The Instigator
WaywardSon
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
nojmanestro
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

the Earth is not 6000 years old (or similar estimates)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 500 times Debate No: 71667
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

WaywardSon

Pro

So This is my first time debating on this website, and I though that this would be a fun topic. The main idea of this debate will be about the age of the earth. This will have nothing to do with religion, just scientific Evidence. I wanted to engage in this debate because of my fundamentalist christian background. I am no longer of the christian faith, but I do still love to entertain all theories on a purely subjective basis. This debate will not take into account any religious text, only scientific evidence. I would love to have a friendly debate with anyone who believes in the "young earth theory". We will go about the debate as follows.
Round 1) Acceptance Only - NO Statements or Rebuttals
Round 2) Opening Statements & Arguments - NO REBUTTALS
Round 3) First Rebuttals - Further Arguments
Round 4) Second Rebuttals - Final Arguments
Round 5) Final Rebuttals and Closing Statements - NO New Arguments
(this is from the following debate, though it is very popular: http://goo.gl...)
I hope to enjoy a friendly debate with anyone else that is interested. If I have made any errors please excuse them, as I am not familiar with debate(though I do enjoy watching them).

Here are some definitions for the debate:

Young Earth Creationism: The belief, arising from a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation, that the universe and living organisms were divinely created relatively recently and within a comparatively short period of time:

old-earth creationism: A form of creationist belief that does not conflict with scientific evidence about the age of the earth:
those who affirm old-earth creationism do not see an inherent conflict between scripture and evolutionary theory.

citation for the definitions:
http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl...
nojmanestro

Con

I am accepting this debate and my arguments will be in favour of "early creation theory".

Good luck to you. This is my first debate so hopefully I'll be a good rival.
Debate Round No. 1
WaywardSon

Pro

Thank you for accepting. I will start my listing some of the evidence that shows the age of the earth is older than the 6000 years(or so) that is claimed by those who argue for the young earth. I will separate it into points to make them easier to single out.

1. Ice cores: Ice cores drilled in places like Antarctica and Greenland show layers of Ice and snow going back at points between 100,000 to 750,000 years. This is 125 times longer than the 6000 year model that is supported by many prominent young earth supporters.

2: Distant Light: Modern astronomers are able to see light from objects, such as distant galaxies, up to 13 billion light years away( galaxy MACS0647-JD). In a model with a creation time of ~6000 years, this light cannot exist, as the universe would not of had time for the light to travel even a fraction of the distance.)

3: Nuclides: Nuclides are forms of matter that are radioactive. Each nuclide decays into another form of matter at a set rate. Scientists have found that Every nuclide with a half-life over 80 million years can be found naturally occurring on earth, while all Nuclides with a half-life under 80 million years do not exist naturally at detectable levels. This also points to an Earth that formed over 6000 years ago. See (3) for a list of Nuclides)

4: coral reefs: Coral reefs grow incredibly slowly, at a rate of a few centimeters every century. Some coral reefs are estimated at ages of over 50 million years. most are between 5,000 and 10,000 years old. Again, these ages defy the timelines of Young-Earth supporters.

I hope that I have given my points in a decent manner. I have never been the best at articulating my thoughts. I hope that this first debate, and those following it, can be a learning experience. Again, thank you for joining in this debate with me.

1: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...
2: http://www.space.com...
3: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
4: http://coralreef.noaa.gov...
nojmanestro

Con

nojmanestro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
WaywardSon

Pro

My opponent failed to make any claims to support his point of view. I have supported my claim with multiple points of evidence. I continue the debate in hopes that my opponent will make claims. If he returns, I will allow this round to be his opening statements, and Continue the debate from that point, leaving only two rounds for rebuttals (including the final round). On that note I submit this message.
nojmanestro

Con

nojmanestro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
WaywardSon

Pro

Opponent forfeited the round
nojmanestro

Con

nojmanestro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
WaywardSon

Pro

It's a shame, I was looking forward to this one
nojmanestro

Con

nojmanestro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by SB1359 2 years ago
SB1359
Yeah, I was looking forward to it...
Posted by WaywardSon 2 years ago
WaywardSon
it appears There wasn't any. Haha. All joking aside, it is a shame that the debate didn't happen
Posted by SB1359 2 years ago
SB1359
I think the Contender is running our of good, solid evidence...
Posted by SB1359 2 years ago
SB1359
This is interesting... the evidence stated so far is very solid, and I look forward to seeing how the Contender will respond...
Posted by WaywardSon 2 years ago
WaywardSon
That would definitely be an interesting debate. I've honestly never seen it from that point of view. My whole life has been based around a fundamentalist Christian worldview, and it was not until relatively recently(within a year or two) that I even questioned anything I was taught every day at A fundamentalist school. Your view is really interesting, and it reminds me of the Vatican's view. The issue I've had is that so many of my fellow students accept the fundamentalist view without question, and even the members of the science department are fearful of admitting their acceptance of theories such as evolution or the big bang. I'm honestly really happy I found this website. I've been spending most of my time arguing that a communist government would be better for America just for the fun of it. Now I have somewhere to actually debate. Anyways, I guess that's my ramble out of the way, Hope to continue the debate soon.
Posted by logicinlife 2 years ago
logicinlife
While the debate on this topic will forever attract me, wouldn't it be more reasonable to debate the age of the human race? Young-earth creationists tend to use the genealogies in the bible to calculate the age of the earth, but what if old age creationists are correct, but the genealogies calculate the age of the human race? As an observer of biblical theology, the age of the earth always sits in the back of my mind, but I have concluded that it is reasonable that the earth is old, but the human race is young. I have also reasoned that either way, the age of the earth doesn't matter, either way creation from a theists' view glorifies God.

I will be "subscribed" to this debate, but I just wanted to ramble on this for a second.
No votes have been placed for this debate.