The Instigator
B3N
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Wallstreetatheist
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Resolved: The earth is billions of years old as said in evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 3 votes the winner is...
Wallstreetatheist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,771 times Debate No: 25815
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

B3N

Con

First round is acceptance. Please keep this professional and mature. If you are only going to hate on the different theories then do not participate in this.
Wallstreetatheist

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
B3N

Con

Thank you for accepting. This has been an interesting topic to me. To start I will list some age related facts:

1. The earth slows down one thousandth of a second a day. If the earth was billions of years old, when it was created it would of spinned too fast to live on.

2. Population grows averagely at a steady rate each year. If we use math to calculate the time needed to multiply to today's population, the result is roughly six thousand years.

3. Space dust accumulates on the moon about one inch for every thousand years. Astronaughts have witnessed that the dust is only a little more than half an inch. This, therefore, points toward 6-7 thousand years old.
Wallstreetatheist

Pro

Wallstreetatheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
B3N

Con

I am sorry about my spelling error. I meant ten thousand years for an inch of dust. Also for those who do not think that humans were alive in the first few billions of years, there has never been a single fossil or skeleton found of any other creature but ones classified today. Also every year we get closer to the sun. Even if there was a different evolution of humans, the earth would either be burned alive today or to cold for any life when it was created.

To my opponent, please put an argument this round instead of forfeiting.
Wallstreetatheist

Pro

Con presents nothing but unsubstantiated assertions without warrants, implications, or sources.



Responding to Con

1.
Evolutionists don't claim life began when Earth was formed. "Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old, and for much of that history it has been home to life in one weird form or another...The earliest evidence for life on Earth comes from fossilized mats of cyanobacteria called stromatolites in Australia that are about 3.4 billion years old. Ancient as their origins are, these bacteria (which are still around today) are already biologically complex — they have cell walls protecting their protein-producing DNA, so scientists think life must have begun much earlier, perhaps as early as 3.8 billion years ago." http://www.msnbc.msn.com...;


2. This is irrelevant to the age of the Earth, as Evolution demonstrates that the homo spaiens species originated between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago through speciation, the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution. Thus, the age of one out of billions of species does not provide an adequate measure of planetary age. http://www.nsf.gov...;

3. "The high number for dust accumulation (14 million tons per year on earth) comes from the high end of a single preliminary measurement that has long been obsolete. Other higher estimates come from even more obsolete sources, although they are sometimes incorrectly cited as being more recent. The actual influx is about 22,000 to 44,000 tons per year on earth and around 840 tons per year on the moon.

The story that scientists worried about astronauts sinking in moon dust is a total fabrication. As early as 1965, scientists were confident, based on optical properties of the moon's surface, that dust was not extensive. Surveyor I, in May 1966, confirmed this."
Sources: Thompson, Tim, 1996. Meteorite dust and the age of the earth. http://www.talkorigins.org...;
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org...;

Round 3: No scientist or evolutionist claims that humans were alive for billions of years. Check the source I provided in my refutation of my opponent's second point. I'm not sure what to say about the other things he has posted other than they are unsubstantiated and unsourced with little coherence or cogency.

To the Con.
Debate Round No. 3
B3N

Con

B3N forfeited this round.
Wallstreetatheist

Pro


Conduct: Tied, one forfeit per debater

Arguments: My opponent presents no arguments, only assertions without warrants, implications, or sources

Sources: I pposted good quality sources, while Con posted none

Spelling and Grammar: Tied


VOTE PRO!
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
b3n, there you go, you just got advice from errya, you'll never come out of your delusion following the advice of errya.

Going to a creationist website for arguments against science, is like going to a recipanswers to fractal geometry.

It truly is BS :)

Soldiers 9:36--To get a good perspective on how much of a threat science is to religion, the leaders understand the corrosive effects science imposes on religious views, so much so, the religious leaders, resort to dirty tactics to increase their grip on you and steer you clear of the truth, the most corrosive of all material to religion, is the TRUTH :)

YouTube--Richard Dawkins Militant Atheism and Richard Dawkins Quote Mining

There you will appreciate the unfortunate war which has been waged by religion, and you will understand the fight logic and reason have had since that sexy mo fo Science stepped on the scene :)
Posted by errya 4 years ago
errya
B3N, I am a creationist myself, but even I have to say (no offence) that your arguments are pretty bad.

For better ones, I suggest looking at articles on creation.com

For why it is advised not to use the arguments you posted, go to http://creation.com...

better luck on your next debate! :)
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
b3n, common sense or common since as you put it, is not a religious persons fortay.

Common sense should tell you the reason for everything being admittingly jealous is ridiculous.

Common sense would tell you that religious tales are ridiculous and childish :)

UNIVERSE 6:3--GJ 581, or Gliese 581, is a low-mass M dwarf star, the most common type of star in the Galaxy. Earlier studies have shown that it hosts at least four planets, including one that resides in the 'Goldilocks Zone' -- the distance from the central sun where liquid surface water could exist. Earth is in the Goldilocks Zone :)

BigKids 5:13--We can still keep Santa and Christmas, the tooth fairy, even the easter bunny, but once our children crack the code on those myths, we should NOT burden them with a myth with a very difficult code to break because of its incessant poisioning of conciousness and free thought, such poisons have been known to completely atrophy ones intuition, intellect and instinct.

WorkOut 7:2--By allowing your intuition, intellect and instinct to stretch their legs, is the most corrosive thing you can ever do to religious views :)
Posted by darkcity 4 years ago
darkcity
1. The earth slows down one thousandth of a second a day.
The rate at which it slows down is probably decreasing the slower it gets.

2. Population grows averagely at a steady rate each year.
Oil

3. Space dust accumulates on the moon about one inch for every thousand years.
David Bowie
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
I try not to put too much effort into n00b sniping debates
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Pro could have done better...
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
@B3N: Well, if there is evidence from reliable sources, post the sources in this debate; it will really help you out in the long run.

P.S. I didn't see the challenge until WSA took it. Plus, I don't like debating noobs like you. Provide evidence and I'll consider it.
Posted by Kali 4 years ago
Kali
I have no idea about this moon dust nonsense, but evolution does not posit that life has always existed on Earth and this idea that population growth proves the world is a certain age is nonsense. Population growth increased exponentially with the development of civilization; that is, it increased exponentially when people banded together in communities and divided up the labor necessary for survival. Key technologies made possible this civilization (primarily the invention of agriculture). It says nothing about the age of the planet we live on that humanity has been civilized for less than ten millenia. As well, I seriously doubt that anyone has come up with a figure for total population growth without using copious amounts of hindsight - the fact of the matter is that certain unprecedented developments can affect global population in negative (Black plague) or positive (American crops such as the potato being introduced to Europe and Asia) ways.
Posted by B3N 4 years ago
B3N
There is evidence. It has accumulated at the same speed since we got there. So with any common since it always does that. Now if you would like to debate the topic than you should of done it when it was an open challenge.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
@B3N: You do realize that a claim is false until substantial evidence says otherwise, right?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ObiWan 4 years ago
ObiWan
B3NWallstreetatheistTied
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: Con's arguments were easily defeated. Also evolution explains speciation and diversity through natural selection, not the age of the earth.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
B3NWallstreetatheistTied
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: *yawn*
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
B3NWallstreetatheistTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited first, but Con's arguments were very weak.