The Earth is older than the Bible perceives.
According to the Bible, the Earth is 6,000 years old. (http://www.gotquestions.org...)
I believe the Earth is older than this, and if you believe otherwise, feel free to accept this debate with me.
1. No trolling.
2. Please debate respectfully.
3. Try to use sources, and very reliable.
4. Please do not plagiarize.
Indeed the Bible reveals that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old. As a Bible-believing Christian, I would expect physical data to be in agreement with God's inspired and preserved word as He is not decietful.
Thank you, Con.
Plants older than 6,000 years
There are living organisms that are older than 6,000 years, but I will start with the vegetation section.
1. Utah Aspen Grove (source: http://www.treehugger.com...)
Age: Approximately 100,000 years old
Location: Fishlake National Forest, Utah, United States
Description: Covers 107 acres (0.43 km2) and has around 47,000 stems (average age 130 years), which continually die and are renewed by its roots. Is also the heaviest known organism, weighing 6,000 tons.
2. Jurupa Oak (source: http://www.independent.co.uk...) Althought the article says it is the oldest organism, it is not. The article was published in 2009, before the Utah Aspen Grove was discovered in 2011. Just to clarify.
Age: Approximately 13,000 years old
Location: Jurupa Mountains, California, United States
3. Old Tjikko (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk...) Again, this article says it's the oldest known tree, but it was discovered in about 2007, before either of those trees.
Age: approximately 9,550 years old
Location: Fulufjället National Park, Dalarna, Sweden
Description: The tree's stems live no more than 600 years, but its root system's age was established using carbon dating and genetic matching. Elsewhere in the Fulu mountains, 20 spruces have been found older than 9,000 years.
These 3 plants prove to be over 6,000 years old, which means that the Bible is wrong, because it indeed says that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
We all know Mount Everest, the highest mountain in the world. It is located in the Himalaya mountains.  It continues to grow today, 0.1576 inches (about four millimeters) each year. Now, people ask, how was it created? Well, the only way that it really could have been created was India colliding with another continent, millions of years ago. This continent was Europe and Asia combined. When they collided, the land crumpled and buckled upward, creating the Himalaya Mountains. It wasn't over, however. A cataclysmic uplift 20 million years ago formed much of the present-day Himalaya.  How else could these huge mountains have been created? This theory is the only possible theory that makes sense, and the world had to have to be over 20 million years ago to have this formed, so the Bible is wrong, once again.
More going onto continents, a theory is created about how the continents drifted away from each other, at a rate of about 10 inches per year. Meaning the drift must have been going on for more than 200 million years. How can we support this theory? Fossils and different types of animals have been located to where the original continent was, according to the map on this article. (http://www.livescience.com...) It would have to be a super continent, depending on the Earth's plates. Fossils are found on multiple contients, meaning it has to be true.
Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.
Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.
Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 6,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by creationists.
Nevertheless, the minimum age of the Earth identified by these means is 160,000 years.
All of these theories/discoveries PROVE that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, and that the Bible is wrong.
Over to you, Con.
I will be using just a two lines of evidence for my positive case. I will rebut Pro's argument and claims in subsequent rounds. Readers should keep in mind that this debate is concerning the veracity of the approximate age of 6,000 years for the Earth. While the Bible does not explicitly state that the Earth is this age, using scripture as a model for creation, we can easily deduce an approximate age by starting with the beginning of creation, the week Adam and Eve were created along with the entire universe, and adding up the genealogies from Adam to Christ (Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11, Mark 10:6, Luke 3:23-38). When we add up the genealogies we get an estimated age of about 4,000 years, and since its been about 2,000 years since Christ earthly ministry, the age of the Earth must biblically be about 6,000 years old (https://answersingenesis.org...). It is not exactly possible to demonstrate a precise age for the Earth using operational methods, for this reason I shall argue that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, a drop in the bucket compared to the standard secular date of 4.5Gy. With my lines of evidence I will attempt to set an upper limit for the age of the Earth. Pro must attempt to show that the Earth is older than 10,000 years and I must attempt to show that it is not, plain and simple; here we go!
Evidence of an Earth no Greater than 10,000 Years
While no form of operational science can give you an exact date for the age of the Earth, it is definitely possible to set upper limits. It can be easily shown via hundreds of lines of evidence that the Earth is not 4.5Gy old, but since this debate is only about the biblical age of the Earth, I must demonstrate evidence which sets an upper limit to the Earth's age at less than 10,000 years. In doing so, I will not be proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Earth is ~6,000 years old, but rather I will be showing that what we can gather from scientific data is consistent with such an age and refutes an older Earth. I will expand on my simple presentations of evidence for a young Earth in the following round.
Evidence #1 - Helium in Precambrian Zircons
Very simply, there should be no detectable helium left in Precambrian granite zircons if the Earth is 4.5Gy old. Helium is a very "slippery" atom and can easily escape the zircon crystals, especially when found in rocks at such depths as temperatures are extremely hot and cause the atoms to vibrate and more readily escape the crystals. By measuring the diffusion and retention rates of helium in these zircons, we get an age of 6,000 (± 2,000) (http://www.creationresearch.org...).
Evidence #2 - Argon in Precambrian Feldspar
A type of feldspar known as microcline is also found alongside zircons in Precambrian granite. These feldspar are found to contain argon which, as helium, is also very "slippery." By measuring the diffusivity of the argon isotopes in these feldspar, as well as the amount of retention, it is shown that this granite must be 5,100 (+3,800/-2,100), thus corroborating the helium-in-zircon evidence (http://creation.com...).
Using just these two simple lines of evidence it can be demonstrably shown that the Earth is ~6,000 years old. On to Pro.
Thank you, Con.
"I shall argue that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, a drop in the bucket compared to the standard secular date of 4.5Gy. With my lines of evidence I will attempt to set an upper limit for the age of the Earth. Pro must attempt to show that the Earth is older than 10,000 years and I must attempt to show that it is not, plain and simple; here we go!"
Unfortunately, you must argue that the Earth is in fact 6,000 years old. Not 10,000, because the resolution says "The Earth is older than the Bible precieves." The Bible percieves it being 6,000 years old, so you must prove the Earth is either 6,000 or less than 6,000 years old. Even if the Earth is proven to be 6,001 years old, you lose.
Your arguments are interesting, so basically you are showing evidence that is 6,000 years old and under. I hope you rebut my arguments, however, in the future, or I will most likely win.
"Helium is a very "slippery" atom and can easily escape the zircon crystals, especially when found in rocks at such depths as temperatures are extremely hot and cause the atoms to vibrate and more readily escape the crystals. By measuring the diffusion and retention rates of helium in these zircons, we get an age of 6,000 (± 2,000)"
However, the Precambrian Zicron has been researched, and it is said it could be under 4,000 years old, however, it also expands to 541 MILLION years old, which is a possibility.  This is called the Cambrian period. It is unproven whether or not it is really 4,000 years old.
"A type of feldspar known as microcline is also found alongside zircons in Precambrian granite. These feldspar are found to contain argon which, as helium, is also very "slippery." By measuring the diffusivity of the argon isotopes in these feldspar, as well as the amount of retention, it is shown that this granite must be 5,100 (+3,800/-2,100), thus corroborating the helium-in-zircon evidence"
A study has been shown to prove that these feldspars are 1,212 million years old. I quote: "Nevertheless, we have obtained a date of 840 + 42 million years old and an initial 87 SR/86 SR ratio of 0.7178 + 0.0026 for the biotite and potassium feldspar." (article: https://kb.osu.edu...)
Now, just because of the evidence my opponent has given, it hasn't matched up to mine, mine saying that the Earth is older than that.
Petrified wood is wood that has indeed, been turned into stone. Now you wonder if any fossils have been found in this "wood," and indeed there have been many found. Some dating back to 130 million years ago.  Yes, 130 million years ago. These fossils have animal prints and traces that we have never seen before such as several species of cycadeoids. Petrified wood like this can be found in South Dakota in many counties. In order for petrified wood to form, it would take: "The final condition, necessary for petrification, is time. The mineral replacement process is very slow, probably taking millions of years."
Coral is of course, found at the bottom of oceans and reefs. Well, in the Great Barrier Reef coral has been found at the bottom, of course. These corals and residues gradually become structures known as coral reefs. This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger reefs have been "growing" for hundreds of thousands of years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years, and that coral reef structures have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for at least 600,000 years. 
Many places on Earth show how evidence of erosion taking place over very long time periods. The Grand Canyon, for instance, would have taken millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water. Nevertheless, Creationists insist it was cut in a few years following the "Great Flood" - but in order for this to happen the rocks of the Kaibab Plateau would have needed to have the solubility of granulated sugar, rather than the more solid stone that it's made of. 
These prove that the Earth is older than 6,000 years old.
Over to you, Con.
creationtruth forfeited this round.
I thank my opponent for extending the debate back to me. I will begin by first responding to Pro's round 2 arguments. I will then move on to responding to his round 3 claims and defending my case.
Rebuttal of Pro's Round 2 Arguments
My opponent has used what is commonly known in debates as the "shotgun method" which can be seen in the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate, where Bill Nye quickly lists many "evidences" without providing substantial support (http://creation.com...). This method, when used in time-limited debates, often leaves the opponent unable to adequately address each presented evidence. Since Pro has used this method for his case, I will respond by using this method for my rebuttal of his claims by simply proving a quick word and a link for support.
Utah Aspen/Jurupa Oak/Old Tjikko
While Pro provides no compelling reason why these trees "ages" should be accepted, I will address his claim concerning carbon dating and DNA matching.
I begin by quoting Dr. Donald Batton concerning dendrochronology,
"The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence from a new piece of wood matches well (note that even two trees growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring patterns). Yamaguchi recognized that ring pattern matches are not unique. The best match (using statistical tests) is often rejected in favour of a less exact match because the best match is deemed to be ‘incorrect’ (particularly if it is too far away from the carbon-14 ‘age’). So the carbon ‘date’ is used to constrain just which match is acceptable. Consequently, the calibration is a circular process and the tree ring chronology extension is also a circular process that is dependent on assumptions about the carbon dating system (http://creation.com...)."
The assumptions involved in carbon dating, and in any radioisotope dating method for that matter, concern the starting ratio of parent and daughter isotopes, the lack of contamination, and the constancy of the rate of radiogenic decay. While the first two assumptions are certainly dubious, as claimed starting ratios are model-dependent, and contamination would have been nearly impossible to avoid during a worldwide flood where the best medium for isotopic exchange, namely water, covered the Earth, the third assumption is demonstrably false. Based on the evidence I presented, which I will develop more in the defense of my case, decay rates must have been much greater during the flood for there to still be detectable amounts of helium and argon in Precambrian zircons and feldspar respectively. Similarly, using radiometric dating, diamonds have been dated to be more than a billion years old yet detectable amounts of radiocarbon, or C-14, has been found in them greater than ten magnitudes of order than what would be expected if they were truly that old. This demonstrates that the rate radiogenic decay must have been sped up greatly at least once in order for the recorded isotope ratios to be thus (http://creation.com...).
Concerning tree rings I quote Dr. John Morris,
"It has been found that all trees, even slow-growing ones, respond dynamically to tiny environmental changes, even hourly changes in growing conditions. Scientists have observed that numerous 'normal' conditions can produce an extra ring or no ring at all. Weather was fingered as the most 'guilty' culprit. Unusual storms with abundant rainfall interspersed with dry periods can produce multiple rings, essentially one per major storm. Thus, the basic assumption of tree ring dating is demonstrably in error. Can we trust the overlapping calibration curves? As it pertains to Flood model considerations, remember that the centuries immediately following the Flood witnessed the coming of the Ice Age. All trees growing on the continents were recently sprouted, actively growing trees. The still-warm oceans rapidly evaporated seawater, thus providing the raw material for major monsoonal-type storms. Earth was ravaged by frequent and wide-ranging atmospheric disturbances, dumping excessive snowfall in northern regions and rainfall to the south. If ever there was a time when multiple rings could develop in trees, this was it. Those centuries probably produced tree ring growth that was anything but annual (http://www.icr.org...)."
There are clearly some unknowable assumptions involved in dating a tree by its growth rings. When attempting to formulate a date, growth rings are simply calibrated using radiocarbon dates, and are thus used ad hoc as a supposed separate line of evidence. Moving on to DNA matching of root systems, this method is also simply calibrated against radiocarbon dating. So in essence, radiocarbon dating is the only way one can get an older age for trees than what the Bible's history allows. Using such a method which is based on unknowable assumptions is faulty and is a poor evidence for an old Earth.
Mount Everest/Continental Drift
I agree that Mount Everest was formed by plate tectonics. What I don't agree with is the uniformitarian assumption that slow moving continental subduction and uplift formed this mountain over many millions of years. Indeed catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT) is supported by the physical data. I quote Dr John Baumgardner,
"Experimental studies of the deformational behaviour of silicate minerals over the last several decades have revealed the strength of such materials also depends strongly on the state of stress. At shear stresses of the order of 10-3 times the low-temperature elastic shear modulus and temperatures of the order of 80% of the melting temperature, silicate minerals deform by a mechanism known as dislocation creep in which slip occurs along preferred planes in the crystalline lattice. In this type of solid deformation, the deformation rate depends on the shear stress in a strongly nonlinear manner, proportional to the shear stress to approximately the third power. At somewhat higher levels of shear stress, these materials display plastic yield behaviour, where their strength decreases in an even more nonlinear way, in this case inversely with the deformation rate. When these stress-weakening mechanisms are combined with the temperature weakening discussed above, the potential for slab runaway from gravitational body forces is enhanced dramatically. A point many people fail to grasp is that these weakening mechanisms can reduce the silicate strength by ten or more orders of magnitude without the material ever reaching its melting temperature (http://creation.com...)."
Dr. Baumgardner has developed a computer model for CPT which not only makes sense of the physical data but requires much fewer assumptions than does the standard uniformitarian model. Mount Everest would have been formed during catastrophic geophysical events after the Flood within a few years time rather than millions. The CPT model also addresses your claims about continental drift. A Pangea-like supercontinent indeed likely existed before the Flood, but this is not the reason for similar animals and fossils existing on separate continents. Rather, animals migrated from Noah's ark onto the various continents using land bridges which no longer exist due to glacial melting after the Ice Age event. The similarities found in animals and fossils are arbitrary as homology is very selectively used. Regardless, CPT better explains the separation of the continents in that the model correlates perfectly with geophysics when tested via Dr. Baumgardner's computer simulation. CPT provides a viable mechanism for the separation of the continents while secular hypotheses do not (http://www.icr.org...).
As with the tree growth ring method of dating, measuring ice care rings is subject to faulty dating as the method is based on uniformitarian assumptions. Indeed, the ice layers fit well with the biblical model of the Flood and Ice Age. The problem is that your starting assumptions determine how you view the ice layers. This is why such evidences, which rely so heavily on ultimately unknowable assumptions are so weak (http://creation.com...).
Rebuttal of Pro's Round 3 Response
Pro begins this round by stating that I must argue that the Earth is no older than precisely 6,000 years. I have already explained that the Bible does not explicitly state that the Earth is 6,000 years old, and that no dating method can prove an exact age. I will leave it up to the reader to determine whether I should truly be arguing for an age equal to or less than 6,000 years. Also, how have I shown that the Earth is younger. The error margin does not necessitate that the Earth is younger, rather it simply allows for a deviation of a certain amount of years. We both do not believe the Earth is younger than about 6,000 years, so I would not be arguing for a younger Earth than that. It simply means that the Earth can be between about six and eight thousand years, definitely less than 10,000. This demonstrates that the biblical model is consistent with physical data rather than proving an absolute age.
Pro simply seems to cite radioisotope dating as counter evidence to my evidence. The fault in such a counter is that my evidence requires no assumptions whilst radiometric dating requires three critical assumptions, one of which is proven faulty by the very evidence I have given. Therefore, my evidence is to be accepted over yours based on the Occam's Razor principle (http://creation.com...).
Unfortunately I have ran out of space so I will defend my case and rebut Pro's arguments concerning erosion, petrified wood and coral reefs in the next round.
IcySound forfeited this round.
creationtruth forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|