The Instigator
imsmarterthanyou98
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
maxm246
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: 1/18/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 487 times Debate No: 44221
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
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,:)
maxm246

Con

I give up. This is by far the most one sided debate I have ever seen in my life and I challenged by accident. Congratulations i guess
Debate Round No. 1
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

It's alright.
maxm246

Con

Well im sure your argument would have been good :)
Debate Round No. 2
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......;

maxm246

Con

maxm246 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by gryephon 2 years ago
gryephon
I noticed this debate didn't go well, for Con hollered uncle.

Imsmarterthanyou, if you want to do the debate, I don't mind running Con.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
-_-

nac
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 2 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
Max...you are CON in this debate.
Posted by maxm246 2 years ago
maxm246
Ok, lets look at this logically (honestly I can't even believe there is two sides to this)

1.) When in school you learned about the dinosaurs on earth 65 MILLION years ago, that was on earth. This goes for other events such as the ice age, 12,000 years ago. So many things have happened on earth proving that it has existed for more than 10,000 years.

2.) Even if we don't go with this, all you need to do is look around at rock formations, fossils, and even oceans to tell that the world is more than 10,000 years old. The gas you put in your car is more than 10,000 years old and is on earth, it came from plants under pressure millions and millions of years ago.

3.) I have proved myself, but I will keep going. According to several hundred different valid sources with experts in the field of geology, the earth was created 4.54 billion years old. They came to this conclusion from dating rocks and the earth's surface.

4.) Seriously guys? that boulder over there is more than 10,000 years old. This topic is kind of actually insulting. Did you really expect people to think that the earth is 10,000 years old? America provides free education, clearly it isn't working.

Thank you for listening, have a nice day everyone
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 2 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
Refer to my first rule.
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
The earth is actually only five minutes old. All our memories are implanted.
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 2 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
Yeah haha.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
Dammit I have to use logic?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
imsmarterthanyou98maxm246Tied
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: Con didn't have a go. Though I agree with Con, just a little one sided.
Vote Placed by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
imsmarterthanyou98maxm246Tied
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: Con forfeited so conduct goes to pro. Pro was the only one with sources so sources go to pro. Con never made any argument at all so arguments go to pro.