The Instigator
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Bobb
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Earth is not 6000 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 2 votes the winner is...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,328 times Debate No: 42808
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

My opponent and I have had multiple debates on my blog about various topics.
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr...

However that format is not well suited for debates, as such we want to continue these debates on this platform and let the voters decide.

The first contention is whether the Earth is 6000 years old.

I hold the position that the earth is not 600 years old, but more in the 4.5 billion years old range.(1)

I hope my opponent finds this suitable to debate. Please let me know if this is acceptable and then we can get started.

(1) http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Bobb

Con

You make the assertion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but what evidence do you have that the earth is this old?

Biological evidence for an age of the earth of around 6000 years:

The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells and proteins in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for the fossils, not the 65 plus million years claimed by the palaeontologists. The first one to make this discovery was Dr Mary Schweitzer, an evolutionist, who said, "when you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded completely [after millions of years]." Nova Science Now, May 2010

Many fossil bones "dated" at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth.

DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.

The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago (Sanford, J: Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Human Genome. Ivan Press 2005).

The very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.

Other evidence:

Carbon-14 in coal, oil, fossil wood and diamonds: Carbon-14 only lasts thousands, not millions of years.

Evidence of recent volcanic activity on earth"s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old.

Human history is consistent with a young age of the earth: Length of recorded history, origin of various civilizations, writing etc. all about the same time several thousand years ago.

The origin of agriculture: secular dating puts it at about 10,000 years and yet that same chronology says that modern man has supposedly been around for at least 200,000 years. Surely someone would have worked out much sooner how to sow seeds of plants to produce food.

Many road or highway cuttings world-wide, through high ground, hills and mountains show multiple sedimentary layers that were laid down in quick succession before setting (like concrete).

Secular science claims that these sedimentary layers were formed separately over millions of years rather than as a result of a catastrophic universal flood.

Some evidences that refute this:

"The alleged great ages between the layers does not account for the lack of erosion between them. There are clean lines marking the different layers indicating that they were all formed together in quick succession before they could be disturbed by erosion.

"Objects like boulders and trees are embedded in and pass through many layers at the same time.

"Vast thicknesses of sedimentary layers folded or doubled back on themselves with no signs of stress or cracking showing that all the layers were soft during the process of being folded, indicating that they were all laid down within a short time.

"No mechanism is able to form these vast world-wide sedimentary deposits, which can be seen exposed on mountains and in valleys (like the Grand Canyon), other than a world-wide catastrophic flood, which had to be deep, fast, and of enormous power in order to be able to move and sort such a vast quantity of earth, huge boulders and silt into layers covering whole continents the world over.

For more information go to creation.com
Debate Round No. 1
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

Firstly thanks to my opponent for giving me some interesting topics to debunk.

You ask what evidence I have that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. This was provided in the link I gave in my first round but I will be happy to point out the evidence for this.(1) Radiometric dating has been used to date the earth by measuring the ratio of Lead 207 to Lead 206 in a sample.(2) This ratio changes overtime due to the decay of Uranium 235 and Uranium 238 which have different half lives.(2,3) I think it is necessary to delve further into radiometric dating at this point as my opponent has correctly stated that carbon 14 can only be used to date material up to 50 000 years, half life = 5730 years.(4) However, other elements can be used for dating like Uranium 238 which has a half life of 4.47 billion years, or Rhenium 187 which has a half life of 43 billion years.(3)

This information about radiometric dating is important, as remains of animals can be dated using other biologically occurring elements with longer half lives other than carbon. This is why scientists are able to successfully date dinosaur and other fossils from time older than 50 000 years ago.

My opponent has mentioned the remarkable discovery of Dr Mary Schweitzer who discovered soft tissue material of a Tyrannosaur in a fossil.(5) He then goes on to say that this should not be the case as even the author has stated that the biological soft tissue should be degraded after millions of years. However, what he fails to mention is that this material can be preserved over much longer time frames by biofilms and iron oxide particles.(6,7) So it has been shown that soft tissue material from fossils up to 68 million years can be preserved and so my opponents opening argument has been defeated.

My opponent then gave the following statement "DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age because DNA could not last more than thousands of years." It is difficult to me to respond to this claim as I am not sure what he is talking about, as there is no link to any source. All I could find by doing a Google search was a link to a creation.com webpage which finally led me to the article published.(8) I would ask that my opponent please links me to relevant sources as I cannot do his research for him.

This research relating to a time scale of 425 million years, again is due to preservation of DNA fragments inside sea salt capsules.(9) The dating of the material is done by dating the salt surrounding the DNA. I believe this dating was done by analysis of the potassium 40 isotope, half life 1.28 billion years.(10)

My opponent has also stated that "Evidence of recent volcanic activity on earth"s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old." Please could my opponent give a link to the published manuscript, as I would like to read it and understand what "recent" means.

I am sorry I could not get to all my opponents arguments for creation due to the character limit. However, I would suggest we deal with the rebuttals I gave and then we can at least have a rational and informative debate for the readers.

I hand the debate back to my opponent.

(1) http://www.scientificamerican.com...
(2) http://pubs.usgs.gov...
(3) http://www.nature.nps.gov...
(4) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
(5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(6) http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...
(7) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(8) http://creation.com...
(9) http://www.nature.com...
(10) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Bobb

Con

The problem with radiometric dating is that one has to assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it was formed, that is, the initial quantities of both parent and daughter elements (Lead, uranium etc.). Depending on the assumptions that are made, we can obtain any date we like.

And there is another problem.
"Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling has shown that nearly all parent/daughter ratios used in radiometric "dating" can be altered by a number of geological processes, including leaching by hydrothermal and ground waters, diffusion through minerals, and metamorphism. Uranium is especially prone to leaching, lead atoms diffuse easily, and argon, a gas, moves readily."(1)

"Contrary to the impression that we are given, radiometric dating does not prove that the Earth is millions of years old. The vast age has simply been assumed. The calculated radiometric "ages" depend on the assumptions that are made. The results are only accepted if they agree with what is already believed... Evolutionary geologists believe that the rocks are millions of years old because they assume they were formed very slowly. They have worked out their geologic timescale based on this assumption. This timescale deliberately ignores the catastrophic effects of the Biblical Flood, which deposited the rocks [and fossils] very quickly."(2)

And the point I was making about carbon 14 is that if the earth was billions of years old there would be no carbon 14 left (which, as you pointed out, only has a half-life of 5730 years) in fossils, rock"s etc. and yet we find it in coal, diamonds, fossilised wood and unfossilised dinosaur bone that is supposedly millions of year"s old. (3)

You say,

"This research relating to a time scale of 425 million years, again is due to preservation of DNA fragments inside sea salt capsules. The dating of the material is done by dating the salt surrounding the DNA. I believe this dating was done by analysis of the potassium 40 isotope, half life 1.28 billion years."

There is no evidence that a "sea salt capsule" has survived intact for 425 million years. And the problems for radiometric dating have been pointed out above.

Your claim that soft tissue in dinosaur could last up to 68 million years by means of biofilms and iron oxide particles (a hypothesis) and that my "argument has been defeated" is simply not true.

"The presence of original molecular components is not predicted for fossils older than a million years, and the discovery of collagen in this well-preserved dinosaur supports the use of actualistic conditions to formulate molecular degradation rates and models, rather than relying on theoretical or experimental extrapolations derived from conditions that do not occur in nature."

Schweitzer, M.H., et al., Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein, Science316(5822):277"280, 2007.(4)

Volcanic activity on the moon has been observed from the 1600"s when telescopes were developed to as recently as 1992 (5)

References
1, 3. "A lump of carbon 14 as massive as the earth would have all decayed after less than a million years." Refuting Evolution, by Jonathan Sarfati (Radiometric dating) page 107-112

2. The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating/creation.com

4. DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone/creation.com

5. Age of the earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe/creation.com
Point 65.Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth"s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old. See: Transient lunar phenomena: a permanent problem for evolutionary models of Moon formation and Walker, T., and Catchpoole, D., Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe, Creation 31(3):18, 2009.

See further corroboration: "At Long Last, Moon"s Core "Seen""; http://news.sciencemag.org...
Debate Round No. 2
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

Thanks to my opponent.

My opponent has said "The problem with radiometric dating is that one has to assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it was formed, that is, the initial quantities of both parent and daughter elements (Lead, uranium etc.). Depending on the assumptions that are made, we can obtain any date we like." This is false as this is not an assumption, it is calculated using "the quantity of unstable atoms left in a rock and comparing it to the quantity of stable daughter atoms in the rock."(1) So no, we cannot obtain any date we like if you measure the amount of decay products to the parent then you will get a certain ratio which relates to a date. This date is calculated suing the known rate of decay of the parent material.(2)

Regarding the comment by Dr Snelling I think it is important to realize that only igneous rock are dated, while sedimentary rock which is porous and can leach minerals are not dated.(3) Please note that the rocks which are dated are carefully analyzed for cracks etc.

With regard to my opponents assertion that there should be no carbon 14 left on the planet is demonstrably false. This statement would be true if carbon 14 is not been produced continuously which is what happens everyday in the atmosphere and through other radioactive processes.(4)

My opponent has denied the existence of sea salt capsules which contain DNA, but this denial is based on a faulty understanding of radiometric dating which I addressed above.

The Science magazine link my opponent supplied which I think was meant to deny the fact that collagen from a Tyrannosaur was found and DNA was obtained, in fact states the opposite. It says in the manuscript that the mineralization around the bone (which they had to break away before getting to the collagen) is probably what lead to the preservation of the collagen. Indeed, the authors even say "We hypothesize that the porosity of sandstones may facilitate draining of enzymes of decay and suppurating fluids as the organism degrades, whereas organisms buried in nonporous mudstones or clays may be exposed to these longer and therefore may be more completely degraded."(5)

Thank you for the reference about the moon. I gather you are saying that the moon has had not geologic activity in the last three billion years according to the statement from the article by DeYoung which states "Lunar geologic activity is thought to have ceased completely about three billion years ago."(6) However, science shows the moon is old, and in fact that the core is still active and seismic activity is happening, so I am not sure why it should have been cooled. Please realize this information is obtained from your reference 5.(7) So in effect the article from creation.com is incorrect as it is neglecting the data provided about geologic activity on the moon. The fact that the moon and the earth have not cooled of is due to decaying radioisotopes and remnant heat from their formation.(8)

Additionally I would like to point out the error in my opponents statement "Volcanic activity on the moon has been observed from the 1600"s when telescopes were developed to as recently as 1992". This is wrong as telescopes have been used since 1609 by people like Galileo. (9)

I hand the debate back to my opponent.

(1) http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
(2) http://www.talkorigins.org...
(3) http://www.nature.nps.gov...
(4) http://science.howstuffworks.com...
(5) http://www.sciencemag.org...
(7) http://news.sciencemag.org...
(8) http://phys.org...
(9) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Bobb

Con

You say,

"This is false as this is not an assumption, it is calculated using "the quantity of unstable atoms left in a rock and comparing it to the quantity of stable daughter atoms in the rock."

This does still does not compensate for the lack of knowledge of the original quantity of elements in the rock that was "millions of years" old when it was formed, which means that there is no reference or starting point for a scale from which to calculate an age in the first place. Added to that is the unreliability of radiometric dateing. For example, when radiometric tests have been done on rocks of a known age there can be ages of millions of years in new rocks that are only months old from volcanic activity ("igneous rock solidified from magma" [1]). In fact the very same piece of rock can give ages that are millions of years in difference. [2]

There is also the evolutionary assumption that decay rates have never changed. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by factors of billions of times. [3]

At present, neither the evolutionist nor the creationist can scientifically "date" the earth and universe. They can only interpret the same evidence available to both according to their world view. The creationist has the Bible and its timeline and the evolutionist has Darwin and the belief in deep time.

You say,

"With regard to my opponents assertion that there should be no carbon 14 left on the planet is demonstrably false. This statement would be true if carbon 14 is not been produced continuously which is what happens everyday in the atmosphere and through other radioactive processes."

I did not say planet. My statement actually reads, ""there would be no carbon 14 left in fossils, rock"s etc. and yet we find it in coal, diamonds, fossilised wood and unfossilised dinosaur bone that is supposedly millions of years old." i.e. things that have died.

From your article:

"When living things die, they stop taking in carbon-14, and the radioactive clock is "set"! Any dead material incorporated with sedimentary deposits is a possible candidate for carbon-14 dating." [4]

You say,

"My opponent has denied the existence of sea salt capsules which contain DNA"

I said there is no evidence for sea salt capsules being able to survive intact for 425 million years.

You say,

"...moon"has not had geologic activity in the last three billion years according to the statement from the article by DeYoung which states "Lunar geologic activity is thought to have ceased completely about three billion years ago."

The article says that those who hold to the billions of year"s paradigm believed that lunar geologic activity ceased about three billion years ago.

"Why is it often assumed that the Moon is geologically inactive? Because, if the Moon is truly ancient, it should no longer contain significant heat. This follows from the Moon"s small size, one-fourth the Earth"s diameter and only 1.2% of the Earth"s mass. [But] There is indirect evidence for a small molten lunar core, only 2"3% of the lunar mass." [5]

You say,

"The fact that the moon and the earth have not cooled of is due to decaying radioisotopes and remnant heat from their formation."

We were talking about the moon, not the earth. The moon is far smaller than the earth so it should have cooled by now. From your article:

"Sometime billions of years in the future, he predicts, the core and mantle could cool and solidify enough to meet the crust. If that happens, Earth will become a cold, dead planet like the moon." [6]

You say,

"This is wrong as telescopes have been used since 1609 by people like Galileo."

Which is what said, i.e. ""from the 1600"s when telescopes were developed""

[1, 4] http://www.nature.nps.gov......
[2] http://creation.com...... http://creation.com...
[3] https://creation.mobi...
[5] http://creation.com......
[6] http://phys.org......
Debate Round No. 3
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for a fun debate. I hope we can have more in the future. Firstly, I want to say regarding the telescope comment I apologize as I misread your sentence.

I want to respond to your specific questions regarding the radiometric dating errors. However, the links supplied are to complete websites and not specific cases so I am unable to as I do not know what you are referencing. I will answer a probable question regarding the Mount St Helens eruption and the dating of igneous rock obtained by Dr. Steve Austin at the Creation Research Institute.(1) The problem with this data, is that only Potassium 40 dating was done, and it is well known that Potassium 40 dating should not be done on samples less than 2 million years old as errors can occur.(2) It should be pointed out that the laboratory that did this analysis for Dr Austin even states that their method for samples under 2 million years old is not reliable, yet Dr Austin continued with the analysis. This shows that Dr Austin is not a credible scientist as an inaccurate method is never trusted in science.

I think it is very important to point out the following errors in my opponents argument. He says it is an "evolutionary assumption that decay rates have never changed." Evolution has nothing to do with radiometric dating, it is purely the scientific theory that says "descent with modification."(3) Also he says "neither the evolutionist nor the creationist can scientifically "date" the earth and universe", and again evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. This discussion is about the Earths age, and has nothing to do with evolution it has to do with geology.

My opponent has stated that radioactive decay rates can be increased by billions of times in a laboratory. Again, my opponent has referenced me to a complete website and not a specific article so I am unable to respond to his claims. But I can say with clarity that the rate of radioactive decay does not change as claimed by my opponent, it is constant and there is no scientific evidence counter to this. (4,5) I should also add that any such fluctuations observed would count for an error of about 0.5% (standard error in radiometric dating) and still the age of the earth would be older than 6000 years.(6)

Regarding carbon 14 in fossils, of course you will find it in fossils. The radioactive decay rate stays constant and never reaches zero. This means if there is carbon present in a sample then there will be carbon 14.(7)

The lunar age question baffles me, as we seem to agree on the same things that the Moon has geologic activity and the science corroborates this. I want to add this is not indirect evidence as stated by my opponent but direct evidence as was noted in reference 7 of my previous round. This direct evidence was obtained from seismometers left on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts.(8)

I hand the debate back to my opponent for the final round. Thanks again for an interesting debate.

(1) http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...
(2) http://www.talkorigins.org...
(3) http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
(4) http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu...
(5) http://www.talkorigins.org...
(6) http://ncse.com...
(7) http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu...
(8) http://news.sciencemag.org...
Bobb

Con

Likewise, thanks for the debate.

You say,

"The problem with this data, is that only Potassium 40 dating was done, and it is well known that Potassium 40 dating should not be done on samples less than 2 million years old as errors can occur.(2) It should be pointed out that the laboratory that did this analysis for Dr Austin even states that their method for samples under 2 million years old is not reliable, yet Dr Austin continued with the analysis."

But there, yourself and proponents of long ages are still putting the cart before the horse since the original quantities of elements in rock when it was formed "millions of years" ago is unknown, and therefore, other than by speculation and assumption, nobody can actually "date" rocks and say whether they are 2 million years old in the first place.

You say,

"This shows that Dr Austin is not a credible scientist as an inaccurate method is never trusted in science."

Even if that was an accurate assessment, the proponents of "billions of years" are in the same boat, since, as scientists, they are also fallible as history and recent scientific discoveries have shown and where many old ideas and theories have had to be discarded or quietly pushed into the background.

You say,

"I think it is very important to point out the following errors in my opponents argument. He says it is an "evolutionary assumption that decay rates have never changed." Evolution has nothing to do with radiometric dating, it is purely the scientific theory that says "descent with modification." Also he says "neither the evolutionist nor the creationist can scientifically "date" the earth and universe", and again evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. This discussion is about the Earths age, and has nothing to do with evolution it has to do with geology."

The discussion about the earth"s age has everything to do with evolution because without the millions of year"s paradigm (as opposed to thousands), the IDEA of evolution, much less its actual reality, could not exist.

You say,

"But I can say with clarity that the rate of radioactive decay does not change as claimed by my opponent, it is constant and there is no scientific evidence counter to this. I should also add that any such fluctuations observed would count for an error of about 0.5% (standard error in radiometric dating) and still the age of the earth would be older than 6000 years."

No one can know this as certainty since there was no one to witness whether changes occurred or not. But as pointed out in my previous post, experiments have been done that have sped up decay rates many times over.

You say,

"Regarding carbon 14 in fossils, of course you will find it in fossils. The radioactive decay rate stays constant and never reaches zero. This means if there is carbon present in a sample then there will be carbon 14."

Again, the point I was making is that with a half-life of only of 5730 years they should not be finding the amount of carbon 14 that they are finding in fossils that are 65 million year old, if indeed there should be any left at all.

You say,

"The lunar age question baffles me"

The point being, that after the alleged 4.5 billion years of the moon"s existence it should have cooled down by now, which is what deep time proponents themselves expected (rightly) to be the case e.g. the excerpt from http://phys.org..... "Sometime billions of years in the future, he predicts, the core and mantle could cool and solidify enough to meet the crust. If that happens, Earth will become a cold, dead planet like the moon."

But now they have realised that the moon"s core is still hot, e.g. "At Long Last, Moon"s Core "Seen" http://news.sciencemag.org...... which draws attention to the very large hole in the idea of billions years for the moon"s age.

The moon"s hot core and seismic activity point to only thousands, not billions of years.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Bobb 3 years ago
Bobb
@iamanathiest...

That may be true of my comments at the start of the debate, but in the following responses the content of my arguments should be more than enough to demonstrate that I have done the research, with the relevant sources cited, both specific article and/or general website, and which were able to support the points that I made.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
@ Bobb: I think in a debate where you cite something like the radio active decay rate changes and has been shown that you give a relevant link. It shows you have researched the information. When I just put a link to the internet, yes you can search it but it means I am just talking from what I think I know and have not researched.
Posted by Bobb 3 years ago
Bobb
Pro kept dodging around some of the points made by Con with obscure arguments, sometimes by means of feigned ignorance, equivocation and unrelated sources. He also complained that Con ONLY gave websites as sources rather than specific articles, which is not true. And in the cases where a website was given he could easily have used the search function to arrive at the relevant articles. He also claims victory during the debate, especially when a couple of his arguments ran out of puff, which is very bad form when it comes from one of the participants of a debate.

Con dropped the ball in a couple places where he could have made the points in his rebuttals a bit sharper and clearer and where he lost the opportunity to make the logic in his arguments stronger
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
iamanatheistandthisiswhyBobbTied
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: Great debate pro clearly came out on top here con didn't cite sources only websites Pro backed his claims with evidence great debate.
Vote Placed by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
iamanatheistandthisiswhyBobbTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had more sources.