The Instigator
imsmarterthanyou98
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
9spaceking
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The age of the earth is over 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 2 votes the winner is...
imsmarterthanyou98
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 822 times Debate No: 45440
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
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,:)
9spaceking

Con

Firstly, I argue that the Bible teaches people that the earth is under 10,000 years old. While it may not be true and outdated, there are two billion Christians all believing in that fact. What truly matters is their beliefs, which overrule the scientists' research, as there are more Christians than scientists. Even furthermore, wikipedia.org states that Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old, and as we all know, wikipedia.org is not considered a credible source, even Wikipedia.org itself says so!
And so, for round one, I make the sound conclusion that the age of the earth is 10,000 years old or younger. Thank you, thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

vidence 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............;
9spaceking

Con

As I had stated previously, Wikipedia.org is not a very trustworthy source. Away from that, now, I admit my first argument wasn't very good and supporting, but now--onto the age of the earth.
Now, radiometric dating methods do not prove millions of years. Radiometric dating was not developed until the early twentieth century, by which time virtually the whole world had already accepted the millions of years. For many years creation scientists have cited numerous examples in the published scientific literature of these dating methods clearly giving erroneous dates (e.g., a date of millions of years for lava flows that occurred in the past few hundred years or even decades). In recent years creationists in the RATE project have done experimental, theoretical, and field research to uncover more such evidence (e.g., diamonds and coal, which the evolutionists say are millions of years old, were dated by carbon-14 to be only thousands of years old) and to show that decay rates were orders of magnitude faster in the past, which shrinks the millions of years to thousands of years, confirming the Bible, and as thus, the age of earth is not billions or even MILLIONS of years old, but below 10,000.
Debate Round No. 2
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Rebuttals


CON has yet to source 1 scientific paper supporting anything he has said.I have backed my agruments up.

He has yet to yeild any sources at all.

There is no rational reason to why we would suspect that the physical laws that gover our universe now would have been ANY different in the past.


This refutes Cons one and only point.
9spaceking

Con

I argue that the links do not work, and thus you are lying for such having to do so. Now, I rephrase my previous arguments more simply: the radioactive dating is not very accurate and could be very inconsistent. Even furthermore, the existent of god is not yet proven to be false, and even though I, not being a Christian, believe that IF god exists, he could make the illusion that earth is very old and "mature", so as to be speaking, so to be impressive. "Goddidit!" Many creationists say, and I agree with them--if god could create so much planets in so few days, he could definitely make billions of years seem only like thousands of years and manipulate many laws such as the law of the speed of light, purely for experiment to see how we react.
Debate Round No. 3
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

I Refer con to my first rule. Use logic.

I've backed my arguments with evidence and con has yet to provide A SHRED of evidence to support his proposition.


"GODDIDIT" Is backed by no evidence at all.


My points go un mentioned.

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.




We have no reason to belive the laws of physics were any different long ago.
9spaceking

Con

Since you argue I have no source of evidence, and a poor conclusion, I hereby make my final statement.
as shown from http://www.cs.unc.edu... methods in general are inaccurate , the dating methods are very inaccurate and fluctuable. Not only that, this is a very trustworthy site, unlike wikipedia--it even has EDU at the end!! And even THIS site claims that rates might have changed a long time ago! You are just copying your previous argument, having no new points of view whatsoever, and therefore you are just on the losing side of the argument.
All in all, I have apparently won! You have chosen the wrong side. Thank you all, thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Lol yeah I had no chance I'm like "Argue on age of earth? Of course it's over 10,000! Then I saw I was on Con side and I knew I had no chance. I only continued for fun. ":)-
Posted by ambassador4christ 2 years ago
ambassador4christ
Belief in a God is the only rational explanation of the universe. Even if the universe could have evolved the chances are so very slim. Even if the universe is billions of years old, it can not account for how it started. The atheist now is making the great leap of faith. It's not a rational problem, the problem is that if there is a God there is a judge now. Men are sinful and do not want a judge. It's a heart issue, not a mind issue.

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
-Romans 1:20

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."
-C.S.Lewis
Posted by flyingavocadosofdoom 2 years ago
flyingavocadosofdoom
not all 2 billion Christians believe in young earth creationism
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
You might have better luck arguing that humans are ten thousand years old.
Posted by PatriotPerson 2 years ago
PatriotPerson
I'm a creationist, and I agree the earth is well over 10,000 years old.
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
I would accept........but I'm not a creationist. ;)

Did I get the emoticon right?

It is an emoticon; right?
Posted by ArslanSaeed 2 years ago
ArslanSaeed
I didn't get the idea of the topic. Could you please me the detail that what's this all about?
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
This type of creationist trolling debate is getting abit old now, and I've only been here 6 weeks.
Established members must be sick of these type of debates, they are always the same old arguments and evidence.
Posted by MysticEgg 2 years ago
MysticEgg
You should probably ban any relativity arguments. I've had three flipping debates on those! Grrrr
Posted by Oromagi 2 years ago
Oromagi
I think @faithfulbm's response demonstrates real wisdom. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence or contrary to evidence. Many Christians on this site invest much energy in providing evidence for their belief as a demonstration of faith, but where there is proof faith is not required. I'm no Christian or creationist, but I think faith in something greater than our self is a tonic for the soul and a requisite for inspiration. You can't measure the distance to the distance to the Moon with epiphany, but you can't paint Starry, Starry Night with trigonometry either. Both experience and define the night sky, but with senses that seldom overlap. Science and Faith both experience and define our human origin, but with senses that seldom overlap.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
imsmarterthanyou989spacekingTied
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 needs to spend some time thinking about his arguments and responding more thoroughly to Pro's. I see a very iffy response to C-14, which actually isn't supported by the link provided (I checked) in stating that the planet is under 10,000 years old, but nothing in response to uranium or any other radiometric dating. Having provided no support for God's existence, I can't give that argument any weight in the round, since it's just a claim that God can do anything and He's, essentially, just messing with our minds. The citation comes too late, and responses to Pro's citations are blanket dismissals. So Pro wins arguments and sources, especially since all Con provides are uncertainties. As for conduct, Con needs to treat his opponent with some respect, this was just absurd.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
imsmarterthanyou989spacekingTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: I think Con may have been joking around... He literally gave NO valid arguments except for radiometric dating's inaccuracy and gave ONE source to back it up...