Young Earth Creationism Is Improbable
Debate Rounds (4)
Young earth creationism is improbable.
BoP is shared.
Young Earth Creationism: "...the religious belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago." Please also accept the idea of a six-day creation account.
Improbable: "Not likely or probable; doubtful; unlikely."
1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.
5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument.
Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)
I. The Universe
The Big Bang Theory
The big bang theory (BBT), the dominant cosmological model for the evolution of the universe, which estimates the universe to be around 13.75 billion years old, which corresponds to the Lambda-CDM model's (also known as the standard model) theoretical value for the age of the universe based on the Hubble constant and performing regression analysis. There are a number of proofs for the big bang theory, three of the most important being the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), the organization of the known universe, and the abundance of light elements in the universe.
The CMBR can be thought of as the afterglow of the big bang, and its existence is only currently consistent with the big bang theory. It was discovered, and its predictions confirmed over the years since its inception. In the absence of Big Bang, there would be no reason to expect a uniform, long-wavelength background radiation in the universe. Here is a satellite picture of the it - notice how the field is relatively uniform, a confirmation of a prediction of the BBT :
Another indicator of the big bang is the organization of the known universe with galactic evolution. Galaxies formed more recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed closer to the big bang, meaning that galaxies have evolved over time, which is a strong argument for the big bang theory because no other cosmological theory can explain it. "Observations of star formation, galaxy and quasar distributions and larger structures agree well with Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in the Universe and are helping to complete details of the theory."
A final strong argument for the big bang theory is the abundance of light elements as there is no other explanation for it. ""as one examines older and older objects, the abundance of most heavy elements becomes smaller and smaller, asymptoting to zero. By contrast, the abundance of helium goes to a non-zero limiting value. The measurements show consistently that the abundance of helium, even in very old objects, is still around 25% of the total mass of "normal" matter. And that corresponds nicely to the value which the BBT predicts for the production of He during primordial nucleosynthesis." Here is a picture showing the log graph of abundance of elements by atomic number in the universe:
In conclusion, the big bang theory is the only cosmological theory for the evolution of the universe that can explain many of the observations made. According to the theory, the universe is around 13.75 billion years old.
Age of Stars
A more experimental proof for the age of the universe can be found by finding out the ages of the oldest stars.
"Another [sic] star, CS 31082-001, shows an age of 12.5 +/- 3 Gyr based on the decay of U-238. Wanajo et al. refine the predicted U/Th production ratio and get 14.1 +/- 2.5 Gyr for the age of this star."[Gyr means billions of years ago (giga-years) and U/Th means Uranium/Thorium radioactive dating]
"Applying this technique to the globular cluster NGC 6397, Pasquini found an age of 13.4 billion years, plus or minus 800 million years. Other studies like Krauss and Hansen obtained similar results with related methods: 12.2 and 12.1 billion years, respectively, with errors on order 1 to 2 billion years."
Allowing for experimental uncertainties, the oldest stars are consistent with the age of the universe proposed by the BBT. It points to the idea that the universe is around 13.75 years old.
II. The Earth's Indicators
The Earth provides a slew of different evidence that the universe is older than 6000 years. One example can be found in the ages of the oldest meteorites on the Earth. "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." Many of the oldest meteorites examined range from 4.5-4.65 billion years old.
The oldest recovered rocks from the moon, which may have been a part of the Earth itself once, further verifies the Earth's age: "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." Meteorites from around the solar system correspond to those relative ages as well: "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."
This level of preciseness in meteorites found on the Earth, the Moon, and around the solar system indicate they were caused by the same event, and a lot older the 10000 years.
There is a lot of interal evidence as well that the Earth is older than 6000 years. Take, for example, ice core samples: "From the data gathered from the Vostok ice-core indicates that the minimum age of the earth is 160,000 +- 15,000 years. Furthermore there exists approximately 33% of additional ice below the core sample which would hold a disproportionate number of years due to thinning of the ice layers under the tremendous pressure of the ice above it."
Another is continental drift. Satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year (roughly the speed of fingernail growth), which means that for these diverging continents to have been together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
Yet another example is the shifting of the geomagnetic poles. A geomagnetic reversal is a change in the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field. The frequency at which these reversals occur varies greatly, but they usually happen once every 50,000 to 800,000 years, and generally take thousands of years. This fact is obviously inconsistent with the notion of a young Earth; around 171 reversals are geologically documented, which would make the Earth at least 8.5 million years old.
It is clear from the validity of the Lambda-CDM model of the Big Bang Theory's theoretical formulation that the universe is over 13 billion years old, and this is backed up by the observations of stellar age. The Earth has a plethora of indicators that it is over 4 billion years old, including, but not limited to meteorite age, ice cores, continental drift regression analysis, and geomagnetic pole shifting. Overall, it is very improbable that the universe or the Earth is 6000 years old.
: Laurie R. Godfrey (1983). "Scientists Confront Creationism".
I believe this answers all your arguments about the big bang: https://answersingenesis.org...
AGE OF STARS
I will address your argument like this: Are you saying because of decay, you can date stars? After reading this argument, I can only laugh. It proposes that the rate of decay has always been the same. Yet, we have no proof of this, and we have no proof that our way of measuring decay in stars is accurate.
THE EARTH'S INDICATORS
Again you go to dating. This time dating the meteorites in/on the earth. However, did you know that over 90% of the dating methods we use today contradict the billions/millions of years model? And the rest of the dating methods contradict the age of things among themselves by a few billion years. So that DESTROYS the whole argument about the meteorites.
"There is a lot of internal evidence as well that the Earth is older than 6000 years. Take, for example, ice core samples: "From the data gathered from the Vostok ice-core indicates that the minimum age of the earth is 160,000 +- 15,000 years. Furthermore there exists approximately 33% of additional ice below the core sample which would hold a disproportionate number of years due to thinning of the ice layers under the tremendous pressure of the ice above it."
This argument is assuming that the rate of ice getting layed down has stayed the same sense the beginning.
However we have no proof that it has always been the same.
It is exactly the same for your next 2 arguments, so I will not even address them.
It is clear that through a uniformitarianism view, that the earth had to have been older than 10,000 years. But if you don't assume the rate of things have always been the same, the only model that makes sense is the creationary 4,000-10,000 years old. One example I can make is Mt. Saint Helens. After it's eruption, it layed down sentiment that evolutionary scientists previously thought took millions of years to form. (It all formed in less than a week.)
A lot of people don't know the true origin of evolution/atheism. It started as an ancient pagan religion. It's purpose was to take the need for a god out of the creation.
MY ARGUMENTS FOR A YOUNG EARTH NOT BASED ON UNIFORMITARIANISM THINKING
These are a few of my favorites.
"1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.2
2. Too few supernova remnants.
Photo: Courtesy of NASA
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.
4. Not enough mud on the seafloor.
Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic subduction can remove it.
Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago."
You can see 9 other evidences here, I would prefer you look at all the links I provided, and please attempt to answer them as I have attempted (I believe successfully) to answer yours.
I. The Big Bang
My opponent has only provided a source, but has not argued himself against this point at all, or even provided a quote. Thus, it does not address my arguments. But even considering it, it doesn't address the consistent nature of observations with BBT predictions, and only covers the CMBR. Again, the CMBR is only explainable with the BBT, and further, it predicts that the CMBR be isotropic, as it assumes that the radiation is an almost perfect black body spectrum in all directions.
II. Age of Stars
By quantum mechanics, radioactive decay rates could only change if fundamental constants changed as well, and these constants have been shown to be constant over billions of years to over one part in 20 million. This has been shown experimentally, "The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years." Measuring decay in stars just involves determining ratios of elements, which has been done for almost 100 hundred years.
III. The Earth's Indicators
Using radioactive methods that go back to a specific date (some can date older objects than others), the different methods are actually remarkably consistent.
Consider the Mundrabrilla meteorite. There were four successive dating attempts:
4.50 +/- 0.06 by
4.57 +/- 0.06 by
4.54 +/- 0.04 by
4.50 +/- 0.04 by
Using the margins of error, one can reasonably assume that this meteorite is 4.51-4.52 billion years old, which all four data points agree with. Further, this is yet another meteorite that points to the Earth being around 4.5 billion years old.
Further, here is a visual representation of several dating methods on one sample:
"The ages of the Fen Complex (A,B) are on two separate dikes within the Fen Complex. Not only are their ages similar, but the direction of magnetization in the rocks is also identical and indicates that Oslo, Norway was located at about 30 degrees south at the time. This is an important consideration. In order to refute the ages, ye-creationists must not only explain how three different isotopic systems (with different decay constants and chemical behavior) all gave the same age and the same magnetic direction. It is also not trivial that the magnetic direction in these rocks indicates that Norway has moved northward following the emplacement of these rocks."
As for my other three arguments, my opponent provides no mechanism for why those indicators would change. In fact, "Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records." My opponent has to show how all of the methods are inaccurate, and explain why they are consistent.
The Mt. Saint Helens argument is actually just an example of creation science at work. He did not properly use the K-Ar method correctly, as it is not designed to determine the ages of materials that young. It can only accurately date materials of at least over a million years old. Therefore, this study is not a valid objection to radioactive dating.
My opponent's comment about paganism is irrelevant (and incorrect).
IV. Galaxies Wind Themselves Up Too Fast
My opponent doesn't give the density wave hypothesis enough credit, but there's an even easier explanation for the observation - dark matter. "One way to speed up the outer planets would be to add more mass to the solar system, between the planets. By the same argument the flat galactic rotation curves seem to suggest that each galaxy is surrounded by significant amounts of dark matter. It has been postulated, and generally accepted, that the dark matter would have to be located in a massive, roughly spherical halo enshrouding each galaxy." Dark matter is, again, a generally well accepted theory (the only problem is we're not sure what dark matter is exactly).
V. Too Few Supernova Remnants
This claim is wrong on a number of levels. One, it takes millions of years for stars to go through their life cycle and explode in a supernova. Two, these supernovae remnants are 380 million light years away, meaning they must have occurred at least 380 million years ago, because the speed of light is constant. And three, dark energy (related to dark matter) can explain this. The only explanation for the dim supernova is an acceleration of the expansion of the universe, caused by dark matter. This can explain why they are dimmer, as they would be further away.
VI. Comets Disintegrate Too Quickly
Actually, more than 250 objects in the Kuiper Belt have been observed directly; therefore, it alone can be the source of short-term comets. As for the Oort cloud itself, "The Oort cloud has not been observed directly (although Sedna, a planetoid discovered in March 2004, might be in the Oort cloud), but its presence is well supported based on observations of long-period comets." Finally, if YEC was correct and there was no source of comets, they would all have the same age. However, they don't.
VII. Not Enough Mud on the Seafloor
Once again, the flawed nature of creation science is exposed. The depth of sediment on the ocean floor is not the same everywhere. "The thickness of sediment in the oceans varies, and it is consistent with the age of the ocean floor. The thickness is zero at the mid-Atlantic Ridge, where new ocean crust is forming, and there is about 150 million years' worth of sediment at the continental margins. The average age of the ocean floor is younger than the earth due to subduction at some plate margins and formation of new crust at others."
VIII. Other Points
Also, the link he shows me provides 10 more pieces of "evidence" for creation, but I can not possibly even go through two in the amount of space I have left. I would like to respond to the last one, however, that history is "too short". "While neolithic writing is a current research topic, conventional history assumes that the writing process first evolved from economic necessity in the ancient Near East. Writing most likely began as a consequence of political expansion in ancient cultures, which needed reliable means for transmitting information, maintaining financial accounts, keeping historical records, and similar activities. Around the 4th millennium BC, the complexity of trade and administration outgrew the power of memory, and writing became a more dependable method of recording and presenting transactions in a permanent form." Writing, a very complex system to create, was not needed until that time, and therefore not created.
However, once again, links themselves are not arguments. Your arguments need to be visible inside the debate. So, I'll just respond to the other points in your link with another link (that last point is not included, so I covered it):
All of my opponent's arguments reek of flawed scientific methods, assumptions, and conclusions. He either uses incorrect models in place of more accepted, valid models for scientific questions, or he even makes up scientific "facts" or relies on clearly invalid experiments. Overall, none of my opponent's arguments are evidence for young earth creationism.
Mike-the-wise-guy forfeited this round.
Mike-the-wise-guy forfeited this round.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments lacked any real evidence, Pro's had loads of evidence in sources, and Con forfeited, giving the debate to Pro.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for FF.
Vote Placed by Enji 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that various independent measurements all disconfirm young earth creationism, hence yec is unlikely to be true. Con argues that each of these arguments is based on uniformitarian thinking, and hence are probably false. The irony of Con's arguments becomes apparent when Con proceeds to assume uniform occurrence of supernovae and uniform distribution of sediment on the ocean floor. Pro addresses Con's arguments, and Con forfeits.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.