The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Earth is older than the Creationist accepted less than 10,000 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/15/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 198 times Debate No: 94764
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I took the con view in high school (The Answers in Genesis, Creationist view of the Earth's age is correct). This was fun and I would now like to take the other side. While I am a Christian, I do not personally believe the conclusion of the age of the Earth was correct.

Forewarning, I will be using carbon dating for a big piece of this evidence.


I am a non-theist but I would like to try and logically explain why this belief may be held as the moot states "that the earth is older than 10 000 years"

As no definitions have been set and neither has any structure ill take the first round as acceptance and allow you to set your case next round. I am also assuming that we are debating under common definitions eg Earth: the planet we live one now older: been around for a longer period of time etc.

I await your opening
Debate Round No. 1


I think a recent finding puts a date of more than 10,000 years by itself. There are many other things I can cite, but in my opinion, this is strong enough on it's own.

Carbon dating does have it's limitations, however is very accurate for dates 15,000 years old through present. At a site in Turkey, Goblekli Tepe, ancients buried their monuments in the ground. We can date when the monument was buried (about 10,000 years ago) which means it was constructed before this date. How far back cannot be stated, but this is a huge point against the Earth being less than 10,000 years old.


before I start my argument I will quickly rebut two points of your opening.

first on carbon dating and its accuracy. you have stated that it is 'very accurate for dates 15,000 years through present' there are problems throughout this statement. That carbon dates are still accurate in the modern times but because of the atomic bombs our recent ancestors have decided to drop the past thousand years have skewed the number of radioactive elements and thus carbon dating because carbon dating is based on the half-life of radioactive carbon-14 which is 5730 years and then measuring how much of the carbon is present. this causes our second problem with you statement as a margin of error will occur with such a technique which is +/- hundreds even thousands of years depending upon how old the sample is and the quality of the sample.
So naturally from here I thought I would try to find the margin of error on the "academically accurate source" you listed. The link took me to a site that is clearly a source of academic excellence as I am bombarded with click baited thumbnails about Hollywood rumours and cat fights clearly where I want to look when finding unbias and clear evidence.

On to my arguments

The Earth as we know it is under humanities control we manipulate all the natural forces of evolution with our knowledge and free will when did we start to do this around 10 000 years ago the beginning of the Neolithic era this is when the last great ice age ended and the natural forces of evolution took a step back and humanity broke free expanding across the world creating what we call earth. so i and debating on the premise that yes the matter used to make us may have been ancient but everything before 10 000 years ago was under full control of nature and god as he created the world in which we could live it is only 10 000 years ago that he has finished his creation and given us our free will to colonise it.

before the neolithic era what governed the world nature and the forces of god. before the neolithic era, the world was still being formed it has had extinction after extinction as god resets his creation not approving with what he is creating for us he had used ice ages meteors volcanoes the works all to get the world into a place that he found acceptable for us to live and thrive in.

since the Neolithic time we have taken over evolution in control and used our ability to collectively learn and communicate ideas to govern our own futures with free will given to us by god and this is the point where the earth was born. not how long what now makes up the earth existed but how old what we call the earth is. which by this account is 10 000 years old.

I await your responce.

Carbon Dating -
Neolithic period -
era before the neolithic -
Debate Round No. 2


First, I don't think you put forth any evidence supporting your claim, besides the story behind it.

Next, I'll use your own source:
"The low activity of the carbon-14 limits age determinations to the order of 50,000 years by counting techniques." Therefore, we can trust the dates of Goblekli Tepe (again, BURIED at 10,000 years ago and these are only the newest layers).

The comment in the same source about the atomic bombs was mis-used above I believe. They are saying Carbon dating of future artifacts will be problematic due to the use of these bombs. Not that the data of older artifacts will be effected. Furthermore, how would the testing of these in Russia, the US, and use in Japan affect the material laying under the ground, buried 10,000 years ago, in Turkey?

Again, from your own source, using simple algebra, you can figure out the age of an artifact to 50,000 years accurately by counting the amount of Carbon. points to cave paintings 3x or more times older than the newest layers in Goblekli Tepe.

In my opinion, you have not done enough to discount Carbon dating of things 20,000 years or younger, nor have you presented any actual evidence supporting your claim.

For example, "before the neolithic era what governed the world nature and the forces of god". You didn't say why this should be believed. You didn't even cite the common genealogies and ages of people to derive a specific age of the earth. Nor the stuff about the sun getting brighter and what this would mean for the Earth > 50,000 years ago, etc...


I thank you for your swift reply I will first defend my stance before attacking yours then rebuild my argument.

First, there is not much to rebuild or defend as you failed to engage with too many of my points. In which I explained how taking a view of both science and god you can still use logic to come to the conclusion that the earth as we know it is 10 000 years old as you have not engaged with my points they still stand.

You spent the bulk of your argument protecting Carbon dating. Now the only problem I had with this was the simplicity of which you showed this complex process and pointed that out. in your first paragraph, you tried to use my source against me but I was never questioning the given date of your Temple/House thing but merely the margin of error saying that sure the estimated date is 11 000 but with the margin of error that number could drop quite drastically. With the comment on the Atom Bombs, it was merely to clear up the misrepresentation you gave that carbon dating anything up to the present is accurate and in fact it isn't.

So in your opinion, i may not have discounted the evidence but I have placed it under scrutiny showing that your evidence could still fall into the timeline I have placed being the first settlement after God steps out giving us control of our own future giving us a finished Earth a fully created Earth. but it's not your opinion here it's our voters who I gave the courtesy of being somewhat cognitively able to see that before the Neolithic Era the human race was not in control we were simple hunter-gatherer apes. before the neolithic era, i gave our voters and you the assumption of a common knowledge that before then the world was controlled not by us but by the ice ages that hit, by the earthquakes that came, by the predators mindlessly hunting to survive.

I have shown a Theory that is believable by all for the age and timeline of our world. I have not questioned how long the matter of this world has been present because that has been worked by god and we can only measure the lifetime of something once it has finished being created for example a Baby you doing measure its age from conception but from birth it just so happened it took god time to create the majesty we call earth. this is a different viewpoint that I haven't heard in any of these debates and one that I have found most convincing. So, please.
Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by mmichaen 2 months ago

no thought i would try something that challenged my viewpoint
Posted by Jerry947 2 months ago
@mmichaen you believe in God?
Posted by Peepette 2 months ago
PRO's contention that the Earth is older than 10,000 years and affirms the point with carbon dating. CON rebuts that the flaws in carbon dating are greater than PRO states. Upon reading the citation CON presents for rebuttal, CON does mislead, which PRO adequately contests and cites cave paintings being significanty older than Goblekli Tepe"s age of over 10,000 years. CON presents a finished Earth theory. Before the Neolithic period God was tying things out, wiping it clean and then handing Earth"s dominion to man 10,000 years ago; the birth of Earth as we now know it. PRO touches upon CON's contention in rebuttal stating lack of genealogical evidence and the Sun's brightness increasing more than 50,000 years ago, as well as lack of CON's evidence to support her contention. CON does not defend against these points. PRO barely meets the BoP for the win.

Critique: This was a fairly thin debate, although PRO did prove that the Earth is over 10k yrs old, she made critical mistakes in not fully picking apart CON's contention. First, that her new Earth theory being off topic from the title. CON makes big claims that PRO does not fully touch upon. CON's claims imply that God is fallible; he made an error with his original creation. As an omnipotent entity he is incapable of making mistakes by definition. PRO fails to pick up on this. She also does not question how man manipulates forces of evolution. A more detailed approach in rebuttals would have made this a far more thorough and interesting debate.
Posted by TheBenC 2 months ago
The Bible never says the age of the planet. Some monk came up with a number by counting the generations of people listed in the Bible and everyone said "yeah, that's it!". People "believe" this because they just don't care and it doesn't matter at all in their lives.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Peepette 2 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: RFD in comments