The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

There is empirical, testable, undeniable evidence that Earth is closer to 6000 years old than 4.6bi

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,949 times Debate No: 7122
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (116)
Votes (2)




Resolved: There is empirical, testable, undeniable evidence that Earth is closer to 6000 years old than 4.6 billion

Uhhh, for all I know, there isn't. I humbly await my opponent's arguments.



Lets start shall we ok my friend lets explain first the earth been around for a long time and i mean a really long time as we can see so long before the history was written down.

That also leads me to ask how do you plan to show evidence, but alas i'll have to wait.

Number 1: Scientists have found multiple ways to see back how old the earth is like studing artifacts,cuting ice in antartica, and e.c.t . So far the earth has been billions of years old in each of these discoveries.

Number 2: Now heres were i explain B.C and A.D we have history writen down for the late B.C and the whole A.D so far A.D lasted 2009 years 6000 - 2009 and you have about say 4991.

Number 3: Also explain the ice age, jerrassic age, then theres the age were the continents split, and the the rise of human civilization. Now are you telling me that that only took 4000 - 5000 years.

I'll finish for now.
Debate Round No. 1


Well, I'm going to like automatically win this debate for 3 reasons:

1) My opponent has the burden of proof
2) My opponent is arguing my side
3) If my opponent attempts to affirm the resolution, he will contradict himself

Perhaps my opponent didn't realize that he was AFFIRMING the resolution, thereby stating the Earth IS closer to 6000 years old than 4.6bi.

Well, anyway, I 100% agree with my opponent's arguments. Since we unanimously agree that the resolution is negated, this is obviously a victory for CON

Please vote CON. Thank you.


huh what ahh i tho i was con o crap sorry i really need to start looking at thing
she win's
Debate Round No. 2


'she win's'

Where are you getting she from? I'm a dude. It's ok though.


joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


:) - Sorry pal. Next time


joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
116 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Ice Core dating:
It uses LLS.
This is a rebuttal to the latest rebuttal. The secular rebuttal is flawed because it does not understand the flood interpreted data of the Ice Cores.

""For instance, if the first guess concludes that the annual layer thickness at the 2,500-metre depth is around 1 centimetre, annual layer counting will not allow an annual layer thickness of 5 centimetres, let alone about 3 metres as in the creationist model.""

Basically the reading of the ICE Cores is only accurate upon first guess that years are represented in stable 1 centemeter increments. Read the whole article for all of the details. There are alot of articles and rebuttals to the science on both sides.

Why is there debate? Because simply put both make the first assumptions of the age of the earth and are interpreting the data as such.

Shall I go on with the other methods for dating before we both concede that all data is being intepreted to reflect a particular 1st assumption of age? Simply put we have not seen all the years of the earth. We can only speculate to a 1st assumption. All Old Earth can do is reinterprete that data.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
In other words first The Thorium producing 14C... its a guess, second it if it true then there could be tons of things that create Isotopes other than the initial model causes. The ramifications are still very profound and both destruct the current model.

For Tree Ring Dating.
Realize that the blended years are only a guess and have to be cross referenced to 14C to be made valid. We have not witness in any testing on the trees in the last 50 years the ability to produce a double ring. You have created a circular loop with these two.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
At this point I do need to break down the science for all of the calibration.

First you see you come up with a reason that now produces the 14C in the coal. The diamonds do not have this same problem?
I guess I just see that every time there is a discrepency to the model the model changes with a massive amount of variables. All of the known ones get explained away with things that I simply do not agree with.

Let me break down what I think is your source.
""Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), a sensitive radiometric dating technique, is in some cases finding trace amounts of radioactive carbon-14 in coal deposits, amounts that seem to indicate an age of around 40,000 years. Though this result is still too old to fit into any young-earth creationist chronology, it would also seem to represent a problem for the established geologic timescale, as conventional thought holds that coal deposits were largely if not entirely formed during the Carboniferous period approximately 300 million years ago. ""

This is entirely speculative as the Model is completely defunct. "It seems to indicate an age of around 40,000 years." We already postulated the entire model is wrong for the dating. No matter what the model asserts for a date at this point the information is 100% wrong.

Now the answer only proves NIGHTMARE's assertion. He asked for a commonly occuring reason that 14C would be thrown off. This would prove that.

However, this is entirely A GUESS!
"The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment."

So either there is proof of other productions of 14C from alternate decay isotopes which completely throws off all Isotope dating or.....
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
First Roy forgive me.
I am not ignoring the calibration process. I am in an indirect way claiming that all of the processes that calibrate are equally variable science and not a hard science with usable information. If I can get you to walk that sample through and see how bad numbers are reconciled you will get a good snapshot of how it is potentially wrong. It is not usable and who can check up on it? In the same way the world food consumption cannot accurately account for the usage, I cannot dispute it because the actual date is not known.

I regards to biblical interpretation. If someone is not interpreting the Bible accurately it can be known. There are generally two reasons that interpretations varies. Lack of Diligence in study and spiritual life and then the second reasons a persons willful sinning and desire to believe something.

LDS is a prime example. They really want alot of wives. They interpret the Bible to allow them that "luxury". It IS YOUR repsonsibility to interpret the Bible accurately. Same with an in house discussion. A calvinist wants to believe God makes the decision for ones soul rather than they themselves being fully culpable for that decision. They do not want the burden to be on thier own head. You can know a wrong interpretation when you communicate with and hear from God. To an outsider it looks hard but it really is not when you speak with the Guy who wrote the Bible.

That does still remain the argument that your soul hangs in the balance on the accuracy of the Bible. You are personally responsible for its accurate interpretation. Every Christian understands the truth of that statement with this one. "Jesus held all of the Jewish authorities to be personally responsible for the accurate interpretation and obedience to the actual spirit of the Old Testament Laws."
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
Galiban, You claimed with respect to me
"You state concerning the fate of your soul
- The bible is wrong 14C proves that
- There is no God"

Where did you get that from? I did not claim that C14 dating proves the Bible is wrong. I specifically offered the possibility that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. I noted that Christians vary widely in their interpretations of the Bible, and that few Christians share your beliefs. I am challenging your claim of infallibility in interpreting the Bible. I never said anything about the soul or the fate of the soul - you fantasized that. I never claimed that C14 disproved the existence of God. I specifically granted the possibility that God created the world 6,000 years ago and created all of the evidence of an older earth at that moment. You discounted that without hesitation. Am I to conclude that you believe that God is a being of powers limited to what you wish them to be?

You ask, "At this point at best you could say your decision has a margin of error + or - what percentage?" The accuracy of carbon dating is well-established to be less than 3%. The main problem with tree rings are gaps due to missing rings; there are occasionally double rings, but they are easily recognized. So tree rings date to better than 1%, with any error likely an underestimate.

One of the most accurate of the radiometric dating methods is argon39/argon40 dating. Potassium/argon dating works from the date when the sample was melted, at which point the argon then in the sample escapes. then the potassium isotope decays in sequence to the two isopes of argon, which remain trapped in the rock. However, it is not possible to measure the potassium and argon levels in one sample; the material must be homogeneous. Argon/argon dating avoids that limitation by deducing the original potassium level from the levels of the two argon isotopes in the decay chain.

Note that many people speak directly to God, getting widely disparate answers
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
Galiban, You say you do not mind science when there is data to back up. Carbon data is backed up by dating with tree rings, sediment layers, ice cores, and many other independent methods, but you don't accept it. If no calibration for sun radiance variation is used, it is still within 10%. The method cannot be used for samples more than 50,000 years old, because the C14 levels are down to around 1/2**7, less than 1%, of the C12 levels. Coal has thorium than produces C14 at that level. Even if there were thorium producing C!4 at that level in ordinary samples, it would only be an error of less than 10% in a 15,000 year old sample. We know that contamination of the type in coal is not a typical problem, because the carbon dating is cross-checked rigorously with tree ring dating, sediment cores, etc., etc.

How have you answered the assertion that validity is established by cross-checking? You simply ignore it. What must be happening is not just that tree ring data is wrong and carbon dating is wrong, but that both must coincidentally have exactly the same errors so that the dates derived by the different methods agree. The same with the errors in ice cores, potassium/argon dating, argon/argon dating, and on and on.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Ice Melting is also subjective but you can know the variables alot more closely. It can be more contained. There is only x number of factors and you can arrive at a meaningful mathematical formula. We can get very close, but we still will never be 100% accurate.

However, most people will not deny the math is still wrong. It is just a smaller margin for error.
Computers function wonderfully.... with a margin of error.
Our buildings stand for a while but eventually settle. We cannot eliminate all variables to get buildings perfect.
Medicine works great, but usually for only 98% of the population.

This is good science. Not perfect science but if you do not mind the 2 % dieing by the 8th leading cause (medical errors) of death then its good enough.

I do not mind hard science being spoken of in a meaningful way where we have hard data to back it up. Meaninful is a practical application that you can base GOOD decisions on it to form solid opinions.

Lets look at your particular scenario.
You state concerning the fate of your soul
- The bible is wrong 14C proves that
- There is no God

I state
- 14C does not come close to anticipated variables in a meaningful way
- There is evidence that shows 14C models are outright wrong.
- The Bible has a real chance of being true based on all of its listed sciences and my personal relationship and discussions with God the creator

At this point at best you could say your decision has a margin of error + or - what percentage? With the known problems it could potentially have a 100% error ratio. Any percentage you assign these assumptions you are purely speculating at your perceived margin of error in your own decisions.

Am I wrong that you still must know that you have a potential margin of error and that God does exist?
So we have the statement
"God does not exist" Margin of error ______%
I give it 100 percent but only because of my speaking with him. You have to give it what?
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
"By your logic there is nothing whatsoever in science that is valid."
In variable science you are absolutely right, though I hold my statement to a + or - 10% accuracy ratio :) Realize I make a distinction from hard science and variable science. Variable science is developing formulas that can never be checked up on in a conclusive and meaningful way.

I will define with examples again. World food consumption rates. This at the outset seems quite predictable. You plug in production rates, harvest tonnage, counts of people etc. This is great but when you realize that there are people that hunt, have home gardens, nations that do not keep meaningful records, human error, death rates, cannibals, etc.
All of these things simply cannot be calculated. Any number for world consumption would be purely a guess. You might say an educated guess but that is also subjective because who is going to check? Anything I would rebut you could say "give me proof." Noone could. When two guesses are at hand most people will take the more "informed" guys decisions. It is speculative and subjective.
That number can never be followed up on. It has an error ratio guess at 10% in either direction. That is a friggin lot. It is like when geologists say between 1.5 million and 2.5 million years old. That is a very very wide margin of error. But he sure must know what he is talking about?

14C can never be checked up on. Unless hard science discovers time machines :) In which case they better start by only going 6000 years back just to be safe on the first trip :)

World food consumption as a guess is really inherently only a subjective answer. It does not matter. If we are wrong we made more food or consumed less. It is self fulfilling solution.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
First Protons and Neutrons are still theory. They do not actually know. It is why String Theory has become so prevelant. But at this point the belief of quantum mechanics holds that everything is energy. The essentials of einsteins theory hold that matter and energy are interchangable. In other words matter is energy just another force. Electro, Nuclear weak and strong and gravity. It is all interchangable and not fully understood. All indications point to energy being the base of atoms. It is even heavily speculated that the vacuum is made up of energy rather than just empty space.

It is still very much a speculative science.

I see your point however, that this must be explained in terms that you will accept.

The fundamental problem is we do not actually understand the math we are describing in a "real" sense. I mean that as scientists we understand the math but we are unable to visualize legitamately what we are looking at. We know certain things are true only because they are testable. It is why string theory is not accepted over the past models because it is outright untestable.

What you are asking me to do is debunk the current model when the current model is speculative.

This is where the supernatural and metaphysical come in. I cannot seperate religion from everything I do. It is like trying to take the metaphysical nature of marriage and say "I do not agree with Marriage so please lets not discuss it in context of life." To ignore metaphysical concepts because they appear to be subjective is problematic.

To answer the direct question by logic if one singular event make the Nitrogen unstable why do you assume that one single event could not reverse that?

So we have logic that dictates its possible and we also have evidence to show that it has happened. With these two combined what am I forced to conclude? I have logic and evidence. The model does not work.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
No, Galiban, Every scientific theory has to take into account multiple laws of nature. To figure how fast an object falls one must take into account not just Newton's law of gravitation, but wind resistance and aerodynamics. It is unreasonable, for example, to suppose that because Newton's law of gravity cannot be applied without intelligence it must be that Newton's law is invalid. There is nothing in science that is immune from your criticism. Ice "should" melt at exactly 32 degrees, but due to contaminants it doesn't. By your logic, that invalidates just about all of thermodynamics dealing with freezing and melting. Tell me anything that you believe immune from such objections, and I'll give you the objections. Keep in mind, you do not accept that objections have valid explanations. You are claiming that science is invalid if it is possible to make any objections at all. By your logic there is nothing whatsoever in science that is valid.

You often speak of "formulas." That is incorrect. It is not the case that there is a simple formula that is supposed yield invariably correct results. What is the "formula" for measuring the height of child? There is no such thing. The child must take off his shoes and stand up straight near a height scale. The person doing the measurement must sight horizontally from the top of the child's head to the scale. The scale could be inaccurately tapped to the wall or knocked loose. The person measuring could have poor eyesight. There are just so many variables involved that there is just no chance whatsoever that it could be done correctly. Isn't that what you are saying?

It I attempted to defend the child's measurement, I could measure the child in many different ways, laser interferometers, measuring his shadow, acoustic radar, and so forth. I could then show that the measurements closely agreed. You could not possibly be convinced by such methods. You would point out a list of problems with each method. Right?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by hauki20 8 years ago
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 vorxxox 8 years ago
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