The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Earth is older then 6000 years old.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 4/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,624 times Debate No: 52897
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




The earth that we both live on is way older than 6000 years contrast to bible literalist belief. There is much evidence proving that the earth is older than 6000 years old. and is in fact 4.5 billion years old.
1, Continental drift The fact that tectonic plates are moving the continents around. there is evidence that several fossils from one kind of dinosaur have been found in both eastern brazil and central-western africa. Thus proving that the two continents have been together at one point. If the world was only 6000 years old as said in the bible then brazil and africa split apart by an average of 1 mile each year. As well you belive for around the 3k years that our ancestors were settled none of them noticed that untill recently?
2,Light speed. This explains the speed light travels at each year. so lets say there is a star in our night sky that is more than 6000 light years away ( What the sky is mostly made of ) The light from that star can make it to our eyes even though we have never had enough time to see light from the star.we can see stars 4.5 billion light years away. but no further. this being proof that the earth is older than just 6,000 years.
Here you go now your turn.


Hello, glad to discuss the topic. I noticed your points merely describe observations, tectonic movement, the speed of light and the vast distances of stars relative to our planet. You state these observations as evidence for a 4.5 billion year old Earth assuming that the creation model has no answer for these. I will address your two main points and then maybe provide some evidence of my own that the Earth is indeed closer to 6,000 years old. By the way, no informed biblical creationist says the Earth is exactly 6,000 years old; it may be 7,000, but it is definitely not anywhere near 4.5 billion years old. So now that we are hopefully clear on that...

1.) You posit the fact of tectonic plate movement as evidence of an old Earth. I believe there is good evidence the continents were once part of a super-continent, although not necessarily Pangaea. Your problem is assuming the continents took a long time to break apart and spread out to what we see today. This of course is easily described as the result of a catastrophic event in the biblical creation model known as "the Flood." The Bible actually describes a super-continent at creation (Genesis 1:9). This super-continent, lets call it Eden, would have been broken up as the "fountains of the deep" broke through the crust of the Earth (Genesis 7:11). So I hold that the vast majority of the movement of tectonic plates took place within a few decades after the Flood, and you say it took millions of years. Well how do we settle the discrepancy? By looking at the evidence that supports the creation model. Evidence for the Flood as the causal agent of rapid tectonic movement includes: thick continental sediment sequences of vast horizontal extent such as the Grand Canyon, cold ocean floor crustal slabs above the mantle core boundaries, and erratic, lateral magnetic stripes as a result of rapid geomagnetic field reversals due to accelerated convection in the core caused by rapid subduction of the cooler pre-Flood ocean floor into the mantle. (

You also might be interested in the research of Dr. John Baumgardner. I posted a video of him discussing evidence for the flood with an emphasis in plate tectonics.

2.) The speed of light is a poor argument for an old Earth for three reasons: one, the Earth can be young in an old universe, two, this assumes creation cosmologies have not accounted for the speed of light in relation to the vast distances of stellar bodies relative to Earth, and three, light-travel-time is a problem even for the secular standard model (Lambda-CDM) which is commonly described as the "horizon problem" ( There are a few creation cosmologies which I am aware of, including the models of Dr. John Hartnett, Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. Robert Gentry, but I rather support Dr. Russell Humphreys particular cosmological model which involves Einstein's theory of relativity and gravitational time dilation. You can read about this model here: ( So your argument is moot. Also, you state that the furthest star we can see is 4.5Blys away; this is incorrect. The furthest celestial object found is a galaxy (which has stars) found in the Hubble eXtreme Deep Field (XDF) image which is >13Blys away, so your argument here is flawed. The distance of stars and the speed of light themselves have nothing to do with the age of the Earth unless you discuss them in the framework of a particular model.

Here are two (since you had two) solid evidences of a ~6,000 year old Earth, explained in detail in their respective links:
1.) Helium diffusion rates in zircon crystals found in Precambrian granite (
2.) Argon diffusion rates in microcline feldspar found in Precambrian granite (
Debate Round No. 1


Welcome. While I am impressed with your response some of your argument can be debunked easily. I am also happy that you were the first creationist that accepted one of my arguements so congrats on that too! and also don't use the Ken Ham strategy and talk about " Observable history " Because I can debunk that easily. Now on.

First what you said about a young earth and an old universe the whole universe described in genesis was created just 1 day before the earth was made. Just 1 day here is a map of everything that was created in 1 day before the six day spent on the earth by your " Creator ".
Well about the "Flood" it takes millions of years for rocks other than sandstone to form. Most of the fossils are in anything but sandstone. Also, if Noah's Flood were the cause for the fossil table, then the fossil table would look different: the fossils would not remain all in the same strata. For instance, you would find trilobite fossils mixed in with dinosaur, horse, and rhino fossils at all levels of strata. However, what we see agrees with evolution, not Noah's flood.

About what I said about 4.5 billion ly away stars. I said that is the furthest with the naked eye. not necessarily with the Hubble.

Ok about your arguments about preC Granite. The most extensive and devastating recent criticisms of Dr. Humphreys' claims originate from old-Earth creationist and materials engineer Dr. Gary H. Loechelt. Dr. Loechelt applied multi-domain diffusion models to Dr Humphreys' and R. V. Gentry's data, which raise many new arguments that further undermine Dr. Humphreys' young-Earth creationist claims. Loechelt is a detailed report that argues that Dr. Humphreys' claims and his underlying assumptions are oversimplistic, inconsistent and erroneous, and that Dr. Humphreys' helium diffusion data are actually consistent with a date of about 1.5 billion years for the Fenton Hill zircons. Although Humphreys briefly mention Loechelt Dr. Humphreys provides no detailed responses to Dr. Loechelt's models and his numerous criticisms. The "dating" equations in Humphreys Work are clearly based on many questionable assumptions (including: isotropic helium diffusion in minerals, constant subsurface temperatures over time, ignoring the possibility of extraneous helium, etc.). The vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these "dating" equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate.


What part of my argument was "easily debunked?" I saw no debunking of the claims I made. Why would you assume I am going to discuss "Ken Ham's strategy" about observational vs. historical science? You shouldn't assume things about your opponent, tsk tsk. I would not assume, that simply because you support evolution or a 4.5Bly old Earth that you are a misotheist who uses arguments from evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, such as his argument of the "bad" design of the human eye.

You say, "First what you said about a young earth and an old universe the whole universe described in genesis was created just 1 day before the earth was made." Clearly you did not get that from the Bible. The Bible clearly states that Heaven (the place where all the celestial bodies are to be placed) is made on day 2 and the celestial bodies (sun, moon, stars, etc.) are made on day 4. But what is your argument? Are you trying to say the universe is too vast or too grand for God to have created it, or at least in such a short time? ". . .Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29).

The context of my response concerning the Flood was in relation to tectonic plate movement. You do not address this but instead make a few "easily debunked" claims against the Flood. Evidence shows granite formations have been produced by catastrophic processes ( Radiohalos are a good evidence against gradual geologic processes over millions of years, and for supernatural creation as well as geologic formation as a result of the Flood ( How do you know what the predictions of the Flood model are? Obviously you have not checked it out. We would not find animals "all mixed up" because of rapid burial. Most animals in the ocean would get buried in succession where they are. Thus bottom dwellers such as sponges are buried first, many fish fossils are "higher up" and so on. Terrestrial animals, depending on the species, would be able to avoid burial, at least for a time, so we would expect them to be higher up, and birds should be obvious. Fossils themselves actually turn out to be poor evidence for evolution and powerful evidence of the biblical Flood. Fossilization requires rapid burial, special pH conditions and rapid lithification. All perfectly compatible with a global flood. The fossil record also, is in no way as clear cut as you make it out to be. "The reality of the geologic column is predicated on the belief that fossils have restricted ranges in rock strata. In actuality, as more and more fossils are found, the ranges of fossils keep increasing. I provide a few recent examples of this, and then show that stratigraphic-range extension is not the exception but the rule. The constant extension of ranges simultaneously reduces the credibility of the geologic column and organic evolution, and makes it easier for the Genesis Flood to explain an increasingly-random fossil record" ( Your claim that "you would find trilobite fossils mixed in with dinosaur, horse, and rhino fossils at all levels of strata," is fallacious. The Flood would produce a general sequence of fossils reflecting what we see today, I suggest you check out: (Studies in Flood Geology, 2nd Edition. Institute for Creation Research, see especially pp. 41"61). Here I see an evolutionist using the "wrong" definition for evolution. Evolution is "supposed" to be defined simply as a change in the frequency of alleles among organisms over time. But here you are including the tree of life with evolution. So which is it, Darwinian evolution, neo-Darwinian evolution, Darwinism, macro-evolution, or just evolution? Also, since you seem to think you know what the Flood model predicts the fossil record should look like, do you happen to know of any predictions evolution has made?

Ran out of space...
Debate Round No. 2


ErwinRommelDesertfox forfeited this round.


Since you forfeited, I will just continue where I left off in round two. I think I said enough about fossils and the Flood.

You said "About what I said about 4.5 billion ly away stars. I said that is the furthest with the naked eye. not necessarily with the Hubble." This is also incorrect; the furthest object that can be seen with the naked eye is the Andromeda galaxy, which is ~2.5Blys away. In either case, this is irrelevant to the age of our planet.

Here is Dr. Russell Humphreys response to Dr. Loechelt's claims,

"In September 2008, Gary Loechelt, who has a Ph.D. in materials science and engineering, posted a two-part criticism on a "progressive creationist" website, along with a technical article which apparently has been neither peer-reviewed nor published (though perhaps rejected by a journal). His main claims were:

(A) One or two percent of the helium in a zircon is not tightly bound in the crystal, but rather loosely attached in the crystal"s cracks and defects. This "loose" helium can therefore diffuse out of the zircon very easily in a laboratory measurement.

(B) The loose helium, he claims, caused the laboratory measurements to make the zircons appear much more leaky than they actually are.

Loechelt is right in claim (A), but wrong in claim (B). He overlooked part of one of his own quotes, in which an expert pointed out that loose helium would only affect the initial steps of the laboratory measurement, because after the initial steps the loose helium would be gone. That is one reason diffusion experts recommend ignoring the initial steps. Our experimenter recommended that, and that is exactly what we did. Thus he felt free to tell us that the rates he measured were accurate depictions of the leakiness for the other 98% of the helium. Ironically, our expert is one of those that Loechelt cites in his section about this issue. Loechelt either completely misunderstood the experts, or he deliberately distorted their meaning. If leak rates were really much lower than measured, the past temperature history of the zircons would become much more important. That"s because colder site temperatures would make Loechelt"s low leakages even lower, giving him a chance to retain the helium for billions of years. But even on temperatures, Loechelt shows a remarkable ability to misunderstand the experts. He fails to grasp the essence of the published Los Alamos heat flow models, which is that due to nearby volcanic activity in the past they imagine, temperatures in our borehole would have been higher than today for hundreds of millennia. Instead, Loechelt insists, temperatures were always lower. But even assuming (for the sake of argument) his lower temperatures, a few hundred thousand years of the laboratory leak rates would wipe out essentially all the helium from the zircons " in contrast to the high amounts observed. That is why, in addition to assuming a cooler site, Loechelt must deny the laboratory measurements and imagine much lower leak rates. Loechelt also whacks away at some of my calculations. If he were correct, my calculations might have to be adjusted by a factor of two or so. But that would still be within the error bars of the models. Worse for him, it would still be far short of explaining the factor of 100,000 discrepancy between the uniformitarian model and experiments!" (

In short, Dr. Loechelt misunderstood the experiments and made inaccurate claims against them, which is probably why his technical paper was not published in any peer-reviewed journal.

Notice also that the Argon diffusion research was a separate endeavor which only served to corroborate the previous Helium diffusion results. If you're interested in challenging another point, consider also that findings of C-14 in diamonds also supports an age for the Earth much less than 4.5By (
Debate Round No. 3


ErwinRommelDesertfox forfeited this round.


Since you forfeited round 3. I will briefly expand on my last point about why the presence of C-14 in diamonds corroborates the findings of the helium/argon diffusion experiments.

The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730 years, which means that uncontaminated samples of diamond that are purported to be millions of years old should not have any detectable amount of C-14 left. If the Earth were >1,000,000 years old, there would be no C-14 in the diamonds which were studied. In fact, a lump of C-14 the size of our planet would decay away in less than a million years. The earth"s mass is 6x10^27g which is equivalent to 4.3x10^26 moles of C-14. It would take 167 half-lives to get down to a single atom [log2(4.3x10^26 mol C-14 x 6.022x10^23 mol atoms) = log10(2.58x10^50) / log10^2)], and 167 half-lives is well under a million years; and in only 57,300 years, only a thousandth of the C-14 would be left, so in 1,000,000 years, virtually no C-14 would persist. ( (

The studies conducted on the diamonds gave an upper-limit age of 58,000 years which is substantially less than millions of years. This shows us that the Earth is not 4.5Gy old. The findings of the helium/argon diffusion studies only support the C-14 findings and show that the Earth is indeed less than 58,000 years old and is in fact ~6,000 years old. (
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Cardfather 5 years ago
Here is a plausible argument justifying The earth and the universe being only 6,000 years old? Let's play it out; When God created Adam he was as a full grown adult man. When trees were created we can assume of all sizes some fully grown. If on day 6 of creation, if Adam was to cut down a redwood tree would he have seen within the trunk growth rings showing the age of the tree? Perhaps a 100 tree rings depicting 100 year old tree. God created everything with a chronological history. Go one step further, if Adam was to dig in an areas what we now call Montana, would he not come across some dinosaur bones and fossils within the stone? If Adam had the ability to do carbon 14 dating it may show it to be billions of years old. The earth was created in one day too but as a full grown adult planet also with it's chronological tree rings, it's history. You can then apply this theory to the universe. This is not a proof but certainly an explanation of how the earth can be only 6,000 years old without conflicting with scientific discoveries of today. Rick
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.