The Instigator
tmar19652
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
FritzStammberger
Con (against)
Losing
20 Points

The earth is over 1 million 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 8 votes the winner is...
tmar19652
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,448 times Debate No: 29579
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (47)
Votes (8)

 

tmar19652

Pro

I feel that the earth is over 1 million years old.

Burden of proof is shared
No arguments in the first round
FritzStammberger

Con

I think the earth is roughly 6000 years old although it could perhaps be as old as 20,000 years.
Debate Round No. 1
tmar19652

Pro

I here summarize briefly the evidence that has convinced scientists that the Earth is 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old.

1. The abundance and variety of fossils in Phanerozoic rocks have allowed geologists to decipher in considerable detail the past 600 million years or so of the Earth"s history. In Precambrian rocks, however, fossils are rare; thus, the geologic record of this important part of the Earth"s history has been especially difficult to decipher. Nonetheless, stratigraphy and radiometric dating of Precambrian rocks have clearly demonstrated that the history of the Earth extends billions of years into the past.

2. Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years). These ancient rocks have been dated by a number of radiometric dating methods and the consistency of the results give scientists confidence that the ages are correct to within a few percent. An interesting feature of these ancient rocks is that they are not from any sort of "primordial crust" but are lava flows and sediments deposited in shallow water, an indication that Earth history began well before these rocks were deposited. In Western Australia, single zircon crystals found in younger sedimentary rocks have radiometric ages of as much as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials to be found on Earth so far. The source rocks for these zircon crystals have not yet been found.

The ages measured for Earth's oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age but do not reveal the exact age of Earth's formation. The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite. In addition, mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 Ga have recently been reported from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia. The Moon is a more primitive planet than Earth because it has not been disturbed by plate tectonics; thus, some of its more ancient rocks are more plentiful. Only a small number of rocks were returned to Earth by the six Apollo and three Luna missions. These rocks vary greatly in age, a reflection of their different ages of formation and their subsequent histories. The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor. Thousands of meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids that fall to Earth, have been recovered. These primitive objects provide the best ages for the time of formation of the Solar System. There are more than 70 meteorites, of different types, whose ages have been measured using radiometric dating techniques. The results show that the meteorites, and therefore the Solar System, formed between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years ago. The best age for the Earth comes not from dating individual rocks but by considering the Earth and meteorites as part of the same evolving system in which the isotopic composition of lead, specifically the ratio of lead-207 to lead-206 changes over time owing to the decay of radioactive uranium-235 and uranium-238, respectively. Scientists have used this approach to determine the time required for the isotopes in the Earth's oldest lead ores, of which there are only a few, to evolve from its primordial composition, as measured in uranium-free phases of iron meteorites, to its compositions at the time these lead ores separated from their mantle reservoirs.

These calculations result in an age for the Earth and meteorites, and hence the Solar System, of 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent. To be precise, this age represents the last time that lead isotopes were homogeneous througout the inner Solar System and the time that lead and uranium was incorporated into the solid bodies of the Solar System. The age of 4.54 billion years found for the Solar System and Earth is consistent with current calculations of 11 to 13 billion years for the age of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the stage of evolution of globular cluster stars) and the age of 10 to 15 billion years for the age of the Universe (based on the recession of distant galaxies) (2,3,4).

Well, There you go, I have proved the earth to be well over 1 million years of age. In my next argument round, I will refute my opponent"s creation "science" (Oxymoron).
Sources:
1.http://en.wikipedia.org...
2.http://pubs.usgs.gov...
3.http://scienceblogs.com...
4.http://en.wikipedia.org...
FritzStammberger

Con

My opponent is basically relying on radiometric dating to prove the earth is billions of years old. radiometric dating doesn't work and the dates are selective. Heres why.

1. Radiometric dating

"Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites."

- this only works;

IF the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios.

Thus my opponent would have to prove that;

1.1 "the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios."

also radiometric dating only works;

IF the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios,

Thus my opponent would have to prove that;

1.2 "the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios,"

Therefore this data is based on Assumptions. And could be manipulated to produce whatever conclusion the researcher is looking for.

note: "duplicate studies on identical meteorite types omitted."
- They also admit to omitting data from the study probably to select the data that agrees with the desired outcome and omit the data that doesn't. (selective dating)

furthermore;

- "less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error."

note: 18,000 to 84,000 meteorites bigger than 10 grams hit earth each year!
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu......

You are going to base your data on 70???

This is a clear example of selective science to fit a preconceived hypothesis.

This data is tortured, selective, misleading and false. It involves massive assumptions about the early solar system and uses such a tiny percentage of the available data as to be impermissible.

This is equivalent to assuming the age of a car by guessing the age of a single pebble stuck in the tire.

This is not evidence that the Earth is millions or billions of years old.
Debate Round No. 2
tmar19652

Pro


Radiometric Dating:


My opponent feels that radiometric dating if false because I have not proven that “IF the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios”, however my data on the age of meteorites by radiometric dating lines up in a straight line, thus proving this hypothesis (1).


Also, time and time again, the validity of radiometric dating has been scientifically and analytically proven (2,3,4)


Number of Meteorites Tested:


My opponent argues “"less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error." To this I will respond that those 70 meteorites, combined with tens of thousands of rocks that have been radio-metrically dated as older than a billion years old prove my case beyond any doubt (5,6,7,8,9,10,11….).


More Arguments:


Varves, sandstone deposits, and coral reefs.


Varves in case anyone doesn't know are bi-annual layers of silt that are deposited in lake bottoms. They have two layers, a thin fine layer and a thick coarser layer; the coarser layer is from the summer months since more water enters the lake from the heavy rain fall so larger particles can be moved into the lake. During the winter months there is less rain comes so there are smaller particles and finer layers. Now the obvious problem for young earth creationism is that there are lots of them, far more then would be expected if earth were 6,000 years old. One location where there are lots of varves is the green river valley formation; it has 3 million years worth of varves. If earth is only 6-10,000 years old it should have no more then 3-5,000 varves. Sandstone deposits such as the Coconino sandstone were formed by wind deposition in a desert environment. It could not have formed during catastrophic flood. The problem comes in when you consider that over many sandstone deposits such as the one I just mentioned, where there are marine fossil deposits which were supposed to have formed in the flood; How could this be if they were formed in a world wide flood? Coral reefs grow a little annually, in fact we can tell how old a coral is by how much it has grown. There are many coral reefs far older then the flood date (4400 years ago) that would be completely destroyed in the violent events of the flood and definitely not preserved. This appears to be an ever nagging problem for young earth creationists (12).


The universe indicates earth is old


The final proof I will give involves the entire universe. As you may know the universe is pretty large, the farthest galaxies being almost 14 billion lightyears away. The question that comes to mind when you consider this is, how the universe can be so young and look so old? Young Earth Creationists have scrambled to come up with the answer. Sure you can say God just made the universe to look that way; but when it comes to science that is irrelevant since it is non-falsifiable, now if you want to believe this go ahead, but when it comes to science we need to consider something which can be proven with science the Appearance of Age hypothesis cannot (12).




Sources:



  1. 1. http://www.talkorigins.org...

  2. 2. http://www.sciencedaily.com...

  3. 3. http://home.tiac.net...

  4. 4. http://www.sciencedaily.com...

  5. 5. http://www.independent.co.uk...

  6. 6. http://www.freep.com...

  7. 7. http://www.npr.org...

  8. 8. http://www.atlasobscura.com...

  9. 9. http://datelinenews.org...

  10. 10. http://ecolocalizer.com...

  11. 11. http://www.kgw.com...

  12. 12. http://wwwcreatedrational.blogspot.com...

FritzStammberger

Con

1.
"Most experts consider the technical limit of radiocarbon dating to be about 50,000 years, after which there is too little carbon-14 left to measure accurately with present day technology."

This is from YOUR source. #4
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Thus radio carbon dating can NOT prove the earth is older than 1 million years.

2.
Varves
"bi-annual layers of silt that are deposited in lake bottoms. They have two layers, a thin fine layer and a thick coarser layer; the coarser layer is from the summer months since more water enters the lake from the heavy rain fall so larger particles can be moved into the lake. During the winter months there is less rain comes so there are smaller particles and finer layers."

- They are not "bi-annual" occurring twice a year but rather they occur whenever it rains a lot.

This argument used to be used saying there were "bi-annual" ice layers from winter to summer until it was discovered that the layers were simply from warmer and colder days.

3.
You said
"There are many coral reefs far older then the flood date (4400 years ago)"

This is patently false.

"The oldest coral reefs in the world that have been discovered so far, have been found in Hawaii. These Hawaiian coral reefs are an estimated 4,265 years old."
http://science.yourdictionary.com...;

4.
"The universe indicates earth is old"

(Reuters) - A team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics -- Einstein's theory of relativity.

The team, led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney's Macquarie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years.

If so, physicists will have to rethink many of their basic ideas about the laws of the universe.
http://rense.com...

When science finally catches up with the bible we will see that the bible had it right the whole time.

So far, you have presented NO good evidence that the earth is over 1 million years old.
Debate Round No. 3
tmar19652

Pro

1. Radiometric Dating
My opponent begins by stating that radio-carbon dating is accurate to “only 50,000” years, so therefore radio-carbon dating could not be used to prove that the earth is over 1 million years old. I am glad you said this, because in doing so, you conceded that radiometric dating is accurate to (50000/5730) just over eight half lives of the element.

Your argument would be true if only carbon-14 was used in radiometric dating. Other methods such as Samarium-Neodynium dating (Half Life of of 1.06×1011 years), Uranium-Lead dating (Uranium-235 half life 704 million years, and Potassium-Argon Dating (Half Life of 1.248×109 ) are used in measuring the ages of rocks from millions or billions of years in the past. Thus the radiometric argument is substantiated as true and affirmed.
2. Varves
Actually, Varves are only considered Varves if they are laid down annually or bi-annually (5), not just warm or cold days. Thus, your argument is refuted.
3. Coral Reefs
Some coral reefs actually date back to 480 million years ago, there was no stipulation as to whether or not they had to be living (6,7,8). This argument in itself disproves your argument that the earth is less than one-million years old.
4. The universe indicates earth is old
The key word in your argument is that the Australian scientists “proposed” that the speed of light might not be constant (10). In fact, they proposed no evidence for this phenomenon, and they simply philosophized that this could be possible, making it no more trustworthy than an opinion statement. As of now, the speed of light stands as constant, and my argument stands un-refuted (9).

When science finally catches up with the bible we will see that the bible had it right the whole time.

  • I could have a field day with this one, but I will refrain from ad-hom’s and witty sarcastic remarks, and I will leave this one to the commenter’s in the interest of decency.

In conclusion, every one of my points stands un-refuted. Con has provided no evidence that the earth is less than 1 million years old (probably because there is none), and therefore I have fulfilled my burden of proof, and Pro should win the debate.

Sources:

  1. 1. http://hypertextbook.com...
  2. 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
  3. 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
  4. 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
  5. 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
  6. 6. http://www.nbcnews.com...
  7. 7. http://www.anr.state.vt.us...
  8. 8. http://www.ilmpt.org...
  9. 9. http://rense.com...
  10. 10. http://en.wikipedia.org...
FritzStammberger

Con

I think that I have successfully defended my position thus far and rather than repeat my arguments I will leave that for the voters to decide. I will spend the rest of my time on Radiometric Dating.

The following information is cited at length from the book "Evolution: Its Collapse In View?
by Henry Hiebert
Pages 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

Carbon 14 (radioactive carbon) forms in the upper atmosphere at a constant rate, through the action of sunlight (cosmic rays) upon ozone. This radiocarbon finds it's way, along with natural carbon, into the living tissue of plants, and consequently animals, as well as becoming dissolved in the ocean waters. Immediately after its formation, C-14 begins slowly to decay (half-life about 5, 730 years).

Scientists have calculated that after about 30,000 years from the commencement of such a process, the amount of radio carbon in the atmosphere, in all organic tissue, and in the seas would have built up to the volume where the amount decaying per day would just equal the amount being produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. Such a state of equilibrium is essential for the success of this particular technique of dating.

Does such a state of equilibrium exist?

Definitely not!

Scientists were amazed to find that upper-atmosphere balloon soundings measured a natural production rate of C-14 in excess of the calculated decay rate by as much as 25%. Using data from most recent tests, Nobel Prize Medalist Doctor Melvin Cook has determined that the production-decay rates are out of equilibrium by as much as 38%. This can only mean that the C-14 content of our atmosphere is still building up, a condition that could be expected only if the process had begun recently. This discrepancy of 38% between the formation and decay of C-14 has been calculated by Dr. Cook to indicated an age for our atmosphere of about 10,000 years. The likelihood that the specific production rate of Carbon 14 was greater by as much as three times (as evidenced by the luxuriant tropical vegetation and fauna from pole to pole as seen in the fossils). In the predeluvian world, would reduce this figure to a mere 7000 years.

W. F. Libby, the discoverer of radiocarbon dating, chose to ignore this discrepancy, attributing it to some error of measurement, since he "knew" the earth to be much older than 30,000 years. Consequently, C-14 dates are reasonably accurate only for about the last 3000 years, becoming increasingly invalid as older samples are tested, which lived at a time when this lack of equilibrium was even greater. It has been found that when all radiocarbon dates are corrected for the known non-equilibrium conditions, all are less than 10,000 years. This includes dates on Neanderthal Man bones, Sabre-tooth tigers, cole and crude oil.

Although subsequent and better tests have confirmed this lack of equilibrium, it has met with routine rejection from scientists on the basis that it cannot be so. The evolutionary model of origins demands vast ages, and most scientists believe in evolution. Data of this nature in consequently not disclosed in public literature.

Radiometric Dates

The various methods used (most commonly, the uranium-thorium-lead, the rubidium-strontium, and the potassium-argon methods) when applied to any given sample of rock apparently do not give the same dates at all. Widely discordant dates are the rule, not the exception. Even recently formed volcanic rocks of known age yield lead-uranium ages that are commonly over a billion years.

There are at least three assumptions underlying all radiometric dating, which are not only unprovable, but unreasonable.

3 Assumptions Involved in Radiometric Dating

1.) The rocks being tested are assumed to represent a closed system.

Always the assumption is made that these rocks have not, through leeching by groundwater or erosional water, intermixing, or any other physical process, lost or gained anything throughout the period of their existence. Here we have the probable reason for the widely discordant ages that are generally yielded in radiometric tests. It is likely that the minerals were affected to greatly varying degrees by the agencies listed above.

"The concept of a closed system is an ideal concept, convenient for analysis, but non-existent in the real world. The idea of a system remaining closed for millions of years becomes an absurdity."
- Henry M. Morris, Virginian Polytechnic Institute.

2.) The process rate of decay is assumed to have remained constant throughout billions of years.

It is obvious that any factors that are capable of influencing atomic structures could affect radioactive decay rates, The Genesis account (of creation) could conceivably permit completely unprecedented decay rates in effect during the initial creation period, when all the cosmic energy needed for nucleo-genesis was present in the environment of the matter being created.

The assumption that decay rates have remained constant is unprovable.

3.) It is assumed that no radiogenic daughter products were present when the minerals were first formed.

The bible teaches quite plainly of a full-grown creation. It is reasonable that an equilibrium amount of the daughter elements would be created along with the parent, giving an appearance of age. If this was true of the organic creation it was probably true of the geologic creation as well. The assumption that no radiogenic daughter products were present at nucleo-genesis is highly suspect for other reasons. It has been found that radiogenic lead exists with uranium minerals even in recently formed volcanic rock.

In the Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968, an instance in cited where lava from Kaupuleho, Hualalai, Hawaii, which was known to be 168 years old, was predicted by the potassium-argon method to be 2.96 billion years old. This is no rare occurrence. When modern volcanic rocks are dated radiometrically, their lead-uranium ages are commonly over a billion years.

If rocks of known ages yield such unrealistic dates, why should we accept so gullibly the ages yielded by the rocks of unknown age?

In spite of the so-called knowledge explosion, too little is known about all the factors that may affect dates yielded in radiometric tests for textbook writers to be grossly dogmatic about even those dates that have been selected as acceptable.

Conclusion

There is thus no sound physical evidence (that the earth is millions or billions of years old). Objections to the concept of a young earth are not made on scientific, but rather on philosophic, grounds. The vast ages needed to camouflage the staggering problems caused by evolutionary assumptions must themselves be assumed. Still. such a great age for the earth continues to be represented as absolutely beyond question. "Given enough time, anything becomes possible" is the evolutionists' answer to the insurmountable problems which won't go away. But the scientific information and data rule out the vast ages desired to give evolution a semblance of credibility. The rate of decay of the earths magnetic field, the high pressure in deep oil wells, the continued presence of short-term comets, the existence of star clusters from which high velocity stars have not yet managed to escape, the current population "crises", the lack of equilibrium between the specific production and decay rates of radiocarbon, and a host of physical processes not listed here all point to a recent creation of the universe, and a young earth.

This information is cited at length from the book "Evolution: Its Collapse In View?"
by Henry Hiebert
Pages 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32
Debate Round No. 4
tmar19652

Pro

I will start by saying that I do not have to touch on radiocarbon dating, as the accuracy and useful span of radiocarbon dating are not needed for this debate.
Debunking of supposed "assumptions"
1.Closed system argument (1)
One of the great things about many forms of radiometric dating is that they are self-checking. That is, you can see if the sample comes from rocks that have been disturbed (or contaminated) or not just by looking at the results. Now, creationists will claim that scientists are just somehow assuming that if samples show an age that does not fit their preconceptions, the sample must be contaminated or leaky. This is false. To see why, we need to look deeper into radiometric dating methods. A very important tool in radiometric dating is the so called isochron diagram and it holds the key to refuting the central creationist claims about radiometric dating.
One of the most beneficial things about it is that it can check itself for accuracy; the method tells you how well the rocks have been closed systems. An isochron diagram is obtained by looking at many minerals from the same rock or from rocks forming from the same parent mineral. Data is plotted on a simple two dimensional graph; the parent isotope on the x-axis and the daughter isotope on the y-axis. Both of these are divided or normalized by a stable isotope of the same elements as the daughter element. So on the x-axis, we have parent/(another stable isotope of the same element as the daughter) and on the y-axis we have daughter/(another stable isotope of the same element as the daughter).
If the samples have been undisturbed closed systems since formation, the data will fall on the same line (the isochron from which the diagram is named). The slope of this line is a function of the age of the rock. If the rock is older, the slope is higher. The reason scientists normalize with another stable isotope of the same element as the daughter is because most chemical or physical processes that occurs normally in nature does not differentiate between different isotopes of the same element when the difference in mass is as small as it is between isotopes of the same element that is used in radiometric dating. This means that the while different rocks contain different absolute amounts of the two isotopes, the ratio is same. At the time of formation for a rock, the isotopes for an element are homogenized and so the composition of a certain isotope is the same in all the minerals in the rock.
In fact, the data I have provided for all of the rocks older than 1 million years has met these stringent criteria, so they have once again proven to be credible.
2.The process rate of decay is assumed to have remained constant throughout billions of years (1,2)
In a last ditch effort, young earth creationists exclaim that scientists just assume, without warrant, that decay rate are constant. However, this is not the case. Decay rates have been shown to be constant, despite very high pressure and temperature. Furthermore, by studying supernovas far away, scientist have determined that decay rates have been constant in the ancient past as well. Not only that, different radioactive isotopes decay differently and it is enormously improbable that a postulated difference in decay rates would affect all of them in the same way, yet as we have seen, different radiometric dating methods converge on the same date (within margins of error). Fourthly, decay rates can be predicted from first principles of physics. Any change would have to correspond to changes in basic physical constants. Any such change would affect different forms of decay differently, yet this has not been observed. As a final blow to the already nailed shut coffin of young earth creationism, had decay rates been high enough to be consistent with a young earth, the heat alone would have melt the earth.
3.It is assumed that no radiogenic daughter products were present when the minerals were first formed (1,3)
A second property of isochron diagrams is that it actually gives the initial amount of daughter isotope as a result of the method. It is just the y-intercept of the isochron line. At this intersect, the ratio of parent/(another stable isotope of the same element as the daughter) is by definition 0 and so no amount of the daughter here is produced by decay of the parent in the rock. The initial conditions are just read off the graph; it is not just assumed.
4.Kaupuleho, Hualalai, Hawaii Lava argument
Again, the known age was when the volcano erupted, not when the lava was formed. The dating method gives the date of the creation of the lava, not the date of the eruption of lava. This argument is therefore invalid. Both ages are correct, but they are the time of eruption and the creation, respectively. (Thanks to jh1234l for this argument).

There you have it. The age of the earth is now proven to be over 1 million years old. I have used sourced arguments that can be backed up with scientific data, and experiments and my opponent has simply decided to ignore this and continue to base his arguments on a fallacious and unproven "holy book". My opponent has ignored all my previous evidence by not refuting my other arguments, but rather trying to "refute" those using assumptions, which he objected to. According to the shared burden of proof, my opponent loses this debate because they have not posted any evidence that proves the earth is under 1 million years of age, and according to standard debate etiquette, they may not post new arguments where I cannot address them. Vote Pro!!!!!

Sources:
1.http://debunkingdenialism.com...
2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
3.http://www.soest.hawaii.edu...
FritzStammberger

Con

Genesis 1
King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die...............

1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?.......

Conclusion

"Science itself has proven that chaos does not naturally and normally turn into order. Life comes only from life (law of biogenesis). Things do not improve naturally as a matter of course (second law of thermodynamics). Things improve because of intelligent input. For example, the technology we enjoy in the present age is a result of human intelligence, not random chance. Science has given us a great deal, but not everything that exists can be explained scientifically."

http://www.susancanthony.com...

In the words of Phillip Johnson,

"What is presented to the public as scientific knowledge about evolutionary mechanisms is mostly philosophical speculation and is not even consistent with the evidence once the naturalistic spectacles are removed. If that leaves us without a known mechanism of biological creation, so be it: it is better to admit ignorance than to have confidence in an explanation that is not true."
Debate Round No. 5
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Garret is just a theist shill voter, don't mind him.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
The bible is more reliable than my sources? Would you care to debate this garret.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
I will also make it a one-point penalty based on Fritz's comments.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Ok, I'll grant him some leniency based on KD and Fritz's comments.
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
I would tend to agree with KD. I would like to win this debate based on my superior arguments and Pros failure to provide sufficient evidence to make his case. Not because he forgot to cite something. However, that is just my christian bias to quickly forgive people of there shortcomings. I think I won this debate fair and square regardless.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
> malicious

I don't believe tmar19652 acted with the intent to harm anyone or is a bad person. The last time a cop pulled me over, he was fairly non-judgemental, too.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
> "the goal of debates.org is to argue and not to gain any knowledge whatsoever."

One gains more knowledge when one writes their own arguments.

> "While I do not doubt that Pro technically committed plagiarism". I do not see that it was done with malicious intent and thus is not deserving of punishment

Ignorance of a law does not typically permit one to break that law with impunity.

> I'm sure that it is custom to give the other debater all points when plagiarism is perpetrated, but following this rule is illogical to the purpose of debate. Debate should be about which person presents the most correct argument. Plagiarism has no bearing on this.

Besides being against most ethical and community standards (see the guidelines I linked to), plagiarizing another site's content is a form of copyright violation. The penalties can actually go much higher, including the banning of one's account and/or legal action.
Posted by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
Deadlykris - No doubt Pro copied an entire passage, but you are making the assumption that Pro's intent was to present that passage as their own words. Again, I agree with you that it was improper of Pro to not source it (hence I think either Conduct or Source points justifiably go to Con), but I do not think the term malicious is difficult to understand. In this case, malicious would be defined exactly as you have interpreted Pro's actions (only I disagree with your conclusion).

Indeed, had Pro copied the entirety of talkorigins into their case and presented this and ONLY this, then I would agree it is blatant plagiarism. On the other hand Pro would be justified if they had said this is the argument from talkorigins and here it is.

My main contention with the idea that Pro intentionally plagiarized talkorigins is the fact that Pro DID source other statements. If Pro's intention was to merely plagiarize other people and present these arguments as their own, then why didn't Pro consistently plagiarize their other sources? Why did Pro cite some sources but not others?

I feel the the best explanation for the above is that Pro made an honest mistake in not citing talkorigins and that had they provided NO sources whatsoever, that your case, that they were intentionally plagiarizing a source, would hold more weight.

I obviously came here a bit late. If you are telling me that a commenter pointed out the plagiarism and Pro did not immediately admit to it, then I am wrong in my naivite. On the other hand, if the commenter pointed out the plagiarism after the debate had concluded, then I think my benefit of the doubt is justified (for one Pro conceded in the comments that it was from talkorigins--although looking back, even I'll admit it seemed to come a bit late in the comments).
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
"Technical plagiarism"? He copied an entire passage and presented it as his own words. Even if it wasn't "malicious" by your weird standards (not a word I would use, by the way), it's still improper. And it cannot by any stretch be considered accidental; the rest of his arguments are cited and sourced properly, but this one's source isn't even listed in the same argument wherein it appears.
Posted by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
best of luck to Pro, you are obviously fighting against source Nazis.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
tmar19652FritzStammbergerTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Definitely some form of plagiarism by Pro, so arguments and conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
tmar19652FritzStammbergerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized, therefore conduct to con. The other reason for con getting conduct is that Pro did not give any definitions. Pro argued from his sources, the most blatant example would be R3. Pro made no attempt at all to make an argument, which is unfortunate, because sources will go to con. There can be no dispute on bias sources because every source has a bias. The arguments go to Con because Pro essentially drops his points in R4 with the contention that Con has not answered his arguments, which Con actually did in R3. In my opinion, neither debaters did justice to the topic, which is a very intriguing one. There are errors in S/G in both of the debaters arguments, so that point will not be awarded.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
tmar19652FritzStammbergerTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: A significant reason (of the many) that I gave arguments to Con was because Pro did not contest the reliability of Con's sources, which clearly refute many of Pro's arguments. Sources to Con because the Bible is more reliable than Pro's sources. Conduct to Con because Pro expressed his desire to fallaciously attack Con.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
tmar19652FritzStammbergerTied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has a clear with with radiometric dating, since Con only only disputed radiocarbon dating and not other forms such as neodynium and/or uranium-lead dating (arguments to Pro). Pro also provided many more solid sources (sources to Pro). However, Pro appears to have plagiarized his first argument from the Talk Origins website (conduct to Con). I've reduced the plagiarism penalty from 7 points to 1 points based on Fritz's comments.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
tmar19652FritzStammbergerTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to con because pro plagirized. Sources to pro for using unbiased sources neither on the creation side nor the evolution side. On the final round, con brings out biogenesis, which is completely irrelevent to the age of the earth and also left many arguments unrefuted, so arguments to pro. Con was trying to disprove MY case on MY debate with him (he copy-pasted the same arguments onto here) and MY case was different that Pro's, thus he didn't really refute Pro's arguments at all.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
tmar19652FritzStammbergerTied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: I am honestly not certain if Con used any argument that was not a fallacy. I am also uncertain if I should count the final Round to have been used as a substitute for presenting original arguments. I found no scoring opportunities for Con throughout. I have revised my score - based on accusations of plagiarism, which I had not noted. It seems this was an innocent sourcing error, but just cause to award conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
tmar19652FritzStammbergerTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Once again Fritz is trying to disprove established science without the scientific background to do so. Unfortunately for Pro, his first argument is plagiarism (source: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/sen-rubio-doesnt-low-the-age-of-the-earth/question-3336747/ copied word-for-word) and as such this EDIT forfeits the Conduct point. Arguments points and Sources points go to Pro because Con really has no case.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
tmar19652FritzStammbergerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro because con did not meet BoP; he only refuted Pros arguements until the end, and then proceeded to type passages from the Bible, which really isn't proof at all. Pro was more convincing because he actually used proof to support his arguments. Con did not support his satement; he merely said pro's was wrong without any real proof.