The Instigator
imsmarterthanyou98
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
JPROSP8
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The age of the earth is over 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 2 votes the winner is...
imsmarterthanyou98
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 623 times Debate No: 43451
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Hi i would like to have a interesting debate about this topic!
I would like to debate that the age of our earth is over 10,000 years old.

1.Use logic
2.First round acceptance.
3.Second round opening.
4.Third rebuttals.
5.Closeing statements.
Thanks,:)
JPROSP8

Con

I Accept
Debate Round No. 1
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Evidence has convinced scientists that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (plus or minus about 1%) . This value is derived from several different lines of evidence however i do not have to prove that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old i simply must prove that the age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.

P1. Radiometric age dating
The oldest rocks which have been found date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago by several radiometric dating methods. Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.


These values alone do not excatly indicate an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit
(the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it).
This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age




P2. The realiability of radiometric dating

The atoms of radioactive isotopes are unstable have a fixed decay over time by dischargeing particles at a fixed rate, transforming the material into a stable substance. For example, half the mass of carbon-14,
(the hardest substance known to mankind)

Is an unstable isotope of carbon, and decays into nitrogen-14 over a fixed time period.
The regularity of this decay allows scientists to determine the age of extremely old organic materials.

With a high degree of precision. The decay of uranium-238, has a half-life of nearly 4.5 billion years, enabled geologists to determine the age of the Earth.

Many scientists, including Marie and Pierre Curie, Ernest Rutherford and George de Hevesy, have tried to influence the rate of radioactive decay to try and test the true accuracy of dateing by radically changing the pressure, temperature, magnetic field, acceleration, or radiation environment of the source. No experiment to date has detected any change in rates of decay.

Therefore we can all come to the conclusion that since P1 and P2 are valid and backed by evidence and science the age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.


Sources.
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...;
JPROSP8

Con

JPROSP8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Extend all arguments FF.
JPROSP8

Con

JPROSP8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Full 7 points go to me.
JPROSP8

Con

JPROSP8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Troll away YYW, don't see any ppl here to bother anyway with it.
A sort of waste of trolling time.
I'd rather troll idiotically dumber than doggy doo websites like BeginningAndEnd.com
They are a right bunch of Loony Tunes.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
Very tempted to troll.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Oops, I 4got, nor the following of those Loons.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
We could get the likes of Ken Ham or Ray Comfort to challenge this debate on D.O.
So it is not common knowledge to those loons.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I don't think this is a debate, this is common knowledge.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
imsmarterthanyou98JPROSP8Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Thought Con could have a chance of winning this, if he cited some Peer Reviewed Creationist Documents, But, forfeiting after accepting is Bad Manners. Con had a fighting chance!
Vote Placed by WilliamofOckham 3 years ago
WilliamofOckham
imsmarterthanyou98JPROSP8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.