If Con continues to assert that humans do not know whether the Earth is spherical or not, regardless of how even if it were, the resolution would not be negated, I will give yet more evidence for Earth's spherical shape.

It is also worth noting that I disproved Con's assertion that "we don't perceive a spherical Earth" by mentioning pictures taken from outer space. It is obvious that the astronauts taking such pictures perceived a spherical Earth, as both the human eye and still cameras refract light to perceive images. Con needs to actually provide evidence that can be tested if he wants to discredit existing scientific knowledge such as how cameras work, or what the shape of Earth is, or, more importantly, what the age of the Earth is.

To summarize:
-Con has not yet argued against radiometric dating, and thus has not yet attacked my arguments
-Con's counter-argument was an argument from ignorance; he discredits my arguments with the counter-argument that "humans don't know everything"
-Con points out the obvious; namely, that scientific knowledge could be disproved and rejected in the future.

Obviously, all scientific knowledge could be rejected in the future! However, since the existing evidence only proves that the Earth IS older than six thousand years (many TIMES older), and because no scientific evidence contradicts findings about the age of the Earth, we ought to assume that the current findings are entirely valid.

Con asserts that scientific facts could be disproved in the future. Well, that's how scientific inquiry works. I've already established the trustworthiness of scientific methods, which Con does not yet dispute. Con, please feel free to dispute my arguments regarding radiometric dating with scientific evidence, if you want to.

Back over to you, Con.

Sources:

1. http://home.hiwaay.net...
2. http://www.physlink.com...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
JimmyBoJangles

Con

Now Mike. I did not intend to get biblical on you. But your back sided comments and general ignorance have given me no other choice.
Now as far as I and over 3.8 BILLION other people (1) on earth are concerned, the old testament accurately depicts the genealogy of Abraham back to Adam and Eve, and when you add on 5 days (the time between the creation of Earth and the creation of Adam), you get the creation of earth. You can then follow Adam's line down to Noah in Genesis 5.

"1: This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.
2: Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.
3: When Adam had lived a hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
4: The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years; and he had other sons and daughters.
5: Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
6: When Seth had lived a hundred and five years, he became the father of Enosh.
7: Seth lived after the birth of Enosh eight hundred and seven years, and had other sons and daughters.
8: Thus all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.
9: When Enosh had lived ninety years, he became the father of Kenan.
10: Enosh lived after the birth of Kenan eight hundred and fifteen years, and had other sons and daughters.
11: Thus all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years; and he died.
12: When Kenan had lived seventy years, he became the father of Ma-hal'alel.
13: Kenan lived after the birth of Ma-hal'alel eight hundred and forty years, and had other sons and daughters.
14: Thus all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died.
15: When Ma-hal'alel had lived sixty-five years, he became the father of Jared.
16: Ma-hal'alel lived after the birth of Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and had other sons and daughters.
17: Thus all the days of Ma-hal'alel were eight hundred and ninety-five years; and he died.
18: When Jared had lived a hundred and sixty-two years he became the father of Enoch.
19: Jared lived after the birth of Enoch eight hundred years, and had other sons and daughters.
20: Thus all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died.
21: When Enoch had lived sixty-five years, he became the father of Methu'selah.
22: Enoch walked with God after the birth of Methu'selah three hundred years, and had other sons and daughters.
23: Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years.
24: Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.
25: When Methu'selah had lived a hundred and eighty-seven years, he became the father of Lamech.
26: Methu'selah lived after the birth of Lamech seven hundred and eighty-two years, and had other sons and daughters.
27: Thus all the days of Methu'selah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died.
28: When Lamech had lived a hundred and eighty-two years, he became the father of a son,
29: and called his name Noah, saying, "Out of the ground which the Lord has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands."
30: Lamech lived after the birth of Noah five hundred and ninety-five years, and had other sons and daughters.
31: Thus all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years; and he died.
32: After Noah was five hundred years old, Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth."

You can then trace Noah's line down to Abraham in Genesis 11.

10: These are the descendants of Shem. When Shem was a hundred years old, he became the father of Arpach'shad two years after the flood;
11: and Shem lived after the birth of Arpach'shad five hundred years, and had other sons and daughters.
12: When Arpach'shad had lived thirty-five years, he became the father of Shelah;
13: and Arpach'shad lived after the birth of Shelah four hundred and three years, and had other sons and daughters.
14: When Shelah had lived thirty years, he became the father of Eber;
15: and Shelah lived after the birth of Eber four hundred and three years, and had other sons and daughters.
16: When Eber had lived thirty-four years, he became the father of Peleg;
17: and Eber lived after the birth of Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and had other sons and daughters.
18: When Peleg had lived thirty years, he became the father of Re'u;
19: and Peleg lived after the birth of Re'u two hundred and nine years, and had other sons and daughters.
20: When Re'u had lived thirty-two years, he became the father of Serug;
21: and Re'u lived after the birth of Serug two hundred and seven years, and had other sons and daughters.
22: When Serug had lived thirty years, he became the father of Nahor;
23: and Serug lived after the birth of Nahor two hundred years, and had other sons and daughters.
24: When Nahor had lived twenty-nine years, he became the father of Terah;
25: and Nahor lived after the birth of Terah a hundred and nineteen years, and had other sons and daughters.
26: When Terah had lived seventy years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
27: Now these are the descendants of Terah. Terah was the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran was the father of Lot.
28: Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chalde'ans.
29: And Abram and Nahor took wives; the name of Abram's wife was Sar'ai, and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran the father of Milcah and Iscah.
30: Now Sar'ai was barren; she had no child.
31: Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sar'ai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chalde'ans to go into the land of Canaan; but when they came to Haran, they settled there.
32: The days of Terah were two hundred and five years; and Terah died in Haran."

If you crunch the numbers you end up getting around 2,000 years. Whether you are religious are not Abraham lived in roughly 2,000 B.C (2). That leaves 4,000 years to today, and you get 6,000 years. Now the 3.8 billion Christians, Muslims, and Jews that believe in the Old Testament make up a majority of Earth's population (7 billion). And in the scientific world that you are so fond you only need a majority for something to become accepted as true. So if the majority of Earth believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old then it is accepted as true.

(1) http://www.pewforum.org...
(2) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
(3) Genesis If you want to read it, pick up a Bible. It will do you good.
Debate Round No. 3
debate_power

Pro

Thanks for the rebuttal, Con. Do please stop referring to me as "Mike". This is the third time you've done it. My name is not "Mike". Voters, please take this into consideration.

Con has indeed gotten "biblical" on me.

First off, I do not see why it matters even if 3.8 billion people disagree with my point. The number of people who disagree with my point doesn't discredit my point. The only things that could possibly discredit my point would be arguments against my point. Statistics pertaining to those who disagree are not scientific facts that discredit findings taken from radiometric dating. My scientific evidence has to be discredited with legitimate scientific evidence to the contrary in order to be considered illegitimate.

Just in case there is any indignation over the need for scientific EVIDENCE to be discredited with scientific METHOD, consider what science is- that is, observation of the natural and physical world (1). Anyone can make scientific observations, and humans are limited to scientific observations when observing reality. Humans can only exist within reality. Thus, scientific methods must be used to find scientific evidence that discredits existing evidence.

Poll statistics regarding amount of people who believe that Earth is six thousand years old do not amount to scientific evidence against radiometric dating, BECAUSE the current status of opinions of those people and the current legitimate status of radiometric dating are not mutually exclusive. Those people can believe those things and not contradict the validity of radiometric dating.

Thus, the mention of those three point eight billion is not an argument against radiometric dating.

Con goes on to list a series of events that supposedly occurred according to the Bible. Con's use of the Bible begs several questions:

Why should the Bible be used as scientific evidence when it assumes things that are not evidenced by science, such as the existence of God? The existence of God requires an immense burden of proof that has not yet been fulfilled. Con's observations are limited to those taken in the physical and natural world. The Bible is supposedly "the word of God". God is used as the primary source. Because of Con's limited powers of observation, to prove that the Bible is the word of God, he would first need to prove that God exists or existed at the time when the Bible was written. Con has to prove this with observations taken of the natural and physical world. Con is thus reliant on science to prove God. Con's account of God's creation of mankind will only be trustworthy when the existence of God is proven scientifically.

But I really don't even need to point out the lack of evidence for the existence of God, though that fact, by itself, does negate Con's argument, which is based on an account that Con supposedly gave.

God is used as the primary and only source for this information in the Bible.

What if God were lying when he gave this account that Con has listed? Con has, as of yet, given no scientific proof for God's trustworthiness.

Radioactive decay constants do not lie. They cannot, because they to not possess the characteristics to do so, as they are merely conceptual and not physical. They are based on observation of radioactive elements, which also cannot lie or feign actions because they do not possess the components needed to think or make decisions- brain cells. The decay constants for ALL of the elements used in radiometric dating do not change based on temperature, pressure, or chemical factors.

In short, radiation does not lie because it is not sentient. It does not possess the ability to think; thus, it cannot lie.

The Christian God, if he existed, certainly could. The Christian God would be omnipotent, i.e. capable of any action.

As to my assertions regarding radiometric dating, they stand unopposed! Con's "rebuttal" is thus not a refutation of the validity of radiometric dating, as it does not even ATTACK the validity of radiometric dating.

Con mentions a man, Adam, who supposedly lived over nine hundred years (according to the unproven Christian God).

God is used as the primary source; God is not proven to be in existence in the first place, and thus this information, based on its supposed source, should not be considered valid. There is no scientific evidence that shows the age of Adam, or that Adam even existed in the first place (where are Adam's remains)?

There was none of the current medical equipment in existence six thousand years ago (hence the word "current"), but according to both the Bible and existing scientific evidence, diseases of all sorts of types existed six thousand years ago. There is a distinct correlation between time and human life expectancy- the closer to the age in which the current medical equipment exists, the longer human life expectancy has gotten. In my sources, I have included two graphs which clearly show this trend (unfortunately, I was unable to post the graphs into the debate).

Both graphs clearly show that the life expectancy six thousand years ago was nowhere near nine hundred years.

From the website sourced for the two graphs:

"For most of its existence, Homo sapiens lived in far-flung hunter-and-gathering communities, each of which was quite small and barely able to reproduce itself. Life expectancy at birth was hardly twenty-five years on average, and those persons who survived childhood often died violently, in combat with other hunters, at relatively young ages. (Robert William Fogel, The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism, 48)"

"For much of human history, average life expectancy used to be 20-30 years. By 1900, it had climbed to about 31 years " By 2003 it was 66.8 years. (Indur Goklany, The Improving State of the World, 31)"

Adam could not have lived to be over nine hundred, given these data and knowledge of the scientific, especially medical, advancements of the time.

According to archaeologists, two hundred years after con claims Abraham lived, civilization began in China. Humans existed before that time.

According to scientific findings, anatomically modern humans in Africa about two hundred thousand years ago.

The Earth is clearly older than six thousand years.

Con leaves us with:

"Now the 3.8 billion Christians, Muslims, and Jews that believe in the Old Testament make up a majority of Earth's population (7 billion). And in the scientific world that you are so fond you only need a majority for something to become accepted as true. So if the majority of Earth believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old then it is accepted as true."

In the scientific world that I am so fond of, something is accepted as true so long as it is substantiated by scientific fact. The material reality of the world is independent of the number of people who believe it is one way or another.

Perhaps certain scientists believe that the Earth is six thousand years old, but, as I have demonstrated and Con has not opposed, the existing evidence is completely to the contrary.

But Con's real mistake here is drawing parallels between specific religious belief and science.

Scientific fact is based on observations of the natural and physical world that do not contradict each other. Religion is based on extraneous assumption.

The definition of "religion" is:

"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." (1)

There is no evidence, based on human powers of observation, to back up superhuman controlling powers of any sort. I dare Con to find some and present it. Religions see things which are unrelated to superhuman controlling powers and assume that superhuman controlling powers are behind them.

Please, Con, show evidence of a superhuman controlling power.

Until then, science should be trusted over extraneous assumption.

Sources:
1. Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English

I will post the rest of my sources used here in the next round
JimmyBoJangles

Con

If you want me to comment on your beloved rocks so much Mike, then I will. Who cares? They're rocks. Furthermore, an fine young man like you Mike needs to become more religiously educated. Use your powerful brain for a greater purpose and spread the word of Jesus Christ.
Now for the debate. The 3.8 billion people do matter because if 3.8 billion people believe it, then that means that it has more credibility than what a bunch of scientists say. You need to take the lord more seriously, and not believe everything scientists tell you. What harm do you do if you believe?
Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Voting underdog is more likely to create equality.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Neither side can prove anything, just quote ancient religious texts or science they idolize. That better?
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
==================================================================================
Max.Wallace. 7 points to Con. Removed because: (1) complete failure to even attempt to explain sources, conduct, and S&G. (2) Inadequate justification for awarding argument points. If neither side has any proof, it would see like it should be a tie on arguments.

Reasons for voting decision: niether side has proof.
==================================================================================

-bluesteel (voting mod)
Posted by Network 1 year ago
Network
First of all, isn't Con disregarding Titus 3:9 and 1 Timothy 1:4 by claiming that the genealogy of Genesis is accurate? The Bible discredits the young earth creationists as superstitious, so why do they keep lying about their beliefs?

And the argumentum ad populum of Con is not even right. There are not 3.8 billion people claiming that the genealogy of Genesis is accurate, since young earth creationists are a minority among Monotheists in modern times, and Muslims do not consider the Bible to be inerrant. Disregarding this, if all of these people did claim the genealogy of Geness was accurate, it would mean that 3.8 billion people are clearly wrong. There are four modern variants of Genesis, with the most ancients giving higher numbers, and the most recent being preferred by foundamentalists because of their usage in most modern Bibles. It is impossible to know which of these variants figured in the original text, if any (possibly none, but I trust the variants of the Septuagint and Josephus more than the Masoretic and Samaritan texts, unlike foundamentalists). Most of the time, when there are variants in Biblical texts, one of them receives stronger attestation, or can be singled out because other variants contain grammatical mistakes, or the variants does not add nor remove anything to the orthodox interpretation of the whole Bible. But the genealogy of Genesis? Impossible to know, AND the Bible ITSELF says not to trust it, so anyone taking it at face value is either mistaken, or deceptive.

Was the world created in 6 days, or 6 times, or was it rather created once, and then became formless and void and needed to be rebuilt? I dunno, but the only interpretation to be clearly wrong in face of modern science (which the Bible says we can trust!) is that the Earth is, indeed, 6000 years old.
Posted by debate_power 1 year ago
debate_power
@Yavneh I made it explicitly clear that I was speaking in general terms when I said that in the debate. There are in reality about twenty-one senses.
Posted by kjw47 1 year ago
kjw47
Man has been here for a little over 6000 years it took 6 1000 year days for creation so at minimum it is 12,000 years old.
Posted by PetersSmith 1 year ago
PetersSmith
The earth is only 2015 years old, how can you all be so ignorant?
Posted by Yavneh 1 year ago
Yavneh
@ debate_power
The typical person has about 14 senses. But, it is a moot point. No one will see a random comment on a random debate on Debate.org.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
Max.Wallace. Voted arguments & sources to Con, S&G to Pro. Removed because: failure to explain sources, arguments, and S&G points.

Reasons for voting decision: Scientists are not as reliable as they pretend to be.
Posted by debate_power 1 year ago
debate_power
@Yavneh

I mentioned that those are the senses found in the typical human, very generally, in Round Two.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1Credo 1 year ago
1Credo
debate_powerJimmyBoJanglesTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided good evidence for thinking that the Earth is older than 6,000 years; Con did not provide comparably good evidence in favor of his position. Sources to Pro.
Vote Placed by Prescott 1 year ago
Prescott
debate_powerJimmyBoJanglesTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Better conduct goes to pro because Con insisted upon calling Pro Mike even after Pro made it clear this was not appropriate. Con initially makes a claim about backsided comments being made toward him in round 2 (and again and again in other rounds) but I could detect no such comments from Pro in round 2. Pro gets the vote for most reliable sources because he did not rely on sources with questionable authority on the subject, unlike Con who only used the Bible. The most convincing arguments were from Pro, and Con never really addressed any of Pro's arguments except to agree that rocks are nice. Finally we have spelling and grammar. I give this vote to Pro because Con's round 2 entry was almost unintelligible to those who can read in English.
Vote Placed by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
debate_powerJimmyBoJanglesTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro uses science--science which Con never refutes except with unscientific religious dogma. In a debate of this nature, you need to proffer scientific evidence. Con also commits a ad populum fallacy that severely weakens his argument. Ultimately, Con just drops too much to win, and is incredibly sarcastic in the final round, thus losing him conduct. Pro's scientific sources were also far more reliable than merely citing religious sources. [Disclosure: I was asked to vote by Pro.]
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
debate_powerJimmyBoJanglesTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped Pro's arguments concerning radiometric dating, so those arguments must be considered true. Therefore, arguments to Pro.
Vote Placed by Toxifrost 1 year ago
Toxifrost
debate_powerJimmyBoJanglesTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did absolutely nothing to refute the scientific evidence that pro presented nor did he actually present any rational argument. He used the Bible as evidence despite it being very unreliable scientifically and historically. While Pro had some backhanded comments con also kept referring to him as "Mike" despite pros numerous requests and stating that that was not his name. Overall Pro used actual scientific data to back up his arguments while con just didn't really make and logical sense in his.