The Instigator
Subutai
Pro (for)
Winning
62 Points
The Contender
Pennington
Con (against)
Losing
57 Points

Young Earth Creationism Is Not Possible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+15
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 30 votes the winner is...
Subutai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,121 times Debate No: 32144
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (99)
Votes (30)

 

Subutai

Pro

I hope you like the definitions chosen, and please agree to them before accepting the debate.

Full Resolution


Young earth creationism is possible.

BoP is shared.

Definitions

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."[1] Please accept the idea of a six-day creation account.

Possible: "Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances."[2]

Rules

1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link.
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.

Debate Structure

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)

Sources

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Pennington

Con

I agree with all of my opponents rules, definitions, and regulations.


I accept the six-day creation scenario & the 10,000 year time frame.


I await Pros opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Subutai

Pro

I would like to thank Pennington for accepting this debate.

I. The Big Bang

There is much evidence for the Big Bang, which occurred, roughly 13.798 billion years ago. One is the distribution of elements throughout the universe: "…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."[1][2][3]

Another proof is the organization of the known universe. Galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang. These observations are strong arguments against the steady-state model. 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.[4][5]

A final proof is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation – the existence of it essentially confirms the Big Bang Theory itself. 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.[6][7]

Here is a satellite picture of the cosmic microwave background ([17]). Notice how the field is relatively uniform, a confirmation of a prediction of the BBT.

Overall, the oldest starts are around 13 billion years old, right around the time of the inception of star formation, both confirming the age of the universe and the Big Bang Theory timeline. In essence, either the speed of light has to be increased dramatically (which is impossible), or the universe is older than 10000 years.[8][9]

II. Meteorites

There are thousands of old meteorites on the Earth that are older than 4 billion years. "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."[10] Many of the oldest meteorites examined range from 4.5-4.65 billion years old.[11]

The oldest recovered rocks from the moon show the same story. "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."[10]

Meteorites from around the solar system also tell the same story: "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."[10]

This level of precisenessin 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.

III. The Earth's Indicators

There are many indicators in the Earth that are older than 10000 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."[12]

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.[13][14]

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.[13][15]

One final example that I will cite is that of weathering rinds. Weathering rinds are layers of weathered material that develop on glacial rocks. The weathering is caused by the oxidation of magnesium and iron rich minerals, and the thickness of this layer correlates with the age of a sample. Certain weathering rinds on basalt and andesite rocks in the eastern United States are believed to have taken over 300,000 years to form.[13][16]

There is one thing common in all these examples – they give evidence to the Earth being far greater than 10000 years old.

Overall, the age of the Earth is around 4.5 billion years and the age of the universe is around 13.8 billion years, both of which are far greater than the time period proposed in the resolution of 10000 years.

Sources

[1]: http://arxiv.org...
[2]: Y. Izotov, T. X. Thuan, and V. A. Lipovetsky, The Primordial Helium Abundance: Systematic Effects and a New Determination, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 108 (1997) 1
[3]: http://www.talkorigins.org...
[4]: http://arxiv.org...
[5]: Bertschinger, E. (1998). "Simulations of Structure Formation in the Universe".
[6]: http://arxiv.org...
[7]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8]: L. M. Krauss and B. Chaboyer, Age estimates of globular clusters in the Milky Way: constraints on cosmology, Science 299 (2003) 65
[9]: http://arxiv.org...
[10]: http://pubs.usgs.gov...
[11]: Dalrymple, Brent G. (2004). Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of the Earth and Its Cosmic Surroundings. Stanford University Press. pp. 147, 169
[12]: Matt Brinkman (1995). "Ice Core Dating"(TalkOrigins). Accessed October 8, 2007.
[13]: http://rationalwiki.org...
[14]: Laurie R. Godfrey (1983). "Scientists Confront Creationism".
[15]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[16]: Bryn Hubbard, Neil F. Glasser (2005). "Field Techniques in Glaciology and Glacial Geomorphology". John Wiley and Sons, United States. Page 355
[17]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Pennington

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate.

I would like to encourage voters to vote based on the arguments that will be presented in this debate. Remember that my only objective is to show YEC can be possible, not that it is true.

RESOLUTION: YEC is not possible!

I should start by saying that my opponent will offer you a bunch of scientific evidence that the earth is older than 10,000, in fact he has claimed that YEC is not possible. I will show that it is impossible for my opponent to make such claim.

Scientific Dilemma

We all have good reasons to believe that most of our present scientific theories are approximate. It is true that science has appeared to have produced valuable practical systems for humans to explain the universe. But, we all know that science is restricted to only knowledge that relates to the material universe and their laws.

As so, Epistemological Anarchism[1] puts forth the idea that it is unrealistic and detrimental to science to stand-pat only on universal and fixed rules. That limiting ourselves to just physical laws or material existence is detrimental when looking for all possible knowledge. And even when we think we have gained knowledge then we still have Half-life of knowledge.[2] This says that a certain amount of time has to elapse before half of the knowledge in a particular area is superseded or shown to be untrue.

One reason for this is because of the Gettier problem.[3] This is were there are certain circumstances in which one does not have all the knowledge required. This is the problem being discussed here, phenomena and science. A person's belief of what will or did happen can coincidentally be correct without his or her having the actual evidence to base it on. Same so someone who has actual base to believe they are correct, can actually be incorrect.

The Pessimistic Induction[4] offers us evidence that the posits of our best current theories do not exist. It says that scientists believe their understanding of the world to be reasonably correct, though previous generations of scientists wrongly believed the same thing. The Agrippa's Trilemma[5] pushes this further. Agrippa's Trilemma is a philosophical term coined to stress the purported impossibility to prove any truth even in the fields of logic and mathematics.

Thomas Kuhn wrote a analysis on the history of science called, 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.'[6] Kuhn argued for an model in which periods of continuity in science are interrupted by periods of revolution. During these revolutions in science the discovery of anomalies leads to changes in rules. We then have to question old data and move beyond normal science.

It takes creativity and knowledge to ask the right questions or do the right things. For knowledge to grow endlessly, we can not chain ourselves to one particular thought. One of the only things that keeps people from accepting that YEC 'could be' possible is scientific knowledge. But, there can not be a sole resounding method or rule that holds exception when looking for growth in knowledge. We then have a reason to believe science has a Dilemma.

Phenomenal

We can not rule out just about any possibility[7] and because of that we can not limit our scope. David Chalmers introduced the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness,'[8] arguing that phenomenal experiences are different from the materialistic (natural phenomena.) Claiming that easy problems regardless how complex or poorly understood, can be explained as natural phenomena. He claimed that phenomenal experiences would still persist even when all material functions have been explained. He claimed that reductive explanation of consciousness is impossible. That if one takes consciousness seriously, one has to go beyond a strict materialist framework.

Type-D dualism[9] holds that micro physics is not causally closed, and that phenomenal properties play a causal role in affecting the physical world. On this view, the evolution of micro physical states will not be determined by physical principles alone.

Con's Revised Omphalos hypothesis[10] is the argument that God created the world recently complete with full age and that therefore no presumed evidence that we can see can be taken as fully reliable.

Thomas's "Five Ways"[11] or five proofs for the existence of God. The arguments are often named as follows:

(1) argument from motion

(2) argument from efficient cause

(3) argument from necessary being

(4) argument from gradations of goodness

(5) argument from design.

Circumstantial Evidence

I will now offer a combination of circumstantial evidences for a Young Earth Creation.

I should first start this by saying that historians claim Human history only goes back 4,600- 5,400 (or more) years.[12]

"Professor Libby learned this when he tried to verify his Carbon-14 method. He said. 'The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was when our advisers informed us that history extended back only 5,000 years... You read statements in books that such and such a society or archaeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly (that) these ... ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is at about the time of the First Dynasty in Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established."

The earth's atmosphere should be saturated with C14 but it is not. The amount of C14 being produced is greater than the amount that is decaying.[13] It is estimated that a state of equilibrium would be reached in as little as 30,000 years.

The age of the earth or life on it cannot be demonstrated through any dating method because the method is not testable over the time it is supposed to date. There are always assumptions made which are not verifiable.[14]

Gaps in the fossil record, exist, there is no fossil evidence of transitional forms. Because of the absence of complete evidence to support belief in common ancestry, evolutionists acknowledge that evolution is a philosophical belief, not scientific in essence.[15]

Conclusion

"My intention is not to replace one set of general rules by another such set: my intention is, rather, to convince the reader that all methodologies, even the most obvious ones, have their limits. The best way to show this is to demonstrate the limits and even the irrationality of some rules which she, or he, is likely to regard as basic."[16]

If we fully put science as the base of all knowledge, that would mean that it rules out any supernatural event. We can not rule such notions because science could even show them to be true. Therefore we can not rule YEC as impossible and concluding the resolution false.

Sources

[1]

http://www.iva.dk...(Paul%20Feyerabend).htm

[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3]

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

[4]

INTERNATIONAL STUDIES IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, VOL. 17, NO. 2, 2003


[5]

http://www.philosophybasics.com...

[6]

http://philosophy.wisc.edu...

[7]

http://www.albany.edu...

[8]

The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory

, by David J. Chalmers


[9]

http://consc.net...


[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org...


[11]

http://web.mnstate.edu...

[12]

http://evolutionfacts.com...

[13]

http://nephicode.blogspot.com...

[14]

http://www.wiebefamily.org....

[15]

http://creationwiki.org...

[16]

http://www.galilean-library.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Subutai

Pro

I would like to thank Pennington for presenting his arguments. In this round, I will refute the main points of my opponent's argument.

God Did Not Create the World with Age

One of my opponent's claims is that the Universe was made with age, and that "therefore no presumed evidence that we can see can be taken as fully reliable."

However, there are several problems with this theory. One is that, if God created the world with age, that would make him a deceiver, and that is impossible, because that would make God imperfect. Descartes put it this way: "God... a being having all those perfections that I cannot comprehend... and a being subject to no defects whatever... cannot be a deceiver, for it is manifest by the light of nature that all fraud and deception depend on some defect." In other words, Descartes makes the argument that God is perfect, deception is an imperfection, therefore, God cannot deceive.[1][2]

Another problem is the many imperfections throughout the Universe. Why would God create craters all over Mercury and other celestial bodies? Why would God put craters on the Earth, and then make them appear older than they were? There is no basis for this - it's irrational. There's no reason why God would do this.[3][4][5][6]

Overall, God creating a world with age makes God a deceiver, which he cannot be.

Peter Abelard's Five Proofs for the Existence of God Are False

In this section, I will explain the fallacies behind each of the five arguments.

The first is the argument from motion, that every moving thing has a mover, that is, at the top, God. However, Newton's First Law states that a particle would tend to stay at rest or move in a constant velocity if no external force is applied to it. Hence it is as natural for a body to move (in a constant velocity) as it is for a body to be at rest. There is no need for a Prime Mover at all. Then came Einstein, who through the Special Theory of Relativity, showed that there is no such thing as absolute motion. All velocities can only be given relative to something else, none of which is an absolute reference, making a prime mover make no sense. Finally, if everything has a cause to it, who created God?[7][8]

The second is the argument from efficient cause, that for the series of causes and effects, that we see in the world, to make sense it must have a beginning, God being the first cause. However, physics has shown this to be incorrect. The phenomenon of radioactivity is one such example of an event that has no cause. While it is possible to predict the half-life of radioactive materials, i.e. how long it will take for half the original sample to decay, the exact moment when an individual atom will decay cannot be predicted. The decay of an individual atom is an example of an uncaused event. Furthermore, there is no reason to relate the "first cause" to be God; it could be something else.[7][9][10]

The third is the argument from necessary being, that existing thing does not owe its existence to itself. However, if all things are contingent, there could not have been anything as at one time all these could be non-existent. To account for all existence, there must be a Necessary Being, God. The argument, in its basic form is circular, as it assumes the conclusion in one of its premises; the term "necessary being" if it is to be used in a empirical sense boils down to the Second Way, which was already shown to be fallacious, if it is used in the logical sense it reduces to the Ontological Argument, another argument already dismissed as unsound; and finally even if we must admit a necessary existent entity why shouldn't it be the universe itself?[7]

The fourth is the argument from gradations of goodness, that there exist gradations in things, for example more noble and less noble, more true or less true. The existence of such gradations implies the existence of an Absolute Being as a datum for all these relative gradation. Most social standards and norms are therefore subjective. It is simply impossible to grade the many social norms in a hierarchical sense. The absence of any clear-cut gradation in this sense refutes the Fourth Way.[7][11]

The fifth is the argument from design, that the behavior of things in the world implies a Grand Designer or architect, God. The fundamental premise of the Fifth Way, that inanimate things and processes are acting towards an intelligent end, is untenable.[7][11]

Overall, these five arguments do not prove young earth creationism, they are simply proofs of God. Nothing is mentioned of the age of the Universe itself. Either way, the arguments are refuted.

Ancient Human History

Human history goes way further back than 4000 BC. In 8000 BC, a round stone tower, now preserved to about 8.5 meters high and 8.5 meters in diameter is built in Jericho (can be seen partially today). In 25000 BC, a hamlet consisting of huts built of rocks and of mammoth bones is founded in what is now Dolni Vestonice in Moravia in the Czech Republic. In 30000 BC, A herd of reindeer is slaughtered and butchered by humans in the Vezere Valley in what is today France. Numerous cave paintings throughout the world predate 4000 BC. The statement that human history does not go further back than that is erroneous.[12][13][14][19]

C-14 Saturation

"Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field... Thus, at least within the last 9000 years, the earth's magnetic field has fluctuated and those fluctuations have induced fluctuations in the production of carbon-14 to a noticeable extent. Therefore, as already noted, Dr. Hovind's claim that carbon-14 has been slowly building up towards a 30,000 year equilibrium is worthless... Therefore, we may conclude that atmospheric variation in C-14 production is not a serious problem for the carbon-14 method."[15] (More information may be found in source 15)

Dating Methods

Here is a comparison of date tested meteorites:

TypeNumber
Dated
MethodAge (billions
of years)

Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76
Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34
Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02
Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06
L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12
L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12
LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02
LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06
E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04
E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13
Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19
Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30
Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19
Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18
Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21

As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. The above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. Less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error. Dating is reliable.[16][17]

The Fossil Record

"The fact that some transitional fossils are not preserved does not disprove evolution. Evolutionary biologists do not expect that all transitional forms will be found and realize that many species leave no fossils at all. Lots of organisms don't fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record."[18] Overall, this does not prove Young Earth Creationism either.

Sources

http://tny.cz...
Pennington

Con

Thank you Pro for your last round. I will only give a rebuttal to my opponents argument from round two as implied.

I. The Big Bang

My opponent gives evidence for the Big Bang theory but there is crucial evidence that contradicts the theory as well. The standard Big Bang cosmology has three major problems that are known as:

1) The horizon problem

2) The smoothness problem

3) The flatness problem[1][2]

The Big Bang also violates the First Law of Thermodynamics as it states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant.[3] The element abundance predictions using the Big Bang, my opponent mentioned, require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.[4]

As tested, Helium Diffusion supports a Young Earth Creation of 6,ooo years through nuclear decay.[5] The The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, it could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago.[6] This also says that we can not be improving and becoming more complex but instead are becoming disordered.

Pro mentions the stars but the high velocity in the dispersion of all the stars should have separated them from dwarf stars long ago.[7] According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions 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.[8]

The Cosmic micro background itself seems to indicate a reference to YEC. The latest evidence from the Boomerang data strongly suggests, based on standard big bang cosmology, either that there is no CDM, or that big bang cosmology is wrong, or both![9]

There are far too many holes and inconsistencies in the Big-Bang theory to cancel out YEC. My opponents first contention can not leave us saying that YEC is impossible.

II. Meteorites

My opponents contention here consist of dating techniques and the reasoning for meteorites.

Hydroplate Interpretation- Earth was the parent body of all meteorites, most of which are pillar fragments. Tidal pumping heated and cracked pillars. Just as water circulates within a submerged sponge that is squeezed and stretched, tidal pumping circulated mineral-laden water within cracks in pillars for years before the flood. Pillar fragments, launched into space by the fountains of the great deep and became meteoroids.[10]

New (zircon) data allows us to calculate more exactly how long diffusion has been taking place. The result is 6000 (± 2000) years—about 250,000 times smaller than the alleged 1.5 billion year Uranium-Lead age.[11] A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable. An unbiased observer would be forced to admit that this contradiction prevents any conclusion as to the age.[12]

My opponent tells us about the meteorites in the solar system but never tells us how one would measure them. The dates are not 100% reliable and this further ignores any theory that is outside physical means. Isotope dating is therefore not the absolute dating method and it is impossible to tell when the dates are right and when they are wrong. We can not concede that YEC is not possible from this contention.

III. The Earth's Indicators

We should not assume that the precipitation rate of ice cores has always been similar to that of today. The layers of ice near the bottom of the core should be thicker than expected by the uniformitarian model. Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age.[13]

The idea my opponent suggest about continental drift and that sea-floor plates form slowly and continuously is not supported by geologic data. Furthermore, the cause for the alleged gradual and uninterrupted motion of plates is an unsolved mystery. The facts indicate that the separation of the continents, rifting of the ocean floor, and under thrusting of ocean trenches, were accomplished by rapid processes, not occurring today, initiated by a catastrophic mechanism.[14]

If the creation science is correct, the model for magnetic reversals here on earth does fit well to the geophysical and rock palaeomagnetic data, earth’s magnetic field implies that it is not eternal but relatively recent. Today’s energy decay rate back to a theoretical maximum energy, and so has derived an upper limit for the age of the earth’s magnetic field at 8,700 years.[15]

Millions of years are not necessary for the cooling of large igneous bodies. Moreover, the geologic role of hydrothermal cooling has already been extended to account for the rapid origin of thick metamorphic lithologies.[16]

Rock rinds have been used for half a century to date glacial deposits. Although maximum and minimum rind thicknesses have helped to elucidate time since deposition and allowed stratigraphic division of deposits at glacial rank, little has been done to investigate the wealth of mineral degradation, growth of alteration products and bio mineralization that occur in these weathered crusts. In some cases the mass of microbe-mineral inter growth is nearly present on a 50%/50% basis, with the biotic mass inter grown with mineral matter to such an extent that it probably controls pH and redox phenomena that act as accelerators in the weathering process.[17]

CONCLUSION:

My opponent did not give us any rebuttal to my 1st contention [scientific dilemma]. By that contention alone gives us all the reason to not put YEC as impossible. Furthermore I have shown that even scientific evidence is mixed in support for YEC and Big-Bang & evolution. If science is mixed up on what they determine as evidence and facts then how can we exclude such a notion as YEC? This especially, since it has been a long lasting belief. We can not render YEC as impossible.

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.physics.fsu.edu...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] B.R. Bligh (2000), The Big Bang Exploded!

[4] http://www.metaresearch.org...

[5] http://www.creationresearch.org...

[6] Slusher, Harold S., The Origin of the Universe, San Diego: Institute for Creation Research (ICR), 1978.

[7] http://creation.com...

[8] Davies, K., Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1994), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 175-184

[9] http://creation.com...

[10] http://www.creationscience.com...

[11] http://www.csun.edu...

[12] http://creation.com...

[13] http://www.icr.org...

[14] http://www.icr.org...

[15] http://www.answersingenesis.org...

[16] http://www.icr.org...

[17] http://www.tandfonline.com....2012.705952

Debate Round No. 3
Subutai

Pro

I would like to thank Pennington for this wonderful debate. I have really learned a lot from this.

I. The Big Bang

I.A. The Horizon Problem

This problem refers to why the universe is homogeneous and isotropic despite distant regions of space failing to be causally connected. However, this has already been solved. It involves a process called inflation, which states that the universe underwent a brief period of rapid accelerated expansion very early in its history. Inflation accounts for the observed homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, as well as the flat geometry of the universe. Furthermore, inflation predicts very small but observable differences in temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which have since been confirmed by satellite-based measurements.[1][2]

I.B. The Smoothness Problem

This problem asks how the smoothness of the early universe resulted in the large-scale structures of the universe we see today. this problem has also been solved, again using the principle of inflation, which explains that originally the universe was smaller than the extrapolation of the expansion history to early epochs. So before inflation, everything was causally connected, then inflation drove things apart.[3][4]

I.C. The Flatness Problem

This problem involves Omega, the ratio of the actual density to the critical density, and how that value remains constant (within 1). Again, inflation solves the problem. Inflation's rapid expansion caused space to become flatter, forcing omega toward one, no matter what its initial value. Even if the pre-inflation universe were curved like a sphere (corresponding to Omega > 1) or hyperbolic (Omega < 1), that tremendous burst of expansion forced the scale of any curvature to flatness.[3][4][5]

I.D. The Laws of Thermodynamics

The Big Bang does not violate the first law of thermodynamics. The creation of a particle-antiparticle pair out of the vacuum violates the law of conservation of energy but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows such violations for a very short time. It's called quantum fluctuation. As for energy, in the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space (which it is), one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. No law was broken here.[6][7][8]

Neither does the Big Big violate the second law of thermodynamics. If we consider the universe to be a sphere of radius R that is increasing, the maximum allowable entropy increases as the square of R, while the actual entropy of the universe increases less rapidly, only linearly with R, meaning entropy does not decrease. Also, we need to rememebr that, in the early stages of the universe, space was very ordered, such as in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, while now, it is a lot more disorderly. In short, no violation of the second law of thermodynamics was required to produce the universe.[9][10][11]

I.E. Distribution of Matter

To begin with, the simulations that attempt to recreate the Big Bang are extremely reliable, and they agree very well with the predicted distribution of elements throughout the Universe. For example, the measured abundances all agree at least roughly with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio. While yes, there are large systematic uncertainties in these measurements, nonetheless, the general consistency with abundances predicted by Big Bang nucleosynthesis is strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory is the only known explanation for the relative abundances of light elements.[12][13]

As for the helium diffusion problem, the studies performed on the Creationist side were extremely unreliable, and at times, deceptive. Helium can leave the atemosphere, destroying the whole theory. Therefore, their "dating" is erroneous (Source 14 explains it better).

II. Meteorites

On the hydroplate interpretation, there are three problems. One, the rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or before Adam's time for that matter. Even two miles deep, the Earth is boiling hot (260 to 270 degrees C at 5.656 miles in one borehole), and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached. The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.[17]

And despite enthusiastic endorsements by numerous YECs, the "helium diffusion studies" are based on untrustworthy equations and questionable data. For example, the relatively high Q/Q0 values of some of the zircons, which are important in deriving many of the YEC helium diffusion "dates," may be due to extraneous helium or artifacts of grossly underestimating the Q0 values of uranium- and thorium-rich zircons. For example, when comparing the two volumes, the results are much less than the 1,000 times claimed by Humphreys et al. Vbiotite / Vzircon = 0.0095.[15][16] (Again, source 16 provides a very detailed rebuttal)

Finally, the measurement systems are very accurate. Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. Emery was a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.[18][19]

III. The Earth's Indicators

III.A. Ice Layering

One ice layer forms every year on an ice core. Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. It does take great time for ice cores to accumulate. The minimum age by this standard is 700,000 years.[20][21]

III.B. Continental Drift

Actually, continental drift is not a rapid process. As I mentioned in Round 2, the continents move on average of 2 cm per year. Considering the wealth of evidence of the supercontinent Pangaea and the location of the continents today, drift must have been occuring for at least 200 million years. There is no evidence for an acceleration.[20][22]

III.C. Geomagnetic Reversals

My opponent's extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, my opponent's extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity. My opponent's extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field. In short, because magentic reversals take so long (way over 6000 years), and 171 reversals have been observed, the Earth is at least 8.5 million years old.[22][23][24][25]

Conclusion

First off, I would like to apologize to my opponent if I dropped any of his arguments. He threw so many at me in Round 3 that I couldn't adequately refute them all in the 8000 characters of space I have. Anyway, the central tenent of Young Earth Creationism is that the Universe is ~6000 years old. I proved the Big Bang Theory, which stated that the universe was ~13.8 billion years old, and numerous other proofs that the universe was older than 6000 years. Regardless of the "scientific dilemma", I defeated Young Earth Creationism's central pillar, thereby making it impossible.

Sources

http://tny.cz...
Pennington

Con

I appreciate Subutai for hosting this debate, he has been a class act.

Re-cap

My opponent started off by offering physical evidence that YEC is impossible. To take this evidence head on, I presented a case showing that physical evidence may not be all the knowledge required to make conclusions about YEC. I also showed that even if our physical framework is correct and it is all we need, we still do not know if we have all knowledge necessary to make solid conclusions about YEC. Pro never addressed this dilemma and its ignorance shows the truth behind that philosophy.

Pro offered us the Big-Bang and I responded by showing three problems with the Big Bang. He then gives us the Inflation explanation. A thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology concluded that "We do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology".[1] A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field and that its potential energy curve seems to be an contrivance to accommodate almost any data.[2]

Pro explains to us that the Big Bang does not break laws of Thermodynamics and the total energy of the universe is zero. The positive energy theorem is a well established theory in physics that says energy can not be negative but there is no conservation of energy in general relativity. I will nevertheless concede this point.

I will stress further that the Big Bang can not explain the uneven distribution of matter that forms voids or that its motion violates the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.[4] The Big Bang does not address where everything came from or does it explain order when every explosion observed in recorded history causes disorder. My opponent admits that there are systematic uncertainties and this follows into all theories.

Pro says that the hydro plate interpretation has three problems. One, "the rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float." The theory does not assert that the rock floated on this water like a boat, but that the water was in a sealed chamber. Water or even air in a sealed chamber will support a large amount of weight that would other wise sink through it. Second, "Even two miles deep, the Earth is boiling hot." This is assuming current conditions, on the pre flood world. It is likely that the heat was generated and beforehand the water could have been cold. Third, "The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits." There are problems for this argument: 1)The water would be eroding mainly granite not basalt. 2)The force behind the eruption would pulverize what was eroded.[5]

Pro attacks my source, Humphreys, on zircons. I quote the results of both theories, "Predictions of yet-future experiments on He diffusion through biotite, using the observed He retention in Jemez zircons in two very different theoretical models. An evolutionist model and a creationist model. Rough extrapolations from those data using He and Ar diffusion observed in other minerals suggest that the He-in-biotite measurements will fall into the creation model. Thus He diffusion measurements in biotite are likely to reject the evolutionist model and confirm the creationist model."[6]

Pro defends measurement systems but the the Observer Effect[7] asserts that there is a fundamental limit to the precision with which physical properties can be known. Observing the performance of a system by both the observed and observing properties will lead to inaccurate results because the observer affects the system.

III.A. Ice Layering

My opponent assumes that ice layering has been constant but this is naive. The creationist model predicts that thin annual layers become much thicker during the glacial portion due to much greater snowfall. This model is based on a constant accumulation throughout the glacial period of around six meters per year, followed by a rapid decline.[8][9]

III.B. Continental Drift

Pro asserts that contintental drift is not a rapid process but geology science offers rapid contintental drift processes. "From the late Precambrian and early Paleozoic, Laurentia and Baltica moved at minimum drift rates of up to 23 cm/yr. A pronounced burst in latitudinal velocity followed the breakup of the supercontinent Rodinia, which had been assembled for about 400-500 m.y. Laurentia and Baltica were either pushed off of a hot lower-mantle source or pulled toward cold lower-mantle anomalies and that the presence of continental roots enhanced this motion."[10]

III.C. Geomagnetic Reversals

My opponent says that 171 reversals have been observed. No one has observed them but instead predicted them. Both the nondipole and dipole were measured. When measured the non-dipole does not entirely make up for the loss in magnetic field energy in the dipole. The non-dipole portion is considered, the total magnetic field energy is decreasing with a high-life of 1465 years.[11] My opponent does not know how long reversals take or how many there have been since it is out of our visual observance.

Defence of my argument

Pro says the aged universe is flawed. He claims that God is being deceptive by creating a aged universe but God declared this in the Bible. We see all creations described in Genesis were fully grown. My opponent is also forgetting the possibility that we are tricking ourselves with our aging methods. This would be nessacary to have a fully functioning universe therefore not deceiving.

I posted Thomas Aquinis five proofs, not Peter Abelard's. I will nevertheless address my opponent here. We should remember that these arguments are only strong when collected together, and individually each of them is weak.[12]

1) argument from motion

Keep in mind that 'motion' has a much wider meaning than the modern sense: it is a very wide synonym for 'change', it does not only refer to change of position.

(2) argument from efficient cause

Radioactive decay has no immediate cause, but this is not the same as being uncaused. In particular, causal "hidden variable" models of radioactive decay are possible in theory.

(3) argument from necessary being

My opponent asserts that the Ontological argument is not sound but that is untrue. His only rebuttal to this argument is by calling it secular.

(4) argument from gradations of goodness

My opponent does not offer any solid rebuttal here. He asserts that it is impossible to grade the many social norms but many would say we can from the Bible.

(5) argument from design.

My opponent simply asserts this argument as untenable with no evidence. These five arguments together put forth a strong case for God and with evidence for God we have phenomenal cause.

Ancient Human History

Here my opponent gives us evidence that confirms my contention for 10,000 years. He then offers two examples from France and Czech Republic but they are under the shadow of aging methods and variable circumstances. However the first record of human civilization is in fact within 10,000 years.

C-14 Saturation

Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950s. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.[13]

Dating Methods/The Fossil Record

Carbon-14 dating rests on assumptions. These assumptions are that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and that its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy.[13]

Conclusion

My opponents case is based on experiment and since any experiment rest on assumptions, we can always find or discover a way out of the resolution and therefore showing YEC as possible. I only need 1 out 1000 to be possible and YEC has that 1. Vote Con.

RESOURCES:

IN COMMENT SECTION

Debate Round No. 4
99 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WilliamofOckham 1 year ago
WilliamofOckham
This is still one of the best debates I have seen on this website - it has both philosophical and scientific considerations. Especially the science in this debate - it's like a textbook.
Posted by makhdoom5 1 year ago
makhdoom5
seemed tough debate.
Posted by Subutai 1 year ago
Subutai
@elvroin_vonn_trazem: That's a very interesting point, as creationists often cite that no plant is older than approximately 6000 years. This busts up their already fallacious argument.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 1 year ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Ever heard of tree rings? How about when they can count 13,000 of them?
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1237973/Worlds-oldest-plant-13-000-year-old-oak-survives-cloning-itself.html
Posted by SeaShepherd 1 year ago
SeaShepherd
What the Con did was ad ignoratium, or appeal to ignorance. He claimed that the pro's method might not be right, so he has to be right. However, he could bring no evidence to prove that his side was true. Remember, the debate was whether Young Earth Creationism was true, not whether the Big Bang theory was. He doesn't have to prove the Big Bang. It's you who has to prove Young Earth Creationism.
Posted by Subutai 1 year ago
Subutai
Tell me about it. I think the lead changed about 10 or 12 times.
Posted by A.WitherspoonVI 1 year ago
A.WitherspoonVI
that was really a nail biter
Posted by Subutai 1 year ago
Subutai
Again, don't mention it.
Posted by WilliamofOckham 1 year ago
WilliamofOckham
Thanks for your encouragement.
Posted by Subutai 1 year ago
Subutai
Don't mention it, and good luck in your future.
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by WilliamofOckham 1 year ago
WilliamofOckham
SubutaiPenningtonTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Please see the comments for my justification.
Vote Placed by thett3 1 year ago
thett3
SubutaiPenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: After skimming the debate, I had planned to read it twice--once for the philosophical debate and secondly for the scientific. I only read it once. Cons argument about the scientific dilemma was completely dropped and therefore conceded, and cleanly extended across by Con. At this point I have literally no vote other than Con, even if Pro comes out on top on the scientific debate the philosophical warrants behind Cons argument throw out the limitation of ideas--IE con gives me and extends good reasons why we cant declare anything impossible, so I negate
Vote Placed by A.WitherspoonVI 1 year ago
A.WitherspoonVI
SubutaiPenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Remarkable debate
Vote Placed by KingDebater 1 year ago
KingDebater
SubutaiPenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
RoyLatham
SubutaiPenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro correctly cited scientific evidence from a large number of different sciences showing YEC to be impossible if any of the diverse physical theories is correct. Con's ?scientific revolution? argument applies to only one branch of science, not to discarding all of science and starting over. The argument that ?anything is possible? is also known as ?God the Trickster,? in which God fabricates evidence of an old earth to trick scientists. It argues that if magic is allowed, then nothing is impossible. That is a semantic argument that ?impossible? should not be taken to mean ?scientifically impossible? but in some sense of fantasy. I think the age of the earth should be taken as a scientific question, and that intent was clear. Con tries some bad scientific arguments, but they only serve to show the intent of it being a debate about science.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 1 year ago
Citrakayah
SubutaiPenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pennington's point about absolute knowledge being impossible is appreciated philosophically, but as this is a science debate, and Subutai defined 'possible' as 'capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances' rather than being logically possible, he wins.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 1 year ago
1Devilsadvocate
SubutaiPenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: Pro wrote: "Full Resolution: Young earth creationism is possible." This totally confuses me, it seems to contradict the title and rest of the debate. I'm not sure if this goes under conduct, or S&G, but either way it's one point. It could be that I'm making a mistake here & totally misunderstanding something, if so please let me know. By using the word "possible", the instigator made the debate nearly impossible to win. Con successfully defended the possibility of YEC, by poking holes & showing the philosophical problems with science in general. Both used excellent sources.
Vote Placed by Enji 1 year ago
Enji
SubutaiPenningtonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Edit: upon further thought, I've decided to remove my arguments vote. Pro did not deal with the issues Con discussed regarding science and proof which would be necessary to establish that YEC is not possible, however Con did not sufficiently address Pro's argument that God is not a deceiver and the earth has the appearance of age which would be necessary to establish that YEC is possible. Neither party sufficiently met their burden of proof, so I won't give arguments to either side. Conduct goes to Pro because Con broke the debate format in the last round.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 1 year ago
johnlubba
SubutaiPenningtonTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter kicker-swag
Vote Placed by medv4380 1 year ago
medv4380
SubutaiPenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 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: Con messed up their C14 subscript, and messed up their font. I'm counting that as a Grammar Error. Pros argument regarding the speed of light needed to be addressed. Because the speed of light is limited we can see the beginning of the big bang. Con should have countered this point. However, the counters require anti-realism arguments. Concousness causes collapse could have worked, or any number of other arguments. However, realism is assumed true unless evidence is presented to put that in doubt. Most people won't go down the anti-realism rabbit hole because it almost always contradicts their world view. Given that I'm aware that valid Scientific doubt can be presented I expect more than a circular reasoning than God made it that way because God made it that way. Once realism is in doubt Pro loses because anything is possible, but that didn't really get presented.