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

Young Earth?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
smoran has forfeited round #4.
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: 3/16/2019 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 725 times Debate No: 120858
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Christfollower

Pro

Could the earth be 10, 000ish years old? Or is it billions of years old.
I believe the earth is 6-10 thousand years old. My opponent will take the side of the old earth.

1 round is acceptance only

Rules:
be nice, Only discuss the topic.
No insults.
no trolling.
post sources
smoran

Con

I will present why the scientific pov assumes the age of the universe to be 14~ billion years, And out of that i will present why it is assumed that the earth is around 4. 5 billion years.

I will also present why the assumption of a young earth is not in consistency with our current findings.
Debate Round No. 1
Christfollower

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I will be covering a variety of evidence for my argument.
These are some of the topics I will be discussing. I will try to cover 2-3 per argument while refuting my opponent's arguments.
#1 Erosion of the continents
#2 Bent Rock Layers
#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
#4 Faint Sun Paradox
#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field
#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks
#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, And Diamonds
#8 Short-Lived Comets
#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea
#10 DNA in "Ancient" Bacteria

Let's start with Erosion of the continents.
The earth"s land surfaces are constantly being weathered and eroded by the water
falling on them as rain and flowing over them. Soil, Rock, And mineral grains are
washed into rivers that transport these as sediments out to the oceans. The rate
at which sediments have been transported to, And deposited in, The ocean basins
can easily be estimated by measuring the volume of sediments rivers carry at their
mouths. River sediment measurements can also be used to calculate the rate at
which rivers are eroding the land surfaces they drain. Such measurements show
that some rivers are eroding their basins at a rate of 35 inches (900 mm) or more
in height per thousand years, While others erode only 0. 04 inches (1 mm) per
thousand years. 8
Thus, The average height reduction for all the continents across
the earth"s surface is estimated to be about 2. 4 inches (61 mm) per thousand
years.
This average rate of land erosion might seem quite slow, But it needs to be seen
from the perspective of the uniformitarian geologic timescale, And the current
thinking that there has been exposed land surfaces available for erosion for 3. 5
billion years. 9
As has already been pointed out, Using an estimated average erosion
rate of 61 mm per thousand years, The North American continent would be eroded
flat to sea level in "a mere 10 million years. "
The earth"s land surfaces are constantly being weathered and eroded by the water falling on them as rain and flowing over them. Soil, Rock, And mineral grains are washed into rivers that transport these as sediments out to the oceans. The rate at which sediments have been transported to, And deposited in, The ocean basins can easily be estimated by measuring the volume of sediments rivers carry at their mouths. River sediment measurements can also be used to calculate the rate at which rivers are eroding the land surfaces they drain. Such measurements show that some rivers are eroding their basins at a rate of 35 inches (900 mm) or more in height per thousand years, While others erode only 0. 04 inches (1 mm) per thousand years. Thus, The average height reduction for all the continents across the earth"s surface is estimated to be about 2. 4 inches (61 mm) per thousand years. This average rate of land erosion might seem quite slow, But it needs to be seen from the perspective of the uniformitarian geologic timescale, And the current thinking that there has been exposed land surfaces available for erosion for 3. 5 billion years. As has already been pointed out, Using an estimated average erosion rate of 61 mm per thousand years, The North American continent would be eroded flat to sea level in "a mere 10 million years. " Even if the slowest erosion rate of only 1 mm per thousand years is used, Based on an average of 623 meters above sea level for the continents, The continents would have eroded to sea level in only 623 million years. This, Of course, Begs the question to why the earth"s continents are still above sea level if they are up to 3. 5 billion years old. This question is even more acute when one considers mountains ranges such as the Caledonides of western Europe and the Appalachians of eastern North America, Which geologists assume are several hundred million years old. Why are these ranges still here today if they are so old? After all, Rates of erosion are fast in mountainous regions, With erosion rates as high as 1, 000 mm per thousand years in the Himalayas. However, Another way of highlighting this glaring discrepancy is to again consider the erosion rates based on quantities of sediments delivered by rivers to the ocean basins from the continents. Calculations have varied from 8, 000 million to 58, 000 million metric tons per year. These estimates are probably low, Because normal measuring procedures do not account for the rare catastrophic events (such as local floods), During which the transport of sediments increases considerably. They also do not consider the sediments that are rolled or pushed along the beds of rivers. Nevertheless, The average rate from a dozen studies is 24, 108 million metric tons per year. At this rate, The average height of the world"s continents (623 meters) above sea level would erode away in about 9. 6 million years, A figure close to the already published 10 million year figure for North America. Geologists often maintain that mountains still exist because uplift is constantly renewing them from below. However, Even though mountains are still rising, The process of uplift and erosion could not continue long without eradicating ancient sedimentary layers contained in the mountains. Yet sedimentary strata that are supposedly very ancient are still well represented in the earth"s mountain ranges, As well as elsewhere. Even taking into account that human agricultural practices have increased erosion rates, Such an explanation does little to resolve the discrepancy. Proposing a dry climate in the past, And thus slower erosion rates, Also will not resolve the discrepancy, Because estimates of global precipitation suggest variable but average, Or even slightly wetter, Conditions over the past three billion years. Another problematic discrepancy for the supposed long geologic ages is allegedly ancient planar land surfaces, Which stretch over large areas and yet show little or no evidence of erosion. For example, Kangaroo Island off the southern Australian coast covers an area of about 87 miles (140 km long) by 37 miles (60 km wide) and is extremely flat. However, The surface is estimated to be at least 160 million years old, Based on both fossil and potassium-argon "dating. " How could such a surface exist for 160 million years without rainfall and surface water flow resulting in some pattern of channelized erosion, When there is very little evidence of such? The alleged antiquity of erosion surfaces compared with the overall rate of erosion of land surfaces is indeed an insurmountable problem for uniformitarian dating methods. Nevertheless, Evolutionary geologists still cling to the dates in the face of "common sense, " as has been admitted: If some facets of the contemporary landscape are indeed as old as is suggested by the field evidence they not only constitute denial of commonsense and everyday observations but they also carry considerable implications for general theory. Quite clearly, The earth"s continental land surfaces aren"t all that old, And thus neither is the earth itself.

Bent Rock Layers:
Solid Rock Breaks When Bent

When solid, Hard rock is bent (or folded) it invariably fractures and breaks because it is brittle. Rock will bend only if it is still soft and pliable, Like modeling clay. If clay is allowed to dry out, It is no longer pliable but hard and brittle, So any attempt to bend it will cause it to break and shatter.

When solid, Hard rock is bent (or folded) it invariably fractures and breaks because it is brittle (Figure 1). 1 Rock will bend only if it is still soft and pliable""plastic" like modeling clay or children"s Playdough. If such modeling clay is allowed to dry out, It is no longer pliable but hard and brittle, So any attempt to bend it will cause it to break and shatter.

When water deposits sediments in a layer, Some water is left behind, Trapped between the sediment grains. Clay particles may also be among the sediment grains. As other sedimentary layers are laid on top of the deposits, The pressure squeezes the sedimentary particles closer together and forces out much of the water. The earth"s internal heat may also remove water from the sediment. As the sediment layer dries out, The chemicals that were in the water and between the clay particles convert into a natural cement. This cement transforms the originally soft and wet sediment layer into a hard, Brittle rock layer.

This process, Known technically as diagenesis, Can be exceedingly rapid. 2 It is known to occur within hours but generally takes days or months, Depending on the prevailing conditions. It doesn"t take millions of years, Even under today"s slow-and-gradual geologic conditions.
Uniformitarian geologists claim that tens of thousands of feet of fossiliferous sedimentary layers have been deposited over more than 500 million years. In contrast, The global cataclysmic Flood of Genesis 7"8 leads creation geologists to believe that most of these layers were deposited in just over one year. Thus, During the Flood many different strata would have been laid down in rapid succession.

In the walls of the Grand Canyon, We can see that the whole horizontal sedimentary strata sequence was folded without fracturing, Supposedly 440 million years after the Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone were deposited, And 200 million years after the Kaibab Limestone was deposited. The only way to explain how these sandstone and limestone beds could be folded, As though still pliable, Is to conclude they were deposited during the Genesis Flood, Just months before they were folded.
THERE IS ONLY ONE EXPLANATION FOR THE FOLDED ROCK LAYERS IN GRAND CANYON"NOAH"S FLOOD. UNIFORMITARIAN EXPLANATIONS CANNOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN THESE FEATURES.
Which is evidence for a young earth as the bible teaches.
sources: Earth"s Catastrophic Past p. 880-885
smoran

Con

smoran forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Christfollower

Pro

My opponent has kindly asked me to skip my 2nd round argument so that he/she can rebuttal.
smoran

Con

Thank you dear debater for giving me the chance to present my arguments.

I will respond to your arguments and present additional arguments.

erosion

Your assumption regarding the age of earth's mountains is wrong :)
Although earth is 5~ billion years old, It didn't have mountains and atmosphere from the start.

Earth's history begins 5b years ago as a star.
A str formed from tiny rocks and "star dust".
It takes millions of years until earth is formed to be a star.
4. 5b years ago, Earth is a heated sphere. No air, No water. Fire and melted rocks.
The moon forms around that time.
3. 9b years ago, Earth is blasted with meteors. Injecting water into earth.
3. 8b years ago, Earth is mostly covered in water.
Volcanoes form and first signs of life emerge.
3. 5b years ago, Earth is still mostly water. Chemicals are all over.
gases are slowly release to the surface and into the space surrounding earth.
1. 5b years ago, Earth crust (covered in water) begins to emerge out of the water and forms a giant continent.
750m years ago, The giant land shutters into several continents.
The changes cause huge volcanoes to emerge and fill the atmosphere with gases (carbon dioxide) that mixes with water and causes oxygen to be absorbed in the atmosphere, Causing the sun's heat to be blocked.
Ice now covers earth causing sunlight to bounce back to space.
Volcanoes emerge and starts melting the ice, Causing heat to release into the atmosphere.
600m years ago, Earth is water and ice islands.
life begin to prosper in the deep heated water. Sea vegetation cause more oxygen in the oceans, And life become more and more complex.
450m years ago, Oxygen levels are close to what we have today, And first signs of life emerge.
Ice has now melted, Land is exposed and slowly the ozon is formed.
370m years ago, Ozon layer now shields earth from sun's radiation.
vegetation emerges on the surface creating even more oxygen.
Only 250m years ago you can start measuring the effects of erosions.
In that time, Earth suffered many drastic changes of climate, Including the "dino-meteor".

So to begin with, Your calculation should be considering the age of the earth when climate became peaceful and the current structure of land is relatively stable.
this leaves us with around 20m years.
combine that with the fact the mountains keep growing, It is only a matter of several millions of years since our earth looks as it looks today.

Sediments

The process of formation of such rocks is not only cement transformation.
The process including several steps.
If the flood was the cause for these rocks, It would have been observed all across the earth and not only in specific areas where geologist found other explanations that can cause the geology (other than the flood I mean)

Carbon dating

This is a method that helps us date organic materials in nature.
The carbon dating is based on the decay of carbon in the material. As it is observed, We can measure the rate by which carbon decays. We can measure the exact rate it is happening and using a very simple mathematical calculation we can predict the age of the organic material.
Although there might be times the measurement is not accurate, We know today the deviation and the causes for a measurement to be invalid.
So when we measure something, We make several tests and only if all suggest the same results, They are accepted as valid.

Carbon dating shows there are organic materials much older than 10 thousand years.

Tree rings.

Tree rings are generated at a specific rate. We can observe and measure this rate.
Based on the number of rings we can measure trees ages that are older than 10000 years

Species.

We know for a fact that earth had millions of species. We also know that 94% of those specifies are extinct.

Assuming earth is 10 thousand years old, It means 4 new species are to be formed each day in order to achieve the number of species we have today! Not including those that are extinct.

Orbit of the moon

As the moon keeps orbiting earth, It keeps getting farther.
Due to basic physical calculations we can draw the exact path the moon travels and we can see where it has been billions of years ago. Not surprisingly, It matches other evidence that suggest the moon is an outcome of a collision between earth and another massive planet.

If earth was 10 thousands years old, The moon was supposed to be a few thousands of miles from us and not 250K.
Debate Round No. 3
Christfollower

Pro

Your timeline is assuming that we came from NOTHING. That theory has been debunked many times.
Moving on,

"If the flood was the cause for these rocks, It would have been observed all across the earth and not only in specific areas where geologist found other explanations that can cause the geology (other than the flood I mean)"
-There is plenty of evidence for the flood all over the earth. Fossils, Rock structures. . . Ect

"Carbon dating
We can measure the exact rate it is happening and using a very simple mathematical calculation we can predict the age of the organic material. "Carbon dating shows there are organic materials much older than 10 thousand years.
Carbon dating has been proved to not work. For example:
  • Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27, 000 years old.
  • Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2, 300 years old.
  • A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1, 300 years ago.
  • “One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29, 500 years and another part at 44, 000. ”
  • “Structure, Metamorphism, Sedimentary reworking, And other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first. ”
  • Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34, 000 years old.
Tree rings

Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, Such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, Were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4, 723 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4, 350 years ago, Taking a straightforward approach to Biblical chronology.

However, When the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, Then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, And new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’.

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, The plantation pine Pinus radiata, Has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, Even under the microscope, From annual rings. I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genussurely counts much more strongly against such the notion. Creationists have shown that the biblical kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the ’genus.

Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned, Many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.

We know for a fact that earth had millions of species. We also know that 94% of those specifies are extinct.
Well, God created a bunch and the worldwide flood wiped most of em out.


Orbit of the moon
Again, God created the moon close to the earth.

Now I will add some arguments of my own.

Let's start with the
1. Salt in the ocean.

If the world’s oceans have been around for three billion years as evolutionists believe, They should be filled with vastly more salt than the oceans contain today.

AFTER 3 BILLION YEARS, WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE 70X MORE SALT IN THE OCEAN THAN WE SEE TODAY.

Every year rivers, Glaciers, Underground seepage, And atmospheric and volcanic dust dump large amounts of salts into the oceans. Consider the influx of the predominant salt, Sodium chloride (common table salt). Some 458 million tons of sodium mixes into ocean water each year, but only 122 million tons (27%) is removed by other natural processes.

If seawater originally contained no sodium (salt) and the sodium accumulated at today’s rates, Then today’s ocean saltiness would be reached in only 42 million years—only about 1/70 the three billion years evolutionists propose. But those assumptions fail to take into account the likelihood that God created a saltwater ocean for all the sea creatures He made on Day Five. Also, The year-long global Flood cataclysm must have dumped an unprecedented amount of salt into the ocean through erosion, Sedimentation, And volcanism. So today’s ocean saltiness makes much better sense within the biblical timescale of about six thousand years.
Those who believe in a three-billion-year-old ocean say that past sodium inputs had to be less and outputs greater. However, Even the most generous estimates can only stretch the accumulation timeframe to 62 million years. Long-agers also argue that huge amounts of sodium are removed during the formation of basalts at mid-ocean ridges, but this ignores the fact that the sodium returns to the ocean as seafloor basalts move away from the ridges.

2. Rapidly decaying magnetic field.

The earth is surrounded by a magnetic field that protects living things from solar radiation. Without it, Life could not exist. That’s why scientists were surprised to discover that the field is quickly wearing down. At the current rate, The field and thus the earth could be no older than 20, 000 years old.

THE EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD IS WEARING DOWN SO QUICKLY THAT IT COULD BE NO MORE THAN 20, 000 YEARS OLD.

Several measurements confirm this decay. Since measuring began in 1845, The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field has been decaying at a rate of 5% per century. Archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000. Recent records of the International Geomagnetic Reference Field, The most accurate ever taken, Show a net energy loss of 1. 4% in just three decades (1970–2000). This means that the field’s energy has halved every 1, 465 years or so.

Creationists have proposed that the earth’s magnetic field is caused by a freely-decaying electric current in the earth’s core. This means that the electric current naturally loses energy, Or “decays, ” as it flows through the metallic core. Though it differs from the most commonly accepted conventional model, It is consistent with our knowledge of what makes up the earth’s core. Furthermore, Based on what we know about the conductive properties of liquid iron, This freely decaying current would have started when the earth’s outer core was formed. However, If the core were more than 20, 000 years old, Then the starting energy would have made the earth too hot to be covered by water, As Genisis 1 and 2 reveals.
Reliable, Accurate, Published geological field data have emphatically confirmed the young-earth model: a freely-decaying electric current in the outer core is generating the magnetic field. Although this field reversed direction several times during the Flood cataclysm when the outer core was stirred , The field has rapidly and continuously lost total energy ever since creation . It all points to an earth and magnetic field only about 6, 000 years old.

Old-earth advocates maintain the earth is over 4. 5 billion years old, So they believe the magnetic field must be self-sustaining. They propose a complex, Theoretical process known as the dynamo model, But such a model contradicts some basic laws of physics. Furthermore, Their model fails to explain the modern, Measured electric current in the seafloor. Nor can it explain the past field reversals, Computer simulations notwithstanding.

To salvage their old earth and dynamo, Some have suggested the magnetic field decay is linear rather than exponential, In spite of the historic measurements and decades of experiments confirming the exponential decay. Others have suggested that the strength of some components increases to make up for other components that are decaying. That claim results from confusion about the difference between magnetic field intensity and its energy, And has been refuted categorically by creation physicists.

Your floor :)







This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
backwardsman gonna die alone in 10 years. . So sad, Meanwhile im 108 and getting started with my prime
Posted by Christfollower 3 years ago
Christfollower
maybe you will understand before you are 60. @backwardseden
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@melcharaz - You don't deserve 2 spitting words from me through your scalding eyeballs right through your skull like nuclear warheads. I already told a piece of s--t like you that I dumped you when you sided with a completely immoral god that you cannot prove even exists as no one in the entire existence of the human race has proven your god exists. Not one person. But see, A so-called christian, You can't read. Because there is no such a thing as a christian. Bye.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
hey backwardseden, Don't you have debate you need to finish? Maybe if you read what i posted I gave evidence that there is a god. If you continue to troll people i will make it my mission to report you until you are banned when you insult others.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@Christfollower - Who is not a follower of christ because that is truly impossible, And if you were to have actually have read your bible in which no god would ever use as a form of communication in the first place, Indeed you would know this. You know something punk kid? I can back up what I state and say with something that's called "evidence". You can't. So what I have is not a "belief". What you have is a "belief". Sorry. And to prove it, Since you think you are so smart, Why don't you put forth your findings to any scientific community of merit from around the world and see how far you will get? Oh wait, Darn, What you have ---has never--- been submitted to any scientific community of merit from around the world. Gee. I just cannot imagine why?
Posted by Christfollower 3 years ago
Christfollower
@Backwardseden
You can believe what you want to believe.
Posted by kwbc 3 years ago
kwbc
His first argument falls apart since his whole argument is dependent on the consistency of our modern climate. Rivers come and go, Rain and wind bring new debris to new areas. Foliage prevents mass erosion from winds, Tectonic plates shift and change the sea levels relative to where they were before, Space debris falling into earth, Water levels rising and lowering depending on ice ages. Mountains are made up of hard materials that contain metals that are harder to erode than dust.
The fact that he only uses one source from a biased christian book should also let you know that he will be making disingenuous arguments and misrepresenting evidence to fit his narrative.
This clown is done-ion rings
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Yeah as WrickItRalph stated "This is an open and shut argument. All science contradicts Young Earth. " Here are some videos that prove this 100%. But I know 100% Pro will not examine them because he is brainwashed into his cult following and does not know how to follow any other way except but by twiddling his lips between his you know where areas. The first video, I mean come on, This is taught at the 3rd grade level and ---everybody--- should know as the great flood biblically speaking ---never--- happened. This is where the most flaws and contradictions take place in the runny nose bible in which no god, Not for any reason, Not ever, Would ever use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible. So a young earth most certainly did not happen.
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=24WbQkRx2_8&t=46s - How Archaeology Disproves Noah's Flood
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=BitwnxiPH34&t=50s - How Anthropology Disproves Noah's Flood
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=_KEfj3LLNSY&t=58s - How Dendrochronology Disproves Noah's Flood
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=vWZtbZGtiGA - How Meteorology Disproves Noah's Flood
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=DrDTaHjg2IQ&t=530s - How Mythology Disproves Noah"s Flood
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=5MeHmWapM4Y - How Geology Disproves Noah's Flood
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=VRXNJvWkkoI&t=1s - How Paleontology Disproves Noah's Flood
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=5svTzxVa-xQ&t=329s - The Math of the Great Flood
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=tyWcka7drWk - 39 Problems with the Noah's Ark Story (includes the great flood also)
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=_um69RqBpSw&t=330s - Noah's Ark is Plagiarized. Here's how we know "
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=qalTJzk4kO0&t=911s - Bible"s Buried Secrets 14:45
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
This is an open and shut argument. All science contradicts Young Earth.
This debate has 2 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.