All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

# The Idea that Small changes in Species leads to Large Radical Changes is NOT proved

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
daley
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 10/10/2014 Category: Science Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 800 times Debate No: 62698
Debate Rounds (5)

4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by daley 2 years ago
By the way, how long does it take for 1 atom of c-14 to decay? I DARE you to tell me.
Posted by daley 3 years ago
This is not mathematically or scientifically sound. Let's say that u measured the rate at which atoms decayed to constant, so that in you could predict with accuracy that in 2, 570 years half the number of atoms making up the sample would have decayed. This would imply that the other half will take another 2, 579 years to decay as well. But this isn't what scientists predict with c-14 decay. They claim that half of the the second half of the sample would take 2, 570 years to decay. In other words, the same time it took for half the original sample to decay, it will take just a quarter of the original sample that same amount of time to decay. So they aren't working with even a constant decay rate.

Now based on what observations do they make such wild predictions? Have they observed the decay rate slowing down? And I would challenge Con and you, to give me one example of carbon dating, showing what observations were actually done and how calculations were done based upon those observations. You will find that lots of assumptions are built into this, assumptions that cannot be proved. But I don't want to reveal my hand before Con gets a chance to take up my challenge on the dating, so I'll leave that there for now. Btw, do u have a case where the exact number of carbon atoms were counted? And can you tell me how many of them decay in an hour, a day, a week, a month, or a year? I don't accept anything because a renowned scientist says so, or because a majority says it, I go by the evidence. Have you seen the evidence? I'm still waiting on Con to provide it.
Posted by gameon123321 3 years ago
No offense to Pro, but if you gather a large enough sample of C-14, some molecules will decay, and the number of atoms that decay can be measured.
A half-life does not mean that half the atoms decay at the half-life. It means that half the atoms have decayed by the half-life. The half-life, therefore, can be calculated even if the time you have observed the atoms in question is much less than the calculated half-life. You just need to have enough atoms.
Posted by Laza 3 years ago
This whole thread is a mess because it suggests that we only observed small changes in species, but that is of course not true, we have observed complete birth of NEW species, that can not produce offspring with their parent species, so there is no debate, evolution is a fact.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.