The Instigator
tejretics
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
pr.Daniel_Jordan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Earth is probably greater than 10,000 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 1 vote the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/13/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,170 times Debate No: 78646
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (1)

 

tejretics

Pro

First round acceptance only. BOP is shared.
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Con

State your first argument that the age of the earth is greater than 10,000 years.
Debate Round No. 1
tejretics

Pro

== Case ==

The scientific consensus is clear that the Earth is > 10,000 years. With my case, I shall defend various dating methods to conclude that the Earth's age is likely more than 10,000 years.

(1) Uranium-lead dating

The first form of dating I shall defend is a form of radiometric dating called uranium-lead dating, usually used in dating zircon rock, by measuring the decay of uranium through to lead. It can be used on both major isotopes of uranium -- U-235 and U-238. They decay two isotopes of lead, Pb-206 and Pb-207 respectively. Radiogenic uranium and radiogenic lead have a direct relationship.

Uranium-lead dating has computed ages of substances on the Earth that are greater than 10,000 years. It has, for instance, dated rocks at 3.8 billion years. [1] It has also computed *reliable* ages for zircon rock ranging anywhere between 1 million and 4.5 billion years. [2] Additionally, in a source of debate between geologists and creationists, uranium-lead dating computed an age of zircon crystals as being 1.5 million years old. [3] Therefore, if uranium-lead dating has sound assumptions and can soundly calculate dates with an accuracy rate of +/- .1% [2], then the Earth is probably greater than 10,000 years old.

Uranium-lead dating computes ages with a simple formula:



"Nnow" represents the number of uranium atoms currently present in the sample of zircon rock or zircon crystals. "Norig" refers to the number of uranium atoms originally in the sample, which is equal to the sum of lead and uranium atoms in the sample, since lead atoms displace some uranium atoms in the sample. "λ" represents the decay rate of uranium. The age of the zircon crystals, which has to be determined by the dating, is "t". [4]

"Nnow" can be measured by modern methods such as mass spectrometry. Norig is directly obtained from Nnow, since Norig is the same as the sum of uranium atoms and lead atoms in the sample, or the originally measured number of uranium atoms in the sample, both of which can be easily obtained. [5]

Radioactive decay generally occurs when nuclear force is overcome by means of quantum tunnelling. As protons and neutrons are in close proximity with the nucleus, external factors rarely change or influence radioactive decay rates. Therefore, temperature changes, pressure, chemical bonding, and similar factors do not affect radioactive decay rates. Only *very few* studies have managed to affect radioactive decay rates. [6] Therefore, with no external influence, there is nothing to impact our findings of units for λ.

Zircon crystals are ideal for uranium-lead dating. Zircon naturally excludes trace lead in its crystallization process. Prof. Bill Composton writes, "First of all, uranium atoms fit easily into the zircon site in the crystal lattice. They have the same ionic radius as the zirconium, so when the zircon is crystallising, any atoms of uranium that are in the melt will slide into the growing mineral. In contrast, lead doesn't fit well. It has a different ionic radius and a different charge balance. So the mineral zircon strongly excludes lead." [7] Samuel Bowring, et al. write, "It is now quite clear that most zircons quantitatively exclude Pb when they crystallize from magma and that all the Pb contained in the zircon crystal lattice is from the decay of U." [8]

With all assumptions justified, uranium-lead dating affirms an age of the Earth > 10,000 years.

(2) Carbon dating

Carbon dating is used to accurately date objects that are less than 50,000 years old. [9] Carbon dating has dated bones and trees greater than 10,000 years. [9-10] Therefore, if I affirm that carbon dating is accurate, I affirm that the Earth is greater than 10,000 years old.

The accuracy of carbon dating is confirmed by "dendrochronology," which dates the age of trees using the sizes and shapes of tree rings. Rings from different trees can be matched together and used to date forests. [11] Using carbon dating and gaining the same dates as dendochronology confirms that carbon dating is accurate. [11]

Therefore, carbon dating also affirms an age of the Earth > 10,000 years.

Thus, I affirm.

== Sources ==

[1] http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...
[2] Parrish, Randall R.; Noble, Stephen R., 2003. Zircon U-Th-Pb Geochronology by Isotope Dilution
[3] http://www.oldearth.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] http://tinyurl.com...
[7] http://tinyurl.com...
[8] http://tinyurl.com...
[9] http://tinyurl.com...
[10] http://tinyurl.com...
[11] http://tinyurl.com...
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Con

Thank you for this debate. Before I start, I would like to request of you this: do not use majority opinion as an argument in this debate, only scientific facts that are from the laboratory and measured using scientific devices. Do not dismiss scientific data because the person behind the data does not believe as you do. If you can agree to this, then I would be very happy and you would show that you encourage a scientific debate without invoking persons and their public importance into the debate -- it's irrelevant.

Let's begin. Your first argument is radiometric dating, specifically U|Pb. In my defense, I will point to one of the necessary assumptions of this method, and then prove that the assumption is wrong -- positively proving that your argument does not stand. The assumption I am talking about is the assumption of constant and steady decay rate. I will point to the study of helium retention in zircon crystals. I'm aware of the fact that there are rebuttals out there, and I would be more than happy to deal with them, if you would point them out.

Helium retention in zircon crystals -- decay rate was different in the past.
The research began two decades ago, when a team of scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory reported high amounts of helium in zircon crystals.[1] Then, when the year 2000 was nearing, scientists at ICR began the RATE project: the goal was to collect information on the age of the earth and make groundbreaking discoveries in the field. The scientists marked the research of the ORNL team as very significant and performed further research on the topic of helium retention in zircon crystals. They positively concluded through various calculations and measurements that the helium generated in zircon crystals through decay requires the speed of the decay rate to accelerate greatly, more details in their research paper.[2]

Then you mention radiocarbon dating. The ages of radiocarbon dating are interesting though, they have given dates of 20-30k years to dinosaur bones: http://newgeology.us... and there is one more interesting thing about this dating method, it also assumes constant decay rate, which was questioned earlier by studies like helium retention in zircon crystals. Then, another interesting thing about this method is that it assumes the percentage in the atmosphere of the present every time it dates ancient objects. However, the magnetic field of the earth is decaying and therefore, more C-14 is being produced by the cosmic rays hitting N-14 atoms in the atmosphere, this would mean that earlier, there was less C-14 in the atmosphere -- which would lead our instruments today to show dates higher than correct.[3] however, they attribute this decay to reversing magnetic fields, of which there is no evidence -- not that it would help alot either. In other words, the C-14 amount is not a constant and therefore the argument from radiocarbon dating is good.

[1] http://www.halos.com...
[2] http://static.icr.org...
[3] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Debate Round No. 2
tejretics

Pro

== Con's Sources ==

I have a problem with some of Con's sources, which I shall address under this subheading. Specifically, the *entirety* of the RATE project is questionable, as is the source regarding C-14 in dinosaur fossils [http://newgeology.us...].

(a) ICR

1. The ICR is biased towards a young Earth. "The ICR adopts the Bible as an inerrant and literal documentary of scientific and historical fact as well as religious and moral truths, and espouses a Young Earth creationist worldview. It rejects evolutionary biology, which it views as a corrupting moral and social influence and threat to religious belief." [1] The ICR has often merely *asserted* the Bible's accuracy, and then looks for scientific means to justify it, without *considering* other facts.

2. The ICR's research lacks reliable scholarship and academic freedom, so there's *no* clear justification for credentials, etc. "In a 1995 review of work published by ICR researchers, Douglas J. Futuyma writes, 'Neither in the creationist literature nor in the scientific literature have I found any reference to Confessional research by these individuals in genetics, paleontology, taxonomy, anatomy, or any of the other fields most relevant to the study of evolution.' He found their work most often published instead by an overtly religious publishing house, Creation-Life Publishers." [1] Confessor Massimo Pigliucci criticizes the ICR for not using Conper scientific framework during research. He cites the example of Harold Slusher resorting to non-Einsteinian and non-Euclidean interpretations of light travel to reconcile light travel and young earth creationism. [2]

(b) "New Geology"

Con's source regarding radiocarbon dating of dinosaurian fossils is questionable, since the author has *no established credentials.* The author of the source is one John Michael Fischer. A Google search of "John Michael Fischer" produces no relevant results.

== Rebuttal ==

Con's offenses here are that the presence of C-14 in dinosaur bone fossils prove a young Earth. I shall refute that while defending uranium-lead dating.

(1) Uranium lead dating

Con's refutation of uranium lead dating is based on helium retention in zircon crystals, that changes decay rate and results in the assumption λ in the formula being unsound. The primary source of information for this is the RATE project. My first critic of the RATE project's usage of helium in zircon crystals rendering uranium-lead dating unsound is a study by Dr. Kevin Henke, which critiques the helium diffusion argument. [3] Henke argues, "The old Earth multi-domain model from Loechelt (2008c) better explains helium diffusion in the Fenton Hill zircons than Dr. Humphreys' young Earth RATE model." [3]

First, Dr. Humphreys' RATE model fails to fulfill Quality Assurance or Quality Control Procedures. "Essential QC/QA Concedures include properly collecting, identifying, labeling, storing and monitoring all samples. If the collection site of a specimen is unknown or if it has been improperly stored for several decades, any resulting data are often useless." [3] Humphreys insists that most of the Precambrian sections of the Fenton Hill cores are "granodiorites." This is flawed, since they are, in fact, *gneisses.* The entire RATE study assumes that the Precambrian sections consisted of *only one* rock unit. Humphreys admits that if it was not only one rock unit, or if the experiment failed to identify rock types, it would be inappropriate for their modeling efforts. [3]

Conclusion: Con gives us *no reason* to think that Humphrey's model is preferable to Loechelt's model or Henke's own model, both of which *clearly outweigh* Humphrey's model as it fails to maintain proper "peer reviewed" standards, and the data's confusion of rock types prevents its model from being preferable to either of the two models.

(2) Carbon dating

Con *concedes* that carbon dating is reliable due to dendrochronology. Con then says carbon dating entails that dinosaurs are young. I could *concede* this, and it would still not impact that the Earth is > 10,000 years old. This argument does not link, simply because even if dinosaurs were young, it doesn't entail that the Earth is young. The Earth could be old while dinosaurs are still young. And carbon dating *has* dated objects to be > 10,000 years old, which is sufficient to affirm. Note: By standard debate convention, silence is compliance, so you can presume Pro. So this argument does not link, and my impacts are conceded.

For all these reasons, Vote Pro.

== Sources ==

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] Massimo Pigliucci, "Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science," p. 46
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Con

(ONE) CRITIQUE OF THE ICR

(1) It's biased
(1A) Everyone is biased to some extent. In the case of the Institute for Creation Research, bias is 100%. However, this bias does not in any way interfere with the accuracy of the research paper I have provided.

(2) It lacks reliable scholarship
(2A) I would disagree entirely. The Institue for Creation Research has very professional scientists from various fields. In the RATE project, there were seven PhD scientists with experience:

i. Steven A. Austin who is a geologist with B.S. in geology from the University of Washington, a M.S. in geology from San Jose State University and a PhD in geology from the Pennsylvania State University.

ii. John R. Baumgardner who is a geophysicist with Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. He is the chief developer of the TERRA code, a 3-D finite element program for modelling the earth’s mantle and lithosphere and was with the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

iii. Russell Humphreys who is a physicist with B.S. in physics from Duke University and PhD in physics: In 1972, he was awarded a Ph.D. in physics due to his work on cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon–nucleon interactions. Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. In 1985, he began working with Sandia’s ‘Particle Beam Fusion Project’, and was co-inventor of special laser-triggered ‘Rimfire’ high-voltage switches.

iv. Don DeYoung is a physicists with a B.S. in physics from Michigan Technological University, an M.S. in physics from Michigan Technical University, and a Ph.D. in physics from Iowa State University.

v. Larry Vardiman is a meteorologist, he holds a B.S. in physics from the University of Missouri, a B.S. in meteorology from St. Louis University and an M.S. and Ph.D. in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. He is a member of the American Meteorological Society and has authored numerous research papers in the area of cloud physics and meteorology.

vi. Andrew A. Snelling completed a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Geology with First Class Honours at The University of New South Wales in Sydney, and graduated a Doctor of Philosophy (in geology) at The University of Sydney, for his thesis entitled A geochemical study of the Koongarra uranium deposit, Northern Territory, Australia. Between studies and since, Andrew worked for six years in the exploration and mining industries in Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory variously as a field, mine and research geologist. he was involved in research projects with various CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) and University scientists across Australia, and with scientists from the USA, Britain, Japan, Sweden and the International Atomic Energy Agency. As a result of this research, Andrew was involved in writing scientific papers that were published in international scientific journals.

vii. Eugene F. Chaffin is a physicist with a B.S. from Oklahoma State University, M.S. from Oklahoma State University
Ph.D. from Oklahoma State University.

(3) It does not cooperate with the mainstream
(3A) It does not, due to discrimination. See the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" for more on the relationship between creation scientists and the naturalistic darwinian establishment. And by the way, what the 'hell' does that have to do with the research paper? Is not 'independent' scientific research allowed? Seriously, I didn't get that one.
________________________________________

(TWO) CRITIQUE OF C-14 DINOSAUR BONES

(1) The New Geology author has no credentials
(1A) The author merely wrote about it, it does not follow that HE did it. If you had read the link which I gave you, then you would have known that it had taken place at a major international meeting and that the people responsible for the testing were a paleonchronology group from Germany with very professional credentials and several U.S. laboratories, more on that in the link I gave you.
________________________________________

(THREE) REBUTTAL (U/PB)

(1) Con's refutation of uranium lead dating is based on helium retention in zircon crystals, that changes decay rate and results in the assumption λ in the formula being unsound. The primary source of information for this is the RATE project.
(1A) The primary source of information for this is the research performed by a team of scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

(2) My first critic of the RATE project's usage of helium in zircon crystals rendering uranium-lead dating unsound is a study by Dr. Kevin Henke, which critiques the helium diffusion argument. [3] Henke argues, "The old Earth multi-domain model from Loechelt (2008c) better explains helium diffusion in the Fenton Hill zircons than Dr. Humphreys' young Earth RATE model."
(2A) Henke made two rebuttals. First he disputed about % retention, source of helium, and minor issues but the scientists at ICR concluded that effects of all of these issues turn out to be vastly smaller than the factor of 100,000 discrepancy observed.[1] Then he alleged that in situ hydrostatic pressure effect is significant. However, zircons are so hard that pressure or vacuum doesn’t affect helium diffusion significantly.[2]

(3) First, Dr. Humphreys' RATE model fails to fulfill Quality Assurance or Quality Control Procedures. "Essential QC/QA Concedures include properly collecting, identifying, labeling, storing and monitoring all samples. If the collection site of a specimen is unknown or if it has been improperly stored for several decades, any resulting data are often useless."
(3A) I have contacted the ICR regarding this issue and I am expecting their response. However, what I can say right here and now is that this is more important when dealing with more precise measurements and sensitive biological material. They have tested 'rocks' for things that people claim remain the same for thousands of years in the long evolutionary timeline, it's irrelevant in this case, really -- but like I said, I'm still expecting a resposne from them, just out of curiosity.

(4) Humphreys insists that most of the Precambrian sections of the Fenton Hill cores are "granodiorites." This is flawed, since they are, in fact, *gneisses.* The entire RATE study assumes that the Precambrian sections consisted of *only one* rock unit. Humphreys admits that if it was not only one rock unit, or if the experiment failed to identify rock types, it would be inappropriate for their modeling efforts. [3]
(4A)
What he doesn’t realize is that “Jemez Granodiorite” is a name the ICR invented (since the literature had not previously named it) to apply to the whole unit from about 700 meters depth down to below 4,310 meters. John Baumgardner, a geophysicist, saw large portions of the GT-2 core at Los Alamos and picked our samples from it. He says: "Yes, there are occasional veins of material other than the coarse-grained granodiorite that forms the vast majority of the core. In making the selections I made of what samples to use, I purposely avoided these occasional veins. In fact I tried to select sections of the core well removed from such veins. So at least from my vantage point, the samples of core we used for the helium diffusion measurements were indeed coarse-grained granodiorite, not gneiss."

(5) Conclusion: Con gives us *no reason* to think that Humphrey's model is preferable to Loechelt's model or Henke's own model, both of which *clearly outweigh* Humphrey's model as it fails to maintain proper "peer reviewed" standards, and the data's confusion of rock types prevents its model from being preferable to either of the two models.
(5A) Read my answers to your critique and tell me if you have the same opinion then. You have no critiques standing, of course, your only option is to attack the people behind the data due to their beliefs, but that would be an extremely unscientific move on your part.
________________________________________

(FOUR) REBUTTAL (C-14)

(1) Con *concedes* that carbon dating is reliable due to dendrochronology.
(1A) I do not, I missed your statement about dedrochronology at first, I apologize. The rings of trees grow at different rates in differnet environments and it's not reliable at all. Some trees happen to contain zero rings. How about that?

(2) Con then says carbon dating entails that dinosaurs are young. I could *concede* this, and it would still not impact that the Earth is > 10,000 years old.
(2A) I said that in order to show you that C-14 is faulty even in your view, not that the earth is less than 10k years.

(3) And carbon dating *has* dated objects to be > 10,000 years old, which is sufficient to affirm.
(3A) The reason dates move higher than 10,000 is because the magnetic field is weakening, as I said in my previous post.
________________________________________

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
tejretics

Pro

== Overview ==

The BoP in the debate was shared. Con has *no* offense at all -- I assumed the "age of dinosaurs" part was an offense, but it is merely an attempt to refute carbon dating. As such, presume Pro while voting.

(1) Sources

(A) While I concede that many sources are biased, the ICR's bias is such that it has frequently used red herrings while attacking evidence against its position, and *pre-holds* its position before seeking evidence to demonstrate it. While, per the scientific method, one should be agnostic to all positions till evidence is found, the ICR already had a position, and cements it with (flawed) evidence. That is bias. As for reliable scholarship, the RATE project, as mentioned, was *highly unscientific,* and failed to fulfill various necessary requirements.

(B) We have no reason to believe that it *actually dates dinosaurs* to such an age, or that it was taken under reliable conditions, etc. and that source's word cannot be taken.

(2) Uranium-lead dating

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory study *only shows* that helium could be retained in zircon, not that it would have significant impacts on the accuracy of dating. That goes to Humphrey's study. I attacked Humphrey's study on the basis that (1) it is unscientific, and (2) fails to account for *other* models which have better ranges of Q/Q-0 values for samples of rock.

First, that it is unscientific is *dropped* by Con. Con merely says that he has contacted the ICR regarding this, which *plays no impact* in the debate. Discredit this, and presume Pro already due to the studies. Don't allow Con to bring up new arguments from the ICR's data, since that would be a violation of standard debate convention. Con says that Humphreys picked those parts of the sample that were unnamed and named them "granodiorite" -- but this *violates* basic scientific rules, and there was *no record* made that a new form of rock was discovered at all. [1] This is rather misidentification of gneisses. Detailed information from Laughlin, et al. suggests that the samples used by Dr. Humphrey and others were actually gneisses and *not* unidentified. [1, 2]

As mentioned, Dr. Humphrey *fails* to obey the scientific method. Humphreys virtually *concedes* he commits a God-of-the-gaps fallacy, which Prof. Henke accuses Humphrey of doing. Additionally, Dr. Humphreys generates "dates" from studies using false assumptions. Assumptions used by Humphrey are "constant temperatures over time, isotropic diffusion in biotites and zircons," and similar flawed assumptions that disobey the scientific method. [1]

Finally, Con drops the models of Loechelt and Henke. Even answering the critique doesn't affect this, since Con *fails to establish* why Loechelt's model and Henke's model are inferior to Humphrey's. I argue that Humphrey's model is weaker since it does not have good ranges of Q/Q-0 values for samples of rock. Henke writes, "[D]ata from Gentry et al. (1982b) provide better ranges of Q/Q0 values for samples 1, 5 and 6 than the values used by Gentry et al. (1982a) and Dr. Humphreys." [1] He continues with regards to sample 3, saying his range of Q/Q-0 "values was derived from data in Zartman (1979) . . . [who] analyzed a zircon taken a few meters from sample 3." [1]

Therefore, uranium-lead dating is not unsound.

(3) Carbon dating

"Miss[ing] . . . dendrochronology" is not an excuse for a dropped argument; judges can disregard this argument simply because, per standard debate convention, silence is compliance. A dropped argument is still *dropped.* The argument is, anyhow, unsound. It is a straw-man of dendrochronology -- if tree rings are present, the elaborate methods of dendrochronology *can* adequately date trees, and this has not been disputed deeply. Variance of tree rings only means "counting the rings" is flawed. Dendrochronology uses various calibration curves to support it. [3] This can, successfully, calibrate carbon dating and ensure that it has sound assumptions. [4]

As for the fossil age argument, it doesn't invalidate carbon dating, since the study used wrong application of carbon dating -- carbon dating is only reliable to 50,000 years, and not more than that, which dinosaurs age to, per radiometric dating and other dating methods. Finally, Con *assumes* that the magnetic field is only decaying, and not restoring or repairing itself. Research suggests that magnetic fields are in a state of flux, so decay is supplemented by strengthening of the magnetic field. [5] Therefore, carbon dating is sound and computes ages > 10,000 years.

For all these reasons, Vote Pro.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] Laughlin, A.W., A.C. Eddy, R. Laney and M.J. Aldrich, Jr., 1983. Geology of the Fenton Hill, New Mexico, Hot Dry Rock Site
[3] Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, "Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice," p. 144.
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Con

You: The BoP in the debate was shared. Con has *no* offense at all -- I assumed the "age of dinosaurs" part was an offense, but it is merely an attempt to refute carbon dating. As such, presume Pro while voting.

Answer: I was on the defensive, I agree. However, helium in zircon crystals is not only a rebuttal of uranium / lead dating, it was also an indicator of young age, less than 10,000 years, that is what the study indicates. I have many evidences to present of it's age, but I believe there is not much time left, I'll have to refute what you say and be happy with that.
___
You: While I concede that many sources are biased, the ICR's bias is such that it has frequently used red herrings while attacking evidence against its position, and *pre-holds* its position before seeking evidence to demonstrate it. While, per the scientific method, one should be agnostic to all positions till evidence is found, the ICR already had a position, and cements it with (flawed) evidence. That is bias. As for reliable scholarship, the RATE project, as mentioned, was *highly unscientific,* and failed to fulfill various necessary requirements.

Answer: It does not matter whether or not the ICR is looking for evidence to back up it's existing beliefs, it does not matter that they are biased, what does matter is that the data they provide is correct, and so far I have seen no actual rebuttals of the study that I mentioned, and that is one among many. I would also like to add that the secular establishment is biased as well, extremely biased. Watch the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" for more on that.
___
You: (B) We have no reason to believe that it *actually dates dinosaurs* to such an age, or that it was taken under reliable conditions, etc. and that source's word cannot be taken.

Answer: Yes you have many reasons to believe that. It was performed by an actual paleochronology group, in various laboratories across the U.S., and signed by one of the world's foremost carbon dating technicians. The group has also listed the measures taken to prevent contamination, and this process has been performed on not only one bone, but on about 10 bones, which makes contamination entirely unrealistic. You can see my debate where I state that 'carbon dating says dinosaurs are young' for more on that.
___
You: The Oak Ridge National Laboratory study *only shows* that helium could be retained in zircon, not that it would have significant impacts on the accuracy of dating. That goes to Humphrey's study. I attacked Humphrey's study on the basis that (1) it is unscientific, and (2) fails to account for *other* models which have better ranges of Q/Q-0 values for samples of rock.

Answer: What it does show is that helium IS retained in zircon crystals. And the scientists at ICR have not made up the idea that it woudl affect radiometric dating, people knew that a long time ago, but the ICR was the first to perform actual calculations to show that, through actual mathematics and measurements. And I don't know what other models you are talking about, the model they have provided and plugged the data inside fits perfectly, it's clearly seen on the temp | diffusion image in their article, and the evolutionary model is way off by a factor of 100,000.
____
You: First, that it is unscientific is *dropped* by Con. Con merely says that he has contacted the ICR regarding this, which *plays no impact* in the debate.

Answer: What I contacted the ICR about is the QC/QA Concedures, I never asked them if their research is unscientific, because it's clearly not, there are zero rebuttals online, and you have of course, not given any that have not fallen after my answer. The QC/QA Concedures may or may not have been performed, but I believe it has, and the reason I believe it has is because the opposition said they misidentified rocks and therefore have not applied these concedures, but then I responded that they themselves named the rock because no previous literature had named them and dr. Baumgardner clearly responded to that critique as well.
____
You: Don't allow Con to bring up new arguments from the ICR's data, since that would be a violation of standard debate convention.

Answer: What new arguments? We were talking about helium in zircon crystals all along in this ICR conflict.
___
You: Con says that Humphreys picked those parts of the sample that were unnamed and named them "granodiorite" -- but this *violates* basic scientific rules, and there was *no record* made that a new form of rock was discovered at all.

Answer: I never said they found a new type of rock, what I said was that they invented the name. And no, they did NOT invent the name granodiorite, they invented the name Jemez Granodiorite, which is what I said earlier.
___
You: This is rather misidentification of gneisses. Detailed information from Laughlin, et al. suggests that the samples used by Dr. Humphrey and others were actually gneisses and *not* unidentified. [1, 2]

Answer: Even a three year old can tell the difference between gneiss and granodiorite, and you're telling me adult and professional geologists can't? How laughable... please read the research paper and see for yourself. Then you can google the pictures and see how different they are.
___
You: As mentioned, Dr. Humphrey *fails* to obey the scientific method. Humphreys virtually *concedes* he commits a God-of-the-gaps fallacy, which Prof. Henke accuses Humphrey of doing. Additionally, Dr. Humphreys generates "dates" from studies using false assumptions. Assumptions used by Humphrey are "constant temperatures over time, isotropic diffusion in biotites and zircons," and similar flawed assumptions that disobey the scientific method. [1]

Answer: In no way is it a god of the gaps argument, it's an argument from laboratory measurements and calculations. I don't know form where you're getting this idea. And yes, constant temperatures may have been assumed, but they assumed the Ice Age of the region providing the optimal assumption for evolutionists, due to the fact that less helium escapes in colder temperatures, but as clearly seen, the laboratory where the leak rate was tested took into account different temperatures and measured diffusion rate for these different temperature ranges.
___
You: Finally, Con drops the models of Loechelt and Henke. Even answering the critique doesn't affect this, since Con *fails to establish* why Loechelt's model and Henke's model are inferior to Humphrey's. I argue that Humphrey's model is weaker since it does not have good ranges of Q/Q-0 values for samples of rock. Henke writes, "[D]ata from Gentry et al. (1982b) provide better ranges of Q/Q0 values for samples 1, 5 and 6 than the values used by Gentry et al. (1982a) and Dr. Humphreys." [1] He continues with regards to sample 3, saying his range of Q/Q-0 "values was derived from data in Zartman (1979) . . . [who] analyzed a zircon taken a few meters from sample 3." [1]

Answer: This is answered here http://www.trueorigin.org...;-- in fact, everything Henke says is answered there.
___
You: "Miss[ing] . . . dendrochronology" is not an excuse for a dropped argument; judges can disregard this argument simply because, per standard debate convention, silence is compliance. A dropped argument is still *dropped.*

Answer: You missed my explanation of magnetic fields, you did not respond to it in your next post. Therefore, I will assume that you have accepted what I have said and that C-14 is therefore not evidence of an earth older than 10,000 years.
___
You: The argument is, anyhow, unsound. It is a straw-man of dendrochronology -- if tree rings are present, the elaborate methods of dendrochronology *can* adequately date trees, and this has not been disputed deeply. Variance of tree rings only means "counting the rings" is flawed. Dendrochronology uses various calibration curves to support it. [3] This can, successfully, calibrate carbon dating and ensure that it has sound assumptions. [4]

Answer: Some trees that are less than 2-3 thousand years may very well agree with C-14 dating, because as I said earlier, C-14 dating does work. It works for late history, the effect of the weakening magnetic field is not as severe then. However, many, many trees do not at all agree with C-14 dates, even dinosaur bones do not agree, do they? It's all a game of picking the notes you like and throwing away the ones you don't. It's proven that tree rings are not a constant 1 ring per year.
___
You: As for the fossil age argument, it doesn't invalidate carbon dating, since the study used wrong application of carbon dating -- carbon dating is only reliable to 50,000 years, and not more than that, which dinosaurs age to, per radiometric dating and other dating methods.

Answer: This positively proves that you do not understand the basics of carbon dating. If carbon dating only works up to 50k years, and you date something older, you'll get infinite or no dates, you will NOT get 20k -- the reason it does not work beyond 50k is that the number of C-14 atoms is too small to measure, therefore, bones that are 70 million years old should contain zero C-14 and date 50k --> infinite, not 20k.
___
You: Finally, Con *assumes* that the magnetic field is only decaying, and not restoring or repairing itself. Research suggests that magnetic fields are in a state of flux, so decay is supplemented by strengthening of the magnetic field. [5] Therefore, carbon dating is sound and computes ages > 10,000 years.

Answer: You're arguing from ignorance (lack of knowledge). So far, we have ONLY seen the magnetic field decay, therefore, we shall assume that is always the case, until proven otherwise. And yes, I know about the argument that the reversing of the magnetic field is seen in the cracked basalt under the Atlantic ocean, but that's only low and high magnetic strength due to cold water cooling basalt after eruption, it's not reverse -- regardless of the imaginary line drawn between low and high energy.
___
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I think you really should have spent time explaining how the helium in zircon crystals approximates the age of the Earth at 10,000 years. Even a paragraph on that could have made a big difference here, and all you would have had to replace is some of the quotes of your opponent's arguments.

Just the same, I thought you did have good arguments. You just have to keep the context of the debate front and center. I'm a scientist myself, and I know it's easy to get bogged down in specifically responding to every point to not allow any factual errors, but with such limited space, decisions have to be made.
Posted by pr.Daniel_Jordan 1 year ago
pr.Daniel_Jordan
The debate began with him presenting his evidence that the earth is greater than 10,000 years -- and I had to respond to that. I guess I simply got dragged along and kept responding, but to my defense, I have to say two things (1) even though I used most of my time responding, I did, in my honest opinion, refute every counter argument tejretics provided, and successfully defended the study of helium in zircon crystals which DOES indicate the earth is approx. 10,000 years old.

Like I said, I'll agree with myself, tejretics will agree with himself, and you'll agree with whoever you'd like to agree with :-)
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
That's the point: you responded. Response can be offense, but yours wasn't. Your responses were defense. All you managed to do, time and time again, was introduce doubt. Not proof that you were correct in stating that the world is 10,000 years old or younger, but doubt that Pro was right with his assumption that the age of the Earth is several billion years old. Your burden wasn't to introduce doubt. Your burden wasn't to be more correct than your opponent in analyzing the facts surrounding dating methods. Yet those were the burdens you attempted to meet throughout the debate.
Posted by pr.Daniel_Jordan 1 year ago
pr.Daniel_Jordan
Anyway, I appreciate that you did not simply vote in bias (you can't let a person that believes the earth is young win, after all) but took some time to study the debate. I'll agree with myself, tejretics will agree with himself, and you'll agree with whoever you'd like to agree with :-)
Posted by pr.Daniel_Jordan 1 year ago
pr.Daniel_Jordan
I disagree whiteflame. I systematically responded to Pro.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
@pr.Daniel_Jordan

It's not just better explanation. Pro displayed better strategy, focusing on offense throughout his case as opposed to tacking on vague offense at the end. If it had come down to a comparison of the facts presented, I would have had to extensively read/watch all of your sources to compare them to Pro's, and I'm honestly not sure how it would have turned out because, frankly, I'm not going to do that. No voter is.
Posted by pr.Daniel_Jordan 1 year ago
pr.Daniel_Jordan
Nevertheless, I see no standing objections to the argument(s) presented. Voters may vote Pro for better explanation, but otherwise..
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
"Then, you posted approximately three-four objections to this research of helium in zircon crystals, I responded to the majority of them very well, the only response that was a link would be to the fourth objection -- the objection that you mentioned in your comment here below. You on the other hand never responded properly (or at all) to my magnetic field response or others -- you only seem to have copy pasted some random objections from a random person, this I know since it requires alot of knowledge to write these objections, and you said you never understood the argument, how then could you have provided these objections? You're shooting yourself in the foot pretty much."

So you're accusing me of plagiarism? Observation -- that is nonsense. C/P my text into Google. I objected to it myself. The problem is, tabula rasa voters shouldn't vote on such arguments, and even I didn't get it till I read the link.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Expanding on it is needed for tabula rasa voters, not me. Voters must act as blank slates, meaning they can't vote on insufficiently explained arguments.
Posted by pr.Daniel_Jordan 1 year ago
pr.Daniel_Jordan
tejretics -- I did not expand on it alot because (1) you seemed to understand it very well, citing complex objections and other models, which only people with great knowledge of the argument itself can provide, so I find it funny that you say you do not have a good understanding of the argument (2) the name of the research program itself 'helium in zircon crystals' is easy to understand, since we all know helium is slippery and zircon crystals are supposedly 1.5 billion years old, there is an obvious contradiction visible right off the bat. (3) I gave you the research paper that you had some time to read. For these reasons, I consider my lack of expansion justified.

Then, you posted approximately three-four objections to this research of helium in zircon crystals, I responded to the majority of them very well, the only response that was a link would be to the fourth objection -- the objection that you mentioned in your comment here below. You on the other hand never responded properly (or at all) to my magnetic field response or others -- you only seem to have copy pasted some random objections from a random person, this I know since it requires alot of knowledge to write these objections, and you said you never understood the argument, how then could you have provided these objections? You're shooting yourself in the foot pretty much.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
tejreticspr.Daniel_Jordan
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con's main problem is that he's never getting any offense. Even if I buy that he's proving that the dating methods presented by Pro are inaccurate, none of his evidence shows that dating methods actually place the age of the Earth at 10,000 years or fewer. That means the best case scenario for Con is a tie, resulting from arguments showing that neither of them can accurately date the Earth, but that required that he knock down every argument made by Pro, and he just didn't get there. All the helium argument gives me is a reason to believe that zircon crystals may not give accurate measurements, but he never shows me that the rate of decay is advanced to the point that 10,000 years or less becomes the apparent date. Only Pro gives me any sort of dating that can result from decay of uranium-lead, and while I might doubt its validity, I have trouble declaring it so utterly flawed that it's 6 magnitudes off. I have nothing to balance this against, hence I vote Pro.