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

The earth is about 6,000 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,058 times Debate No: 48712
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




The historical evidence and scientific evidence indicates the earth is about 6,000 years old. The historical evidence I am using is the historical reliability of the Bible. In addition, there are significant anomalies in the earth model. Also, old earth dating methods such as radiometric dating have untested assumptions.

My main defenses are:

How old is the earth:

101 evidences for a young earth and universe:

Historical reliability of the Bible: and


The historical evidence and scientific evidence does not support the Earth being ~6,000 years old. The historical reliability of the Bible has been questioned heavily recently by scientists, scholars, and also amateurs. Old Earth Dating is reliable just read my sources and it becomes quite clear that there is overwhelming evidence for radioactive dating being reliable.

Radioactive Dating:
Reliability of it: (Quite a long read)

How old is the Earth:

101 Evidences for a young earth and universe rebuttal:

Historical reliability of the Bible:
Debate Round No. 1



My rebuttals:

1. Questioning something heavily doesn't make something invalid. At one stage of my life, I heavily questioned the Bible.

2. How many assumptions do scientists use as far as radiometric dating. Can you show me those assumptions are reasonable?

3. Farrell Till is not an expert in the Bible. If you look at his article at Wikipedia it indicates his specialty was in English. Many years before he passed away, I asked him what is the most compelling alleged contradiction in the Bible. He refused to answer the question. I believe it is because once his "crown jewel" of supposed Bible errancy was dispelled, his claim that the Bible had errors in it would be severely weakened.


1. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be an actual argument. If anything, the second part is anecdotal and has no place in this debate and does not validate your claims.


Part A: Saying that scientists use assumptions to help with radiometric dating is providing an unreasonable double standard. If one believes in creationism, a deity of some sort must be real and it is automatically assumed that this deity is real, even without evidence. Whereas science must have evidence to go forward with a theory that can eventually turn into scientific fact. In short, this means that creationism automatically garners "respect" without evidence, but science must have infallible facts & evidence to even be considered. This is an unreasonable double standard that is heavily popularized by people by the likes of Ken Ham and others.

Part B: Please list these assumptions and I will answer to the best of my ability about how reasonable/unreasonable they actually are. (Please cite)

3. Farrell Till may not have been an expert, but he was a minister and missionary until 1963. Please also show where his "crown jewel" bible error is dispelled.
Debate Round No. 2


!. My previous "questioning heavily" comment was a rebuttal to an argument of yours.

2. Excerpt from a PDF document at from;

"Creationists believe that the assumptions of radiometric dating are invalid and cannot be
proven. These assumptions are:
(1) the radioactive element decays at a constant rate
(2) the rock crystal being analyzed is not contaminated by infusion of excess end product
(3) the rock crystal contained no end product when it was formed
(4) leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur"

3. The number and quality of assumptions does affect the reliability of a dating methodology. Occam's razor also applies (deals with competing explanations and the fewest assumptions).

Also, God does not have be assumed. His existence is self-evident. Every painting masterpiece requires a painter. Atheists are very able to see the beauty of nature.

4. Farrell Till was a minister. So was Jim Jones. You failed to demonstrate any prerequisite skills in Bible exegesis that Farrell Till would need to do competent exegesis. What was the extent of his knowledge of Hebrew and New Testament Greek? What was the depth of his knowledge of Ancient Near East culture/history? Did he write a book on Bible exegesis? Did he write a history book dealing with Ancient Near East culture? What was the extent of Mr. Till's knowledge of historiography? To be frank, it seems as if you have given him a rather blank check in terms of credibility.

5. Farrell Till refused to tell me what he thought the best example of biblical error was. He really had no "crown jewel" of biblical error. Otherwise, one would think he would have offered it. He merely had ill-informed speculation.


1. I feel like this is irrelevant to the actual debate.

2. The article is strawmanning Radioactive dating. These arguments are outdated and have actually been defended on the site!

3. See #2.

4 & 5. He you state he really had no crown jewel yet criticized him for his being dispelled? Unsure of you the point. If you also look at books like The God Delusion (Dawkins), and many of the books that listed in the references, the historical creditability of the Bible is lacking.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Weloverange 7 years ago
Best of luck now that voting has started, it was a very fun debate and I thoroughly enjoyed it. If anyone has any questions I'm more than happy to answer them!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 7 years ago
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 failed in every way to convince me of a 6000 year old earth! While con actually has evidence!

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