Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
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.
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)
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.
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.
__________________ Boku o mitte, boku o mitte
Boku no naka de, kaibutsu ga okii narimashita
- Namae nai no Kaibutsu, Kaus Poppe
Little Miss 1665 her soul remains unclaimed.
Guess she must have really sinned now
- The Offspring, Jennifer Lost the War.
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.
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.
__________________ Boku o mitte, boku o mitte
Boku no naka de, kaibutsu ga okii narimashita
- Namae nai no Kaibutsu, Kaus Poppe
Little Miss 1665 her soul remains unclaimed.
Guess she must have really sinned now
- The Offspring, Jennifer Lost the War.
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.
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.
__________________ Boku o mitte, boku o mitte
Boku no naka de, kaibutsu ga okii narimashita
- Namae nai no Kaibutsu, Kaus Poppe
Little Miss 1665 her soul remains unclaimed.
Guess she must have really sinned now
- The Offspring, Jennifer Lost the War.
Linear Mode
