The Instigator
Creation_Science_Guy
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Molokoplus
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

The earth is only 6,000 years old and the Bible proves it through science.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,023 times Debate No: 7119
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

Creation_Science_Guy

Pro

I believe the Bible is 100% accurate and that it tells us through lineages that the earth is around 6,000 years old. Science backs the Bible up 100% of the time and when there seems to be a contradiction between the two there is a misinterpretation of the facts. I stand by my position understanding that the majority believes in evolution and a billion plus year old earth but I'd like to remind everybody that the whole world used to think that big rocks fell faster than little rocks. God Bless and I'll open up the discussion to all comers.
Molokoplus

Con

My apologies for making you wait so long for my opening response. I hurriedly snatched up this topic before I had the time to properly write back. For your theory, I only ask that you provide evidence to your claims, as I seem to have nothing to work with as of right now. :) Also, the different falling rates of objects does not apply to this idea. Stating that something that has never been proven (different rates of falling for different weights) was wrong, and therefore any scientific theory is wrong, is erroneous in the extreme. If this logic is to be used, then any "science" in the Bible cannot have merit, for those words were written by man, just as any mathematical formula is. To prove your point, you must first show that radiological dating is invalid. As I'm sure you know, carbon dating is a method in which carbon 14 levels in an organic material are measured. As Carbon ages, it radioactively decays, reducing its weight. This process is easily observable in a laboratory. By measuring the Carbon 14 remaining in organic matter, and comparing it to atmospheric Carbon 14 levels at the time, scientist can effectively find the age. This was proven by Willard Libby.

"He first demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately measuring the age of wood from an ancient Egyptian royal barge whose age was known from historical documents. "
http://hbar.phys.msu.ru...

The article outlining the specifics is here http://en.wikipedia.org.... To disprove this, you must show that, in the Bible, there is a passage from god that explains and then renders radioactive decay law invalid. This, along with other dating techniques, are viewed as incontrovertible evidence in archeology.
Do you mean that the Universe is only 6000 years old? Or that it has existed since the Big Bang, and that the planet Earth only came to be 6000 years ago? I really need to hear more before I can respond in full. Therefore I leave with this: If the Earth was only 6000 years old, then how could Carbon 14 dating, a mathematically simple process, prove a man to be over 9000 years old? http://videos.howstuffworks.com...
Unless you can effectively disprove radiocarbon dating, your resolution will stand negated by real science.

I look forward to reading your future responses, and thank you for starting an interesting topic for debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Creation_Science_Guy

Pro

I'm glad to hear back from you and thank you for taking the time to debate the topic with me. This is a topic that normally causes people to get upset and start chastising their opponent. I assure you I'm not one of those people. I want people to know that God's word stands firm and has lasted the test of time. Actually, that brings me to my first point...the Bible doesn't say a single thing about radiometric dating, nor should it. This is a historical document written by God's people but inspired by his presence to write exactly what he wants them to. What the Bible DOES do is tell us first hand how the earth and universe were formed and God throughout the Bible gave us chronologies so that we might have a general idea of how old the Earth and Universe are. If you go through and add these chronologies up you'll notice that God says the Universe and Earth are around 6,000 years old.

As for the Carbon-14 dating, well and dating method you would like for that matter, all have a massive amount of assumption involved in coming up with a magic number telling how old a specific item is.
ASSUMPTION 1: The amount of carbon initially in the atmosphere.
ASSUMPTION 2: The amount of carbon initially present in the object being dated.
ASSUMPTION 3: The amount of carbon in the object being dated was in no way, shape, or form, increased
or decreased due to outside forces.
ASSUMPTION 4: There was no daughter atoms were present when the system formed. (Daughter atoms as I'm
sure you know, are the material that the carbon-14 decays to.

I agree that scientists can take an object to a lab, and very accurately measure the amount of carbon-14, thusly getting an extremely accurate calculation of the age due to the number ASSUMED in the equation. What I DON'T think they can do is guarantee that no outside carbon-14 was added to the object, that they know how much carbon-14 the object started with, or how much carbon-14 was present in the atmosphere at the time.
The following website gives a perfect example of why these dating methods aren't accurate. http://www.cs.unc.edu...
I could give example after example of known radiometric dating screw ups. I've seen different parts of the same mamoth date at 26,000 and 19,000. I'll work on the reference for this.

In closing I'd like to tell you about a friend I have. He's currently working on dating an artifact from a know culture. He is trying to get a date of 3,500 years old for the artifact because that's how old the artifact is assumed to be. He has dated it 19 times and still hasn't got the date he needs and has thus thrown out the first 19 dates he got. I've heard that 50% or more of the dates that are calculated and don't give the answer looked for are thrown out. Don't let anyone tell you that this is an exact science because there are tons of ASSUMPTIONS inolved in these dating methods.
R.L. Mauger is an EVOLUTIONIST teacher from East Carolina Univeristy and he says in his book, Contributions to Geology, "In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor or the discrepancies fully explained." An evolutionist knows that these methods are far from accurate.

By the way, you were right about the whole rock thing not being relevant in this argument. What I was trying to get acroos is that the entire world once thought that big rocks fell faster than little rocks. The whole world was wrong about this, and I think that sooner or later The Evolution Theory will be another scientific misunderstaning. Also, I would like people to remeber that The Evolution Theory is not a fact and neither is the idea the Earth is millions of years old. Just because the majority believes something, doesn't make it true. (See above mention of big and little rocks, :)
Molokoplus

Con

Good good good. All valid points, and I am glad to be able to continue with this interesting topic.

First off, while you say that the Bible proves a 6000 year old universe through science, you have not provided any evidence to back this up. Radiocarbon dating contains much more science than some words in a book. I would like to point out that, if radiometric dating was not accurate in the least, it never would have reached the level of prevalence that it has today. You are completely correct, though, in your list of the four assumptions. However:

1: The amount of carbon initially in the atmosphere does not have much variation. We'll say, for simplicity's sake, that the expected levels were 350 ppm. However, it might have been extra hot that decade, raising levels to 360 ppm. That 10 ppm difference is equivalent to 1/1000 of 1%. Such a difference would fall into normal levels for expected carbon intake.

2: This is the same as the first one. The organic matter will have a predictable amount of carbon 14 in it, otherwise, cellular respiration would not have been occurring and the plant would never have matured. There very fact that a researcher is using a sample demonstrates that it ought to have the correct amount of Carbon 14 in it.

3: Well, to be honest, I think that this is a pretty safe assumption. Once an object is dead, uniform Carbon 14 intake will have permanently ceased. Any saturation of Carbon 14 in a sample's atmosphere will therefore only find residence in the outer layers on a sample. Though a radioactive contamination can give incorrect readings, the errors are so gross that it is obvious that the sample is unnatural.The only reduction is in the form of the radioactive decay, which is uniform.

4: Though there is no way of knowing for certain the exact amount of nitrogen 14 in the sample, plants of the same species have identical genes, and therefore have a certain predictable value. Say a specimen is 50% carbon, 25% Nitrogen, and 25% miscellaneous matter (an impossible living creature, i know). Though after 1 half-life period, the amounts would read 25% Carbon, 50% Nitrogen, and 25% misc. Researchers are not likely to take this 50% value and extrapolate that the original specimen was 100% Carbon.

I read that article and it does contain some truth. But the overwhelming fact is that, while you and proponents of your theory belittle radiocarbon and other forms of dating for cherry picking, you do this yourselves. You state that researchers throw out dates that aren't convenient, but you throw away every date beyond 6000 years. If Carbon dating yielded results in the 6000 - 0 BP, you would say that the science confirmed your theory. However, any science that proves a 6000 year old Earth must have more scientific merit than the universal truth of radioactive decay. This leads me to my next contention.

You state that God created the Universe and Earth 6000 years ago. Yet, stars exist which are more than 6000 light years away. Light obeys the universal speed limit of 299,792,458 m/s, which means that, if the Universe was created 6000 years ago, we would not yet even see any star more distant that 6000 light years. However, using simple math and precise measurements, astronomers can show the distance to a galaxy who's light took over 31 billion years to reach us. This is an incontrovertible fact: to deny this is to deny basic math.

An explanation of stellar parallax: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...

I understand the sentiment behind your reference to Galileo and him disproving something that the whole world thought was correct. There are theories that rise and fall, to be replaced with new theories. A 6000 year old Earth, however, is one theory that will not have any rise in the scientific community. Though Evolution theory and an immensely old universe aren't facts, neither is the Bible or any religious document. They're just words; the only evidence is repeatable experiments that rely on the natural and unchanging constants of the Universe. My arguments make use of this verifiable evidence. Yours do not. Therefore, for your final round, I would like you to go all out in finding unbiased scientific evidence that proves a 6000 year old Earth.

I cannot wait to have out with the final round of this scintillating debate. I wish you luck in composing a convincing final argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Creation_Science_Guy

Pro

Creation_Science_Guy forfeited this round.
Molokoplus

Con

Well, hopefully you just forgot to check back in time, like I did with my last debate. It is as if you have robbed from me the last chapter of a good book.

With that being said, voters: there is no reason whatsoever to vote PRO in this debate. While I have brought forth two radically different forms of evidence for the Earth and Universe being billions of years old, my opponent has done nothing but attempt to discredit radiometric dating. Debate is a contest of logic and knowledge, and the theory of the Big Bang basks in the glow of both of these attributes. Use your minds, the most complex arrangements of matter in the known universe, which evolved from a life form much less advanced than a bacterium. Use your minds, and vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Molokoplus 8 years ago
Molokoplus
hey i accidentally voted for myself so can a moderator take 7 points away from me?
Posted by Dofusman 8 years ago
Dofusman
NOBODY VOTED!!!???!!! (I can't vote.)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Creation_Science_GuyMolokoplusTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Creation_Science_GuyMolokoplusTied
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 
Vote Placed by Molokoplus 8 years ago
Molokoplus
Creation_Science_GuyMolokoplusTied
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 
Vote Placed by PrvnMthws 8 years ago
PrvnMthws
Creation_Science_GuyMolokoplusTied
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