The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

This research paper can be considered evidence of a 6,000 year old earth

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 199 times Debate No: 105273
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




In this debate, I am asking whoever chooses to be my opponent, to take the time to read a scientific study, and then return to this debate room and present his problems with the study - then we will debate those points back and forth.

Of course, "science says the earth is 4.56 billion years old therefore they are wrong" is not a legitimate objection in this debate. Your objection has to be about their approach, methods, and conclusions, all of which are documented very well in the study that I have linked below. If you do not agree to these terms, do not accept the debate.


Short description of the study: A team of scientists who consider the earth to be 6,000 years as opposed to billions, have tried to prove their hypothesis by predicting the leak rates of helium in zircon crystals. This 17-page long study documents their work, and enables you to find errors in their approach, methods and conclusions.


I have read through this study, and in no way can it be considered evidence for a 6000 year old planet.

The study focuses on helium, but ignores other forms, it is based on a lack of understanding.

We can solve this problem quite fast with a logical understanding.

All elements are created within stars. Simple forms become more complex over time. Hydrogen turns to helium, and so on, this is how we get the elements in the periodic table.

When a star is created, all the leftovers are what form the planets that orbit it.

This young solar system exists in a high state of energy, and forms are continually colliding with each other.

The amount of energy present in this process generates an abundance of heat. There is so much heat that water (H20) would not be able to sustain a liquid form, it would exist in a gaseous state. It would take a long time for the planet to cool before oceans of water would develop.

Because water is essential for our form of life to exist, it is physically impossible for life to exist without liquid water.

Because all fossil fuels are generated from decomposed life, again this is impossible for the earth to be only 6000 years old because of how long it takes for these carbon deposits to build up from decaying bio matter.
Debate Round No. 1


I have carefully read through your response three separate times, and I am left with the understanding that you have zero understanding of the study that I have presented, and that you have completely missed the point of the study. Completely.

For example, you state that "the study focuses on helium, but ignores other forms, it is based on a lack of understanding" when in fact helium is the focus of the study, because helium is the only by-product of uranium decay that naturally diffuses through the crystal structure and that we can establish a leak rate for.

If you could not grasp the very basics of the study, I am deeply concerned that you will not be able to grasp the rest of the study. Therefore, it is my suggestion to you, that you declare an end to the debate as you (i) have violated the terms that I have put forth in my opening statement by resorting to outside information to argue for your position in the last paragraph (ii) have not addressed the approach, methods or the conclusions of the study.

If I am mistaken on any of these points, please correct me, and if I find your correction to be truthful, I will concede that I have misjudged you, and we may proceed with the debate. Thank you.


That is the problem with the study, it focuses only on helium. It does not account for other forms that exist.

My response was based on logic. As fossil fuels are a real form that exist, we can not exclude them from evidence that says the earth is only 6000 years old based solely on helium, which is only one form that exists.
Debate Round No. 2


When voting time comes, the voters will see that you have not followed the debate terms and vote against you. This debate is not about the hundreds of other ways to date the earth, this debate is only about the specific study that I have brought to the table.


This debate is about whether the study you presented is considered evidence for a 6000 year old earth. I am debating that it is not valid.

I have already stated why I believe it is flawed.

My reasoning is based on logic.

I am not concerned about the voters, I am simply debating against your opinion.
Debate Round No. 3


Nowhere have you addressed anything in the study, you merely pointed out that you can prove the earth is old using other methods. I am not interested in other methods. This debate is not about other methods. In fact, it's a violation of terms to even mention other methods, but I take it that you are quite new to this site.


My method is based on logic. If you are implying that the study is not based on logic you have therefore proved that this study is not legitimate evidence for a 6000 year old earth.

By my logic, 1 + 1 = 2 This is true simple logic, as the equation is balanced

By your logic, 1 + 1 = 6000 This is not logic, this is hogwash
Debate Round No. 4


If you are as logical as you claim to be, then you would have known that repeating something over and over again does not make it any more true, as you seem to believe.

Thank God there is a block option, so I do not have to waste my time again with someone who does not comprehend the terms.


That is fine, you are free to block out the world when it challenges you but it will not teach you anything.

The reason for debating is to express different opinions to gain an understanding of the forms around us.

So far you have not stated any terms that support your argument as to why this is considered valid evidence for a 6000 year old planet other than what the study says.

I understand your faith is in question for you, but blindly accepting things is not a way to gain an understanding of the world.

You can choose to block me, that is fine, I am sorry this debate has caused you upset, I wish you all the best in the future.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by backwardseden 2 weeks ago
Strange. Yes. Ab-so-lu-te-ly. You most certainly believe in turnabout is fair play. But only once per customer counts here. And especially the one that makes sense counts also. You cannot pass off that dribble - oh sorry drivel to some SERIOUS scientists, even though I do not understand a single word of it. Ta ta.
Posted by m.brussel92 2 weeks ago
If you like macaroni, and you start a debate about science, does that mean I should comment on your debate stating that I don't like macaroni? I don't think so, because I make a distinction between a persons personal beliefs and preferences, and their debate setting.
Posted by backwardseden 2 weeks ago
@m.brussel92 - It is about god because creationists ARE about god. If you go into and punch in "creationist" it turns into...
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. 2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis. 3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.
Now have a look at who authored the article. So they are completely and utterly worthless with ---everything--- that they have to say because they will ---never--- put their god on trial again. They are NOT that stupid. They cannot stand by their product, their god. All creationists, no exceptions, none, are complete frauds and fraudulent and cannot be taken at their word at anything. Its like a surgeon operating on you without going through any kind of college and having a totem pole as his credentials. Or a murderer defending you for running a red light. Apples and oranges. Nothing at what creationists say, since they cannot stand behind their product can be trusted. Not ever. And besides, there's 0% proof that god even exists. So creationism lacks complete and utter failure, god, because there is no evidence for faith and faith cannot be tested, and faith is not evidence, nor is the bible evidence as stated in my previous post. All the bible is, is a little blank black book filled with misinterpreted words by everybody, no exceptions, none because god would not use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible - a double standard.

And just for fun here's a cute little pun which happens to be true... "Creationists do not try to prove the truth of creationism. They spend their time arguing against evolution." Matt Dillahunty
Posted by m.brussel92 2 weeks ago
backwardseden, this debate is not about God, it's about the age of the earth, from an ENTIRELY scientific perspective. If you would like to vent your beliefs (whether for or against God) please do so at an appropriate place. Not here.
Posted by backwardseden 2 weeks ago
Its funny. There's 0% proof for god. Not one single ounce. I don't understand a single sentence of the article Pro presented in this article. But it does not matter. Why? Because not one creationist can be accepted as truth and of worth. Not one. Why? Because they will not put their god on trail again. In other words they will not stand behind their product. Why? Because all they have to go on is faith. And faith cannot be proved. Faith is NOT evidence. The bible is NOT evidence. The idiot god of the bible most certainly would ---never--- use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible so everybody can get it wrong with translations upon translations upon copies upon copies with absolutely no way to trace it back to its original. And even if you could, the translation application so that everybody could understand it from around the world would be way off. So all you have left is faith. And faith is not a pathway to truth. After all EVERYTHING can be based on faith. Every religion has faith.

"Why would you believe anything on faith? Faith isn"t a pathway to truth. Every religion has some sort of faith. If faith is your pathway you can"t distinguish between christianity, Hinduism, judaism, any of these others. How is it that you use ---reason--- in every of the other endeavor in your life and then when it comes to the ultimate truth, the most important truth your"re saying that faith is required and how is that supposed to reflect on a god? What kind of a god requires faith instead of evidence? Matt Dillahunty

"Faith is the reason people give when they don"t have evidence." Matt Dillahunty

"Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong." Richard Dawkins

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Richard Dawki
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ConserativeDemocrat 2 weeks 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con takes this, but Pro does win conduct. Con disproves the resolution by pointing out examples of substances that are over 6000 year olds, specifically fossil fuels. Pro does not have a counter to this, instead trying to pin Con on conduct. Since Pro drops Con's argument regarding fossil fuels proving the age of the Earth is earlier, Con wins arguments. However, since Pro says that Con has to specifically focus on the methods in the study, Pro wins conduct, as Con violates this. Con wins.