The Instigator
kohai
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
tvellalott
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old

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...
kohai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,369 times Debate No: 16495
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (5)

 

kohai

Pro

In this debate, I will attempt to show that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old (An estimated 4.6 billion years old)

Good luck to my opponent
tvellalott

Con

I'm very seriously going to argue for a Young Earth.
I will argue that our Universe is between 6,334 and 6,581 years old, prior to which only God existed.

I look forward to my opponent arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Pro

I thank my opponent for this opportunity to debate with you. I ask you leave an open-mind and I'll do the same. Good luck to you.

What is the age of the Earth?

The age of the earth is generally accepted to be between 4.5-4.6 byo + or - 1-2%

How do we know this?

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

Most of the other measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active (and therefore cannot erase evidence of their formation), such as meteorites. Below is a table of radiometric ages derived from groups of meteorites:


TypeNumber
Dated
MethodAge (billions
of years)

Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76
Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34
Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02
Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06
L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12
L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12
LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02
LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06
E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04
E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13
Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19
Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30
Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19
Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18
Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21

After Dalrymple (1991, p. 291); duplicate studies on identical meteorite types omitted.


So, what does this mean?

Using radioactive isotopes, we can figure out how old something is. Not by using the daughter product--but by seeing how much of the "Parent product" that is left.

Let us do an example.

I find a rock and I want to know how old something is. I know that there is some C-14 in it. C-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. This is fact.

I see that there is EXACTLY half C-14 left. Therefore, the rock is 5730 years.

I have presented a scientific case showing how dating is done. Please do not use religious examples, but rather show me scientific facts, calculations and proofs to show that the Earth is young.

Back to con.

tvellalott

Con

Hello DDO.

INTRODUCTION
My opponent may not be aware, but I am a very strong Atheist.
I took the debate as a challenge to my ability to play Devils Advocate, which is an excellent trolling tool.
So, on with the debate.

ARGUMENTS
I'M NOT MAKING ONE... YET
My opponent has the very, very easy side of this debate. Let's not beat around the bush. Unfortunately, rather than research the topic and write a few paragraphs on some of the processes we use to age the Earth, he has gone to one of my favourite sites TalkOrigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org...) and simply copy/pasted huge chunks of it's Age of the Earth page.

This is fail beyond comprehension, given his proven he can find an excellent resource, but cannot be bothered to paraphrase and personalise.

I have however, decided to give him a chance. If he makes a new opening argument and writes it himself(and I'll know), we can carry on the debate. I have already decided to bury him in semantics anyway. :)

CONCLUSION

Get the fvck on with it.
Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate. I also thank him for giving me a chance to "Re-phrase" As he admits, I have the easy side of the debate and he has no argument. I admit to copying and pacing and I should have used a source. I shall re-do my opening arguments.

Contention 1: Science has proven that the Earth is 4.6 byo

A. Radiometric dating

Science has proven using radioactive isotopes that there are certain rocks, and meteors that are much older than 6,000 years.

The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). http://www.tim-thompson.com...

Radiometric dating, is in fact, very reliable.

B. Problem with starlight

We can see objects and universes that are billions of light years away. Given that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second (186,282 miles per second) we can calculate how far away something is just by using the light that it gives off.

C. The nucleid argument

Nuclides are forms of matter that are radioactive. Each nuclide decays into another form of matter at a certain rate. After an interval of time equal to its half-life, only half of the original material is left. Scientists have found that:
  • Every nuclidewith a half-life over 80 million years can be found naturally occurring on earth.
  • All Nuclides with a half-life under 80 million years do not exist naturally at detectable levels.

D. The oldest living tree is 9,000+ years old

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...;(A lot of evidence in that article. If there was a "Great flood" how could it be still standing?

Conclusion

Given that science has proven an old earth, one can conclude that the Earth is 4.6 byo.
tvellalott

Con

tvellalott forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Pro

My opponent has shown horrific conduct. Vote pro!
tvellalott

Con


OPENING
OK, I admit it. I was not completely in my right mind when I accepted this. I’m just going to have to go with it.
I will mention I am unhappy with my opponent’s unnecessarily aggressive comment last round, especially considering my excellent conduct regarding his plagiarism. Moving on…

ARGUMENTS
BUT IT’S GOD, BRAH.
My opponent has presented some excellent science to prove his resolution, claiming that if the Earth was truly 6,000 years all this evidence wouldn’t exist, I.E. light from other starts, age rings in trees, radiometric dating.

Well you can completely ignore all that stuff because it doesn’t matter. In this video we see an ordinary human using cheap materials to make her piece of paper look ancient. If we accept that the God of the Bible is real (we’ll come to that) then surely he could use his omnipotent power to create a Universe with the illusion of age.

THE GOD OF THE BIBLE
There is a reason that all but the most militant Atheists will allow some doubt for the existence of God. This is merely reasonable thinking; I cannot demonstrate that God DEFINITELY doesn’t exist to the satisfaction of anyone, including myself. Suspend your doubt for a second readers and let us examine Yahweh for a second and see if he perhaps would play his hand this way:

We can see through the tales of the Bible that Yahweh works in mysterious ways. He likes to fvck with people to test them. To support this I present the Book of Job (http://www.esvbible.org...) and doubt that I need to go into detail. I purpose that if God were real, he would likely have created an all-mighty test for all mankind: evidence that disproves a literal interpretation just to make sure that only really real believers believe!!

We know that the Bible is to be interpreted somewhat literally (because it says so, duh!):
2 Corinthians 4:2: “Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.”

Proverbs 8:8–9: “All the utterances of my mouth are in righteousness; There is nothing crooked or perverted in them. They are all straightforward to him who understands, And right to those who find knowledge.”

SEMANTICS!!!
Now, I come to the coup de grace.
My opponent has left no room for doubt in any of his assertions:
"The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old"
"In this debate, I will attempt to show that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old (An estimated 4.6 billion years old)"

"Science has proven that the Earth is 4.6 byo"

"Given that science has proven an old earth, one can conclude that the Earth is 4.6 byo."


My opponent’s burden of proof is crippling!

CONCLUSION
My opponent has been a bit overzealous; Science hasn’t ‘proven’ anything. It presents the best theories based on the evidence. There is no doubt that an all-powerful God could create a Universe with all the bells and whistles to suggest it is 13.75 gigayears old, especially if he had 7 days to do it!

It’s all part of His divine plan dude.
Debate Round No. 4
kohai

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate. Allow me to conclude my arguments.

BUT IT’S GOD, BRAH.

Now, you have the BOP to show that God exists. Which you do not do.

Well you can completely ignore all that stuff because it doesn’t matter. In this video we see an ordinary human using cheap materials to make her piece of paper look ancient. If we accept that the God of the Bible is real (we’ll come to that) then surely he could use his omnipotent power to create a Universe with the illusion of age.

The video fails. The problem is that, while they made it look ancient, there was no dating done on it afterwards. If the dating would have shown it to be ancient, then we can conclude that my arguments are wrong and go out the window.
However, this is how we can spot forgeries in papers--we look at the dating of the paper and see how old it really is!

Oh, and you still have to show that the God of the Bible is real. Besides, why would God make an illusion that shows that the universe is billions of years old? What is the purpose? My opponent suggests that God created a universe with age, but this is illogical. This asserts that God created stones with a strange ratio of parent to daughter material indicating age and somehow the other rocks in the earth correlate with these dates. We can observe that time has gone into the geology around us. This also asserts that God sped up the light from the distant galaxies so that they would reach earth in six days despite being 13 billion light-years away, but for what purpose? Yes, Adam was not created as an infant, yet as far as we know, he did not physically age, he was 0 years old. He wouldn't have had wrinkles and white hair. Creating a perfect universe with billions of years of age would not make sense, and God is not illogical. (That is, if we assume the God my opponent is talking about exists. God is not the author of confusion; therefore, why would he "confuse" people with the age of the universe?)

Now, I come to the coup de grace.
My opponent has left no room for doubt in any of his assertions:
"The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old"
"In this debate, I will attempt to show that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old (An estimated 4.6 billion years old)"

"Science has proven that the Earth is 4.6 byo"

"Given that science has proven an old earth, one can conclude that the Earth is 4.6 byo."


My opponent’s burden of proof is crippling!

How is my BOP crippling? I just shown how illogical your arguments were.

My opponent has been a bit overzealous; Science hasn’t ‘proven’ anything. It presents the best theories based on the evidence. There is no doubt that an all-powerful God could create a Universe with all the bells and whistles to suggest it is 13.75 gigayears old, especially if he had 7 days to do it!

So, science hasn't proven the sky is blue, gravity exists and the Earth is a sphere? What?

You can't ignore all the evidence for an old earth.

We know that the Bible is to be interpreted somewhat literally (because it says so, duh!):
2 Corinthians 4:2: “Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.”

Proverbs 8:8–9: “All the utterances of my mouth are in righteousness; There is nothing crooked or perverted in them. They are all straightforward to him who understands, And right to those who find knowledge.”

Yet there are some verses that Christians say are "Metamorphical." hmm. Interesting. Is it really logical for people to live 900+ years? No. Disease, famine and overpopulation would have killed everyone out. You think overpopulation is such a threat to us now--imagine what it would be if everyone lived for 900+ years!

God works in mysterious ways is a very useful argument to dodge what the Bible says and what reality is.

Why vote pro?

1) I have given scientific evidence for the age of the earth to be 4.6 byo and not 6,000 y/o.
2) My opponent has not given one shread of scientific evidence to show that the Earth is young. (Biblical evidence does NOT count as scientific.)
3) My opponent has not refuted a single claim of mine.

As for my comment in the previous round, I appologize to my opponent as I did not recieve the reason for forfeit. I accept his reason for the forfeit.

VOTE PRO!

tvellalott

Con

CLOSING COMMENTS
I’d first like to thank my opponent for his big arguments (see what I did there?) and his patience with debating me. I regret accepting this. I was going to launch a massive attack of semantics and Young-Earth nonsense against him, but meh. Moving on…

My opponent has suggested my BOP was to prove God exists. I suppose, but I was hoping we could just skip that bit and move on to the fun stuff. Damn…
Anyway, my opponent has suggested that my video is fails because the paper would fail under scientific scrutiny. This is true, but this is why I explained that an All-Powerful God wouldn’t have that problem. He could create the Earth with the properties of an ancient planet in the blink of an eye. I think Moses meant to say “In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. He created the Universe so that in 6,000 years when Man (who he hadn’t created yet) had the facilities to begin scientifically testing the age of things and measuring the distance of other stars, it would appear as though it was billions of years old, so that it would contradict the Bible (which hadn’t been written yet) and bring doubt into their minds.”
Obviously that would be very confusing for primitive men so he just cut it short. He knew they would figure it out later, those clever monkeys.

Regarding science ‘proving’ things, my opponent says something very silly.
“So, science hasn't proven the sky is blue, gravity exists and the Earth is a sphere? What?”
The sky is blue? What indeed.
This is so silly, it clearly counts towards the truth of my own arguments.

Anyway, I’ve wasted enough of everyone’s time. You should vote for me because God commands it. I used advanced calculus methods that I learnt from Harold Camping to decode the message from within the text.

Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
I really don't know.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
ARGH pro's fifth round.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Then why'd you accept?
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
This debate is really only for my own amusement; I have no hope of winning.
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
phantom
He wasn't.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
That is a good question. What WERE you thinking?
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Con, what were you thinking?
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Gah, I had a headache last night and I passed out. Next thing it was 1am and too late. Soz brah.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Way to Copy-Pasta http://www.talkorigins.org...
I'm going to pwn you.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Yeah. My evidence will become too strong.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
kohaitvellalottTied
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: Pro plagiarized but Con forfeited
Vote Placed by Lionheart 5 years ago
Lionheart
kohaitvellalottTied
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: The arguments Pro made are logical and far more convincing. His conduct was better. He used reliable sources for is arguments.
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 5 years ago
gavin.ogden
kohaitvellalottTied
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: Conduct-Pro(con cursed, and forfeit a round) Argument-Pro(anyone with an IQ over 34 knows the Earth is older than 6000 years old, and it cannot be disproved) Sources-Pro(he actually had sources)
Vote Placed by askbob 5 years ago
askbob
kohaitvellalottTied
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: countering
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
kohaitvellalottTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.