The Instigator
DrySponge
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MysticEgg
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Young Earth creationism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
MysticEgg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,065 times Debate No: 43800
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

DrySponge

Pro

I let my oponent use his first an last round.
We share Bop.
And my oponenent needs to accept .
Young eart is 6000 years old or younger.
A year is a time unit.
Old eath is an earth that is older than 6000 years.
MysticEgg

Con

First off, a huge thanks to my opponent for challenging me to this debate, today. I'm more than glad to face you.
Second, despite my opponent's generous offer, of me using both my first and last rounds for arguments, I want to keep things as fair as possible. Therefore, to ensure that we have the same amount of room for debating (i.e. 40,000 characters each), I will simply use this round for acceptance.

I accept to the rules, but I suggest an expanded definition of the word "year": noun "the time taken by the earth to make one revolution around the sun."[1] I hope my opponent will accept this definition.

Lastly, I would ask that, if possible, all definitions come from www.oxforddictionaries.com, as they have the most trustworthy and expansive definition.

Many thanks and good luck to all!

See you on the other side,

J

Source(s):

[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
DrySponge

Pro

Well Thank you for giving me your first round!
Very considered!
We see us in the next round!
Of course that I will use Oxford I'm waiting for your first argument.
MysticEgg

Con

Ah, very well!


Contention One: Dendrochronology.

For those that don't know, dendrochronology is "tree-ring dating"[1]. Now, if I can just show that the Earth is at the least 6,001 years old, then I have fulfilled my burden. But I can do better than one year older than fits the definition of young. I give the King Clone desert bush as my example, thought to be ~11,700 years old[2]. This was dated by simply counting the rings. A pretty fool-proof method!

Due to school time, I have been away, so I apologise to the audience for proposing such a short contention. However, I will not only expand upon it next time, but I believe that, this time, my burden is fulfilled! I rest my case! (For now...)


Thanks again and I expect my opponent's openening contention(s) to be good!



Source(s):

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]Long-Lived Clones in the Mojave Desert, Frank C. Vasek, American Journal of Botany, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Feb., 1980), pp. 246-255



Debate Round No. 2
DrySponge

Pro

You agreed than a year is a time unit.
Do you deny that time is relative?
Answer the questions thats all for now.

Joker out !
MysticEgg

Con

It is a shame that this is going to be one of the so called "troll debates". I wish it were not so. Ah well, I will continue on, anyway, in the hopes of salvaging something from this.

Yes, a year is a time unit. And yes, time is relative. However, does that mean that, the number of revolutions the Earth has completed around the Sun is relative? No! And that is where my opponent's argument falls. A simple misunderstanding.

I extend my contention. While I was planning to expand this round, in the light of recent revelations (i.e. "Joker out !"), I will keep my arguments to a minimum. I will only put in effort my opponent has earned it.


Thanks and apologies for the disappointment, everyone.

J, out.
Debate Round No. 3
DrySponge

Pro

I never accepted MysticEgg definition of year.
I will be quoting my opponent and me.
Me ( First round ): A year is a time unit.
Me( Round 3) :
You agreed than a year is a time unit.
Do you deny that time is relative?

MysticEgg (Round 3) :
Yes, a year is a time unit. And yes, time is relative.
So my opponent agrees that time is year unit and time is relative.

Now I will Quote my opponent in his first round.

Lastly, I would ask that, if possible, all definitions come from www.oxforddictionaries.com, as they have the most trustworthy and expansive definition.

My response in my second round: Of course that I will use Oxford I'm waiting for your first argument.

So I accepted to use Oxford Dictionary.

Definition coming from Oxford Dictionary:

2.1 a period of 365 days starting from any date.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Now let"s quote my opponent first round:
As they have the most trustworthy and expansive definition. (They=Oxford dictionary (added by me)).

So by definition my opponent should not have anything against this definition.

Well That makes a year independent from Earths revolutions.
A year being only time is relative making the year that Earth exists relative.

Now with a little help of my friends the black holes I can win this debate with ease.
Of course as long as my opponent doesn"t deny my definition of year.
I think my opponent nows what i am planing sonce he had a very similar debate .

And now the most inmportant question :

Why so serious ?
MysticEgg

Con

I am perplexed by my opponent's arguments. I will attempt to break this down and - to put it bluntly - tear it to pieces without causing further confusion to the audience.

"I never accepted MysticEgg definition of year." True, but saying nothing to be deceptive later is trickery and reflects poorly on my opponent's conduct.

"I will be quoting my opponent and me.

Me ( First round ): A year is a time unit.
Me( Round 3) :
You agreed than a year is a time unit.
Do you deny that time is relative?" I have already answered this: Yes and no.

"MysticEgg (Round 3) :
Yes, a year is a time unit. And yes, time is relative.
So my opponent agrees that time is year unit and time is relative." I do.

Now, my opponent employs faulty logic, although it might seem sound at first glance.

P1) A year is a time unit.
P2) Time is relative.
C) Therefore, a year is relative. - That is my opponent's argument, set out formally. Does it work? Well, allow me to be more specific to demonstrate the fallacy.


P1) A year is 365 days.
P2) 365 days are relative.
C) Therefore, one year is relative.

If you haven't noticed, one year = 365 days. Therefore, premise two can be logically changed to: "one year is relative". This is all fine and dandy, until we see the conclusion. It's the same as premise two, just rephrased! This is called circular reasoning[1] and is not logical. The fallacy committed is refuted. (It is deductively valid but gives no supporting evidence, so it is fallacious).

Maybe I completely mis-interpreted this. However, my opponent has given me little to go on. I feel like he's "winking" and nudging my shoulder saying: "You know what I mean, right?" But I don't! I request that, to help everyone, please set out your argument as formally as you can.

"Now with a little help of my friends the black holes I can win this debate with ease.
Of course as long as my opponent doesn"t deny my definition of year.
I think my opponent nows what i am planing sonce he had a very similar debate ."

Please, tell me about these black holes in an argument; so that I can refute them! I'm lunging at shadows, and it's probably confusing us all. I do know what you're planning, but you need to set it out before I can refute it.

Anyways, until then, I will extend my contention and sign off. For now.


Thanks,
J

Source(s):

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

Debate Round No. 4
DrySponge

Pro

For some reason DDO doesn't let me put images here are links to the images in order.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The definitions of the time units

My opponent has agreed that a year is a time unit.
But here is where our disagreement is in the definition of year.
In my mind a year is a time unit that represent 356 days and sometimes 366.
(Days in my mind having nothing to do with the earth ,only being an unit of time to represent 24 hours)
Well I and my opponent agree on the term that a year is a time unit representing 365 days.
We disagree on one factor my opponent sees that a year is :
the time taken by the earth to make one revolution around the sun.(MysticEgg round 1)
So for my opponent it depends on the time that the earth takes to make a revolution around the sun.
This is most obviously shown in the comments section quotes from MysticEgg :
When asked if years and days are units independent from the movements of celestial bodies he answered
- However, a day and year cannot, because they revolve around (see what I did there?) said bodies' rotations and revolutions.
So a year should always represent exactly how long it took the earth to rotate the sun?
Now I will explain to you why this is completely wrong and that years , days and hours have become independent time unit that are no longer reigned by the movements of celestial bodies.
Although all of the units are close enough in alignment with the celestial bodies they are no longer governed by them.
Hours should in theory be based in earths rotation on it"s one circumference a period of said to be 24 hours (wrong by the way 23 hours ,56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.).
They should be an unit of time to follow the rise and downfall of the sun on our sky.
But it has obviously become pretty independent from the sun and from the earth you only need to take a loock at Time zone map this is how it locks :

Hours have obviously today are no longer governed by the sun
Explained in this article of Wikipedia here an exert:

Today, all nations use standard time zones for secular purposes, but they do not all apply the concept as originally conceived. Newfoundland, India, Iran, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Burma, Sri Lanka, the Marquesas, as well as parts of Australia use half-hour deviations from standard time, and some nations, such as Nepal, and some provinces, such as the Chatham Islands, use quarter-hour deviations. Some countries, most notably China and India, use a single time zone, even though the extent of their territory far exceeds 15" of longitude
http://en.wikipedia.org...

One of the best examples that hours became independent units are shown in China until 1949 China had five time zones as shown in this map.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It has become quiet obvious that hours are an independent time unit. They still try to keep them aligned to the sun but is obvious hours are a time unit that was created by The Egyptians and Babylonians who divided the day from sunrise to sunset into twelve hours, and the night into twelve hours.
But that now are become pretty independent from the sun.
Now I"ll show you why Days have become independent time units from the earths rotation.
What I"m getting from my opponent is that in his mind days are dependent on the rotation of the sun so if the earth happened to turn faster days would be faster now I have a simple way of disproving this is prove that the 24 hours day that we use today is false a day 23 hours ,56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
So yeah if the rotations of the Earth take 23 hours,56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
Why aren"t days that long?
Simple a day has become an unit independent from the sun,duh.
http://www.universetoday.com...

Now let"s take on the center of our debate the definition of year.
My opponents definition of year is : the time taken by the earth to make one revolution around the sun.
I will show you why this definition of year is wrong.
Leap years .
If we take MysticEgg definition of year ,a year is only as long as it takes the earth to do revolution around the sun.
But leap years aren"t years were earth takes one day longer to make the revolution around the sun.
So MysticEgg"s definition of year is wrong since we have leap years but the Earth doesn"t take one day longer to make it"s revolution around the sun.
Every Year is 365 and 6 hours long.
Although I don"t agree with Cp greys definition of year I"ll show a video of his as a source ,it will also explain why leap years exist and will serve as a source for this argument.
So now you know why MysticEgg definition of year is wrong.

Well okay time is relative but does that make the age of Earth relative?
Short answer :Yes
Long answer:
But what does age mean?
Simply put : the length of time that a person has lived or a thing has existed
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
In this case the length of time that a thing has existed (Earth).
Now how does the fact that time is relative make the age of earth relative?
Both participants of these debate have agreed upon that time is relative.

Well I will try to explain why the age of earth is relative.
First what does relative mean?

2. Considered in comparison with something else: the relative quiet of the suburbs.
3. Dependent on or interconnected with something else; not absolute. See Synonyms at dependent.

From:http://www.thefreedictionary.com......
Well in this debate there has been alot of talk about time being relative ,why this is so I will explain in more detail later but for now just belief me since MysticEgg and I have both agreed that time is relative.
Time isn"t absolute there places in the universe where time flows faster or slower relative to other places in the universe.
(Hint,Hint,Hint Black holes)
So if you were in a place(place1) were time flowed slower relative to an other place(place2) in the universe.
Time on place 1 would flow normally if you were there but for some one observing you from place 2 you would seem like stuck in slow motion.
If you would be in one of those places were time flows faster or slower a minute for you would still be a minute.
But relative to other places you would seem to be on slow motion or turbo speed.

So now you know why age is relative since the time that you exist is relative.
Time relativity explained and black Holes

Black hole event horizons: An extra-slow version of slow motion
One other case where time slows down, this time in general relativity, involves black holes. Recall that a black hole bends space-time itself, to the point where even light can"t escape. This bending of space-time means that as you approach a black hole, time will slow down for you relative to the outside world.
If you were approaching the black hole and your best friend Dean was far away watching (and could somehow watch "instantly," without worrying about the time lag from light speed), Dean would see you approach the black hole, slow down and eventually come to rest to hover outside of it. Through the window of your spaceship, Dean would see you sitting absolutely still.
You, on the other hand, would not notice anything in particular " at least until the intense gravity of the black hole killed you. But until then, it certainly wouldn"t "feel" like time was moving differently. You"d have no idea that as you glide past the black hole"s event horizon (which you possibly wouldn"t even notice), thousands of years were passing outside of the black hole.
http://www.dummies.com...

When you pass event horizon and enter the black hole your time goes extremely slow relative to the outside and the outside time is on turbo speed relative to the inside of the black hole.
If you passed event horizons 1 second for you could be 1000 thousands of year in the outside.
Your time would go slower and slower relative to the outside of the black hole depending on how close you got to the singularity .
So if a black hole that existed before the creation of Earth for them Earth has probably existed for less then 1 year.
Relative to them from the creation of Earth maybe only few minutes have passed.
Making the age of Earth for any one inside a black hole zero.
This of course only applies to black holes that are older then earth.
So the only thing that I have now to do to prove that earth is less than 600 years old is to prove the existence of a black hole that is older then Earth .
Well there is actually one right in the middle of the milky way.
So with that my burden has been completed.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
MysticEgg

Con

Thank you to my opponent for ceasing his trolling and posting an argument, this round.

I will attempt to avoid semantics, but, as half of my opponent's argument is about the definition of a year, some semantics may be unavoidable. For this, I apologise. Now, to the debate!

My Opponent's First Half: What is a year, again?

My opponent starts off the round by attempting to disprove my definition of a year. Well, I semi-concede it. Allow me to elaborate. I did, indeed, state that one year is "365 days starting from any point". And that is one definition. But that definition will only work if your wanted to keep track of something like a birthday. "Three years ago today," Mr Example said. "I turned 3." Of course, it won't always be perfect, but neither does that constitute our debate!

In other words, to avoid an unbelievable amount of semantics, that doesn't take, say, three minutes and fifty-nine seconds to explain fully, the definition is good enough.

Nevertheless, this definition, that I admitted was correct, is not what I was referring to when my opponent asked about the standard definition of a year. I shall elaborate below:

There are two main definitions of a year, an "actual" year and a calendar year. A calendar year is mostly what my opponent is talking about in his last argument: "[A]lthough all of the units [years, days, hours] are close enough in alignment with the celestial bodies they are no longer governed by them." This is true enough, but only when referring to a calendar year. I, however, am not talking about a calendar year to determine the age of the Earth.

An "actual" year is my definition from the very first round! That is: "[...]the time taken by the earth to make one revolution around the sun."[1] My opponent's attempt to debunk this is deceptive; he asserts that an actual year is incorrect, then disproves the calendar year from having the same definition. This argument would only work, iff (NOTE: "iff" is used to signify: "if and only if") I defined an actual year and a calendar year of having the same definition.

I did not.


Therefore, my opponent's first half of his argument is incorrect.


My Opponent's Second Half: Black Holes and Relativity

So, here, my opponent tries to explain that, due to the enormous space-time bending effects that black holes exert upon reality, the Earth can be many different ages at once. In one place, it might be a few billion years old, whereas, in another, it might only be a few minutes old.


Even if that was true, the Earth would be every age at once, therefore allowing both Pro and Con to fulfill our burdens. This would, in turn, make the arguments points an automatic tie. But, that would be boring! Therefore, I shall refute it, anyway.

What my opponent is actually talking about is the speed of light and how long light takes to reach point b, from point a.

OK, so the speed of light is ~3 x 10^8 m/s.[2] One light year is 9.4605284 × 10^15 m. So, let us assume that, there are two points, x and y, that are one light year apart. Let's say that, one year ago - exactly - I stood at point x and reflected light (thus, in this hypothetical scenario, an image of myself) towards point y. Now, one year later, I am 14 (meaning that I was 13 at the time of the reflection), and that light that I sent shooting off has now reached point y.

At point y, people's eyes would detect my image and see me as I was one year ago, at 13. However, that does not mean that I am both simultaneously 13 and 14. In other words, an image of me isn't a copy of me with a different age; it is merely the light reflected one year ago.

Does this mean that I am both simultaneously 13 and 14? (I repeat) Of course not! All it means is that the light has taken one year to reach point y, giving an image to the past.

Similarly, the actual age of the Earth is ~4.5 billion years[2], which has been calculated using various methods[4]. I concede that, at some place in the Universe, the Earth may appear to be a different age, but it's not at the origin! The apparent difference in age merely comes from the fact that light can only go so fast. Sure, it's the fastest thing in the Universe in a vacuum, but that's not an infinite speed.


As I said, all the way back in round three: A simple misunderstanding.

Now, allow me to thank my opponent for a good debate, the audience and the voters, for watching and (hopefully) voting, fairly and honestly. I hope to see you all very soon!

Many thanks,
J

Source(s):

[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LAZARUS77 3 years ago
LAZARUS77
Joker out ! lol
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
I should think so.
Posted by DrySponge 3 years ago
DrySponge
English isn't my best language so can I use these definitions for relative?
2. Considered in comparison with something else: the relative quiet of the suburbs.
3. Dependent on or interconnected with something else; not absolute. See Synonyms at dependent.
As I have found them in the freedictionary and I didn't really understand the definition from oxford.
Posted by DrySponge 3 years ago
DrySponge
No debatte here .
Just offering you a bet.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Post your argument; the comments section is not for debating.
Posted by DrySponge 3 years ago
DrySponge
are you sure that the earth does revolutions around the sun.
Are you sure?
That sure that you are ready to gamble the debatte on it?
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Yes, time can. However, a day and year cannot, because they revolve around (see what I did there?) said bodies' rotations and revolutions.
Posted by DrySponge 3 years ago
DrySponge
And a day is a period of time ,hat was created to match the sun but i indipendent from it.
Well lets shorten this do you belief that time how we mesure it is a time unit that can exist with out celestial bodies
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Your definition being "a period of 365 days starting from any date." Yes, I do.
Posted by DrySponge 3 years ago
DrySponge
Well did you accept my definition of year or not?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
DrySpongeMysticEggTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a lot of spelling mistakes. The only argument Pro made was based on semantics. Pro only used the dictionary which doesn't count as a source and two pictures.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
DrySpongeMysticEggTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a no brainier. Pro starts out by simply saying the earth is young with providing no evidence and having horrible spelling. Con address this with tree ring dating and pro offers a 1 word sentence. Nothing else happens to the end of the debate where pro makes his one true try at an actual argument. He brings up a bunch of arguments such as the black hole theory and time zones which was swiftly addressed by Con. The start of this killed pro and he only had wiki as as source. Clear victory.