The Instigator
jh1234l
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

The earth is at least one million 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 8 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,414 times Debate No: 30159
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (8)

 

jh1234l

Pro

The debate resolution is:

The Earth is at least one million years old

Rules:

BOP lies on Pro (me)
First round is for acceptance
Last round is for conclusions and rebutals, no new arguments.

Let the debate begin!





16kadams

Con

I accept this debate.

Let me note I am devils advocating this debate, but understanding the other side only makes my opinion stronger in the long run.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
jh1234l

Pro

Thanks for accepting, 16kadams.

There is a lot of evidence for an old Earth. I'll put some of them here.

Radiometric Dating

Radiometric dating has found rocks that are from about 3.8 billion years old on Earth. [1] Thus, we can know that our Earth is at least that old.

However, it can only be true if the decay rate is constant. The decay rates are constant. [2,3]In fact, the only changes in decay rates are small and in isotopes not used for the type of radiometric dating my source is talking about. [2,3]

Other Evidence

Stalactites take extremely lengthy periods to form; the average growth rate is not much more than 0.1 mm per year (10 centimetres (4 inches!) per thousand years). With such a slow rate of formation, if the earth was less than ten thousand years old we would expect to see the largest stalactites being not much longer than one metre. [4]



[1]http://talkorigins.org...
[2]ibid.
[3]Emery, G. T., 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates" in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22 , pp. 165-202.
[4]http://rationalwiki.org...

16kadams

Con

I thank my opponent’s response.

1. Radiometric dating

My opponent cites radiometric decay as his main evidence for an old earth. Indeed, it would seem at a glance such an assumption could be true. However, as my opponent argues, this assumes the decay rates have been constant (if it is ever faster, then a young earth could be possible). My opponent claims change in decay rates are miniscule, if at all. But this argument does not agree with the evidence. Many recent scientific papers have found chemical environment can change the rate of decay for radioactive elements. Chemical environment, then, can reduce the estimated age of the earth by significant amounts [1].

Other factors also seem to influence decay rates. For example, many studies are finding that the distance of the sun from the earth can change decay rates, and much of the time accelerate them to rates much faster than today. Other studies done by creationists obtain similar results, indicating the possibility of fluctuating decay rates ruining the data set [2]. Evidence on uranium dating seems to also be slanting towards the creationists. When Uranium decays into Lead, helium is released into the rock, and usually escapes rock with exceptional speed. But recent research gets the opposite result: most of these rocks containing lead and uranium (so, scientists can say the lead was probably from Uranium) still have large amounts of helium in the rock. This is odd, if there was an old earth there should be little to no helium in the rock. Scientists working with the specimens estimate that these rocks, dated to be 1.5 billion years old by evolutionists, are at most 14,000 years old based on helium evidence [3].

Diamonds have been deemed to be creationist’s best friend. Diamonds, as claimed by evolutionists, are about 3 billion years old. They are some of the oldest rocks we can date. C-14 has a half-life of 5,700 years, so if these rocks were old there should be no C-14 in them. But Dr. Baumgardner has found most diamonds have large amounts of C-14 still present. With this noted, this is evidence the world is thousands, not millions, of years old [4].

2. Other evidence

Claiming stalactites need millions of years to form is faulty. An Australian mine was investigated in 1987, and was only 55 years old (so, the stalactites could be, at maximum, 55 years old). Pictures from the mine show the stalactites were 180 feet long, not 0.1 mm of growth a year like my opponent claims [5]. Yellowstone’s stalactites grow about 1 inch a year. Measurements claiming slow growth usually come from areas with little rain fall giving bias to the evolutionist viewpoint. And even if we assume the rate is 0.1 mm now, we cannot assume the rate was always so slow. Other places have foot long stalactites and are only 56 years old [5]. Assuming, in this instance, that it takes 56 years for stalactites to grow one foot, in 6000 years they can be 107 feet long!

With this evidence, it is apparent that stalactites could form within 1000s of years, not millions.

Young earth?

Is there any evidence for a young earth? The answer is yes, there is a lot of evidence! Many new studies are confirming what was once claimed in the 90s. Fossils are turning up with hemoglobin in their bones, which would have rotted away if the earth was old, invalidating an old earth and proving a young one. The first test was just feeling the tissue. The researchers could obviously see it was soft tissue, containing blood. A second more important test was DNA testing. They were able to extract enough blood to get a DNA test! This would be impossible if the earth was millions of years old. By the way, the T-Rex is 58% similar to a chicken [7].

Human population also proves a young earth. According to the bible, after Noah’s flood the humans would only need 0.5% population growth – compared to 1.5% now which is actually very low. According to an evolutionary timescale, human-like creatures evolved from apes one million years ago. Going with only a 0.01% population rate – super generous – we would have a population of 1 with 43 zeros after it. So, humans could have only been around for a much shorter time. Although this does not invalidate an old earth alone, it does make the age of the earth much less then it would be under evolutionist estimates [8], and together with Dino blood also shortens the age of the earth.

Another line of evidence is the sea. There are many ways salt enters the sea, and few ways salt can escape. So, determining the saltiness of the sea can help us understand how old the sea is. The maximum age of the sea is 65 million years old, this is the maximum not the actual age. Note these studies assume the amount of salt being added is little and the amount being taken out is large, making the results already favor an older earth. More realistic rates actually show the earth is 6000 years old [9].

The evidence points surely do mean the earth is much younger than expected. That the dinosaurs and humans must have been created very recently, possibly alongside each other, and that the maximum age of the earth is only 65 million years old and likely MUCH younger. But there is one last point I would like to stress: continental erosion. If the world was old, the continents would have been eroded many many times over and the process of creating new crust would not account for this process. Based on evolutionist measurements, the continents should have eroded in 10 million years. Since this has not happened, the earth is likely under one million years old based on current erosion evidence [10].

CONCLUSION

The evidence indicates a young earth is more likely younger than older. The answer is thousands, not millions.

1. http://creation.com...

2. http://www.icr.org...

3. http://creation.com...

4. http://creation.com...

5. http://creation.com...

6. http://creation.com...

7. http://creation.com...

8. http://creation.com...

9. http://creation.com...

10. http://creation.com...

Debate Round No. 2
jh1234l

Pro

Sorry, I am busy with schoolwork and can't respond. give all votes to 16kadams.
16kadams

Con

And give conduct to pro.
Debate Round No. 3
Debate Round No. 4
jh1234l

Pro

weallstreeerstgathiesdyt
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I'm using other peoples accounts to vote myself? IS there any evidence of this? The mods will only vindicate me.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
1Devilsadvocate, Im sure roy could refute this.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
jh1234l16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't see any old 16kadam's accounts. (Could you PM me regarding this, DeFool?)
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
jh1234l16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I will not award any points to 16kadams, due to the fact that he is using his other accounts to vote for himself.
Vote Placed by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
jh1234l16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Doing as Pro commanded. Pro concedes.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 4 years ago
GaryBacon
jh1234l16kadamsTied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, and even based on on the only actual arguments given (Round 2), Con definitely had the more convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
jh1234l16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Bravo. 16kadams. Beautiful. This is the best argument for the age of the universe that I've ever seen. It's a shame pro could not answer. This argument could even give Roy a run for his money. Well done con. Encore.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
jh1234l16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession by Pro.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
jh1234l16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though con is wrong, pro conceded
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
jh1234l16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.