The Instigator
DevarD
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

the earth is 6000 years old

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...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 594 times Debate No: 66905
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

DevarD

Pro

The gravitational pull of the moon creates a "tidal bulge" on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there"s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma"less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth!
1Credo

Con

I accept. There is a 750 character limit so I'll have to be brief. My opponent is responsible for shouldering the burden of proof in showing his assertion that the Earth is 6000 years old is true.

I'd like to request a source from my opponent for his moon theory.

There are several pieces of evidence that give credit to an Earth older than 6000 years. As the character limits won't allow me to go in depth into each piece of evidence, I'll include a source link which lists and describes evidence for an old Earth:
http://rationalwiki.org...

There are no comparable pieces of evidence for an Earth younger than 6000 years old. As such, we can reasonably assume that the Earth is not 6000 years old, but much older.
Debate Round No. 1
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
How was it dated?
Carbon Dating or by the rings of the tree?
(I assume carbon dating(which is incorrect) because In order to see the rings of a tree you must cut it down. And the environmental groups wouldn't allow that.)
So if the tree was dated by carbon that would not necessarily be true.
Posted by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
http://mentalfloss.com...

Oldest tree is almost 10,000 years old.
Posted by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
There's a tree older than 6000 years old XD
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Rubikx 2 years ago
Rubikx
DevarD1CredoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate is just too short to judge properly. BoP fell on Pro who failed to provide sufficient evidence. So I have to vote con.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
DevarD1CredoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't prove the Earth is 6000 years old.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
DevarD1CredoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: Without sources, I am not sure I can buy into what Pro is saying. I think what Con should have done is briefly summarize his evidence, instead of just citing it, as this could be construed as an attempt to circumvent the character limit. As such, I feel as if Con won the sources, but Pro won the conduct. I am not evaluating arguments, as (!) I feel they're ties, and (2) with so few characters, it doesn't feel as if any real arguments were presented. That is more so a flaw of the debate structure than of what was said in the debate.