The Instigator
Thiest_1998
Pro (for)
The Contender
ogsavage
Con (against)

Evidence for macro evolution

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ogsavage has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 373 times Debate No: 113979
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Thiest_1998

Pro

This is somewhat of a continuation of a previous debate because I missed a round. http://www.debate.org...

In June of 1992, Dr. Steven Austin took a sample of dacite from the new lava dome inside Mount St. Helens, the volcano in Washington state. The dacite sample was known to have been formed from a 1986 magma flow, and so its actual age was an established fact. Dr. Austin submitted the sample for radiometric dating to an independent laboratory in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The results came back dating the rock to 350,000 years old, with certain compounds within it as old as 2.8 million years. Dr. Austin's conclusion is that radiometric dating is uselessly unreliable. Critics found that Dr. Austin chose a dating technique that is inappropriate for the sample tested, and charged that he deliberately used the wrong experiment in order to promote the idea that science fails to show that the Earth is older than the Bible claims.

I will leave a link to the paper which can be downloaded

http://www.icr.org...
ogsavage

Con

Theist_1998, I examined this story with the help of other sources and have come to the conclusion that Dr. Austin made some severe scientific blunders in this particular experiment but there is a clear way to the truth. According to www.noanswersingenesis.org, a scientific examination of cases like these, Dr. Austin made mistakes that made this experiment invalid. They state in an article found in the web address written that, "
AUSTIN FAILED TO PROPERLY USE THE K-Ar METHOD

Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93). A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified. Furthermore, many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old. Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.). With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples (Dalrymple, 1969, p. 48). That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples. For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects. Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer??? Contrary to Swenson's uninformed claim that ' Dr Austin carefully designed the research to counter all possible objections', Austin clearly demonstrated his inexperience in geochronology when he wasted a lot of money using the K-Ar method on the wrong type of samples.

Austin's results on the Mt. St. Helens dacite, which are also listed by Swenson, are shown in the following table: Whole Rock and Mineral/Glass 'Fractions' from the Dacite

K-Ar 'Date' in millions of years

Whole Rock0.35 +/- 0.05
Pyroxenes2.8 +/- 0.6
Pyroxenes, etc.1.7 +/- 0.3
Amphiboles, etc.0.9 +/- 0.2
Feldspars, glass, etc. ('Tedder' sample)0.34 +/- 0.06"

I might also clarify that k-Ar method is a method of radiometric dating.
In conclusion the evidence presented by Dr. Austin was obviously faulty and the validity of radiometric dating as well as the age of the Earth at 4.28 billion years old was proved. I am going to ask the same questions as last time and desperately want an answer.
How old is the Earth in your opinion and where is your proof? What other reliable source than the Bible, which I believe you have misinterpreted, supports your claims?

Link to website: https://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...
Debate Round No. 1
Thiest_1998

Pro

You said
that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y.

Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long 1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison

My response
If K-AR dating doesn't work on samples much younger than 6,000 then how could they be sure that samples millions of years old is accurate, nobody can personally observe that and testify if a sample is a million+ years old when they try and date and they get a million+ year they're pretty much assuming they're right, maybe the dating method isn't accurate (just a thought).

My answer
In my opinion its 10,000 years or under I don't have any definitive proof but my reasoning is this; human population is only 7 billion yet we're taught that humans have been on earth 200,000 years if we have been on earth for that long shouldn't there be more people also magnets lose their strength over time just like the earths magnetic field which means the earths magnetic field use to be stronger it loses about 5% every decade which means the earth cannot be billions of years old because if you go back 30,000-40,000 years the magnetic field would be too strong for life to exist and that also means carbon dating doesn't work because the amount of c-14 in the air is directly related to how much radiation gets in which would be deflected by the magnetic field which would be too stronger, carbon dating doesn't work.

Also a few flaws with carbon dating too one man dated a lower leg of a mammoth at 15,380 years old but the skin was 21,300 years old same animal

There's a lot more for times sake and the people who don't like reading long paragraphs I won't

https://www.sciencealert.com...

https://core.tdar.org...

Thank you Mr SAVAGE!!! I look forward to your reply
ogsavage

Con

Thiest_1998, let me first start by saying that it is not a strong argument to say everyone else is wrong expect you or everyone else is wrong except you and your small group of followers. Still, I will answer your argument and point out your flawed reasoning.
In K-Ar dating, they can be sure that samples millions of years old are accurate because the decay of potassium-40 at 1,250 million years or other elements found in igneous rocks is a verifiable fact. There is no theoretical answer or assumption being made. The sequence of the radioactive decay of isotopes in rocks is predictable and never changes. How long these sequences last is also not speculation as the same amount of time passes every time that isotope is decayed into another isotope. Feel free to do your own research on this.

In your opinion of the Earth being 10,000 years or younger I would like to ask you if you believe that God made the Earth and Adam and Eve in 6 days, which would make the Earth about 6,000 years old. Or if you are just taking a guess partly based on this and what you know about life and the Earth. You state in your argument, "human population is only 7 billion yet we're taught that humans have been on earth 200,000 years if we have been on earth for that long shouldn't there be more people" I'm sure you can come to a conclusion based on these facts along the lines of more readily available medicine, less large wars, easier to travel, huge natural disasters, more free time, etc, and that 7 billion is actually ALOT.

In response to your claims about Earth's magnetic field I must state that Earth's magnetic field is helpful and harmless. By this I mean that it doesn't affect things on the crust of the Earth yet it teams up with the atmosphere to protect life on Earth. Earth's magnetic field also has not lost about 5% every decade. It has been on a downward turn in the last century losing about 10% of its strength, but it ebbs and flows and cannot be succesfully predicted. This also has minimal effect on carbon dating. You cannot dispove scientific facts with speculation.

Your claims about the mammoth and whatever else that you didn't want to put in for times sake are also simply invalid. As we saw in the last round, you cannot disprove science by the flaw of one man. I encourage you to keep reasearching and pursuing the truth.

In conclusion I must ask you: If you believe the Earth is 10,000 years or younger but have no definitive proof whatsoever, then isn't that just a random lie that you are trying to persuade yourself to believe? Also if you think the Earth is 10,000 years or younger than how would you explain the formation of fossil fuels? Where is your proof?

Thank you for debating me and please research THEN try to disprove my beliefs with verifiable facts and not speculation.
Debate Round No. 2
Thiest_1998

Pro

You said

Thiest_1998, let me first start by saying that it is not a strong argument to say everyone else is wrong expect you or everyone else is wrong except you and your small group of followers. Still, I will answer your argument and point out your flawed reasoning.

My response

I didn't say that and so what if I even said it wouldn't be the first time the minority was right eg nazi Germany, people in the 60s who said smoking cigarettes is good for you the list goes on.

You said

In K-Ar dating, they can be sure that samples millions of years old are accurate because the decay of potassium-40 at 1,250 million years or other elements found in igneous rocks is a verifiable fact. There is no theoretical answer or assumption being made. The sequence of the radioactive decay of isotopes in rocks is predictable and never changes. How long these sequences last is also not speculation as the same amount of time passes every time that isotope is decayed into another isotope. Feel free to do your own research on this.

My response

How do you 'know' that it decays at 1.250 million year, it can't be k-ar dating because if you can't accurately date a rock or a chemical with an age that we have observered (By that I mean a rock or chemical that we have seen formed and can be repeated) eg the dacite from Mt st Helens we know how and when it formed but, if it can't even do that with the rock with an age that we do know how can we use k-ar with the rocks we don't know the age of.

You said

In your opinion of the Earth being 10,000 years or younger I would like to ask you if you believe that God made the Earth and Adam and Eve in 6 days, which would make the Earth about 6,000 years old. Or if you are just taking a guess partly based on this and what you know about life and the Earth. You state in your argument, "human population is only 7 billion yet we're taught that humans have been on earth 200,000 years if we have been on earth for that long shouldn't there be more people" I'm sure you can come to a conclusion based on these facts along the lines of more readily available medicine, less large wars, easier to travel, huge natural disasters, more free time, etc, and that 7 billion is actually ALOT.

My response

Yes I do believe that and the fact that you said Genesis isn't to be taken literally is quite confusing because it clearly states
Genesis 3-5 KJV
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Just like today the greater light we call day and the lesser light we call night I don't understand why this verse isn't to be taken literally.

But 'if' we've been here for 200,000 years there should be alot more people

You said

In response to your claims about Earth's magnetic field I must state that Earth's magnetic field is helpful and harmless. By this I mean that it doesn't affect things on the crust of the Earth yet it teams up with the atmosphere to protect life on Earth. Earth's magnetic field also has not lost about 5% every decade. It has been on a downward turn in the last century losing about 10% of its strength, but it ebbs and flows and cannot be succesfully predicted. This also has minimal effect on carbon dating. You cannot dispove scientific facts with speculation.

My response

I was giving facts I even gave an article to backup the information I stated at the bottom

You said

Your claims about the mammoth and whatever else that you didn't want to put in for times sake are also simply invalid. As we saw in the last round, you cannot disprove science by the flaw of one man. I encourage you to keep reasearching and pursuing the truth.

My response

I did do research and I would kindly ask you to at least view the links that I put at the bottom of my argument and I personally believe the things that I said and would appreciate it if you would take the time to at least view my sources also you stated that you didn't answer everything for times sake yet you posted your argument in less than 48 hours.

You said

In conclusion I must ask you: If you believe the Earth is 10,000 years or younger but have no definitive proof whatsoever, then isn't that just a random lie that you are trying to persuade yourself to believe? Also if you think the Earth is 10,000 years or younger than how would you explain the formation of fossil fuels? Where is your proof?

Thank you for debating me and please research THEN try to disprove my beliefs with verifiable facts and not speculation.

My response

I wasn't speculating I personally believe that the evidence points to a young earth but doesn't in the slightest to a earth millions of years old, there's a video by a former science teacher called Kent Hovind, I would like to ask you or anyone else to just watch 20 minutes of the video

This debate was a pleasure thank you and also if you believe in a God, do you know what a born again Christian is?

Please dm me it won't let me dm you.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Madvic 3 years ago
Madvic
""Its an important distinction between micro and macro."

"Microevolution and Macroevolution are based on exactly the same mechanism, which is mutations, natural selection and genetic drift. The only difference is that macroevolution is an accumulation of microevolution over time.

If you want to argue that microevolution can't accumulate into macroevolution, then you need to provide a mechanism that prevents this accumulation.

Let me give you an analogy to make it very simple for you. You can walk from LA to New York in micro-steps. If you want to argue that it is impossible to walk from LA to NY, then you have to give evidence of a barrier between the 2 cities.
So far, no creationist has been able to provide this genetic barrier. All their attempts have been miserable failures."
I think this quote I found online would help in this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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