The Instigator
poleflux
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
iownu
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Planet earth

Do you like this debate?NoYes-7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 805 times Debate No: 17272
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

poleflux

Pro

Given the argument on the formation of planet Earth we began a molten multi impact rock planet, no sense of water. Then multi ice impacts form the ocean.
I would argue that the earth was an ice brine ocean before formation. The impact was created with a collision of another planet, a rocky, hot, world. The frozen atmosphere thawed by heat and boiling seas which fell back to earth as rain and the land rose from the depths of the sea where the remains of the iron rich planet, mercury, left behind our iron core and from the heat of the boiling oceans the volcanoes emerged at the ocean surface belching rock and gas. The moon was a backsplash of Earths creation and a magnetic field influenced by Mercury and the Sun.

Earth was created like rock hitting an icy pond.
iownu

Con

No one knows how the Earth was formed. You have burden of proof as instigator. You do not have proof. You lose.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 1
poleflux

Pro

poleflux forfeited this round.
iownu

Con

iownu forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
poleflux

Pro

poleflux forfeited this round.
iownu

Con

iownu forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Tin_Man 5 years ago
Tin_Man
I would take this debate, save for a couple of reasons:

1) I don't fully understand the theory you're trying to assert, which means it would be difficult to argue about it.

2) You present only assumptions with no evidence, which means I am limited to presenting evidence of OTHER theories, which can't necessarily disprove your unfalsifiable theory.

In other words, the only way you lose is to show that it isn't possible that your theory could have happened. And nobody can do that, since we're talking about the beginning of the universe, which we haven't really worked out.

If you'd like to rephrase your assertion to say that the current, "accepted" theory of the formation of the Earth isn't correct based on this evidence/belief you have, then that's something we can debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 11 months ago
KingDebater
polefluxiownuTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: lol
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 3 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
polefluxiownuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
polefluxiownuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con simply stated no valid arguments and was not serious. Pro actually came up with an argument.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 5 years ago
ApostateAbe
polefluxiownuTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was first to forfeit but also the only one who actually debated.