The Instigator
FieldTheory
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mike-the-wise-guy
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Young Earth Creationism is illogical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Mike-the-wise-guy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 757 times Debate No: 56612
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

FieldTheory

Pro

I'll let the young earth creationist go first.
Mike-the-wise-guy

Con

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to debate with you again. I would like to begin be stating that not only is young earth creationism logical, it is the only logical "theory". Evidence:
1. As I have mentioned in a previous debate, evolutionists love to use carbon dating to "prove" that their theory is correct. But Carbon dating has been called Creationists best friend. The reason is that this method uses Carbon-14 to determine the age of the item. Every living organism has carbon-14 in it, and it decays after time. Carbon-14 can only stay in a living organism for about 58,000 years. After that, Carbon-14 could not survive in a organism. But there has never been found a fossilized organism without Carbon-14 in it. Therefore, the earth cannot be more than 58,000 at the most, and that number is pushing the top of the limit.

2. Receding Moon:
The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earth"s oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earth"s terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon. This results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon." 1 This tidal friction also causes the Earth"s rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth.1, 2 The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; 3 however, according to Physicist Donald DeYoung:

"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year "long" ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1

Because of this, the Moon must be much less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.

3. Oil Pressure:
When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Perhaps because our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood only about 4600 years ago? Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left.

4. The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it seems a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is seems to be what the evidence points to.

5. The Oldest Living Thing:
The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine. If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old. The fact that these trees are still alive and growing older means that we don't yet know how old they will get before they die. It also strongly suggests that something happened around 4,500 to 4,767 years ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off. Note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the above estimated ages of these trees. Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings. Janelle says 1700. This is significant since we are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about 1800 years before the Noachian Flood described in the Book of Genesis.

6. Helium in the Atmosphere:
Helium is a byproduct of the radioactive decay of uranium-238. As uranium decays, the helium produced escapes from the earth's surface and accumulates in the atmosphere. As time passes, the amount of helium in the atmosphere increases. Scientists have estimated the amount of uranium in the earth's crustal rocks. From this they estimate the amount of helium that should be produced, and from these they can calculate how much helium is being added to the atmosphere over a given amount of time. They also know how much helium is currently in the atmosphere.

If we use the same assumptions that radiometric dating experts make: i.e. no initial helium in the earth's early atmosphere, a constant decay rate, and that nothing has occurred to add to or take away the helium -- then the earth's atmosphere is at most 1.76 million years old. Other estimates say it is much less: or only 175,000 years.

7. Short Period Comets:
Short period comets revolve round the sun once every hundred years or less. With each revolution they lose 1/2 of 1 percent of their mass. Thus, after several hundred revolutions they disintegrate. At present there are over 100 short period comets in our solar system, many of which have periods of less than 20 years. Since comets are believed to have originated at the same time as the solar system. This, plus the fact that they have not all disintegrated, suggests that either the solar system is young, or that new comets are continuously being added.

8. The Earth's Magnetic Field:
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5% every 100 years. This means that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and 2900 years ago it was four times as strong. Therefore, assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then only 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of heat produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on earth. In other words, it seems likely that the Earth's magnetic field is quite young, and suggests that the earth itself is also young.

9. Direct Dating of Dinosaur Bones:
By evolutionary reasoning, dragon bones only occur in the so-called Cretaceous, Jurassic, or Triassic eras. According to the geological time chart such creatures (now called dinosaurs) died out between 65 and 220 million years ago. What is not well known about these eras is that they are based upon the theory of evolution -- which requires extremely long periods of time. When evolution-biased scientists say that they "know" such things, they are not being forthright. For while they may, in fact, believe such things, if they were honest they would admit that such "dates" assigned to these eras are highly questionable.

I personally believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years max. I believe it is about 6,000 years old. I have some links that further prove a young earth.

http://www.earthage.org...
https://www.answersingenesis.org...
http://www.earthage.org...
https://answersingenesis.org...
Debate Round No. 1
FieldTheory

Pro

FieldTheory forfeited this round.
Mike-the-wise-guy

Con

I have seen you forfeited this round... am I to take this as a victory on my part?
Debate Round No. 2
FieldTheory

Pro

FieldTheory forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 2 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Mike-the, please, state your education
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Donald DeYoung is listed in the Encyclopedia of American Loons:
http://americanloons.blogspot.com.au...
Because he is indeed a Loon!
https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com...

DeYoung's credentials are dubious!
http://www.holysmoke.org...
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
On Donald DeYoung, none of his hypothesis has been properly peered reviewed by any Astrophysicists of any standing, so he is simply publishing assertions without any Authority, so far it has not been confirmed that he is actually an Astrophysicist, that claim of his appears to be fraudulent.
His work is just a conglomerate of equivocations, to confound and confuse those of poor scientific understanding, just as most Creationist literature is designed for.
Essentially DeYoung's work is a Con job, no real scientific knowledge exists there, just a snow job to convince naive people that there is scientific evidence for Creationism, when indeed no such evidence can possibly Exist, Ever!!
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
All of Con's heroes are Loons and sources fallacious.
Physicist Donald DeYoung has been debunked completely, so that argument goes out the window as rubbish.
Seriously, caving in means Pro had not really done any research.
Everything Con sites has been completely destroyed as evidence for Creationism.
Carbon dating is only used for things in the thousands of years bracket, science does not use it for very old fossils, they date the strata above and below and then check that the middle is indeed the middle using other dating methods, as in most fossils the carbon has been replaced with other minerals, which is what fossilization is.
It's a shame to have to give the debate to such poor knowledge of Archaeology and Science.
Posted by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
Con, I get that you referenced the site, but copying and pasting your entire argument from http://www.earthage.org... is not acceptable for a debate.
Posted by Mike-the-wise-guy 2 years ago
Mike-the-wise-guy
Jjjohn I don't understand what that is supposed to mean. That my time frame uses a linear model? Regardless the proof is there.
Posted by Jjjohn 2 years ago
Jjjohn
damn, all of con's statistical arguments use a linear model.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
FieldTheoryMike-the-wise-guyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff. debate me instead
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
FieldTheoryMike-the-wise-guyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con put up some good arguments, though mostly fallacious, but they were too good for Pro to combat, thus, even though I agree with Pro's case, I have to vote for Con. Also Pro dropped the baton in forfeiting.
Vote Placed by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
FieldTheoryMike-the-wise-guyTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Given the lack of input for Pro, he decisively loses the debate. Con actually participated, so conduct to him. Even though I find con's arguments atrocious, he at least presented arguments, so arguments to him. As to sources, well, obviously the only person that used sources - con, even though none of them are from any scientific credible institutions.