The Instigator
XVIII18
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The earth is more than 7000 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 3 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,110 times Debate No: 68187
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

XVIII18

Pro

Young earth creationists believe the earth was created 7000 years ago. I, As pro, will be trying to prove that this is incorrect and that the earth is older. Con will be debating that the Earth is indeed 7000 years old.
lannan13

Con

I accept.

I wish my opponent good luck and I look forward to a great debate.
Debate Round No. 1
XVIII18

Pro

The overall accepted theory by scientists, astronomers, chemists, and professors today is that the world is around 4.54 billion years old. These scholars come to these conclusions through numerous separate dating measures. Among the best-known techniques are radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. Therefore, these are just three separate techniques by which scientists are able to date certain objects consistently.

Overall, the main way to calculate earth's age is through Radiometric dating (all of the three above). This is a technique used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates that scientists have viewed, studied, and proven into law over their own lifetimes. These decay rates have provided principal sources of information about the age of rocks, geological features and the age of Earth itself. These decay rates provide a very credible timeline of Earth's history over the past 4.54 billion years which has been named the geological time scale. This scale does not follow any contradictions within itself and were something found to disprove this it would not exist. By allowing the establishment of geological timescales, it provides a significant and accurate source of information about the ages of fossils from millions of years ago such as dinosaurs and ancient artifacts.

Scientists have also used these similar methods to find out the age of cave drawings in France, Spain, and Asia which have been universally accepted to have been painted around more than 15,000 years ago. Using tree dating methods that boy scouts learn and use on a daily basis one can conclude that the tree Old Tjikko is around 9,950 years old (2000 years older than 7000). King Clone, a Creosote bush ring in the Mojave desert, has also been found to be around 11,700 years old which is almost 5000 years older than what would be a 7000 year old earth. Scientists using these forms of dating have also concluded that numerous meteorites struck the earth millions if not billions of years ago. One example of these is in an impact crater that was formed 3 billion years ago by a meteorite 19 miles (30 kilometer) wide.

One other way to view that earth is older than 7000 years old is through logic. There have been no recordings of humans ever coming into contact with the incredible amount of species of dinosaurs. Survival would have been near impossible and the extinction of these dinosaurs would have no explanation. There have been thousands of cave drawings of extremely old age that do indeed paint the animal life surrounding them and none of these animals in any of the caves represent anything close to that of the dinosaurs.
lannan13

Con

Since my opponent is Pro, they have the BOP in this debate. All I have to do is disprove what they say in order to negate this resolution and thus win the debate I will now continue down the flow of the debate.

Contention 1: Carbon Dating's flaws

My opponent's evidence relies heavily on Carbon dating, but there is several flaws in that said system.

s://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org...; alt="Ammonite" width="350" />

The above picture is that of a fossil of an ammonite discovered in California. This said fossil according to said system to be 110 million years old, but under further correct analysis the said fossil is only 1,000 years of age. They have also found that If all the atoms on Earth were Carbon14 it would take 5730 years for all of the atoms to decay and vanish. Which would mean that everything would be under the 7000 year limit. (Robert L. Whitelaw, “Time, Life, and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 7, no. 1 (1970): 56–71.) The flaw with this theory though is that the oldest diamonds on Earth have been dated to be 4-5 billion years old, so explain how if the process only works in a very short time does it apply to something that supposedly billions of years old? (John R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, eds. (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630.) Carbon 14 dating is based on false presumptions that the C14 has remained constant which is incorrect as due to the bombardment of cosmic radiation creates varriations and cannot be compltely constant in terms of the supply which disproves a key part of the process. SImiliar tests have been done with U and Ra and have shown similiar results that as little as slightly changing their envirnments causes a massive change in the result. (http://www.contenderministries.org...)

Contention 2: Helium

Another key thing is due to Helium defussion it should've all leaked out of the Rocks (Earth) by 100,000 years. It's still here. Geologists examined Zircon rocks which contained a lot of U and He. The He comes from defussion of U. (R. V. Gentry, G. L. Glish, and E. H. McBay, “Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment,” Geophysical Research Letters 9, no. 10 (1982): 1129–1130.) They also found that the hottest rocks should have the lesser amount as the rates will be sped up greatly and they found that even at 387 degrees He was still present. These rocks were pre-Flood rocks (refurring to the Noah's Ark Global Flood) meaning that due to the He, the Earth is only between 2000 and 6000 years old. (D. Russell Humphreys, “Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E. F. Chaffin, eds. (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 25–100. )

s://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org...; alt="Helium in Radioactive Rocks" width="600" />
Debate Round No. 2
XVIII18

Pro

First off, I would like to state that all of my opponents sources are from that of the answers in genesis website which has been known for much less than stellar scientific marks. There is a team they employ known as RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) that was created specifically to try to disprove all types of dating. If anything, this shows there will be bias in their scientific articles regarding dating.

I do hold on all of my numerous other statements, which you have yet to disprove. When you point out Carbon Dating's flaws let me point something out I stated earlier. I stated that there are numerous other scientific methods to date these fossils: radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating, keep this in mind while reading the following.

1.) "This said fossil according to said system to be 110 million years old, but under further correct analysis the said fossil is only 1,000 years of age."

The problem with this statement is purely this: Carbon - 14 dating can only be used for fossils and artifacts less than 50,000 years old. So, of course results for this fossil would go haywire if you used this type of dating on a fossil that is found to be 110 million years old under different dating methods. (1)(3)

2.)"They have also found that If all the atoms on Earth were Carbon14 it would take 5730 years for all of the atoms to decay and vanish. Which would mean that everything would be under the 7000 year limit."

Again, you CANNOT USE carbon-14 dating for anything beyond 50,000 years or otherwise you will get haywire results (1)(3). So again, to find time periods for things older than 50,000 years you would have to use a different dating method. Therefore, this does not disprove that diamonds are indeed in the billions of years old as found under numerous other dating methods for longer time periods.

Therefore your claims against Carbon Dating are scientifically incorrect.

For your claims on Helium diffusion and why it has taken so long when it should have take a short time:
Helium and other gases produced by radioactive decay cannot easily escape from the rocks they were formed within without human assistance. Zircon minerals are not porous enough to allow gases to escape from them. As stated: "Helium resides in two different states within the crystal: a loosely-bound state and a tightly bound state. There is precedence for this two-state or multidomain diffusion model in the geochemical literature. (See for example: Reiners and Farley, 1999, pp. 3850-3853; Farley, 2000, pp. 2906-2908; Reiners et al., 2004, pp. 1872-1874; Shuster et al., 2003, pp. 28-29; and Shuster et al., 2005, pp. 669-670.)" (2) Therefore, it can be explained through numerous scientific literatures that there is indeed a scientific reason for Helium to still reside in these rocks for so long.

1. http://science.howstuffworks.com...
2. http://www.asa3.org...
3. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
lannan13

Con

Firstly I would like to appologize to my opponent, I thought the pictures went through, but apparently not. I'll try to repost them this round. Now onward to finish this debate.

Contention 1: Carbon-14 dating and its flaws.



It matters not what my sources have been created to do it is still a valid source. Trying to disprove my sources by saying the Nadiers Raiders were irrivant, because they just went around collecting surveys trying to show how the automobile industry wasn't taking care of the consumer and was releasing dangerous cars to the general public. This can be cross applied to my evidence as just because they are trying to disprove something does not make it a useless, but let's move on further in this point. Plus that is only one source. If you observe my last round you can see that I have several scholarly sources from books and other things so my evidence still stands.

1. My opponent states that it only works for objects less than 50k years old, but in round 2 my opponent stated that this system has dated through the decay of Carbon-14 has found that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. This means that my opponent has disproved their own evidence by doing so.

2. Here my opponent has dropped a very key argument. Here I have stated that Carbon-14 dating can only work for things 5730 years and that is completely dropped showing that there is no way to show that the Earth is more than that many years old.


In the graph above me we can see the Carbon-14 dating process in it's work and we can see the oldest thing that it has accurately dated is He maka. We can also see the half life reaches at 4000 years. This means that there is no possible way for Carbon-14 dating to work for the 50,000 years that my opponent has stated. (http://www.c14dating.com...)

Contention 2: Helium

My opponent doesn't really refute my point here. He only states that it's not porous enough, but this is incorrect as we can see that He is sort of bottled inside of the rocks and the hotter the rocks the more He is produced in the hotter rocks and we have still found that there is tons of He in rocks closer to the Earth's Mantle and according to many experts in this field, if the Earth is as old as my opponent is saying it is then there should be no He remaining. (D. Russell Humphreys, “Critics of Helium Evidence for a Young World Now Seem Silent?” Journal of Creation 24, no. 3 (2010): 35–39. ) Here is the chart that I had posted last round.

s://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org...; alt="Helium in Radioactive Rocks" width="600" />

With that I thank you and urge you to vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Let it go 1818, people say tons of things in debates. Relax. I know what you said and what was said. I just interperated it differently.
Posted by XVIII18 2 years ago
XVIII18
" Zircon minerals are not porous enough to allow gases to escape from them"
That is why Helium cannot escape, as I clearly stated.
Posted by XVIII18 2 years ago
XVIII18
"My opponent states that it only works for objects less than 50k years old, but in round 2 my opponent stated that this system has dated through the decay of Carbon-14 has found that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. This means that my opponent has disproved their own evidence by doing so."

I NEVER said that Carbon dating was used to measure Earth's age anywhere. Earth has been dated under NUMEROUS other scientific dating methods which I mentioned numerous times.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
I'll post my arguments sometime later tonight.
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
Some people say they used to call them "Dragons". :-P
Posted by XVIII18 2 years ago
XVIII18
Interesting, especially since one of the most obvious ones is from the 12th century!
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
"There have been no recordings of humans ever coming into contact with the incredible amount of species of dinosaurs. Survival would have been near impossible and the extinction of these dinosaurs would have no explanation. There have been thousands of cave drawings of extremely old age that do indeed paint the animal life surrounding them and none of these animals in any of the caves represent anything close to that of the dinosaurs."

Look up "Ancient Dinosaur Drawings". They represent things very close to a Dinosaur.
Posted by XVIII18 2 years ago
XVIII18
done
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Could you change the resolution to 7000 years. If you do that then I accept.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Could you change the resolution to 7000 years. If you do that then I accept.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
XVIII18lannan13Tied
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: *claps hands. Congratulations con, you won arguing against the truism. Con used great evidence to put huge doubts in pro's claims, and that evidence was not refuted. Thus, Lannan wins.
Vote Placed by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
21MolonLabe
XVIII18lannan13Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had generally better arguments. Both used reliable sources, no matter the sources intent. Both had good grammar. Neither were rude. I have to give this one to Con though.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
XVIII18lannan13Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had overall better arguments. Con showed that Pro contradicted himself (My opponent states that it only works for objects less than 50k years old, but in round 2 my opponent stated that this system has dated through the decay of Carbon-14 has found that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. This means that my opponent has disproved their own evidence by doing so.) Pro does not refute Contention 2. Both used sources, but I would have to say that Con's sources were better. Both sources were probably a little biased, based off of the author's belief, but Con's sources were able to disprove Pro's.