| Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & Invitations Comment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here! |
 | | 
23rd March 2008, 09:06 PM
| | Newbie
  
| | Join Date: 23rd March 2008
Posts: 1
Blessings: 90,284
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | | Debate Invitation- Age of the Earth
Hello-
I'd like to start by saying I'm new to the Christian Forums, and give a little about myself.
I've almost always been an Agnostic Christian. I accept there could be a god, but I believe the best thing to do to worship him is to follow the golden rule, be kind, and help others out, and a literal Bible, church, and prayer are not necessary to be a good christian.
Anyway, my debate invitation is about the Age of the Earth. Some Christians believe that the Earth is extremely young. I do not believe it to be so. I'll start off the debate with some evidence for an old earth, and then I guess opponents will offer a rebuttal AND evidence for a young earth.
I'm not quite sure how the system works. Do I just go ahead and start a debate topic, or do I need mod approval?
Thanks,
EccentricAgnostic. |
25th March 2008, 03:41 PM
|  | Natura non facit saltum Angels Team
48      
 | | Join Date: 16th March 2004 Location: Ft Carson, Colorado
Posts: 7,317
Blessings: 48,224,240 My Mood 
Reps: 37,247,279,516,221,256 (power: 37,247,279,516,236) | | | All you need is an opponent to have a formal debate, no Mod needed. I would take you up on this topic but geology is not my thing. Good luck with that.
Grace and peace,
Mark
__________________ “Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel) |
12th June 2008, 09:13 AM
|  | Veteran
59  
| | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,295
Blessings: 124,508
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by EccentricAgnostic 
Anyway, my debate invitation is about the Age of the Earth. Some Christians believe that the Earth is extremely young. I do not believe it to be so. I'll start off the debate with some evidence for an old earth, and then I guess opponents will offer a rebuttal AND evidence for a young earth.
Age of the earth is too big a topic to have any meaningful debate. There are many ways to estimate the age of the earth. It would be better if you can pick up one method, which give some idea on the age of the earth.
If you want to debate the very nature of radiometric dating, then good luck. I am a geologist, not a physicist (and I haven't see a YEC physicist on this forum yet).
Otherwise, I may consider to debate with you. So, please redefine the topic of debate. |
14th June 2008, 08:56 AM
| | Godspeed, Spacebat
  
| | Join Date: 11th April 2006 Location: Bath
Posts: 2,713
Blessings: 1,078,463 My Mood 
Reps: 2,470,416,899,804,804 (power: 2,470,416,899,812) | | Age of the earth is too big a topic to have any meaningful debate. There are many ways to estimate the age of the earth. It would be better if you can pick up one method, which give some idea on the age of the earth.
I don't think that's true. There are lots of things that can be dated, which each give a minimum value for the age of the earth, but not that many that go right back to the 4.6 billion year mark.
It's very easy to show the earth is older than 6-10 thousand years: find something older. And we've done that hundreds of times.
__________________
Little Miss 1665 her soul remains unclaimed.
Guess she must have really sinned now
- The Offspring, Jennifer Lost the War. |
14th June 2008, 01:03 PM
| | Veteran
59
| | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,295
Blessings: 124,508
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by Psudopod I don't think that's true. There are lots of things that can be dated, which each give a minimum value for the age of the earth, but not that many that go right back to the 4.6 billion year mark.
It's very easy to show the earth is older than 6-10 thousand years: find something older. And we've done that hundreds of times.
How easy would it be to show that the earth is older than 6-10 million years?
You have only ONE way to do it: radiometric dating. You can never say it is easy to show anything if you can only use ONE method to investigate it. |
15th June 2008, 06:05 AM
| | Godspeed, Spacebat
| | Join Date: 11th April 2006 Location: Bath
Posts: 2,713
Blessings: 1,078,463 My Mood
Reps: 2,470,416,899,804,804 (power: 2,470,416,899,812) | | How easy would it be to show that the earth is older than 6-10 million years?
You have only ONE way to do it: radiometric dating. You can never say it is easy to show anything if you can only use ONE method to investigate it.
As I was saying, there are only a few things that exist long enough to date back to the oldest values for the age of the earth. There are of course serveral radioactive dating methods, depending on what you want to date. And the principles of radioactive decay are used in other fields, so it's not like this is an isolated idea.
__________________
Little Miss 1665 her soul remains unclaimed.
Guess she must have really sinned now
- The Offspring, Jennifer Lost the War. |
15th June 2008, 10:45 AM
| | Veteran
59
| | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,295
Blessings: 124,508
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by Psudopod As I was saying, there are only a few things that exist long enough to date back to the oldest values for the age of the earth. There are of course serveral radioactive dating methods, depending on what you want to date. And the principles of radioactive decay are used in other fields, so it's not like this is an isolated idea.
No matter what dating system you use, the basic principle of dating is the same. Radiometric dating is ONE method (the only one to you) to get a sense on the age of the earth.
We do not prove ANY geological fact just by data from one method. |
15th June 2008, 11:14 AM
| | Godspeed, Spacebat
| | Join Date: 11th April 2006 Location: Bath
Posts: 2,713
Blessings: 1,078,463 My Mood
Reps: 2,470,416,899,804,804 (power: 2,470,416,899,812) | | No matter what dating system you use, the basic principle of dating is the same.
I would have said dendrochronology (forgive the spelling if it's incorrect) is quite a different method to isocron dating. We do not prove ANY geological fact just by data from one method.
Indeed. In fact you don't PROVE anything in science.
__________________
Little Miss 1665 her soul remains unclaimed.
Guess she must have really sinned now
- The Offspring, Jennifer Lost the War. |
15th June 2008, 01:50 PM
| | Veteran
59
| | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,295
Blessings: 124,508
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by Psudopod I would have said dendrochronology (forgive the spelling if it's incorrect) is quite a different method to isocron dating.
I think it argues for YEC. Don't you agree? Indeed. In fact you don't PROVE anything in science.
Agree. So, there is nothing to debate about. |
16th June 2008, 08:43 AM
| | Godspeed, Spacebat
| | Join Date: 11th April 2006 Location: Bath
Posts: 2,713
Blessings: 1,078,463 My Mood
Reps: 2,470,416,899,804,804 (power: 2,470,416,899,812) | | I think it argues for YEC. Don't you agree?
Which one are you talking about (not that I think either does)? Dendochronolgy goes about about 10,000 years if I remember rightly, but you can check it against other dating methods that go back even further. Agree. So, there is nothing to debate about.
If you think the earth is 6000-10,000 years old, then there is plenty to debate about.
__________________
Little Miss 1665 her soul remains unclaimed.
Guess she must have really sinned now
- The Offspring, Jennifer Lost the War. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
