CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
1. While they have found fossilized sea life at various altitudes on mountains, this is due to plate tectonics. Something we have only known about for decades so I guess it's expecting too much for creationists to have figured it out already.
2. There isn't enough water on earth TO flood the earth, and it isn't even close.
Hey Jesus freak you are 100% correct, people have found seashells on mt everest also people have found fossils in pretty weird places like a whale fossil ontop of a mountain
...No there was never a world wide flood. Shells may have been found in odd places but, keep in mind that these are millions of years old and the plates of the Earth's crust are constantly moving and oceans will change in depth. The oceans we know now are not the oceans that existed millions of years ago.
Listen, explain to me how the earth can be billions of years old without using any equipment.
Trees exist that are tens of thousands of years old, due to clone colonies. Our DNA contains records of relationships that span hundreds of millions of years. We have fossils of very ancient bacterial residues and imprints that are billions of years old. Everything points to an ancient universe and people like you exist in a state of denialism.
Oh but you say that a fictitious book it is not fiction it is non-fiction. So you are saying that a machine is perfect. Yet a book that has been around longer is false. Ok if evolution is true then that means there would be a lot more people on this earth if the earth was billions of years old because if the earth is slowing down today by a second then put all those lost seconds back to billions of years the earth would be spinning really fast and everything would grow faster and multiply faster so there would be about thousands and thousands of people per square inch. Now to prove that the earth is 6,000 years i can prove without a (NON-FICTION BOOK) i can still use genealogies from around the world and documents that do not go over ten thousand years.
"Now to prove that the earth is 6,000 years i can prove without a (NON-FICTION BOOK) i can still use genealogies from around the world and documents that do not go over ten thousand years."
Well, if the genealogies do not surpass ten thousand years, they must go up to it. And if they go up to ten thousand years, that's still longer than 6,000 years. Therefore the Earth is not 6,000 years. Additionally, those genealogies would only account for homo sapien sapiens. There's also homo erectus, cro magnun, and a myriad of other ancestors to modern humans that go back millions of years.
"Ok if evolution is true then that means there would be a lot more people on this earth if the earth was billions of years old because if the earth is slowing down today by a second then put all those lost seconds back to billions of years the earth would be spinning really fast and everything would grow faster and multiply faster so there would be about thousands and thousands of people per square inch."
First of all, the Earth is slowing down by 2.2 seconds every 100,000 years, not a second a year (http://pages.prodigy.com/suna/earth.htm). But even so, billions of years ago, yes the Earth was spinning very quickly, but there is no correlation/causation between life growing/multiplying faster at a faster rotation. Just because the day (a relative unit of time) is shorter doesn't mean that time is shorter. Second of all, humans didn't exist (let alone life) at the creation of the Earth. The "billions of years ago" that you're talking about refer to the time period when the Earth was a molten ball of iron and nickel. Since humans didn't form until relatively recently (relative to Earth's lifespan), then there is no possible way there would be "thousands and thousands of people per square inch". The creation of the Earth "caused" (in a way) the creation of humans, not the other way around, as you seem to think.
"So you are saying that a machine is perfect. Yet a book that has been around longer is false."
I never said a machine was perfect. Don't put words in my mouth. I know that machines have glitches and malfunctions. But machines have the potential to be incredibly accurate. Especially when experiments use hundreds of machines to perform hundreds of trials. I would be convinced of that data. However, a book's age means nothing to its validity. I wouldn't say that Shakespeare's Titania was a goddess, that Othello was an Italian general, that Romeo and Juliet were real lovers. None of those existed in actuality, just in the mind Shakespeare. The same with the Bible. None of those stories are entirely true, except for within the imagination of the disciples. They were written to teach moral lessons, as Jesus did, with parables, not to be interpreted as indisputable fact.
6,000 is a close estimation 10,000 years is closer to 6,000 years then billion of years is. Before i answer your second point tell me when did man first come into existence according to evolution. As for your third point you say every person who helped to write the Bible are all crazy. I could also say that the people who came up with evolution are crazy people who just thought of another way the world was created. Also why did people not think of evolution before the 1800's?
6,000 years is not a close estimation; it's off by about 4.53994 billion years. Even so, any evidence that you find that's over 6,000 years old is older than your supposed age of the Earth. Therefore, since you said that evidence existed for things up to 10,000 years ago, the Earth was not created 6,000 years ago. You should at least be arguing for 10,000 years.
"Before i answer your second point tell me when did man first come into existence according to evolution."
That's a very good question. But unfortunately I must answer with another question: what do you mean by "man"? Is it homo sapien sapien, homo erectus, homo habilis, any of the australopithicus hominids, or many different branches off of humanity's family tree? Hominids appeared around 30 million years ago. Hominines, 10 million years. Australopithicus 3 million years. Homo erectus 1.8 million years ago. Homo sapiens 160,000 years ago. Homo sapien sapiens (us) 120,000 years ago. Guess what. All of those dates are well over 6 (or 10) thousand years old.
" As for your third point you say every person who helped to write the Bible are all crazy."
I never said they were crazy. Again you put words in my mouth. I said they used their imagination in order to form a story to teach moral lessons through parables. That's not crazy, it's fiction.
"I could also say that the people who came up with evolution are crazy people who just thought of another way the world was created."
First of all, evolution doesn't predict the world's creation. It attempts to explain how biological mutations occur to speciate. Second of all, the Bible was never proven to be accurate. Evolution has been proven. Certain mechanisms of evolution haven't. The overall theory of evolution has.
"Also why did people not think of evolution before the 1800's?"
That's irrelevant. Why did people only invent computers a couple decades ago? Why did we develop quantum mechanics and relativity only half a century ago? Why did we only unravel the late 1600s? Why did we discover the world wasn't flat in the 1400s? The age doesn't challenge the authenticity of a theory.
For Christians we can use the genealogies in the Bible to say the earth is about 6,000 years old.
Which is a wrong answer, because it disagrees with everything else, like tree rings, the geological column, radiometric dating, fossil placement, protein clock, etc.
WHY THE HELL WOULD WE NEED TO NOT USE EQUIPMENT????
Are you insane?
As for dating, I wrote this quite some time ago for use on another forum. READ. LEARN. Debating these topics with someone with a 6th grade science education is getting really old.
Carbon (C14) Dating:
C14 dating is used to date the remains of organic, air breathing organisms up to approximately 50,000 years old. While living these organisms breathe the atmosphere, which contains trace amounts of the radioactive isotope Carbon 14 that is constantly being produced in the upper atmosphere through neutron bombardment. So long as they are alive the C14 content of their bodies will remain in equilibrium with the C14 content of the atmosphere. When they die respiration ceases, along with the intake of any new quantities of C14. Over time the C14 decays with a half-life of 5568 years into N14. By measuring how much C14 remains un-decayed the time elapsed since the death of the organism can be determined.
A common misperception of C14 dating is that it relies on the assumption that atmospheric C14 levels remained constant in the past so that we can know how much C14 an organism started off with. While this was an assumption made when the technique was first developed about half a century ago it has not been the case for several decades. Historical atmospheric C14 concentrations have been charted and calibrated using both dendochronology and lake varves which incorporate organic sediment in their annual deposition layers. One particularly good example of this is Lake Suigetsu in Japan where cores have been drilled to a depth of 45,000 annual layers. Because of the layering process we have an independent count of exactly how old every layer is… and because the layers incorporate organic material (the remains of a surface algae which dies off every year and sinks to the bottom of the lake) each layer can be C14 dated as well, and using these two data points the atmospheric C14 content can be charted all the way back for the entire time span encompassed by the varve core. This data (cross-checked against multiple other sites and methods) then allows us to apply C14 dating to other sites already knowing how fluctuations in atmospheric C14 concentrations in the past will effect the results… and allowing us to calibrate out error that would otherwise be introduced due to those past fluctuations.
Just one more note on C14 dating... once this calibration scale was applied it was discovered that previous C14 dates had been underestimating ages. By a few percent. There are also the occasional examples of C14 dates which have supposedly been wildly inaccurate. Many of these examples are the result of grossly improper applications of the method. For example, one I have encountered quite often is the "C14 dating of a living snail shell" that came back as thousands of years old... I believe this is one of Hovind's pet illustrations. The mollusks in question were extremely inappropriate subjects for C14 dating, which anyone familiar with the method would know. They form shells which are in equilibrium with the carbon content of the water sources in which they live... NOT the atmosphere. No C14 lab worth it's salt would ever date such an organism without warning the person requesting the test of the reservoir effect that would most likely render the test results invalid.
Longer Ranged Radiometric Dating:
There are a great many longer ranged radiometric dating methods using radioactive isotopes with longer half-lives than C14. I’ll quickly review a couple of them.
1. Argon-Argon (Ar40-Ar39) dating. Argon-Argon is a method closely related to Potassium-Argon, where the age of a sample is determined by measurement of how much of the potassium-40 in the rock has decayed into Argon-40. However, with the Argon-Argon method it is also possible to tell if there is any Argon-40 present which is NOT a product of the decay of the potassium in the sample. This is done by placing the sample to be dated in close proximity to a nuclear reactor for several hours. The resulting neutron bombardment from the reactor causes potassium-39 in the sample to be transformed into Argon-39. Argon-39 has a half-life of only 269 years, and is not found in nature… so any subsequently detected argon-39 is known to be a product of the decay of the potassium-39 in the sample. After this is done the sample is then put through an incremental heating process and the released argon-40/argon-39 ratios are measured at every stage. A sample that contains only argon-40 that is a product of the decay of the potassium-40 in that sample will release argon-39 and argon-40 in the same proportion at EVERY heating step. If there is parentless argon-40 in the sample that is not a product of the decay of that sample’s potassium-40 however the ratios will change at different heating stages. This eliminates the popular claim that excess parentless argon in a sample can cause that sample to date as older than it really is.
2. Rubidium-Strontium (Rb-Sr) dating. Very useful for dating igneous rocks in particular. There are many different isotopes of Strontium (Sr-87, Sr-86, etc…). Rubidium-87 decays into Strontium-87. When magma first cools into an igneous rock formation all parts of the rock will have the same ratio of strontium-87/strontium-86 because the isotopes are freely dispersing through the molten rock prior to that time. However, once the rock hardens different parts of the rock will have different rubidium/strontium ratios than others since the atomic make-up of rubidium is larger than that of all the strontium isotopes and it will be incorporated into the structure of some minerals more or less easily than that of others. From that point on the rubidium will continue decaying into strontium-87… and the areas of the rock with higher initial ratios of rubidium/strontium will have their concentrations of strontium-87 increase at a higher rate than those with a lower ratio of rubidium-strontium. By taking multiple measurements from different sections of a sample and plotting their final ratios of strontium-87 to other strontium isotopes which, not being byproducts of the radioactive decay of other elements, have remained stable since the formation of the rock… the initial ratios of those isotopes throughout the sample can be determined and the elapsed time since the samples formation is established. Again, this method is highly resistant to any objections that we have to assume the concentrations of the isotopes in the samples being dated in order to date them. That is simply not the case. The initial concentrations are experimentally determined.
For further info on the various radiometric dating methods, and since (I believe) all the other participants in this discussion are Christians, I would highly recommend this page:
Dr. Wiens goes into considerably greater detail than I have, there’s the added advantage of several visual aids, and he’s not a godless atheist like me for those that tend to distrust us as a matter of principle… just in case there are any of those reading along.
Constancy of Decay Rates
For my last point in this post I’ll address one more often-encountered claim. That we just assume that decay rates have remained constant over time. This is not true. The constancy of decay rates over time has been independently established by multiple tests. Among them the isotopic analysis of the byproducts of the Oklo Natural Fission Reactor at Gabon which establish that decay rates have undergone absolutely no detectable change for a minimum of the past 1.8 billion years. There is also an entire battery of interstellar observations that can be made that would detect a past alteration of decay rates since that would require a change of the fine structure constant of the universe… with quite readily observable effects. Effects which are never observed no matter how far away (and thus how old) the object is we are looking at.
YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. How can you prove the earth is billions of years old withouting using equipment of any sort.
Measurements are always made with some form of equipment. Your question makes about as much sense as "You still haven't explained how a blind man can see colour!!!"
Let me rephrase this. How can you prove the earth is billions of years old without using any electronic equipment or metal equipment.
It's irrelevant whether you need to use tools to do science. We need telescopes to detect galaxies in the sky, and you're trying to somehow imply that instruments are untrustworthy.
A worldwide flood never happened. As already pointed out, there isn't enough water to flood the earth, and it is a plain fact that such a flood would destroy all multicellular life since it would destroy the autotrophs, and the food chains dependant upon them. The fossil record and sediment also isn't aligned in a way that is congruent with a flood. Finally an ark of 300 cubits could not support all animal species.
It's a fable based upon oral stories passed on from first-hand experience of a LOCAL flood. Like all story telling it was embellished. It's embarrassing that people actually defend it.
The idea of what the world is has change through history. There is a pre-science world and a modern world.
The context of 'world' needs to be clarified. And if the people characterizing 'world' in history really meant ' as far as the eye can see, or how far communication at the time reached.
There are several stories in all of the world's major religions about a worldwide flood, but I don't think any of them state it was 100% covered with water. It may have been implied - I'm not sure.
Yes but it says in the Bible that that the watergates of the heavens opened up and water that was stored beneath the ground came up. Than some of the water dried up to make the earth livable again.
So, well if that what is says in the bible, then it must be true. Wait, I don't read the bible. So, when the gates of heaven want to open up again, the earth will be flooded again because it is a fact that is a lot of water beneath the ground.
In the Bible it says that mist would come up from the ground. So it is reasonable that there was water "storages" underground and the oceans were made during the flood.
1. Show me these documents about this world-wide flood.
2. I am assuming you mean that the flood was some time ago (over 2000 years ago, before the birth of Jesus).
3. How does a man in Saudi Arabia, or South Africa, or China, or wherever the heck they live know that a flood is world-wide without effective ways to image the Earth's surface? When an individual noticed a relatively large flood, could they not have been mistaken and exaggerated the account?
Even if it dried up, where did it go? Did it just magically disappear? Is it in the atmosphere? Is it below ground? In all cases, we would see evidence of a major shift in ground-moisture or humidity if we look at a world timeline. Neither of those have been seen.
