The Instigator
imsmarterthanyou98
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
NPDAgeek
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
imsmarterthanyou98
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 786 times Debate No: 44273
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

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,:)
NPDAgeek

Con

Good plan.

We should also establish the rule that no constructive, or new arguments can be made in rebuttals or closing statements.

Hopefully I don't have to explain, but I will.

Contructives "Opening" should be where the arguments are first made, rebuttals where they are defended or attacked, and closing statements as a highlight reel/vote me speech.
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.........;
NPDAgeek

Con

This debate is as old as... wait how would i know? I'm only 21.

On the resolution that the age of the earth is over 10,000 years old I am going to say...

THE ONLY YEARS PROVABLE ARE THE ONES YOU'VE LIVED, THE EARTH AND THE UNIVERSE FOR THAT MATTER, ARE AS OLD AS THE CONSCIOUSNESS THAT FLUNG TIME INTO EXISTENCE, BY PERCEIVING CHANGE AND STORING STIMULI AS MEMORY.

Contention 1: The Beginning of Time

Humans are the only creature that perceive time (as far as we know) without us, the universe exists as a perpetual change machine, with no beginning or end, and certainly no humans to keep records for all that time. In fact, the subjectivity of the concept of time is so anthropocentric, that we measure the years of things far greater than our planet, than our solar system than our galaxy, by how many times, this one blue speck has circled our favorite star. Man is the measure of all things.

Objectivity is a myth, man cannot perceive a true form, we are limited by sensory perception and subjective analysis. We can argue it's existence but I implore readers to take a stance of skepticism, as if they'd no previous opinion, and were learning about everything for the first time. This is because this debate will be judged on who provides the most logical arguments to support their claim.

A) THE UNIVERSE WEARS NO WATCH

i. Existence is infinite, it must be if the existence we are talking about is all encompassing, to limit the size of the universe is to separate the universe from whatever is not the universe. Whatever that void may be that is used as a contrast to the observable mess of matter we see in the eye of god, I am including it in my definition of the universe.

ii. Everything that is has and will ever happen is happening simultaneously if we concede that the universe is infinite, for something to not exist within our universe is to define universe as something other than an all encompassing oneness.

iii. Nothing is linear, the theory of fractal geometry states that the measurement of a thing is not true, but instead depends on the scope through which the thing is seen. I.E. if you were to measure south america with rulers the perimeter would be longer than if you had used yard sticks. Meaning that things are far more complex than the certainties that quantify them and our facts are fluid.

B) MEMORY IS THE METER

i. The only thing we have to measure time is our memory, the position our observable existence is now, the form it is now, relative to the form it was before.

ii. Even times from before we were born, are memories because the way we receive them are experienced during our lifetime. I.E. Our parents told us, history lectures, literature, calenders, blah blah etc etc.

iii. Without memory there is no time, ask a man with short term memory loss the date and you will find that he is actually in a different time than you.

C) TIME AS AN ETHIC

i. We've created time and mutually agreed upon the way in which we measure time, in order to function more efficiently in our lives, it brings context to stories, and order to the performing of social duties. It is a way to live well, but not necessarily a truth.

D) I THINK THEREFORE I AM

i. Renee Descartes renowned mathematician and philosopher, arguably the found of the modern scientific method, stated in his work that the only think you can prove is your existence. All other concepts are impossible to truly grasp through the methods of man.

ii. Because this is about proving without a doubt the age of earth, I am going to use cogito ergo sum as a model in this debate.

E) EVERYTHING IS AS OLD AS YOU TO YOU

i. Conceding that we've created time to function, that time as a measurement is fail-able, and that it only observable through memory, we come to the crux of my argument. The universe is as old as you are.

ii. Memory is the only solid evidence that anything ever happened, we think, therefore we are. The other is impossible to measure.

iii. Therefore, the only accurate time frame we have, conceding that the earth's revolutions around the sun is the measurement of years, and that you can only prove that you exist, and memories are the measure of time, you cannot prove the existence of any years before your birth.

MAN IS THE MEASURE OF ALL THINGS, WITHOUT MIND TIME WOULD NOT EXIST, WE CAN PROVE ONLY OUR OWN EXISTENCE, MEMORY IS THE MEASURE OF TIME, ONE CAN ONLY PROVE THAT THE EARTH IS AS OLD AS THEM.

Contention 2. On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres

A) Young on Neptune, Ancient on Mercury, Eternal in the Universe

i. We judge a year as 365 spins during 1 revolution of the earth around the sun.

ii. On earth we are as old as we are now, on Neptune, we are much younger due to the length that Neptune must traverse to circle the sun.

iii. Mercury years multiply our years by 5.

iv. The universe does not orbit, it encompasses everything, and has no relative time, the universe relative to earths revolutions about the sun? An incredible comparison.

v. this proves that our time is relative to a body, making the number describing the age of earth as long as you want it to be as depending on it's comparison.

THE EARTH IS AS OLD AS YOU ARE RELATIVE TO THE SUN, BUT DEFINING ITS AGE IS SO PROPORTIONATELY PREPOSTEROUS THAT TO SAY THE EARTH WAS OLDER THAN 10000 YEARS WOULD MAKE NO MORE SENSE THAN SAYING IT WAS 1 YEARS OLD OR 123 TRILLION YEARS OLD, THE ONLY TIME YOU CAN PROVE IS THE TIME YOU REMEMBER RELATIVE TO THE SUN, THE EARTH IS NOT OLDER THAN TEN THOUSAND YEARS OLD.
Debate Round No. 2
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

It appears my esteemed opponent disregarded the first rule of our debate 1.Use logic

Not a single of Con's arguments are backed up by evidence or observation,science or logic.
Therefore we can simply dismiss Contention 1, A) ,i,ii,iii,B),ii,iii,C)i,D)i,ii,E)i,ii,iii,Contention 2 A) i,ii,iii,iv,and v.

Con has yet to provide a logical scientific case for the earth being younger than 10,000 years i've provided evidence for the earth being over 10,000 years old backed by logical evidence and observation.
NPDAgeek

Con

My opponent decided to drop every contention I made, and wants you to do so as well, why?
Because my opponent claims I did not use logic to explain my case, his warrants?

ZERO

This debate has now become a debate on whether or not I use logic to support my case.
If you the voter find that I do use logic to support my case, which I will prove to you (with logic) in a minute, then you will find that all of my arguments stand unanswered by Pro and are thus conceded to be true.

This is because Pro puts no ink on any of my contentions, meaning the only reason you will have to disregard my argument is if you have decided to personally, which is not an objective vantage for a judge to take.

Once again I implore you to take a stance of skepticism in this debate and read as if you had no previous opinion about the subject, obviously this is not entirely possible, but down voting an argument because you disagree with it personally is not the way one finds a debate to be won.

ANSWER 1. LOGIC

Definition: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

A) To prove I am using logic I am simply going to write a math problem using the symbols I designate my arguments with.

(A+(i+ii+iii))+(B+(i+ii+iii))+(C+i)+(D(i+ii))+(E+(i+ii+iii))=CLAIM

i. Logic is using symbols to form a pattern that explains using supporting symbols the function from which an outcome is derived.
ii. As I have just proven to you above, my argument relies heavily an sequential symbols to lead to and support the validity of my claim.

B) FALLACY

i. on an offensive note, to explain that I am not using logic my opponent makes a claim that he does not support with sequence or pattern, meaning the validity relies on the argument that my argument x=y illogical. I have proven to you that not only does my argument "use logic" but that his argument that my argument does not uses a logical FALLACY.

ii. My opponent actually uses multiple fallacies to prove that my argument is illogical.

iii. First off, everything a human does, says, thinks is logical, the question is not logic or no, it is how does the logic work, and does it?

iv. If you will visit his answer below, you will see that I have put ink on it in the places where he uses fallacy. (link to list below)

Strawman+fallacy fallacy
"It appears my esteemed opponent disregarded the first rule of our debate 1.Use logic"

A) Misrepresents my argument by saying that I do not use logic as a way of making it easier to attack.

B) Although he does not use the word fallacy, saying something is illogical is saying that the logic does not work, which is fallacy, he claims I am illogical, and that is the reason my arguments are wrong, instead of explaining why my logic does not work. He just states, much like a teenager who is not getting their way, "this is stupid."

Burden of proof+Strawman+fallacy fallacy
"Not a single of Con's arguments are backed up by evidence or observation,science or logic.
Therefore we can simply dismiss Contention..."

A) Once again he claims that his empty claim that I am not using evidence observation science or logic that (redundant) that my arguments are wrong, he is not showing you why, he is simply stating that it is so. Unless you answer to my opponent as an absolute authority on truth, (I hope not) then you should ask for reason.

B) Strawman once again he misrepresents my case by stating that I do not provide evidence or "science" this is simply setting himself up to be able to attack my argument easily, this is lazy debate.

C) The burden of proof is on the Pro, I am simply here to break apart his case, also he disregards by use of Descartes, as a check back against this "no evidence waaa" argument, I ask you to look at his cites, you may see that he actually only has one.

I feel like I am repeating myself
"Con has yet to provide a logical scientific case for the earth being younger than 10,000 years i've provided evidence for the earth being over 10,000 years old backed by logical evidence and observation.

A) his argument that his claim is backed by logic and mine is not, is unwarranted, meaning he provides no steps, reason, or evidence that this is true.

You should find that the provision of sources is not the be all end all of debate, that if one can explain to you in round using SOUND logic that a claim is true, that you should allow for that as a win. If you want to question a claim or statement, do so specifically, and then prove it not to be true, not generally and for for the whole case.

My opponent might have said NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NUHHH UHHHH! Then he could spare us our time by condensing what is essentially a loftily worded Nuh-uh.

Contradiction is not a case, and it should not be voted on unless you want to promote debate that does not educate.

I have proved to you that my opponent is shooting himself in the foot with his answer phase, that I am using logic, and that you should not disregard my case.

VOTE HERE because Pro is abusing this debate by disregarding my entire argument, this is a waste of everyones time, and a waste of a valuable opportunity to educate both myself, him, and viewers. This is bad because education is the purpose of debate, not argue, using logic, that our arguments are using logic.

https://www.google.com...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

ONTO HIS CASE

Despite the fact that I've won this debate because he has dropped my entire case and conceded it to be true, I am going to take apart his case, and show you using LOGIC why he does not prove the resolution.

P1. Radiometric dating is something one does within their lifetime, as a way to attempt to understand the objective age of the earth relative to the sun earth revolution relationship that designates what we call years.

1) PROS CASE BITES INTO MY ARGUMENT

i. Read contention one section B in my case
ii. His argument does not prove because he is using a memory within his lifetime to date the earth
iii. He is reading a wiki page, about a guy who was testing the radioactive decay of an element, both of which happened within the lifetime of both the scientist and PRO.
iv. Read contention one section D of my case
v. Memory is thoughts about thoughts, this is the measure of time, because my opponent conceded cogito ergo sum, than we can say that the only thing Pro is proving is that he has a memory of this time, because that is all he can prove exists, he is essentially illustrating my case.

P2. RELIABILITY OF MEMORY

i. Memory and thought can only be relied on, as stated in my case, to prove the objective existence of themselves
ii. Pro tries to prove that all science is sound
iii. The scientific method, Renee Descartes brainchild, disproves the validity of his case
iv. All scientific theory in any field is fluid and not permanent
v. this proves my contention that anything but the existence of thought is impossible to objectively prove
vi. look at the fact that the earth was thought of as only 10,000 years old only 400 years ago.
vii. that was then accepted as a scientific fact that could not be refuted
viii. The reliability of radiometric dating is by the laws of the scientific method unreliable

FINALLY

There is not a lot more I can say about this case, it is fairly straightforward.
But I will also shell the idea that, pro does not really debate, he just refutes my entire case.
This should be considered in the voting process because debate should be contructive and thought out, instead of disregarded. Who should be allowed to declare themselves the winner without giving reason? no one, do not vote Pro even if you don't buy anything that I am saying, because that would be a vote supporting what debate should solve
Debate Round No. 3
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

It appears my esteemed opponent has yet agian disregarded the first rule of our debate.Con has yet to make a valid logical scientific case why we should belive that the earth is less than 10,000 years i've provided evidence and observations.

Con's excessivly long case is an entire tautology full logical fallacys and supported by no evidence at all.I will repeat i produced a case for the earth being over 10,000 years old that is backed by evidence ,observation and science.
My arguments stand.




Vote pro if you value evidence and logic.
NPDAgeek

Con

Fine, if pro isn't going to answer my arguments then this debate is over.

Pro states in his final round that I am full of logical fallacies, without warranting his claim in any way whatsoever. I would warrant this claim, but the last two identical pro arguments that you can read if you just scroll up are warrant enough.

He also claims once again that I am not using logic, this is simply contradiction, it is dismissive and abusive to the purpose of debate. Instead of deconstructing my arguments he just says nuh-uh.

Why are you even on this site if you don't want to debate against arguments you disagree with?

I find it hard to believe you won debates by just saying, you're wrong, you're wrong, no, nope, sorry, no, that's not true.

But I guess this site isn't really judged fairly.

I am sorry for any voter who has to read this, this was not an argument, it was a tantrum.

Now, to finish this ridiculous waste of time, I will state that I took this resolution knowing full well that the majority of scientists support the notion that the earth is over 10,000 years old. Pro wants me to argue creationism and fundamental religious science against his science. That is loaded to the brim.

I took this argument so that I might rectify the arrogance of Pro, as he was merely setting himself up to make fun of someones beliefs, not mine, as I am strictly agnostic, but whoever would have come along if I hadn't taken up Con.

Unfortunately for him I used an argument he wasn't used to and didn't know how to answer, this is why his last two rounds were him stating that I don't use logic.

My argument against this whiny fellow is that you cannot prove the existence of any year before your own objectively, that time is relative, and our tools of measurement inherently flawed. Because Pro ignores my argument, if you were a debate judge in a tournament, you would flow the argument across because Pro conceded by not answering.

Vote con if you support creative and educational debates about any subject, exploration of alternative mindsets, skepticism, and wish to dissuade debate that is lazy, dismissive and frankly ignorant.

Vote con because unlike pro I have answered every argument made.

Vote con because I have proved that the resolution could be true, but that we as man are unable to discern the truth. Because the resolution makes a claim that states IS Pro must prove without a shadow of a doubt the age of the earth. He doesn't, and if not for my arguments, then because in round one Pro states that the half life of uranium is nearly 4.5 billion years, which is his evidence of IS. Because he is not sure of the age of the earth, because he cannot create a reliable number, and because he did not answer my argument, Pro has not proven the resolution to be true. He has proven that it is possibly true, which is what I have also proven. Meaning that absolute statement of the resolution has been not been proven. Making Con the winner of this debate.

Vote con if you agree that every argument is valid, that every viewpoint should be explored, and that a debater should not win just because they disagree with an argument, but should win based of why they disagree with an argument.

Vote pro if you support simple contradiction.

This is a clear win, even if you don't agree that the resolution is false, vote con because it has not been proven true.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
NPDAgeek. I really can't argue with you on this subjects but you have a tendency to take the debate to a place that has too many possibilities to even pinpoint an argument!
Posted by NPDAgeek 2 years ago
NPDAgeek
Wowww Sagey you didn't vote on who won the debate, you voted for who you agreed with.

What kind of judge would vote on arguments that didn't even come up in round?

Any real debate judge would've voted him down just because he didn't answer any arguments, or answer any answer.

But I guess my coach did tell me to debate like I was explaining things to a ten year old....

Theta_pinch just because you can't see my logic doesn't mean it wasn't there. Did you even read the debate? Round 3 I answer every argument, round 4 I answer every answer. Pro didn't respond to ONE argument, and your reasons for voting me down were because I didn't answer any of Pro's arguments?

Philosophy bad? This is rhetorical, debate is philosophy.

lol
Posted by NPDAgeek 2 years ago
NPDAgeek
Wowww Theta pinch you didn't vote on who won the debate, you voted for who you agreed with.

What kind of judge would vote on arguments that didn't even come up in round?

Any real debate judge would've voted him down just because he didn't answer any arguments, or answer any answer.

But I guess my coach did tell me to debate like I was explaining things to a ten year old....

Philosophy bad? This is rhetorical, debate is philosophy.

lol
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
Sorry NPDAgeek butI do not see the logic in your arguments.
Posted by NPDAgeek 2 years ago
NPDAgeek
Thanks kbub!
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Clever argument NPDAgeek.
Posted by NPDAgeek 2 years ago
NPDAgeek
How would you know if I was calm? You say it is proven, and it is so? Next you appeal to tradition by saying what has been proves. Once again you say that it is proven. Contradiction is not argumentation, nuh-uh and uh-huh is not debate, debate is x plus y equals z logic is logic. Philosophy has no place in the realm of science? Philosophy is science, science is philosophy, logic is logic.

This resolution is loaded, this debate is meant to draw out creationists and other "biblical scholars" so that the instigator can gain some kind of satisfaction in using logic to out-think someone who doesn't.

If the AFF wants me to play on his unfair playing field, I am going to use whatever philosophy I desire to "debunk" whatever that means, the truth of the resolution, as neg.
Posted by Dimeirex 2 years ago
Dimeirex
Calm down there, NPDA. 98 is probably wanting a scientific argument. If radiometric dating has been proven time and time again that it can be used for telling the age of the material it is in reliably, and there is no reason (evidence, theory, etc.) it would not remain this way in the given setting, then we can use it to estimate the Earth's age. Of course one can attempt to debunk this with philosophy, but that has no place in the realm of science. Even if it did, one can question your "Con" position, since from your point of view we don't know and can't know how old the planet in question is.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
imsmarterthanyou98NPDAgeekTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Postulating a subjective, complex rant about time relativity did not help con in this debate. Very interesting mind. I'm going to lean towards Occam's Razor on this one. You are not doing yourself or anyone a favor by creating so much complexity out of a simple concept. Con tried controlling the boundaries of the debate which pro had no answer for. It turned a simple debate into obsession with semantics!
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
imsmarterthanyou98NPDAgeekTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm a science based voter, I subscribe to empirical, objective evidence, not philosophical arguments as philosophy is entirely subjective. Descartes was Wrong, "We think because we Are Conscious animals". Humans (our ancestors) have observed repetitive events (glaciation) that have not changed since our ancestors described them thousands of years ago. These are annual events which when projected backwards, clearly count way past 10,000 years. Sedimentation layers, tree rings, all events that depict time before our knowledge could be recorded. Con then started on the logical fallacy ad-hominem attack and so did pro, both lost the conduct points there. I did not find empty Philosophy (subjectivity) convincing as Con assumed it was. Pro did little better at the end.
Vote Placed by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
imsmarterthanyou98NPDAgeekTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Con didn't respond to any of pro's arguments and con's arguments weren't logical. Even if they were logical logic doesn't override empirical evidence.