The Instigator
Envisage
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
creationtruth
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Earth is > 10,000 Years Old

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Envisage
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,514 times Debate No: 69048
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (2)

 

Envisage

Pro

Forwarded to creationtruth.

Overview:
The burden of proof is on me to demonstrate the Earth exceeds 10,000 years in age. For Con to win he either needs to uphold a stronger positive case of his own, or shed sufficient doubt on my positive case.

Format:
3 rounds, 10,000 characters, 72h

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments, rebuttals
Round 3: Arguments, rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals, conclusion (no new arguments)

I hope medic accepts, best of luck.
creationtruth

Con

Accepted. Operational science is definitely in agreement with the Biblical age of the Earth. I look forward to a civilised and fruitful exchange.
Debate Round No. 1
Envisage

Pro

Preface

I am going to defend this resolution almost exclusively from radiometric dating. As I see much more value in assessing one method at length than affirming multiple methods but not adequately supporting them. Thus I will be detailing uranium-lead dating, which while not the gold standard now in radiometric dating, has simple to understand assumptions and very powerful controls in place on the variables involved.

1. A Radioactive Dating Method Proves Life Existed >10,000 years ago
My job here is rather easy here, since 10,000 years is over 100,000x younger than the age of some fossilised life that is demonstrated by these techniques, simply affirming radiometric dating works within a 10^5 margin of error is sufficient to uphold the resolution. Obviously this margin is absolutely enormous. Therefore I will establish my argument:

1. A radiometric dating method demonstrates an old Earth if they a.) Compute an age >10,000 years and b.) Has sound assumptions

2. Radiometric dating methods compute ages >10,000 years

3. A radiometric dating method has sound assumptions

C. A radiometric dating method demonstrates an old Earth (>10,000 years)

P1 is a deductive mathematical framework by which substance ages are calculated assuming rates of decay, initial and final amounts of the relevant elements, and also assumptions regarding contamination. P2 us trivially shown by citing a cursory search on Google Scholar for the terms “radiometric dating million” yielding over 38,000 results. The first page of results upon checking do all include dates with results over a million years old. [1]

Therefore, if I can uphold P3, then the conclusion necessarily follows and the resolution is affirmed.

2. Radiometric dating has sound assumptions
For this I am going to argue for a very specific dating method, which is Uranium-Lead dating. This measures the decay of uranium through to lead, and can be used on both major isotopes of uranium (U-235 & U-238) which decay to two different isotopes of lead (Pb-206 and Pb-207 respectively). Thus the assumptions are going to be tied to the methods used involved in dating materials containing these chemical isotopes.

The age of a sample is computed via. a similar method by which a compound interest amount is reverse-calculated since radioactive samples decay exponentially. The math indisputably sound, but the assumptions made are the ones Pro can contest:

NNow = NOrige-λt

1. NNowis the number of Uranium atoms measured now

2. NOrig is the number of Uranium atoms originally in the sample

3. λ is the decay rate of Uranium

4. tis the age of the mineral, to be determined


NNow is measured directly with modern instruments (via. mass spectrometry, etc.), which I seriously doubt Pro will/can contest. Therefore if I affirm the last 2 assumptions, then the dates made from radiometric dating are sound.

The following chart is a representation of the change of the concentration of the parent uranium isotope (it’s consumption by radioactive decay) along with the change in concentration of lead isotope (by its formation from the uranium decay chain):


As we can see, there is a direct relationship between radiogenic lead and radiogenic uranium, and a depiction of the individual particles is shown in the image below, for clarification.

Thus, over time the uranium turns into lead, and it is this predictable and steady decay that we use for our radioactive “clocks”.

2.1 Original number of Uranium atoms in the sample
The number of atoms in the original composition of dated material can be calculated from the number of daughter products found. For example, U238 decays invariably to Pb204, IF we can make the assumption that the original amount of Pb206 is zero, then logically allof the Lead (Pb) would come from the decay of U238. If the amount of decayed U238 can be calculated then we have a simple formula for finding out the original amount of U238:

Initial Amount 238U = Current Amount 238U + Decayed Amount 238U
Decayed Amount 238U = Current Amount 206Pb

This formula makes 1 final assumption however, which is that the quantity of 238U/206Pb is not affected by external factors, such as contamination etc. and also that no other radioactive events also generate 206Pb. We know the last is true in the case of 206Pb from an exhaustive analysis of all other natural radioactive elements. 206Pb is only generated from the 238U decay chain.[4]

The two assumptions made here, that 1.) the original amount of 206Pb is zero for the sample, and 2.) that contamination is not an issue are both simultaneously controlled for by the use of zircon crystals for radiometric dating (more on this later), as well at other materials. I will concentrate on zircon crystals the purposes of this debate.

2.2 Radioactive Decay Rates
With the other assumptions affirmed, then this is the only grounds upon which Con can seriously attack the dates obtained by radiometric dating. Con would need to affirm that somehow, the radioactive rates were somehow over 100,000x faster in the past than they are now.

Radioactivity is a phenomena that probabilistic and determined by quantum mechanics. Such decay occurs via overcoming the strong nuclear force through quantum tunnelling. Given the tremendous proximity of neighbouring protons & neutrons of the nucleus, the events outside of the nucleus are negligible compared to the forces that act within the nucleus. As such radioactive decay rates are virtually unaffected by temperature changes, the chemical bonding of the atom, pressure, etc. since these negligibly affect the environment of the nucleus (the nucleus of an atom is the size of a human fist in St. Paul’s cathedral). As such there are only a handful of studies that actually managed to affect the radioactivity rates of elements.[3]

For example, one study managed to increase the rate of 187Re decay, but could only achieve this by heating the sample to over 200 million Celsius (!!). For reference, the temperature of the centre of the sun is ~ 15 million degrees Celsius. Other studies have found pretty much the same thing, such as with 176Lu (also 200 million Celsius). It goes without saying that these conditions aren’t even conceivably possible without sterilising/vaporising the planet into oblivion.[6-9]

The only other evidence of possible increased decay rates are from neutrinos, to which some studies have alluded to a seasonal decay rate chance (of ~0.1%). Later studies have shown the opposite however, and the rates measured are highly suspect to systematic errors. Moreover, such perturbations are at least seven orders of magnitude lower than would be required to account for the data. An increase on this magnitude would also, certainly sterilise life on Earth, and possibly vaporise the planet itself outright. [10]

3. Zircon Crystals
Zircon is a material (ZrSiO4), which naturally excludes trace lead in its crystallisation process. It is possible for uranium and thorium to substitute for zirconium, since they are of a similar size and have similar chemistry. Lead on the other hand is completely different to either. Prof. Bill Composton affirms:

“First of all, uranium atoms fit easily into the zircon site in the crystal lattice. They have the same ionic radius as the zirconium, so when the zircon is crystallising, any atoms of uranium that are in the melt will slide into the growing mineral.

In contrast, lead doesn't fit well. It has a different ionic radius and a different charge balance. So the mineral zircon strongly excludes lead..”

“It is now quite clear that most zircons quantitatively (completely) exclude Pb when they crystallize from magma and that all the Pb contained in the zircon crystal lattice is from the decay of U.”

As such, the use of zircon crystals allows for control of the initial amounts of lead, giving zero or near-zero amounts. This observation is unanimous throughout the literature. Note that I do not actually need to affirm perfect exclusion of lead, only that significantly more lead is excluded than uranium, as that is enough with the margins of error being so large for this de bate (fiver orders of magnitude). Hence even if lead was only excluded 10 times less than uranium, it would only lead to ages being ~900 million years older than computed (since U238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years, and some rocks with fossils date to over 3 billion years), however our evidence shows that the exclusion is much more efficient than that.[11-14]

Moreover, the use of zircon crystals allows control over environmental factors, due to their exceptional chemical and physical durability:

“Also, zircon is tough physically and is chemically stable, so it doesn't dissolve during low-grade metamorphism and it stands up to being weathered out of an igneous rock and trundled down the rivers into beach sands, where it is incorporated in younger rocks”[15]

Summary

From two rather straightforward assumptions, a precise age can be determined for materials the Earth is composed from. These measurements show the Earth is over five orders of magnitude older than is required by the resolution. Thus, comparably massive refutations are demanded of Con to square the circle. Best of luck.

References

1. http://tinyurl.com...

2. http://tinyurl.com...

3. http://tinyurl.com...

4. http://tinyurl.com...

5. http://tinyurl.com...;

6. http://tinyurl.com...

7. http://tinyurl.com...

8. http://tinyurl.com...

9. http://tinyurl.com...

10. http://tinyurl.com...

11. http://tinyurl.com...

12. http://tinyurl.com...

13. http://tinyurl.com...

14. http://tinyurl.com...

creationtruth

Con

creationtruth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Envisage

Pro

Bouncing this debate back to CT so he may have 2 rounds to argue.
creationtruth

Con

Introduction

I would first like to begin by stating that I fully agree that the math behind radioisotope dating is sound and that the operational methods used to measure ratios of isotopes yield very precise results. What I do not agree with however, as Pro seems to be aware of, is the assumptions behind the process of actually interpreting results as a "date" to determine the age of a rock. I will begin by attempting to explain, for the prospective reader, how radioisotope dating works. I will then move on to forming a positive case for an Earth that is less than 10,000 years old.


Basics of Radioisotope Dating

Radioisotope dating, or radiometric dating as it is also known, refers to the method by which secular scientists attempt to formulate an age for a given rock specimen based on the ratio of isotopes within the rock. Isotopes are basically radioactive forms of elements which naturally decay in an attempt to become more stable. These volatile atoms will, over time, decay to become different atoms with different numbers of protons and neutrons.

By measuring the current rate of decay, scientists can determine how long it would take for a given decay process to occur. By measuring the amount of parent (radioactive isotope) atoms and daughter (more stable element) atoms, an age can then be acquired by calculating how long it would have taken for the parent atoms to decay to the measured amount of daughter atoms. There are of course a few assumptions which must be made in order to interpret the data as a trustworthy age for a given rock which I will discuss in the next round.


Positive Case for a Young Earth

While there are many lines of evidence which testify of the Earth's relative youth, I agree with Pro that arguing from one line of evidence is better in that you can more readily explain and defend your case. It should be noted that with any historical science, it is not possible to acquire a precise date but rather evidence is used to show that a particular model of origins is consistent with observations. My line of evidence is the well known phenomena of planetary magnetic field decay.

s://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org...; alt="Magnetic Field" width="400" />

Planetary magnetic field decay describes the process by which Earth's magnetic field, which is produced via current in the metallic core, decays or diminishes in strength over time. This decay is accepted by both secular and creation scientists. "Ever since scientists generated the first global model of Earth’s magnetic field nearly 180 years ago, its strength has decreased by some 10 percent" (https://www.sciencenews.org...). The key issue of whether or not this supports a young Earth is how the magnetic field could maintain itself for more than thousands of years. Recent records of the International Geomagnetic Reference Field, the most accurate ever taken, show a net energy loss of 1.4% in just three decades (1970–2000). This means that the field’s energy has halved every 1,465 years or so. At this rate, the Earth cannot be much older than about 10 or 20,000 years. Unless Pro can adequately provide an observed mechanism which could sustain the field for millions of years, my case will stand (https://answersingenesis.org...).


Dr. Russell Humphreys, a well known creationist physicist, has provided a model which best represents and explains the phenomena of planetary magnetic field decay. In this model, magnetohydrodynamics accounts for the energy loss of the planetary dipole field: ". . .motions of the conducting fluid in the core should slowly twist the dipole magnetic lines of force into more complex shapes, subtracting from the dipole field and adding to the non-dipole field. Resistive losses then make the non-dipole field decay more rapidly, so eventually the latter type of losses should prevail" (http://www.creationresearch.org...).


Basically, Humprey's model proposes that the decay we observe is due to ohmic losses in the dipole-generating current of Earth's liquid core. Both creationists and secularists believe that the Earth was set into motion, and from this motion the planetary magnetic field was produced. But since, physically, the Earth's core provides resistance and turbulence between the inner and outer core. This resistance then in turn slows down the current and thus weakens the strength of the dipole field over time.

s://www.sciencenews.org...; alt="" />

For Pro to effectually refute my case, he must provide a reason why we should not accept Humphrey's model and why we should rather accept another such as the dynamo model. The data is quite clear that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying at quite a substantial rate, and if it truly is an exponential decay due to energy loss, then the biblical creation view of a less than 10,000 year old Earth is supported.


Debate Round No. 3
Envisage

Pro

Preface
I am disappointed that I am not going to have the chance to address any of Con’s rebuttals to my radiometric dating case. Oh well. Anyway, I will use my round to rebut Con’s positive case and then give a comparative analysis in my conclusion.

Magnetic Field Decay
Hypothesis
The mechanisms by which the Earth’s magnetic field is still an unsolved problem in science. While there are multiple hypothesis, and while there does exists a leading hypothesis (dynamo model) for an explanation of exactly how the Earth gets it’s magnetic field, I have no interest in defending it, as one could make up any number of hypothesis for the Earth’s magnetic field and be of comparable credibility to the Humphries’ model (i.e. none).

Con has presented one possible model but has provided absolutely no reason why we should think it is more likely than not to be true, or even mostly representative. Moreover, it needs to be not only most likely true, but also most likely true over the conditions of Earth’s past. This is a gigantic oversight on Con’s behalf, assumptions need to be justified, not assumed! To quote Christopher Hitchens:

“I don’t have to know, you do. You’re the one who says you know, not me.”

It’s not my place to provide an alternative explanation, I only need to show Con hasn’t justified his preferred one. Con could go ahead and refute leading models of the Earth’s magnetic field, but it wouldn’t bring him an inch closer to affirming his preferred one.

One thing I need to address is Con’s assertion that the magnetic field is decreasing exponentially, I would like to know exactly where Con gets this claim from because even a cursory glance at the data points plotted clearly show that an exponential fit is dubious:[1]

Of course, the data doesn’t preclude a genuine exponential decay relationship, but virtually any relationship can be fit to the data of this limited quantity and with this degree of variance. A straight line would fit equally well, for example. I am not advocating that the data is prescriptively a linear relationship (straight line), only that attributing any relationship to this data is quite frankly, absurd. Even Humphries’ own data doesn’t show the relationship he wants:[2]
Exponential Decay Fit:


Linear Fit:

Argument for a Young Earth

First, we need to unpack Pro’s argument and Con’s core assumptions:
1. According to Con’s model, the magnetic field can only decay
2. If the magnetic field can only decay, then it could only have been stronger in the past
3. If the magnetic field could only have been stronger in the past, then it reaches a limit

I suspect Con will not disagree with my portrayal of his argument. I can freely agree that the Earth’s magnetic field could not be infinite, or massive in the past due to physical considerations, but I don’t need to agree that the Earth’s magnetic field was ever continually stronger in the past. If the Earth’s magnetic field was not always decreasing, or in a state of flux with periods where the magnetic field becomes stronger of weaker, then suddenly Con doesn’t have an argument.

Ironically, it so happens that IF the Earth was in a phase of magnetic field strengthening, Con would almost certainly be issuing a parallel argument for a >10,000 year old Earth, since a model could easily be assumed where the Earth’s magnetic field had to “start from somewhere”, and couldn’t have been less than 0.

Magnetic Field as a State of Flux
Given Con simply has not justified his assumptions that the Earth’s magnetic field decay is a one-way street of decline, these arguments are not required to reject it, but I will provide them for sake of completion.

IF the Earth’s magnetic field was a state of flux, then we would expect to see evidence of changes in the field’s intensity in the past, as well as the present. If the Earth’s magnetic field has always been in decline, then we wouldn’t expect to see any evidence of this.

We already know of at least 171 examples of magnetic field reversals, black and white evidence of the Earth’s field being in a state of flux.[3] We know this from analysis of the polarisation of ferromagnetic minerals, with minerals at specific rock layers running opposite to today’s field, or in concordance with it. Regardless of whether or not the dates are accurate, the fact remains that the field reversed multiple times in the past, and this reversal has been recorded in a plethora of geological records, such as the 1,000 meter expanse of Steep’s mountain sequence.


With such a reversal, an obvious association and mechanism for a cyclical increase/decrease of magnetic field strength arises. Moreover, these observations are not expected from the Humphries’ model, and only ad hoc reasoning can account for it (which does nothing but weaken the hypothesis).

Moreover, the Sun’s magnetic field is known to be in a state of flux, in an 11 year cycle. Granted the Sun is a very different body to the Earth (with significantly more powerful convection processes, etc.), but the very fact the Sun’s magnetic field is obviously in a state of flux seriously damages the confidence that the Earth’s is not.

Radioactive Dating
I will add a little fuel to the fire by highlighting some of the pragmatic considerations with the method.

Testing for Contamination
Because zircon readily excludes lead, and not uranium, the practical contamination issues actually lead to underestimation of the real age of the rock, since worst case scenario is that some radiogenic lead gets washed out of exposed samples, which leads to a lower lead/uranium concentration, and thus a younger date. Therefore a case for contamination is virtually impossible to make on all samples gathered so far, which universally demonstrate an old age of the samples.

Lead contamination, although extremely unlikely, is easily tested for by:

1. Measuring the concentration of the sister lead isotope – 204Pb
2. Checking for discord between decay dates found by 235U and 238U


Sister Isotope
Lead-204 is a primordial isotope, so names because it is not generated by any radiogenic process, thus essentially all Lead-204 that exists on Earth is from its formation. 204Pb consists of 1.4% of all lead, with 206Pb and 207Pb consisting of 24.1% and 22.1% respectively. Thus, the relative concentration of 204Pb could only have been greater in the past.[4]

This is useful because IF there was any non-radiogenic lead that somehow contaminated the sample which would make the samples at most 10,000 years old then then we would certainly expect:

  1. 1. To observe 204Pb within that contamination (min, 1.4%)
  2. 2. To observe approximately a 24.1:22.1 ratio of 206Pb:207Pb


These checks are very straightforward with the same equipment used to get the respective concentrations of U/Pb, thus these checks are trivial. If there are any small contaminations, then it can be trivially corrected for, if there are large contaminations, then the results are useless. The reason why we would expect
204Pb contamination is because all isotopes of lead are essentially chemically identical, with virtually identical reactivity, solubility, and other chemical properties. Thus any chemical process that is affected by one isotope of lead, is identically affected by another. There is no way for any natural process to differentiate (there is a reason why uranium enrichment is such a pain to do).

If the Earth was only 10,000 years old, and contamination really did explain the results, then the concentration of Pb-204 in the samples must be at least 1.4% of the total composition, but we never see anything close to this in the literature.[6]

Discord
235Uonly has a half life of 703.8MA, over 6 times less than U238. Thus Pb207 accumulates at a much faster rate relative to 235U than 206Pb does relative to 238U. Because of this, we essentially have two independent dating methods for the price of one, which provides an extremely simple check for concordance. If contamination occurred, then we would expect a discord between the dates calculated from each isotope, unless there is some freakish statistical fluke.



Thus, to give a numerical example, observing a 3:1 Pb/U ratio would mandate a subsequent observation of a 0.8 Pb/U ratio. Observation of deviations of this would be clear evidence of contamination or other factors. Again, from the literature, these deviations are the exception, not the norm, and essentially always in the direction of lead loss, not lead gain, leaving to underestimation of dates, not overestimation.

Moreover, this is also a method to check for changes in the decay rates if it were even possible, again it would be a complete statistical fluke for the two ratios to line up if radioactive rates were accelerated in the past, especially considering fundamental physics would have to drastically change. The fact that we simply don’t see such significant discord is exceptionally strong evidence against such acceleration in the past.

Conclusion
I have sought to justify at length radiometric dating in this debate and I have. I have gone over the assumptions with a fine toothed comb, and demonstrated that rejecting these assumptions leads to absurd conclusions. Moreover, the physics and chemistry involved are very well understood, and radioactive decay is known down to it’s fundamental principles in quantum tunnelling.

In comparison to Con’s positive case, Con simply has not justified his assumptions, one of which is a dubious assumption that the Humphries model of the Earth’s magnetic field is accurate and correct. Given that this model has little, if any evidential support, let alone support that would grant significant confidence in the model in making strong predictions/retrodictions, it follows that Con has rather spectacularly failed to uphold the antithesis.

As such, a Pro vote is required.

References
1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://gji.oxfordjournals.org...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://tinyurl.com...

creationtruth

Con

Rebuttal of Pro's Case

Pro's case rests entirely on the validity of the assumptions behind the process of formulating an age for a given rock using radioisotope dating. The three main assumptions which I will be addressing, in the context of U-Pb dating, are: initial isotope ratios, lack of contamination, and constant decay rate. As previously stated, I have no reason to doubt the reliability of current measured isotope ratios and decay rates, nor the math involved in the calculations. Rather, I will simply show why any age produced by such means is totally unreliable.


Assumption #1 - Initial Isotope Ratios

This first assumption is entirely unknowable, to state the obvious. If one is no present to record data, one is left with pure speculation. Clearly it is impossible to know for sure what the initial ratio of isotopes were in any given rock sample. If a particular sample had any amount of Pb at its conception, assuming a zero amount for the sample would grossly inflate the age. No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes. My opponent addresses this issue with the usage of zircon crystals which indeed seem to control for the problem of initial ratios. Regardless, this assumption remains model-dependent.


Assumption #2 - Lack of Contamination

As with the first assumption, assuming no contamination is speculative at best. Both assumptions are model-dependent in that they require a model such as the accretion model of the Earth's formation from molten rock. If the biblical account be true, then even zircon crystals could have been formed with Pb already in them; and the Flood could have provided a medium for plenty of isotopic exchange between rocks. Since not much more can be said about these assumptions other than that they are ultimately unknowable, allow me to focus most of my addressal to the following assumption.


Assumption #3 - Constant Decay Rate

Indeed, decay rate constancy seems to be the most impervious to dissent. Yet, utilizing certain methods of dating other than radioisotopes, such as that of planetary magnetic field decay, have revealed that the Earth could not be much older than 6,000 years. Thus, it is clear that decay rates are likely to have drastically varied in the past. One clear example is the presence of detectable amounts of helium in zircon crystals which have been dated to be 1.5 billion years old. It was found that, "up to 58% of the helium that the nuclear decay would produce was still in the zircons. This was surprising because helium diffuses (leaks) rapidly out of most minerals" (http://creation.com...). The presence of helium in these zircons is linked directly to U-Pb decay as it is a byproduct of the decay process. For the helium to be present in these zircons, radiodecay would have had to be over 100,000 times faster in the past.


Defense of Planetary Magnetic Field Decay

Pro argues that either a linear decay or exponential decay curve can be fir to the data. Well what determines the case is the actual mechanism by which the Earth's field is created. Humphrey's model provides a framework in which we can understand the magnetohydrodynamics of the Earth's core and its motions which effect the magnetic field. When Humphrey's model is applied, an exponential decay makes sense. But regardless of his model, the data itself is consistent with an exponential decay curve.

Graph of magnetic field decay over time, showing reversals and fluctuations

". . .both exponential and linear decay curves have two fitted parameters:

  • Exponential decay (i = Ie-t/τ) requires the parameters I and τ.
  • Linear decay of the general form y = mx + c requires the gradient m and y-intercept c.

If the fit were similar, there is no statistical reason to choose one over the other. The fit is very similar for the limited range of data available, with no significant difference between the two.

However, it is a well-accepted procedure in modelling of regression analysis to use meaningful equations to describe physical phenomena, where there is a sound theoretical basis for doing so. This is the case here. Currents in resistance/inductance circuits always decay exponentially, not linearly, after the power source is switched off. For example, in a simple electric circuit at time t with initial current I, resistance R and inductance L, the current is given by i = Ie-t/τ, where τ is the time constant L/R—the time for the current to decay to 1/e (~37%) of its initial value. For a sphere of radius a, conductivity σ and permeability μ,τ is given by μσR²/π².

A linear decay might look good on paper, but it’s physically absurd when dealing with the real world of electric circuits. In fact, linear decays are rare in nature in general. Conversely, exponential decay is firmly rooted in electromagnetic theory" (http://creation.com...).

Also in consideration of whether or not Humphrey's model should be accepted on an evidential basis:

"Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction. Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it. And it was no fluke—eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal. This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ model. . . in 1984, Dr Humphreys made some predictions of the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune, two giant gas planets beyond Saturn. His predictions were about 100,000 times the evolutionary dynamo predictions. The two rival models were inadvertently put to the test when the Voyager 2 spacecraft flew past these planets in 1986 and 1989. The fields for Uranus and Neptune were just as Humphrey's had predicted."


Conclusion

I have provided evidence for my claims and have shown why radioisotope dating is untrustworthy and indeed in discordance with other more reliable dating methods such as planetary field decay. Thank you for your time. Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Vox_Veritas 1 year ago
Vox_Veritas
I haven't read the debate, but there's one aspect of the voting which I must criticize: Pro was given sources by (at least) one voter because Con used Creationist sources, which aren't "objective". However, as mainstream sources do not accept Creationist arguments, that's a load of bull. As long as what the source is saying is rooted in science, it shouldn't matter how "objective" it is. Wikipedia, for instance, only bashes Creationism, debunking what may very well be strawmen.
Granted, Wikipedia is not considered a valid source, but the reason for this is not its blatant lack of objectivity.
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
Oh...

But CT didn't present any rebuttals.... That's what I was talking about.mhe didn't oresent any rebuttals in round 3. That's why I said I was disappointed since all of his rebuttals we're going to come in round 4. But sure if you read the debate that would have been blatently obvious?!?!
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
What?!?!?! How the heck did I drop arguments? Which arguments? Where?!

It must be logically impossible for me to have dropped arguments.....
Posted by creationtruth 1 year ago
creationtruth
They are not really essential, just thought I'd try to give it some visual appeal, but here are the links:

First pic:

https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org...

Second pic:

https://www.sciencenews.org...

Thanks.
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
Send me the link of the two failed pictures and I will include them in my round.
Posted by creationtruth 1 year ago
creationtruth
Guess it didn't like a couple of my pictures...
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
Deadline is in 5 hours CT....
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
If you can retrieve your round somehow then I will copy the link. If you cannot then I will pass the round back to you.
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
Mergh... You could submit it as a word document and I will post the link...

Meh... I rly wanted this to be a 3 round debate...
Posted by creationtruth 1 year ago
creationtruth
Ah! I submitted in my final minute and it did not accept it, said it was not my turn. Didn't even save it either. Bummer... Sorry Envisage. Maybe you'll decide to forfeit as well and we will leave our debate to the final two rounds?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dhardage 1 year ago
dhardage
EnvisagecreationtruthTied
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 utilized sources with no particular agenda while Con utilized sources that were exclusively creationist and thus not capable of objectivity. Con also agreed to limit the debate to the Uranium-Lead method of dating but used magnetic field decay as a rebuttal. That rebuttal was also inherently flawed and did not represent an exponential change at all. Finally, it is established that the Earth's magnetic field has shifted and reversed numerous times, hence any prediction of a consistent change to an level is invalid. Con loses for sources, conduct, and arguments.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
Paleophyte
EnvisagecreationtruthTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FFed R2 and new evidence (possibly new args?) in final round. Conduct goes to Pro. Con cited almost exclusively 2 creation science sites whereas Pro cited a wider selection that lacked an agenda. Sources go to Pro. Pro does a good job of arguing for ancient Earth from U-Pb zircon dating. Con attempts to rebut with 3 points. The first is ineffective against dating of zircon, as Con admits (and wrong anyway). The second and third amount to special pleading/Last Thursdayism. Con attempts to show that 10% decrease in the Earth's mag field over 180 yrs should be modeled as an exponential decrease. Pro points out that there's no reason to assume exponential decrease and shows that the data better fit linear decrease and the science shows fluctuating mag fields over Earth history. Pro tries to shore up with evidence that shows linear decrease today but exp decrease when nobody was measuring. Arguments go to Pro.