Young Earth Creationism is Improbable
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 period of 6 days, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago." 
Improbable: "Unlikely to take place or be true." 
1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. No forfeiture.
3. No trolling, lawyering, and kritiks/critiques of the topic.
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 and defense (no new arguments)
Round 4: Refutation, defense and conclusion (no new arguments)
Accepted. I am a Christian and a biblical creationist and I believe that the observable universe is in complete accordance with the claims and statements of the word of God, the Bible.
I thank creationtruth for accepting. I hope this turns out to be an interesting debate.
C1) The Universe
CIA. The Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang Theory (BBT) is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from its earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.  There are multiple observational proofs that support the BBT scientifically. Notable amongst them is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB), thermal radiation left over from the Big Bang of cosmology.  This thermal radiation is seen as a faint background glow using a sensitive radio telescope in the space between celestial bodies. The glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. In the absence of Big Bang, there would be no reason to expect a uniform, long-wavelength background radiation in the universe. 
This is a satellite picture of CMB radiation as negative space in the universe. The CMB glow and the rest of the universe seem to be approximately homogenous and isotropic; this is a prediction of the Big Bang. In 2014, a measure of the B-mode polarization CMB signal at 150 GHz was published in the POLARBEAR experiment. The B-mode polarization is proof of primordial gravitational waves, as predicted by Einstein in 1915.  These primordial gravitational waves contain thermal energy similar to the primordial energy of the baryon-plasma sea that was the universe approximately 13.5 billion years ago. 
“The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. It shows tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly different densities, representing the seeds of all future structure: the stars and galaxies of today.” 
This graph shows the temperature fluctuations of the CMB detected over different angular scales on the sky, offering further proof of the temperature detection of the CMB. That the CMB is of cosmological origins acts as a scientific consensus. 
Another indicator for the Big Bang is the organization of the known universe with galactic evolution.
“Galaxies are also dynamic entities, changing over time. Like with large scale structure, the broad strokes of galaxy formation follow a path of ‘hierarchical clustering’: small structures form very early on and these merge to form larger structures as time goes on. Within this larger framework, some galaxies will develop secondary features like spiral arms or bar-like structures, some of which will be transitory and some of which will persist.” 
The developing of secondary features is called galactic evolution. No cosmological theory except the BBT can explain galactic evolution. 
Stronger evidence for the Big Bang is the abundance of light elements, such as helium, in the universe.
“Like in the core of our Sun, the free protons and neutrons in the early universe underwent nuclear fusion, producing mainly helium nuclei (He-3 and He-4), with a dash of deuterium (a form of hydrogen with a proton-neutron nucleus), lithium and beryllium. Unlike those in the Sun, the reactions only lasted for a brief time thanks to the fact that the universe's temperature and density were dropping rapidly as it expanded. This means that heavier nuclei did not have a chance to form during this time. Instead, those nuclei formed later in stars. Elements with atomic numbers up to iron are formed by fusion in stellar cores, while heavier elements are produced during supernovas.” 
He-3 and He-4 are abundant in the universe, and this is the best physical explanation.  Therefore, the Big Bang cosmological model is probably true.
CIB. Age of Stars
Most stars are between 1 billion and 10 billion years old.  The oldest star in the universe is HD 140283, a star in the solar neighborhood that formed shortly after the Big Bang.
“HD 140283 is an extremely metal-deficient and high-velocity subgiant in the solar neighborhood, having a location in the HR diagram where absolute magnitude is most sensitive to stellar age. Because it is bright, nearby, unreddened, and has a well-determined chemical composition, this star avoids most of the issues involved in age determinations for globular clusters. Using the Fine Guidance Sensors on the Hubble Space Telescope, we have measured a trigonometric parallax of 17.15 +/- 0.14 mass for HD 140283, with an error one-fifth of that determined by the Hipparcos mission. Employing modern theoretical isochrones, which include effects of helium diffusion, revised nuclear reaction rates, and enhanced oxygen abundance, we use the precise distance to infer an age of 14.46 +/- 0.31 Gyr. The quoted error includes only the uncertainty in the parallax, and is for adopted surface oxygen and iron abundances of [O/H] = -1.67 and [Fe/H] = -2.40. Uncertainties in the stellar parameters and chemical composition, especially the oxygen content, now contribute more to the error budget for the age of HD 140283 than does its distance, increasing the total uncertainty to about +/-0.8 Gyr. Within the errors, the age of HD 140283 does not conflict with the age of the Universe, 13.77 +/- 0.06 Gyr, based on the microwave background and Hubble constant, but it must have formed soon after the Big Bang.” 
If a star is of this age, as has been proven via. verifiable experiments, then the universe must have existed prior to 10,000 years ago, which is the highest date of YEC theories.
C2) Radiometric Dating
My second contention regards the fact that radiometric dating has cited a date for the origin of the Earth to be > 10,000 years ago. 
Above is an image that demonstrates how radiometric dating determines the age of an element, in this case uranium, over another, in this case lead, via. radiometric depositions. If you wish to question the accuracy of radiometric dating, please do so in the next round.
C3) The Earth’s Indicators
Meteorite age can be determined via. radiometric dating and geological analysis of layers of rock.
“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.” 
Our solar system’s oldest meteorite, the NWA 2364 meteorite, is 4.568 billion years old. Therefore, the solar system existed much prior to 10,000 years ago. 
CIIIB. Geomagnetic Reversals
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. 
 Astrophys. J. Suppl. 97:49-58, 1995. (http://goo.gl...)
 Astrophys. J. 765, L12, 2013. (http://arxiv.org...)
creationtruth forfeited this round.
I extend all my arguments. The resolution remains affirmed.
I thank my opponent for the extension. For simplicity I shall be arguing from a single line of evidence which shall address the resolution. Since the resolution concerns only the Earth, I will not give evidence of a young universe, though I believe the universe and Earth are the same age. I am glad the resolution concerns what may or may not be probable as opposed to possible, as support of such would be untenable. Since we are dealing with historical science rather than operational or observable science, one cannot ultimately say one model or another is absolutely true or factual, however probable it may be in light of physical evidences. With that said, I shall move on to my supporting evidence, namely planetary magnetic decay.
Evidence Consistent With a Young Earth
Planetary magnetic field decay describes the process by which Earth's magnetic field, which is produced via current in the metallic core, decays or diminishes in strength over time. This decay is accepted by both secular and creation scientists. "Ever since scientists generated the first global model of Earth’s magnetic field nearly 180 years ago, its strength has decreased by some 10 percent" (https://www.sciencenews.org...). The key issue of whether or not this supports a young Earth is how the magnetic field could maintain itself for more than thousands of years. Recent records of the International Geomagnetic Reference Field, the most accurate ever taken, show a net energy loss of 1.4% in just three decades (1970–2000). This means that the field’s energy has halved every 1,465 years or so. At this rate, the Earth cannot be much older than about 10 or 20,000 years. Unless Pro can adequately provide an observed mechanism which could sustain the field for millions of years, my case will stand (https://answersingenesis.org...).
Dr. Russell Humphreys, a well known creationist physicist, has provided a model which best represents and explains the phenomena of planetary magnetic field decay. In this model, magnetohydrodynamics accounts for the energy loss of the planetary dipole field: ". . .motions of the conducting fluid in the core should slowly twist the dipole magnetic lines of force into more complex shapes, subtracting from the dipole field and adding to the non-dipole field. Resistive losses then make the non-dipole field decay more rapidly, so eventually the latter type of losses should prevail" (http://www.creationresearch.org...).
Basically, Humphrey's model proposes that the decay we observe is due to ohmic losses in the dipole-generating current of Earth's liquid core. Both creationists and secularists believe that the Earth was set into motion, and from this motion the planetary magnetic field was produced. But since, physically, the Earth's core provides resistance and turbulence between the inner and outer core. This resistance then in turn slows down the current and thus weakens the strength of the dipole field over time.
For Pro to effectually refute my case, he must provide a reason why we should not accept Humphrey's model and why we should rather accept another such as the dynamo model. The data is quite clear that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying at quite a substantial rate, and if it truly is an exponential decay due to energy loss, then the biblical creation view of a less than 10,000 year old Earth is supported.
Con has completely ignored the definition of Young Earth Creationism: “the religious belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God period of 6 days, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago.” Con has dropped the “Universe” contention and has only defended a young Earth.
Con has not addressed the universe in 2 rounds; it will be unfair for Con to begin their rebuttal in Round 4 where I will be unable to address it. Therefore, Con must completely waive the “Universe” argument because of not addressing it for 2 rounds, else it will be a violation of conduct.
Con has not addressed any of my arguments, while the structure says Round 3 is for refutation and defense. Con did not present any refutation in Round 3, and, therefore, forfeits their right to do it in Round 4 because of the two-round forfeiture of refutations. Therefore, Con can only defend their arguments in the next round, else it will be unfair on my part. If Con had begun their refutation in this round, then I would have accepted it.
“Since the resolution concerns only the Earth, I will not give evidence of a young universe” – Con has completely misinterpreted the definitions and rules and has not followed them. This, in addition to Con’s forfeiture, earns me the conduct point.
Therefore, Con should not address any of my arguments in Round 4 because of failure to address them previously, allowing for my inability to defend any of my arguments.
R) Magnetic Field Decay
The leading hypothesis for the Earth’s magnetic field is the dynamo model, which Humphrey himself now supports, having disregarded the “Magnetic Field” paper.  Humphrey, as stated in the reference, has disregarded his model and has accepted the more widely accepted dynamo model. Humphrey’s model has not been demonstrated, and there exist many further models regarding this.
Con has provided only one such model, and has given no reason to think it to be true.
My next refutation concerns the “exponential” decay of geomagnetic fields.
As seen above, the decay is at hardly an “exponential” rate.  Also, Con’s argument rests on the assumption that the magnetic field only decays, and does not strengthen. In fact, via. geomagnetic reversals and other means, most scientists now agree that the magnetic field also strengthens itself, and is in a state of flux. 
Con has not refuted any of my arguments despite having a round to do so. Con forfeited a round and presented his case in the next without refuting my arguments. Con also disregarded the definition of YEC. As mentioned above, it will be unfair of Con to respond to any of my arguments in the last round, and I ask that Con only defend their “Magnetic Field” arguments. There is no reason to believe in the magnetic field model presented by Con, and the field decay is at a much slower rate. Furthermore, the geomagnetic field is also in a state of flux, i.e. it decays and strengthens. I have proven the BBT is likely, and demonstrated via. radiometric dating and meteorites how the Earth is likely to be > 10,000 years old. Con also concedes that, even by their model, the Earth may be 20,000 years old, which refutes Con’s own side. I have fulfilled my full BoP, but Con has not, failing to refute my arguments and not arguing in accordance with the definition. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro.
I agree with Pro's assertions concerning this debate; I did not address the age of the universe but instead opted to support the young Earth model. While I do believe my evidence supports the model of a young Earth, obviously there is much more to it than simply evidence for the relative youth of our planet and our universe. I would not be able to adequately make a case addressing every necessary facet of support for the model (e.g. speciation within a limited time frame, feasibility of a global deluge, etc. ).
I recognize that I should have rebutted Pro's arguments in the previous round. I assumed since I missed a round that I was to simply present my case. I will simply provide some support for my case concerning planetary magnetic field decay.
Defense of Planetary Magnetic Field Decay
Pro has stated that Humphreys has rejected the model which I posited as support for a young Earth, this is simply not the case. In fact, Pro's own reference for this ."claim states, "There can be little doubt that Humphreys still holds to this idea quite firmly." Indeed, the key difference in Humphreys model as compared to the secular dynamo hypothesis is that the many magnetic reversals in Earth's history are shown to be relatively very close in sequence and actually deplete the Earth's magnetic field as opposed to "restarting the battery" so-to-speak.
What determines which model is more likely is the actual mechanism by which the Earth's field is created. Humphrey's model provides a framework in which we can understand the magnetohydrodynamics of the Earth's core and its motions which effect the magnetic field. When Humphrey's model is applied, an exponential decay makes sense. But regardless of his model, the data itself is consistent with an exponential decay curve.
". . .both exponential and linear decay curves have two fitted parameters:
If the fit were similar, there is no statistical reason to choose one over the other. The fit is very similar for the limited range of data available, with no significant difference between the two.
However, it is a well-accepted procedure in modelling of regression analysis to use meaningful equations to describe physical phenomena, where there is a sound theoretical basis for doing so. This is the case here. Currents in resistance/inductance circuits always decay exponentially, not linearly, after the power source is switched off. For example, in a simple electric circuit at time t with initial current I, resistance R and inductance L, the current is given by i = Ie-t/τ, where τ is the time constant L/R—the time for the current to decay to 1/e (~37%) of its initial value. For a sphere of radius a, conductivity σ and permeability μ,τ is given by μσR²/π².
A linear decay might look good on paper, but it’s physically absurd when dealing with the real world of electric circuits. In fact, linear decays are rare in nature in general. Conversely, exponential decay is firmly rooted in electromagnetic theory" (http://creation.com...).
Also in consideration of whether or not Humphrey's model should be accepted on an evidential basis:
"Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction. Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it. And it was no fluke—eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal. This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ model. . . in 1984, Dr Humphreys made some predictions of the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune, two giant gas planets beyond Saturn. His predictions were about 100,000 times the evolutionary dynamo predictions. The two rival models were inadvertently put to the test when the Voyager 2 spacecraft flew past these planets in 1986 and 1989. The fields for Uranus and Neptune were just as Humphrey's had predicted" (http://creation.com...).
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|