The Instigator
BiblicalApologist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
themohawkninja
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The Earth is not 4.5 billion years old - But is young

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
themohawkninja
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,637 times Debate No: 41369
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

BiblicalApologist

Pro

I acknowledge that the scientific evidence related to determining the Age of the Earth most supports the theory that the earth is not billions of years old. This is my first debate on here, so bear with me, but I am interested in debating someone on this topic. Not a debate where we only post links (although they are needed for sourcing) but where we can discuss the issues related to the topic. I will give three reasons that I believe the earth is not billions of years old, and while you can give more than that if you'd like, I think it would be beneficial to readers to stick to our best three arguments.

Argument #1 - The Earths Magnetic Field

The Earth's magnetic field protects our planet from solar radiation. But our magnetic field is slowly dying out at a rate of 5% for every 100 years (Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc.
http://www.icr.org...) At this rate the magnetic field will cease to exist around the year 3391 A.D.. If we then take the amount of energy that is being lost from the magnetic field each year, and add it back in time, we can come to the conclusion that the earth must be under 10,000 years old:

Dr. Andrew A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) Earths Catastrophic past " Volume 2 " Page:873
"it was calculated that the current could not have been decaying more than 10,000 years; otherwise its starting strength would have been sufficient to melt the earth. Thus, the earth must be less than 10,000 years old."

Argument #2 - Helium Diffusion in Zircon crystals

Helium is generated inside zircon crystals through alpha radioactive decay. We can measure how much alpha decay has happened inside a crystal, and how much helium would have been generated over the life time of that crystal. Using those numbers we can measure the rate at which helium is escaping from the crystals, how much has escaped out of the total helium that has been generated, and see how fast it's escaping from the crystal. You put all the numbers together and you find out that rocks formed only thousands (not billions) of years ago. (http://creation.com...)

Let me give you an example to help you understand. You have a water bottle (Zircon crystal) with pump (Alpha decay) putting water (Helium) in the bottle. At the same time the bottle has holes in it and is leaking water out. We know how much water has been put in the bottle over time, we know how much water is in there now, which tells us how much has leaked out over time. If 10 gallons have leaked out over time, and we know the bottle is leaking 1 gallon every 3 days, we know it's been thirty days since the bottle started having water put into it.

Argument #3 - Lunar Recession from the earth

This is probably the simplest of the arguments to understand. Due to tides and gravity exchanges between the earth and the moon, the moon is getting further away from the earth each year. If you rewind the clock, the earth would have been in contact with the earth around 1.2 billion years ago!

Dr. Don DeYoung, Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics) http://www.answersingenesis.org...

"The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually being measured at about 4 centimeters a year... this gives an upper limit of 1.4 billion years. That is, extrapolating backwards, the moon should have been in physical contact with the earth's surface 'just' 1.4 billion years ago."

Because of these three evidences, I think the best scientific understand of the age of the earth is that it's not 4.5 billion years like many scientist claim today.
themohawkninja

Con

"I think it would be beneficial to readers to stick to our best three arguments."

Very well, I will stick with your three points only.

"Argument #1 - The Earths Magnetic Field"

According to the Dynamo Theory of the Earth's magnetic field, which asserts that a magnetic field of an astronomical body is created by a process through which a rotating, convecting, and electrically conducting fluid (i.e. molten iron) acts to maintain a magnetic field, the Earth could keep a magnetic field for approximately 20,000 at it's original strength before the electrical resistance of the planet begins to decay [1]. When we include the factors of thermal and compositional convention from the outer core, the whole system of rotating, and convecting electrically conductive fluid, we find that the mechanical energy of the motion is converted into magnetic energy and dissipates it via Ohmic heating [2]. Evidence for this theory is found in what is known as tidal heating. Tidal heating is the friction caused by the gravitation attraction between two bodies. This tidal heating induces flows in the body's interior which starts, and so long as the gravitational attraction is sufficient, continues, the whole process [3].

"Argument #2 - Helium Diffusion in Zircon crystals"

The evidence for this point appears to stem from a program called RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). For one thing, the zircon crystals were the exception, as they were the only crystals to provide any evidence that goes against a multi-billion year old Earth. Not only that, but the nuclear decay rate for the zircon crystals were also consistent with a multi-billion year old Earth. [4]

There are also two major problems with the RATE model. The first being that it assumed that the Earth's temperature had not changed over the course of its lifetime. This is known to be false, as the temperature of the Earth has been fluctuating over the past 400,000 years [5].

The second major problem is that the "modeling of the helium diffusion clock required an underlying model for the helium diffusion kinetics (i.e. the manner in which temperature affects the motion of atoms). Using data from a laboratory experiment in which gas released from a zircon sample was measured at different temperatures, they extracted the parameters for a simple kinetic model. The problem with this model is that it treated all helium atoms the same, regardless of whether they were in the bulk crystal or near a defect. Most helium atoms will lie in portions of the undisturbed crystal, whereas only a small fraction will lie in the vicinity of a defect. At low temperatures, the small fraction of atoms near a defect will be mobile, whereas the vast majority of atoms will only begin to move at higher temperatures" [4].

"Argument #3 - Lunar Recession from the earth"

That is only assuming that the impact theory is correct, as there are many theories out there [6]. One theory is that the moon was captured by the Earth early on in its life. This avoids the problem of time, while still explaining why the Lunar surface is compositionally similar to the Earth, and why the age of Lunar rocks are similar to those found on the Earth [7][8].

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk...
3. http://astroman.org...
4. http://www.reasons.org...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. lunarorigin.com/lunar-origin-models
7. James Papike, Grahm Ryder, and Charles Shearer (1998). "Lunar Samples". Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry 36: 5.1"5.234.
8. http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Debate Round No. 1
BiblicalApologist

Pro

"Argument #1 - The Earths Magnetic Field"

I understand how the dynamo theory is supposed to work, but I actually disagree with the idea of the dynamo theory for planetary magnetic fields because of the horrible predictive power of the model. I hold to what is called the rapid decay theory put forth by Russell Humphreys, and when you compare the two models" well there is no comparison. The reason most don"t accept the rapid decay model is because of the implications it has on the age of the earth. But if it is the correct model, we should not reject it based on that. Here is a quick comparison of the two models to give you an idea:

Rapid Decay Theory, and the Dynamo Theory, both attempted to predict the magnetic strength of planets Uranus and Neptune. The Rapid Decay predictions were around 100,000 times the Dynamo predictions, and in 1986 and 1989 Voyager 2 flew by the planets and took the measurements. "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 Humphreys had predicted." (Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, http://creation.com...) Uranus and Neptune are not the only examples of planetary magnetic fields that have been blindly predicted, planet Mercury was also accurately predicted by the Rapid Decay Theory before the measurements were taken. The Dynamo Theory predicted Mercury would have a very weak magnetic field because it rotates 59 times slower than the earth, the field turned out to be far stronger than the Dynamo theory predicted. But that"s not all! Not only does this model predict the strength of planets that have magnetic fields, it can predict which planets/moons had a magnetic field in history and no longer do! Dr. Humphreys predicted "Older igneous rocks from Mercury or Mars should have natural remnant magnetization, as the Moon's rocks do. "Natural remnant magnetization" means rock magnetization caused by Mar"s formerly strong (and now non-existent) planetary magnetic field" It was originally thought we would have to wait for a manned expedition to bring back rock samples to be tested in the laboratory, but it turns out the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft had the capability to measure this magnetism soon after the predictions were made. The spacecraft orbiting low over mars surface has measured this magnetism inside crustal rocks, showing that mars had a planetary magnetic field at some point in its history, just like the Rapid Decay Theory predicts. The theory also predicts that the moon had a magnetic field in history that has since decayed away (which has been confirmed.) The Dynamo Theory fails at predicting the planetary magnetic fields of other planets in our solar system, ""you would have thought we would have given up guessing about planetary magnetic fields after being wrong at nearly every planet in the solar system." (Bagenal, F. "The emptiest magnetosphere," Physics World, (October 1989), 18-19)

However, even if we accept the dynamo theory, can you explain to me where enough tidal heating is coming from to keep the magnetic field going strong? And why is it decaying so quickly today but wouldn't have been 10,000 years ago?

"Argument #2 - Helium Diffusion in Zircon crystals"

I do agree with you that the radioactive dates for the Zircon crystals were in the billions of years, which was the entire point of the study in the first place. The fact that this method gives us a young age means that either this method or the radioactive decay method is significantly wrong, and because of this (and other evidences) I would argue the radioactive decay rates are incorrect. There is no error in the helium dating method, which means the error must be in the other contradicting method.

The assumption that the earth"s temperature had not changed is very insignificant, but also shows the generosity they showed to the opposing side in their study. First off, they don"t accept the earth is 400,000 years old (because of other evidence) so they would reject the heat charts produced assuming those ages, but also those heat charts that are produced by the opposition show that the temperatures would have been higher on average! That would cause the Helium to escape from the zircon faster, making the date younger, not old like you need it.

In response to your second objection which I believe came from Gary Loechelt (As sourced below) I am going to just copy the response from Dr. Russell Humphreys (Directed at Dr. Loechelt)

"In September 2008, Gary Loechelt, who has a Ph.D. in materials science and engineering, posted a two-part criticism on a "progressive creationist" website, along with a technical article which apparently has been neither peer-reviewed nor published (though perhaps rejected by a journal).34 His main claims were:
(A) One or two percent of the helium in a zircon is not tightly bound in the crystal, but rather loosely attached in the crystal"s cracks and defects. This "loose" helium can therefore diffuse out of the zircon very easily in a laboratory measurement.
(B) The loose helium, he claims, caused the laboratory measurements to make the zircons appear much more leaky than they actually are.

Loechelt is right in claim (A), but wrong in claim (B). He overlooked part of one of his own quotes, in which an expert pointed out that loose helium would only affect the initial steps of the laboratory measurement, because after the initial steps the loose helium would be gone. That is one reason diffusion experts recommend ignoring the initial steps. Our experimenter recommended that, and that is exactly what we did.35Thus he felt free to tell us that the rates he measured were accurate depictions of the leakiness for the other 98% of the helium. Ironically, our expert is one of those that Loechelt cites in his section about this issue. Loechelt either completely misunderstood the experts, or he deliberately distorted their meaning.
If leak rates were really much lower than measured, the past temperature history of the zircons would become much more important. That"s because colder site temperatures would make Loechelt"s low leakages even lower, giving him a chance to retain the helium for billions of years. But even on temperatures, Loechelt shows a remarkable ability to misunderstand the experts. He fails to grasp the essence of the published Los Alamos heat flow models, which is that due to nearby volcanic activity in the past they imagine, temperatures in our borehole would have been higher than today for hundreds of millennia. Instead, Loechelt insists, temperatures were always lower. But even assuming (for the sake of argument) his lower temperatures, a few hundred thousand years of the laboratory leak rates would wipe out essentially all the helium from the zircons " in contrast to the high amounts observed. That is why, in addition to assuming a cooler site, Loechelt must deny the laboratory measurements and imagine much lower leak rates.

Loechelt also whacks away at some of my calculations. If he were correct, my calculations might have to be adjusted by a factor of two or so. But that would still be within the error bars of the models. Worse for him, it would still be far short of explaining the factor of 100,000 discrepancy between the uniformitarian model and experiments!"

"Argument #3 - Lunar Recession from the earth"

Before I make an argument against the capture theory of the moons origin, are you saying you hold to that view? I haven"t come across someone who holds that view in a long time. Also, please explain how that prevents the problem (because it doesn"t) unless you think the moon was captured less than a billion years ago? That"s the only way you are going to get around the problem.
themohawkninja

Con

"Argument #1 - The Earths Magnetic Field"

There nothing but pure correlative evidence that points to no causation whatsoever. Not only that, but your example of Mercury fits perfectly within the Dynamo Theory, as a higher rate of rotation would lead to faster flows, and therefore a stronger magnetic field.

Furthermore, I have yet to find any explanation on just how the Rapid Decay Theory even works. Every link that I find seems to just say that since the Dynamo Theory can't predict everything, it therefore must be wrong (which is a logical fallacy by Nirvana), and therefore the Earth must be less than 100,000 or 10,000 years old without ever explaining anything (it states that the "calculations" showed proof without ever showing the math. It is one giant non-sequitur) [1].

A second fallacy that is allegedly asserted by proponents of the Rapid Earth Theory is that Dynamo Theory would lead to absurdities in nature. The fallacy here is that the Rapid Earth Theory proponents fail to take into account that the universe naturally tries to reach equilibrium, and therefore such absurdities wouldn't occur [2].

A major flaw in the Rapid Earth Theory however is that while it asserts that the decay of the Earth's magnetic field is exponential, and therefore it should have decayed long before the 4.5 billion years asserted by science, evidence from igneous rocks and metal components from ancient civilizations show that there hasn't been a significant change in the Earth's magnetic field in at least the past few thousand years (for the man-made metal parts), and probably much greater timescales from the rocks [2].

Lastly on this point, the tidal heating that would cause the magnetic field to exist on Earth is the Moon. I make the point that the combination of the the effects on the Earth's crust from the moon, and the well known tidal (in this case, by 'tidal', I am referring to the tides on bodies of water) effects, that there should be sufficient force to stir up a magnetic field by currents in molten ferrous metals [3]. This tidal effect is reciprocal, as the Apollo astronauts planted seismographs which detected moonquakes caused by the Earth's gravitational pull [4]. This could also explain why Mars' magnetic field is very weak, as it only has small asteroids for its' natural satellites. Your final sentence on this point was refuted in the above paragraph.

"Argument #2 - Helium Diffusion in Zircon crystals"

There were two major flaws in the helium dating method that I have already asserted in round one. It is flawed, and therefore you cannot asserted that the other method must be flawed since helium isn't.

Secondly, you fail to assert why the temperature change in in fact insignificant. You assert that they are just ignoring evidence (logical fallacy by cherry picking). You the contradict yourself by stating that the temperature change is actually significant by stating that it would cause the zircon to escape fast due an alleged higher than average temperature without explaining why (which is a non-sequitur).

Those so-called experts are asserting that part of an experiment should be outright ignored due to a lack of loose helium. As I asserted above, it is a logical fallacy to ignore evidence.

Next, the alleged heat flow models are claimed to be based on what people imagined [5].

Finally on this point, no explanation is given for the last part, and it is only to be assumed that the calculations were within the margins of error, and that it doesn't explain a 100,000 factor discrepancy.

"Argument #3 - Lunar Recession from the earth"

While I am in college for an astronomy degree, my interests lie in stellar evolution, and not as much with natural satellites, so I don't hold any particular view on the origin of the Moon, especially since they all seem to be equally viable.

It prevents the problem, because according to the young Earth proponents, the impact theory must be wrong, because reversing the recession backwards means that the Moon must have been in contact with the Earth much closer to the present day than the alleged 4.5 billion years. Capture theory avoids this by just saying that the Moon was captured by the Earth, and therefore never needed to be in contact. This would mean a difference in velocity, a difference in initial orbits, and overall means that the recession over time would have been different. It also means that the Moon (as you state) could have been captured less than 4.5 billion years ago, and it still would have most likely been made out of the same aged material as the Earth (which is known to be most likely true as asserted in round one).

To further my rebuttal on the young Earth proponents on the point of the Moon, there is evidence to suggest that the Moon's orbit has changed over time ranging from fossil records, sediments, and models of oceanic resonances. A further rebuttal to their calculations is that they assumed a constant Love number and dissipation quality factor, even though such values have changed over time [6].

1. http://creation.com...
2. http://www.lpl.arizona.edu...
3. http://lunarorigin.com...
4. http://astronomy.nmsu.edu...
5. Quoting your quote: "...due to nearby volcanic activity in the past they imagine,..."
6. http://lasp.colorado.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
BiblicalApologist

Pro

"Argument #1 - The Earths Magnetic Field"

Perhaps you misunderstood the point about Mercury? Here it is again: "Dynamo Theory predicted Mercury would have a very weak magnetic field because it rotates 59 times slower than the earth, the field turned out to be far stronger than the Dynamo theory predicted." The point is there isn"t a higher rate of rotation, and therefore the magnetic field cannot be explained with the dynamo theory (and was wrongly predicted, like everything else). If you"re a scientist than you should know that predictive power is a big deal for a theory. The rapid decay theory can blindly predict planetary magnetic fields, do you think they just luck out every time?

There is not enough room in these posts for me to lay out the entire theory and how it works, but here is a link where the author of the theory (Russell Humphreys) does that for you:

http://www.creationresearch.org...

"A second fallacy that is allegedly asserted by proponents of the Rapid Earth Theory is that Dynamo Theory would lead to absurdities in nature." You are going to have to show me where they said this and what they mean by this. This is not an argument that I used, and is not a fallacy within the theory.

Your point about the decreasing strength of the magnetic field (that it hasn"t been) assumes the accuracy of dating methods that show the earth is old when those are the methods in question here. We have observed the magnetic field for the past 100+ years, and we know the rate at which it is decaying (5% every 100 years), why do you reject the modern day measurements that we have of the magnetic field decay rate?

You"re suggesting that the magnetic field of the earth is due to tidal ocean forces? I wouldn"t actually argue that it has some effect on the planet; I"m not sure how this point is relevant then to this debate.

"Argument #2 - Helium Diffusion in Zircon crystals"

You are going to have to provide some sources for those claims that you are making. There is no logical fallacy, the temperature has small effect on the overall argument" If you want to maintain helium by cooler temperatures over 1.5 billion years to match the radio isotope dates, you have to have a temperature (constant throughout history) of 196 degrees Celsius below zero" and we all know that never, ever happened. But that"s not even the problem; the problem is YOUR heat charts assuming an old earth show that the temperatures would have been higher in the past, which just makes the problem worse for you. They are not ignoring that as evidence, we disagree with the heat charts that are produced with the assumption of an old earth, even though they would just make our point all the more.

"Those so-called experts are asserting that part of an experiment should be outright ignored due to a lack of loose helium. As I asserted above, it is a logical fallacy to ignore evidence."
No one is doing that, I already replied to that in detail above with the quote from Humphreys himself, you did not refute what Humphreys said, you just are reasserting your original objection which has been rebutted.

"Argument #3 - Lunar Recession from the earth"

I don"t think you quite understand the argument " The way in which you want to assert the moon formed (or got where it is) has no bearing on the evidence. Point being, every one of those models assumes that the moon has been in orbit around the earth for 4+ billion years, that doesn't work with the recession rate moved back in time (whichever model you use). I do have objections to those theories on the moons formation, but it"s not even necessary to bring up, it"s a non issue in this debate and has no bearing on the evidence.
themohawkninja

Con

"Argument #1 - The Earths Magnetic Field"

You must understand that in astronomy, there is a lot of luck involved, as space is so vast, and our instruments cover such a small part of the sky at a time, that many of the things that are discovered (especially one-time events like supernovae) happen by chance.

I sourced the second fallacy from a paper refuting the whole theory in the previous round.

I am not rejecting the modern measurements (although my third source asserts that the data was from the 1800's, which would clearly lead to less accurate results) as much as I am showing that there are other measurements that contradict those, and therefore each method must be looked at in detail to explain the discrepancy. On that point of discrepancy, when we look into further detail about that 5% every 100 years, we find that Barnes is asserting that it is perfectly valid to extrapolate a ~150 year timeline to over 10,000 years [1]!

To further refute that extrapolation as a valid assertion, the table of dipole moments per year that Barnes insists were from the ESSA contain no uncertainties whatsoever. Any scientific measurement should always have an uncertainty value, as the instruments that measure them are never 100% accurate, and therefore the failure of any stated uncertainty values is not only unscientific, but brings into question the validity the accuracy of the sourced information [2][3].

More refutation of the alleged exponential decay is that he assumes that the decay was exponential because the points roughly correlated with a line on semi-log coordinate paper without actually mathematically proving it [3].

I am not asserting that the magnetic field of the Earth is due to tidal ocean forces, but that tidal ocean forces are due to Lunar gravitational interactions with the Earth. It was relevant due to tidal heating effects on molten ferrous currents.

"Argument #2 - Helium Diffusion in Zircon crystals"

First off, you are pro, and therefore you have the burden of proof. Secondly, I must again reiterate the fact that there were sources, specifically numbers four and five from round one. You also failed to source your side when you defended your point about temperature insignificance. Furthermore, it doesn't help your side that my evidence appears to help your side, since the numbers are so different that the evidence on both sides is questionable. Again, you fail to prove how they are ignoring the evidence.

As for the ignoring, let me quote your statement to prove to you that he did in-fact ignore evidence, I have yet to see you refute your own quote: "...experts recommend ignoring the initial steps. Our experimenter recommended that, and that is exactly what we did". I have shown how that is a logical fallacy, as that is cherry picking, and you didn't refute it.

"Argument #3 - Lunar Recession from the earth"

You fail to assert any proof on your part, and fail to defend my rebuttals, so they therefore hold into the next round.

1. http://www.tim-thompson.com...
2. http://www.ndt-ed.org...
3. www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html
Debate Round No. 3
BiblicalApologist

Pro

BiblicalApologist forfeited this round.
themohawkninja

Con

My opponent has forfeited the final round, and therefore all of my rebuttals from the previous round remain uncontested at the end of this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
"Barnes failed to take experimental uncertainties into account and used an obsolete model of the interior of the earth." Wikipedia.
"We can safely relegate Barnes's magnetic field argument to the junk heap of crackpot ideas. Barnes' work lacks the scientific integrity, competence, and judgment one expects from a scientific work. "
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...
"Nobody knows, yet, by exactly what mechanism specific fluid motions generate the Earth's specific magnetic field, but the presence of turbulent motions in the Earth's fluid outer core can hardly be denied, and physical models do show that the expected velocities will, in general, generate magnetic fields. The short verdict is that there is no useful competing theory for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field."
Thus arguing Barnes's failed hypothesis is rather useless as any evidence for anything, because no scientist, certainly not Barnes, can really give any conclusive figures nor evidence for aging the Earth.
Science does not know enough about the Earths Magnetic Field to make any such guesses.
From: http://www.talkorigins.org...
Simple, end of discussion on Magnetic fields, there is not enough data to prove Barnes right and his estimates have not been made using good science, but attempting to make the conclusion fit a preconceived ideology, which is not how science works. That is how pseudo-science works, which again is all ICR and Answers-in-Genesis offer!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I noticed the Instigator is using failed sources of ex-scientists, in Thomas Barnes, and Andrew Snelling for starters. Both these ex-scientists had stopped being real scientists many years ago and all their arguments have been defeated by their superiors in the science world.
They are no longer considered as scientists, but pseudo-scientific loons.
Because they are basing all their evidence on pseudo-science and not real scientific knowledge or they are taking some knowledge of real scientists and making irrational conjectures without citing the bulk of the evidence that destroys their conjecture. Same goes for the others like that idiot Michael Behe and many more that work with ICR and Answers-in-Genesis, both bodies have no real Scientists that practice real science. They are all pseudo-scientific loons. No genuine scientific merit in any of their groups.
These pseudo-scientific clowns even act as peers in fields that they have no qualifications as I've seen such publications as in Biology where Snelling was marked as a reviewing Peer, which in real science he could never be, because he doesn't have any documented knowledge in that field, he's a failed geologist only.
Pro really doesn't have any genuine valid science backing his arguments, they are just articles from pseudo-scientific FRAUDS! That's all ICR and Answers-in-Genesis has to offer, Fraudulent Pseudo-Science.
Posted by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
You argue that loose helium in zircon crystals will diffuse quickly giving an arbitrarily high helium diffusion rate. Pro argues that this high rate of helium diffusion due to defects in the crystals will affect initial measurements, after which it will be gone; by ignoring the initial, arbitrarily high measurements, you will be left with the stable rate of helium diffusion which is allegedly not affected by helium diffusion from defects in the crystals. Arguing that this is cherrypicking doesn't help your case - the reason the initial measurements are being ignored according to Pro is to avoid arbitrarily high results so including them would only give a greater discrepancy in ages. You should have further argued against the helium diffusion model used.
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
@Enji
Why don't you think that I addressed the helium diffusion? I asserted that ignoring evidence was unscientific and citing a source to show why, therefore showing that the ignoring of evidence questions the validity of the experiment, and therefore the theory altogether.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
BiblicalApologistthemohawkninjaTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Due to forfeit, con wins. Had potential to be great debate.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
BiblicalApologistthemohawkninjaTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
BiblicalApologistthemohawkninjaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses conduct for forfeit. Arguments for and against #1 were in Pro's favour until round 3 when Con argued that Barnes' small bit of data isn't sufficient to conclude that magnetic decay is exponential and then extrapolate that over ten thousand years. Pro needed to establish that an exponential model is not only empirically supported, but theoretically supported as well - however Pro forfeits and never addresses this. Con's arguments against #2 were poor - Pro argues that higher helium diffusion rates from defects will affect initial measurements, so those measurements can be disregarded and later measurements can be taken for a better indicator of the rate of helium diffusion - Con doesn't really address this, arguing that you should include the initial measurements despite expert recommendation. And I still have no idea how #3 shows that the earth is young. Overall, arguments are tied. Con used more (and generally more objective) sources than Pro; sources to Con.