The Instigator
FritzStammberger
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
jh1234l
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

The Earth is not millions or billions of 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 7 votes the winner is...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,968 times Debate No: 29558
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

FritzStammberger

Pro

The Earth is not millions or billions of years old. Please provide your BEST evidence that the Earth is millions or billions of years old. Try to use your BEST 2 or 3 pieces of evidence rather than 10 different pieces.
jh1234l

Con

Thanks to FritzStammberger for issuing this debate challenge.

As my opponent asked me to post 2 to 3 pieces of proof rather than 10, I will give two pieces of evidence. Also, as my opponent is free to use Christian sources (The rules never said that he can't), I should be able to use atheist sources too. (the rules never banned them either)

1. Radiometric dating

The oldest rocks which have been found so far are about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years old (found by using several radiometric dating methods). Some of them include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. [1]

How does it work? TalkOrigins says:

"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. 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."[1]

This creates a way of knowing the age of the Earth.

However, it won't work if the decay speed changes a lot; but the study Emery (1972) only found really small changes of decay rates, not even close to enough to fit the Earth's history into 6000 years.[2]

2.Ice Core

The Vostok Ice-Core was tested for its age, using 18O/16O isotopic analysis, independent ice-flow calculations , comparison with other ice cores , paleoclimatic comparison , comparison with deep sea cores , 10Be/9Be isotopic analysis , deuterium/hydrogen isotopic analysis , comparison with marine climatic record , CO2 correspondances between dated ice-cores and CO2 correspondances with dated oceanic cores.
Using the methods listed above the bottom of the ice-core was laid down 160,000 +- 15,000 years ago. [4]
160,000 is only the MINIMUM age of the Earth, and testing the ACTUAL age cannot be tested this way because it would be like trying to know someone's age by using the age of their hair. However, this at least, means that the Earth could be millions or billionsof years old, confirming the radiometric dating results.

BONUS: Lack of population III stars


Poplation III stars have never been found, as of 2010. [3] Due to the high mass of the Poplation III stars, their fuel will soon become exausted and they will explode in a supernova. [3] Thus, they only existed in thearly universe. [3] If our Earth is young, it implies that the universe must also be young, which means that population III stars will be observed. However, they haven't been observed, maeaning that the univrse must be old.

[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2]Emery, G. T., 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates" in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22 , pp. 165-202.
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 1
FritzStammberger

Pro

1. Radiometric dating

"Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites."

- My opponents source goes on to state that this only works;

IF the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios.

Thus my opponent would have to prove that;

1.1 "the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios."

- My opponents source also states that this only works;

IF the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios,

Thus my opponent would have to prove that;

1.2 "the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios,"

Therefore this data is based on Assumptions. And could be manipulated to produce whatever conclusion the researcher is looking for.

note: "duplicate studies on identical meteorite types omitted."
- They also admit to omitting data from the study probably to select the data that agrees with the desired outcome and omit the data that doesn't. (selective dating)

furthermore;

- "less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error."

note: 18,000 to 84,000 meteorites bigger than 10 grams hit earth each year!
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...

You are going to base your data on 70???

This is a clear example of selective science to fit a preconceived hypothesis.

This data is tortured, selective, misleading and false. It involves massive assumptions about the early solar system and uses such a tiny percentage of the available data as to be impermissible.

This is equivalent to assuming the age of a car by guessing the age of a single pebble stuck in the tire.

This is not evidence that the Earth is millions or billions of years old.

2. Ice Core
"Using the methods listed above the bottom of the ice-core was laid down 160,000 +- 15,000 years ago."

- This is neither millions nor billions of years old.

BONUS: Lack of population III stars

"The populations were named in the order they were discovered, which is the reverse of the order of their formation. Thus, the first stars in the universe (low metal content) were population"III, and recent stars (high metallicity) are population"I."

My opponents source goes on to state that;

"the fact that all stars observed have some heavier elements poses something of a puzzle, and the current explanation for this proposes the existence of hypothetical metal-free Population"III stars in the early universe."

Thus, by admission these stars are "hypothetical"

CONCLUSION:

I have easily and thoroughly disproven my opponents absolute BEST "evidence" for an Earth millions or billions of years in age. No further argument on my part is necessary at this time.
jh1234l

Con

1.1 "the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios."

- My opponents source also states that this only works;

IF the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios,

Thus my opponent would have to prove that;

1.2 "the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios,"

Therefore this data is based on Assumptions. And could be manipulated to produce whatever conclusion the researcher is looking for.

However, if the above two are true, than the data points will line up in a single line, which it did.[1]

note: "duplicate studies on identical meteorite types omitted."
- They also admit to omitting data from the study probably to select the data that agrees with the desired outcome and omit the data that doesn't. (selective dating)

Your last argument can be used on this. The above argument is based on the assumption that:
1. The ommitted data is the true data
2. The ommitting is to select agreeing data and not to reduce unnessecary duplicates of the same results.
These are based on assumptions, which means that my opponent could be manuplating it to make it agree with his side.

You are going to base your data on 70???

This is a clear example of selective science to fit a preconceived hypothesis.

Again, you haveposted a self refuting argument that is based on assumptions. Plus, if you are doing a survey, then testing a medium size group will take less time and still giving you a relatively similar result as testing a big one

This data is tortured, selective, misleading and false. It involves massive assumptions about the early solar system and uses such a tiny percentage of the available data as to be impermissible.

This argument is based on trying to refute another's argument by only either taking a part of their source and cut the rest to make it seem like that it fits your side, and trying to refute arguments with bare assertions that these are selective when not providing proof.

This is not evidence that the Earth is millions or billions of years old.

Your above arguments are self-refuting.

- This is neither millions nor billions of years old.

By saying this, you ignore the rest of my argument: "160,000 is only the MINIMUM age of the Earth, and testing the ACTUAL age cannot be tested this way because it would be like trying to know someone's age by using the age of their hair. However, this at least, means that the Earth could be millions or billionsof years old, confirming that the radiometric dating results could be true.

Therefore, you have not adequtely refuted my claim.

"the fact that all stars observed have some heavier elements poses something of a puzzle, and the current explanation for this proposes the existence of hypothetical metal-free Population"III stars in the early universe."

Thus, by admission these stars are "hypothetical"

Please note that that was only a BONUS, because it dealt with the age of the universe, not of the Earth. Thus, this only valid argument in my opponent's entire case did not even refute my side.

I have easily and thoroughly disproven my opponents absolute BEST "evidence" for an Earth millions or billions of years in age. No further argument on my part is necessary at this time.

I have successfully refuted my opponent's "arguments" by showing how they are based on assumptions, and that the assumptions on my source was true. My opponent has also ignored the fact that my source already refuted his arguments. That means that he might be cropping the paragraph to make it fit his side, a process known as "quote mining".



[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 2
FritzStammberger

Pro

My opponents arguments are so pathetically week that I don't feel the need to repeat myself. I have shown his absolute BEST evidence to be easily refuted in the first round.

- My opponent never addressed 1.2 he just repeated his big "IF" assumption.

- My opponent thinks that basing his data on 70 meteors out of 84,000 using radiometric dating (which I have proven to be a selective technique)
is perfectly good.

My opponent concedes the Bonus "evidence"

This is a no brainer, The evidence chosen as the absolute BEST is very week and proves absolutely nothing.

However, penetrating the wall of preconceived conclusions erected by the so called "science" is nearly impossible. People see what they want to see. I believed the earth was billions of years old for most of my life. However when I began to examine the evidence closely I found that this was not necessarily the case. The only reason anyone wants you to believe that the earth is "billions of years old" and the reason why this mantra is repeated throughout science textbooks the world over is because the ridiculous premise of macro evolution requires "billions of years".

If a frog turns into a prince quickly we call it a fairy tale.
If a frog turns into a prince "over billions of years" we call it science.

The fact is that BELIEVING the earth is "billions of years old" requires faith. It is religion NOT science.
jh1234l

Con

My opponent never addressed 1.2 he just repeated his big "IF" assumption.

My opponent ignores my whole argument by saying this. I'll repeat my argument once more. If my opponent ignores it once again, my opponent should lose this debate because he does not address my arguments.


If the assumptions are true, then the data points will line up in a single line, and the data points did line up n a single line, therefore the assumptions are true.[1]

- My opponent thinks that basing his data on 70 meteors out of 84,000 using radiometric dating (which I have proven to be a selective technique)
is perfectly good.

My opponent bases this argument on the ASSUMPTION (see? his arguments are self-refuting) that the results collected from the 70 meteors must be wrong and the ommitted ones must be correct. As my opponent said, assumptions are not strong arguments until you prove them.

My opponent concedes the Bonus "evidence"

It was only a bonus, my opponent's only valid argument was on this one, thus he never refuted my case.

However, penetrating the wall of preconceived conclusions erected by the so called "science" is nearly impossible. People see what they want to see. I believed the earth was billions of years old for most of my life. However when I began to examine the evidence closely I found that this was not necessarily the case. The only reason anyone wants you to believe that the earth is "billions of years old" and the reason why this mantra is repeated throughout science textbooks the world over is because the ridiculous premise of macro evolution requires "billions of years".

Refuting your so called "arguments" are easy.

[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 3
FritzStammberger

Pro

These data points are based on radiometric ages which I have already shown to be a selective dating technique. You can't use carefully selected data points that fit your hypothesis and ignore the rest yet this is exactly what you are doing.

I suspect that Radiometric dating needs to be a debate in itself. You know what? since Radiometric dating seems to be your best and only evidence for an earth millions or billions of years old I will thoroughly refute it right now.

RADIOMETRIC DATING
(why it doesn't work)

1. imagine you walk into a room and you see a candle burning.

how long has it been burning?

(no stupid semantics about wax dripping or whatever)

The point is.

Without knowing when the candle was lit it is impossible to say how long it has been burning.

2. "Picture a swimmer competing in a 1,500 metre race and an observer with an accurate wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer touches the end of the pool our wristwatch reads 7:41 and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim the race?
you cannot know how long the swimmer took unless you knew the time on the wristwatch when the race started. Keep that in mind when you think about working out the age of something. Without knowing the starting time it is impossible to establish the time for the race. Note: Impossible."

http://creation.com...

I don't think I need to continue showing you why Radiometric dating is fatally flawed. If you are so certain the earth is millions or billions of years old surely you must have some other evidence on which you base your whole world view.

If you like however we can continue the last round solely on radiometric dating.
jh1234l

Con

1. imagine you walk into a room and you see a candle burning.

how long has it been burning?

(no stupid semantics about wax dripping or whatever)

The point is.

Without knowing when the candle was lit it is impossible to say how long it has been burning.

That argument fails. Let's see a quote from talk origins refuting it.

"The amount of initial D is not required or assumed to be zero. The greater the initial D-to-Di ratio, the further the initial horizontal line sits above the X-axis. But the computed age is not affected." [1]

As the amount of initial D does not affect the computed age, it can be assumed to be anything and still be a correct answer. Plus, you won't wonder about how long it burnt if you knew when it started burning. This argument can thus be used on any dating method, thus it also refutes all creationist dating methods.

Radiometric dating does not need the initial D to be anything. Period.

My opponent has not adequately refuted my other arguments. His arguments were hypocritical, trying to say that based my arguments on assumptions, ignored my rebuttal to that and instead my opponent posted a bunch of arguments which are based on assumptions themselves.

My side was unchallenged and I pointed out my opponent's arguments are based on assumptions. Pro has ignored most of my rebuttals.


[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 4
FritzStammberger

Pro

The following information is cited at length from the book "Evolution: Its Collapse In View?
by Henry Hiebert
Pages 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

Carbon 14 (radioactive carbon) forms in the upper atmosphere at a constant rate, through the action of sunlight (cosmic rays) upon ozone. This radiocarbon finds it's way, along with natural carbon, into the living tissue of plants, and consequently animals, as well as becoming dissolved in the ocean waters. Immediately after its formation, C-14 begins slowly to decay (half-life about 5, 730 years).

Scientists have calculated that after about 30,000 years from the commencement of such a process, the amount of radio carbon in the atmosphere, in all organic tissue, and in the seas would have built up to the volume where the amount decaying per day would just equal the amount being produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. Such a state of equilibrium is essential for the success of this particular technique of dating.

Does such a state of equilibrium exist?

Definitely not!

Scientists were amazed to find that upper-atmosphere balloon soundings measured a natural production rate of C-14 in excess of the calculated decay rate by as much as 25%. Using data from most recent tests, Nobel Prize Medalist Doctor Melvin Cook has determined that the production-decay rates are out of equilibrium by as much as 38%. This can only mean that the C-14 content of our atmosphere is still building up, a condition that could be expected only if the process had begun recently. This discrepancy of 38% between the formation and decay of C-14 has been calculated by Dr. Cook to indicated an age for our atmosphere of about 10,000 years. The likelihood that the specific production rate of Carbon 14 was greater by as much as three times (as evidenced by the luxuriant tropical vegetation and fauna from pole to pole as seen in the fossils). In the predeluvian world, would reduce this figure to a mere 7000 years.

W. F. Libby, the discoverer of radiocarbon dating, chose to ignore this discrepancy, attributing it to some error of measurement, since he "knew" the earth to be much older than 30,000 years. Consequently, C-14 dates are reasonably accurate only for about the last 3000 years, becoming increasingly invalid as older samples are tested, which lived at a time when this lack of equilibrium was even greater. It has been found that when all radiocarbon dates are corrected for the known non-equilibrium conditions, all are less than 10,000 years. This includes dates on Neanderthal Man bones, Sabre-tooth tigers, cole and crude oil.

Although subsequent and better tests have confirmed this lack of equilibrium, it has met with routine rejection from scientists on the basis that it cannot be so. The evolutionary model of origins demands vast ages, and most scientists believe in evolution. Data of this nature in consequently not disclosed in public literature.

Radiometric Dates

The various methods used (most commonly, the uranium-thorium-lead, the rubidium-strontium, and the potassium-argon methods) when applied to any given sample of rock apparently do not give the same dates at all. Widely discordant dates are the rule, not the exception. Even recently formed volcanic rocks of known age yield lead-uranium ages that are commonly over a billion years.

There are at least three assumptions underlying all radiometric dating, which are not only unprovable, but unreasonable.

3 Assumptions Involved in Radiometric Dating

1.) The rocks being tested are assumed to represent a closed system.

Always the assumption is made that these rocks have not, through leeching by groundwater or erosional water, intermixing, or any other physical process, lost or gained anything throughout the period of their existence. Here we have the probable reason for the widely discordant ages that are generally yielded in radiometric tests. It is likely that the minerals were affected to greatly varying degrees by the agencies listed above.

"The concept of a closed system is an ideal concept, convenient for analysis, but non-existent in the real world. The idea of a system remaining closed for millions of years becomes an absurdity."
- Henry M. Morris, Virginian Polytechnic Institute.

2.) The process rate of decay is assumed to have remained constant throughout billions of years.

It is obvious that any factors that are capable of influencing atomic structures could affect radioactive decay rates, The Genesis account (of creation) could conceivably permit completely unprecedented decay rates in effect during the initial creation period, when all the cosmic energy needed for nucleo-genesis was present in the environment of the matter being created.

The assumption that decay rates have remained constant is unprovable.

3.) It is assumed that no radiogenic daughter products were present when the minerals were first formed.

The bible teaches quite plainly of a full-grown creation. It is reasonable that an equilibrium amount of the daughter elements would be created along with the parent, giving an appearance of age. If this was true of the organic creation it was probably true of the geologic creation as well. The assumption that no radiogenic daughter products were present at nucleo-genesis is highly suspect for other reasons. It has been found that radiogenic lead exists with uranium minerals even in recently formed volcanic rock.

In the Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968, an instance in cited where lava from Kaupuleho, Hualalai, Hawaii, which was known to be 168 years old, was predicted by the potassium-argon method to be 2.96 billion years old. This is no rare occurrence. When modern volcanic rocks are dated radiometrically, their lead-uranium ages are commonly over a billion years.

If rocks of known ages yield such unrealistic dates, why should we accept so gullibly the ages yielded by the rocks of unknown age?

In spite of the so-called knowledge explosion, too little is known about all the factors that may affect dates yielded in radiometric tests for textbook writers to be grossly dogmatic about even those dates that have been selected as acceptable.

Conclusion

There is thus no sound physical evidence (that the earth is millions or billions of years old). Objections to the concept of a young earth are not made on scientific, but rather on philosophic, grounds. The vast ages needed to camouflage the staggering problems caused by evolutionary assumptions must themselves be assumed. Still. such a great age for the earth continues to be represented as absolutely beyond question. "Given enough time, anything becomes possible" is the evolutionists' answer to the insurmountable problems which won't go away. But the scientific information and data rule out the vast ages desired to give evolution a semblance of credibility. The rate of decay of the earths magnetic field, the high pressure in deep oil wells, the continued presence of short-term comets, the existence of star clusters from which high velocity stars have not yet managed to escape, the current population "crises", the lack of equilibrium between the specific production and decay rates of radiocarbon, and a host of physical processes not listed here all point to a recent creation of the universe, and a young earth.

This information is cited at length from the book "Evolution: Its Collapse In View?"
by Henry Hiebert
Pages 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32
jh1234l

Con

The rate of decay

My opponent claims that the decay rates varies and are out of equilibrium. However, it is not true. Emery (1972) is a survey of experimental results, and the changes of the decay rates were minuscule. [1]

Even recently formed volcanic rocks of known age yield lead-uranium ages that are commonly over a billion years.

Volcanic rocks are actually cooled down lava, thus the age is of the lava (including the time it stayed underground), this arguent is like trying to find the age of the writing by using the age of the ink. The ink was made before the writing, so it obviously fails.


2.) The process rate of decay is assumed to have remained constant throughout billions of years.

Experiments such as Emery (1972) never found big changes in decay rates. [1]

It is assumed that no radiogenic daughter products were present when the minerals were first formed.

This was just plain wrong. The initial daughter product is not assumed or requird to be zero. The computed age is not affected by changing it. [2]

In the Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968, an instance in cited where lava from Kaupuleho, Hualalai, Hawaii, which was known to be 168 years old, was predicted by the potassium-argon method to be 2.96 billion years old. This is no rare occurrence. When modern volcanic rocks are dated radiometrically, their lead-uranium ages are commonly over a billion years.

Again, the known age was when the volcano erupted, not when the lava was formed. The dating method gives the date of the creation of the lava, not the date of the eruption of lava. This argument is therefore invalid. Both ages are correct, but they are the time of eruption and the creation, respectively.

There is thus no sound physical evidence (that the earth is millions or billions of years old). Objections to the concept of a young earth are not made on scientific, but rather on philosophic, grounds. ... and a host of physical processes not listed here all point to a recent creation of the universe, and a young earth.

My opponent has ignored all my previous evidence by not refuting my other arguments, but rather trying to "refute" them using assumptions, which he objected to. The Earth was not young, I proved it, my opponent decided to refute it by using the dauther isotope argument, which I already made an argument in the first round. Maybe my opponent is living in a young arth separate from the real one, because he does not refute my case and instead decides to refute a separate case from mine.

[1]Emery, G. T., 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates" in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22 , pp. 165-202.
[2]http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Deadlykris
@Marauder: Just because you don't agree with my reasoning, and/or because I called out a vote bomber on one of your debates, doesn't mean my vote is a votebomb. And don't try and deny that it was mine you were referring to; I was the only one who voted six points Con.
Posted by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
Peer review is not censorship, but rather means that it has been critiqued by experts. In my humble opinion, it is not eye opening, but rather propaganda.
Posted by FritzStammberger 3 years ago
FritzStammberger
I encourage people to check out "The Electric Universe" by Chuck Missler it is eye opening!
Posted by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
"Such a state of equilibrium is essential for the success of this particular technique of dating. Although subsequent and better tests have confirmed this lack of equilibrium, it has met with routine rejection from scientists on the basis that it cannot be so."

Apparently, equilibrium between radiocarbon production and decay was only required when these methods were in their infancy. Scientists have accepted for.. more than half a century.. that radiocarbon production is not constant but rather fluctuates in response to sun spots, nuclear weapons, and the carbon cycle. Many webpages explain and/or illustrate this.

http://www.geo.arizona.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
Posted by thedebatekid 3 years ago
thedebatekid
Quick Question: Is this debate running off of the bible or science?
Posted by thedebatekid 3 years ago
thedebatekid
I was looking to accept this challenge but it was taken quickly.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Marauder 3 years ago
Marauder
FritzStammbergerjh1234lTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: while most of the votes on this debate give real reasons enough to show their fairly made, one of them is a clear vote bomb so I'm countering it. As for my actual review of the debate I deem arguments are about on par with each other however sources is another story. Most of Pro's sources were from various books you cant expect viewers of this debate to have or to ever buy. meanwhile Con's source was the same one source for the whole debate and its arguably the most biased source to quote for his side in all the internet, at least the most biased I have ever found on the topic yet, Talkorigins.com So I would give sources to neither but not for the same failures.
Vote Placed by Skepsikyma 3 years ago
Skepsikyma
FritzStammbergerjh1234lTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was repetitive and failed to acknowledge many of the counter-arguments put forth by Con. Creation.com is not a reliable source on radiometric dating, and all of Con's sources were reliable, so sources goes to Con.
Vote Placed by Grantmac18 3 years ago
Grantmac18
FritzStammbergerjh1234lTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a truly terrible debate, no formal structure as to the presentation of arguments and rebuttals was enforced, and readers had to endure three rounds of unsubstantiated arguments from Pro. Only in round five did Pro, finally, provide an argument to support his position; which, was immediately proven false by Con. Sources were weak on both sides, S&G was fairly even, and Conduct was quite unprofessional from Pro. "However when I began to examine the evidence closely I found that this was not necessarily the case." unqualified personal interpretation of scientific data is and will always be just that.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
FritzStammbergerjh1234lTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's only real challenge came in round five, when he posted an extended citation from a book that claimed to disprove radio carbon dating. He stated that radiocarbon production and decay are not in equilibrium and that presents a challenge for radiocarbon dating's accuracy and means Earth is only perhaps 10,000 years old! The problems with this are two-fold. First, Con pointed out radio cardon decay is constant. Second, radio-carbon production is not constant but rather fluctuates with respect to solar spots and other events, blowing that "10,000yrs" out of the water.
Vote Placed by andrewkletzien 3 years ago
andrewkletzien
FritzStammbergerjh1234lTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This is the example I will use when people ask for places where scientific language can be so easily employed by people who aren't scientists and don't understand what scientists have discovered for the betterment of our society. Sources vote because DDO specifies a vote for RELIABLE sources.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
FritzStammbergerjh1234lTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro abolished Con's main arguments. Con tried to saying they weren't refuted, even though they were. Con's further arguments on radiometric dating were also refuted. Con had the burden of proof and failed to meet it.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Deadlykris
FritzStammbergerjh1234lTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: Pro relies on belief rather than fact, and tries to shoehorn facts into his beliefs, or use cherry-picked data to discredit whole disciplines of science which are accurate.