Young Earth Creationism is wrong about the age of the earth
Young earth creationism being the creationist who believes that the earth is less than 100.000 years old.
The debate will be over the age of the earth, the burden of proof will be upon me, and all that con has to do is just to refute my arguments. Meaning, I have to present evidence that show that the earth is older than the given age Con subscribes to, and if con can refute all my arguments, he wins.
Evidence and rebuttals must be scientific, meaning, you cannot quote the bible, qu'ran or w/e holy book and claim it as ultimate source and expect a win.
1st round for agreements and definitions. 2-3-4-5th round for arguments and rebuttals.
Back before 1600 AD, it seemed widely accepted that the earth was those 6000 years old, that young earthers believes today. This was solely based on the biblical account. However after 1600 AD, people started to become curious and investigate what the earth could tell us(Job 12:8).
Slowly the investigations that was made demanded older and older ages. At first the ages calculated was very various. At 1748 was some of the first datings, but this was based on the belief that the world had been flooded, the earth got dated to at least 2 billion years old.
Later, in 1774 new calculations was made upon new beliefs, that the earth had been molten and that it had been cooling since. Estimations was in the beginning, by observations upon a heated sphere of iron, calculated to ~75,000 years, but the same guy later changed this and suggested that it was over 3 billion years old(the earth). This was all immature attempts based on a low amount of knowledge.
But the fact was that when evidence was demanded besides the bible, it all spoke to an older earth, even though the earlier consensus was based on the bible.
The new knowledge of geology demanded an earth at least 100 million years old by the time of 1850 AD, it was around this time that Kelvin made calculations about the age of the earth based on a cooling model, this was at first calculated to be 98 million years, but later re-estimated at 20-40 million years. This was because they lacked the knowledge about core of the earth and radioactivity, which lead him to these faulty calculations. The calculations on the age of the sun was also estimated too you, due to the lack of knowledge of fusion.
But if the earth was old, as geology demanded, there had to be some explanations, some phenomena that could explain why the cooling model was wrong and why the sun could be so old. As demanded and predicted, we now know today that the old earth model held, and fusion, radioactivity and all these phenomena's was found to explain and make the old earth possible.
The geological column demands an old earth. The different strata and layers all have each their way to be laid, and cannot properly be explained by a single worldwide flood. For example, we find that coral reefs had grown in the middle of the fossil record/geological column, how could it have done so if there was a wild worldwide flood raging to kill all life?
But furthermore, stuff like Chalk and evaporites demands more than 6000 years to be laid down in the way we observe it.
Objects being further away than 10,000-6,000 lightyears away demands and older universe
Lack of radioactive isotopes
Certain radioactive isotopes is lacking, this demands an explanation
A consistent method
Radiometric dating has shown to give consistent dates through various of isotopes that all seem to suggest the age of the solar system, including the earth, being around 4.5 billion years ago
Other dating methods also suggest an earth older than the YEC model, but lets start with these and see where we go from here :)
I'd like to appologize for my less than punctual response, but here it is.
The Pro states that;
"But the fact was that when evidence was demanded besides the bible, it all spoke to an older earth, even though the earlier consensus was based on the bible."
His point is somewhat valid. Those who had not based their ideas on the bible, did come up with much older ages than 10,000 years. If not for the bible, I would also believe that the earth is much older. Why? It's because the time it would take for the earth to form into the life-sustaining planet that it is today (without a creator), would certainly take a very long time. However, The bible still makes perfect sense. How so? According to Young Earth creationists, God created the earth as a life-sustaining planet from the start. If God (of the bible, particularly) were to exist, he would have created Earth this way, instantly; fully formed.
Like I stated earlier, these predictions were based on the preset that God had NOT created the world as he had done in the bible. Although this hardly proves that YEC is in fact, true, it proves that these predictions based on cooling factors, etc, do NOT disprove the theory of Young Earth Creationism.
It would interest most to know that the Geologic column was created primarily by creationists. They were learned men who made an attempt to classify the different rock layers. It wasn’t until later, that many evolutionist scientists took the geologic column and put relative dates on each level, creating the geologic time scale . However, there is a flaw with the geologic column. As a hundred years ago, scientists had little technology compared to now, they probably didn’t know that 77% of the Earth’s surface is missing 7 or more (70%) of the designated rock layers. 94% of the Earth’s surface is missing 3 or more strata systems, and 99.6% is missing at least one strata system. The Geologic Column is based on 0.4% of the Earth’s surface . That’s just ridiculous.
And also, if a worldwide flood had occurred like the bible says, it would make sense that in a huge sea of mud, rocks, and organic matter, sorting by mass would occur. Rock layers could be a result of that sorting, probably by mass. And also, if different rock layers formed over a very long period of time, why are there Polystrate Trees connecting the rock layers? It proves that the forming of the different stratas did not take a long period of time. It’s more likely that they were formed in a short amount of time, as Young Earth Creationists say. It’s more likely the result of a worldwide flood.
Talkorigins also writes:
And? The atheists who run the site refuse to give any solid evidence, as to WHY polystrate trees are, but only quote other people who have rejected the evidence, but had also, in turn, not adequately explained why the evidence for YEC is wrong. I am yet to hear someone using their own sound reasoning to disprove YEC.
“Objects being further away than 10,000-6,000 lightyears away demands and older universe”
That assumption is made, simply due to the fact that it would take light longer to reach us, and vise versa. Yet, it implies that the speed of light has remained constant. João Magueijo, a physicist from Cambridge University, states in his theory, that looking back 300 years, there have been irregularities in the speed of light, and goes on further to saying that the speed of light was once much faster in the Universe’s past.Magueijo is a pioneer of the varying speed of light (VSL) theory of cosmology. 
It’s irrelevant that many radioactive isotopes have not been found/ or aren’t abundant, the way we see them. There are many places in the Universe that we have not explored yet, and it is quite possible, even likely, that the rare radioisotopes that we observe, may be quite abundant elsewhere. This doesn’t prove anything.
Many Young Earth Creationists have said, as you probably know , that radiometric dating, is in fact, flawed. Nonetheless, you have probably written them off as “ignorant”. Yes, I believe that there are flaws in Radiometric Dating. I’ve read the source that you left, and it reads:
“It is very easy to calculate the original parent abundance, but that information is not needed to date the rock. All of the dating schemes work from knowing the present abundances of the parent and daughter isotopes. The original abundance N0, of the parent is simply N0 = N ekt, where N is the present abundance, t is time, and k is a constant related to the half life.”
They do not sufficiently explain how one can know the original abundance. They say that the original abundance can be found, by multiplying the present abundance, the TIME, and the half life constant. Yet, one must first know the amount of time, or the age of the material BEFORE they date the material. But that’s a logical contradiction. It implies that scientists have a preset date for the material being dated, and in turn, use a fancy procedure to get to the date at which they already think is compatible with the material. Fine then, but that’s not science, and radiometric dating cannot be a reliable dating technique.
Relax forfeited this round.
As my opponent has forfeited his round, I will not post my argument, until he has posted his.
Relax forfeited this round.
Relax forfeited this round.
jc496 forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|