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

Young Earth

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
MindMaster has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 519 times Debate No: 106512
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Young Earth vs. Old Earth

Post first argument right away.


Let's say Con will present his evidence, then we will get into the rebuttals next round. Let me get into the evidence.

1) There is very little sediment on the ocean floor.
If the earth was old, with the accumulation of sediment on the ocean floor, there should be miles of sediment on the ocean floor. Wind and water erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock and deposit them on the seafloor every year. Tectonic plates remove around 1 billion tons of sediment, but this still leaves 19 billion tons of sediment gained per year. The average thickness of all sediments globally over the seafloor is not even 1,300 ft. At this rate, 1,300 ft of sediment would accumulate in only 12 million years not billions.

2) Earths decaying Magnetic Field
Scientists discovered that earth magnetic field is decaying fast. At the current rate, the field and the earth could not be older than 20,000 years old.

3) In 2000, scientists claimed to "resurrect" a bacteria found in a salt crystal conventionally dated to have lived 250 million years ago. Its DNA was very similar to modern bacteria but if the earth was old, the bacteria's DNA would be very different based on known mutation rates.

4) The recession of the moon
The gravitational pull of the moon creates a tidal bulge on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards slowly. Because of this, the moon would have been much closer in the past. Using gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved. If the earth is 6000 years old, there's no problem. In that time, the moon would have moved only 800 feet. But in Billions of years, the moon would have been touching the earth.

5) Radiocarbon in Diamonds
Radiocarbon or carbon-14 cannot remain naturally in substances for millions of years because it rapidly decays. Therefore it can only be used to obtain ages around tens of thousands of years. Scientists from the RATE project examined diamonds that are thought to be 1 - 2 billion years old. The RATE scientists discovered significant levels of radiocarbon, dating them around 55,000 years old.

There's some evidence of a Young Earth.
Debate Round No. 1


I shall present my evidence right now.

1) Using Radiometric dating, the measuring the decay rate in radioactive elements, scientists have found rocks in Greenland, Swaziland, and Western Australia that are approximately 3.8 billion years old. Look that up.

1.5) About 70 large and significant meteorites have hit the Earth. With radiometric dating, the rock and crater have been found up to 4.5 billion years old.

Evidence that proves a point wrong. The magnetic field is not decaying at a constant rate. Dr Barnes is a creationist using the magnetic field to prove his theory. Using data obtained by Keith McDonald and Robert Gunst in 1967, Dr Barnes asserted that Earth's magnetic field has been decaying in a non-cyclic manner at an exponential rate since the beginning of creation. However, that is not true since observed scientific evidence has shown that the magnetic field had not been decaying at a constant rate but instead fluctuating, and at a few points reversing polarity. Therefore, the south would be north and north would be south. Also, when the flood happened, if it was created by a downwards thrust of the tectonic plates on earth it would create cooling in the outer atmosphere, putting lots of changes to the magnetic field.

This doesn't mean I am not antichristian but is just evidence from scientists looking at the earth that ties in with the bible.

3) When the Apollo missions went to the moon, they collected rocks that were analyzed and found 4.4 billion years old.

4) Dinosaur bones and other bones/fossils have been found and carbon date and radiometric dated back millions of years.

5) Erosion. Just 1 specific example: How could the Colorado River create the Grand Canyon in only 6,000 years?

6) Sun activity is proven to alter carbon decay rate.



1) Radiometric dating is not proven to be correct.
a. It is founded on unprovable assumptions such as assuming there have been NO contaminations and assuming the rate has always been constant. If it wasn't assumptions, why did scientists originally say the earth was 1.6 billion years old? As you said, rates change. The earth has not always been the same.

2) I never said it has been decaying at a constant rate, But if you look at the graphs, you can see that it still decays a lot. Over billions of years, it would be gone.

3) The moon rocks were analyzed using radiometric dating which I have mentioned in my first rebuttal. Also, the moon rocks have been dated from 4.44 billion years old to 3.16 billion years old. It completely on assumptions. Why don't we have a single answer, why is there a 1.28 billion year gap?

4) Radiometric and carbon dating in my 1st point.

5) 4,500 ft. of exposed rock is in the grand canyon. Also, if the thickness of sediments was deposited over 500 million years then there should be boundaries between layers that show evidence. The flood created the grand canyon, that's why we see layers of rock in the grand canyon. Water can change rock in minutes, especially for a global flood.

6) "Sun Activity is proven to alter carbon decay rate."
1. I would like to see a graph.
2. That proves my point. Carbon dating is false because their assuming the rate has always been the same, so you have just proven yourself wrong.
Debate Round No. 2


Rebuttal to First Point.

1) The sediment on the ocean floor varies widely.
You state the Earth cannot be older than 12 million years because of the amount of sediment on the ocean floor. That is just a simplistic look and doesn't take lots of factors into play.
However, the oceans don't have consistent sediment layers but varies considerably. And not much of the sediment does get to the ocean floor, but lots get stuck on ocean shelves and in large deltas. Over time, these places can accumulate kilometres of sediment while other places become undersea mountain ranges. The erosion isn't consistent, and cannot be a good "clock" to measure time.

2) Yes, however, the magnetic field was much stronger in past years. This theory was introduced long ago and used outdated models of the earth. They also used an exponential curve rate, instead of a linear curve, which is now realized more accurate. A source here quotes:
"By using outdated models, their theories are rendered irrelevant. If they are to prove that Earth is indeed only thousands of years old, they will need to analyze the fluctuations of the magnetic field from a new perspective. Likewise, scientists will need to continue their research of the dynamo model until the mysterious energy source is identified."

3) That source is a "biased" site. You need to verify your sources and look at some other examples. That is just one, not everything is accurate.

4) The Moon doesn't retreat at 1 steady rate. Also, the people who wrote that theory, once again, used old research, (back in the 80's) that are now easily proven unreliable. Read this:

5) (Grand Canyon) The bible says 40 days and 40 nights, the flood lasted. Yet you say that the flood created the grand canyon, 6,000 feet deep, in that amount of time? We can easily disprove that with today's science.

6) "Sun Activity proved to alter carbon decay rate."
It proves us both wrong. No response to that at this point.


1) If you read my statement, I said AVERAGE. Of course, it varies but the average is only around 1,300 ft. I would like you to provide evidence for your statements. read this.

2) Okay, Magnetic field and moon recession have been ruled out. I will provide 2 new pieces of evidence in its place.

3) Irrelevant and useless. Also, Answers in Genesis is based on scientific studies and research if you scroll down to the footnotes.

4) False, read Genesis 7 and 8. The waters were on the earth far longer than 40 days and 40 nights. According to the Bible, the flood was on the earth for 1 year and 10 days from when the start of the flood to when it dried up. Plus, a global flood that covered mountains could probably create an entire canyon.

5) I would like to see evidence of your claim. If it is proven, why don't they include it in carbon dating? Why do they still assume the carbon rate has always been the same?


1) Not enough Stone Age Skeletons "Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began, during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas."

2) Too few supernova remnants. Galaxies see 1 supernova every 25 years. The remaining gas and dust from said supernovas expand rapidly and should remain visible for over millions of years. Nearby parts of our galaxy which we observe these gases in contain only 200 supernova remnants. With this evidence, the age of the earth comes to around 7,000 years.
Debate Round No. 3




2) Okay.

3) Then give me another source.

4) 1 year of water will not carve out a canyon thousands of feet deep. If this was true why aren't the oceans deeper than they are?

5) They don't assume carbon dating is the same.

Evidence replies:

1) This is irrelevant because I don't think that humans have lived 185,000 years before agriculture began.

2) Source (because you asked for it)
Read it.

Basically, supernovas happen about 1 every 50 years. We are unable to see the "remnants" because they have faded. They are only visible for 10's of thousands of years, they don't just stay there.

I apologize for my lack of words in the last argument. I think we had a good debate. Thank you and good luck.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MindMaster 3 years ago
1) They are mentioning the main way sediment is removed though. So it could be way off, but a general idea, even with all the sediment, the dating could not add up to 4.6 billion years.
3) It's a global flood, there is tons of water, it could easily carve out a canyon thousands of feet deep.
4) Yes, they do. That's part of the reason why carbon dating is flawed.
Evidence Rebuttal:
1) Okay
2) The website you referred to still says that supernovas in the galaxy are clocked back 10,250,000 years ago, proves you wrong.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
Geological science proves the age of the earth. The scientific method acknowledges the limits of our current knowledge. It doesn't provide explanations or answers from a position of ignorance, but investigates the unknown in an attempt to reach understanding based on empirical evidence. The great thing about science is that it is true even if you don't believe in it.
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.