Instigator / Pro
6
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2769
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, Earth is Older than 10,000 Years Old
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Undefeatable
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
2
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Description
I do not understand why people believe in Young Earth, despite the vast majority of evidence saying otherwise. I am extremely comfortable with pro side of topic, even if I have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Round 1
Framework
As an expert scientific paper explains, "evidence meeting this criterion must be so convincing that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it in the most important of his own affairs." [1] There is no need for me to prove beyond all certain doubt, only to meet the legal standard of proof. Con must counter all the evidence otherwise. Indeed, the expert notes that the equivalent would be to rigorously proven, rather than a fundamental theory such as law of gravitation or theory of relativity. (Though, if Age of Earth does happen to be as rigorous as a fundamental theory, then my burden is still fulfilled as "beyond any doubt" includes "beyond reasonable doubt"). Unless my opponent is more credible than an expert, this seems reasonable to base upon. Now onto the evidence.
Geological Evidence
European oak trees have been used to build a 12,000-year chronology. [7] The ice cores combined with the rock layers reveals 160,000 annual layers of accumulation, proving that Earth must be at least one million years old for the sediment and ice. [2] Indeed, "Below the visible layers of snowfall, by comparing chemical isotopes with other studies, scientists have drilled ice cores deep into glaciers and found ice that is 123,000 years old in Greenland and 740,000 years old in Antarctica." [8] Next, the changes in Earth's surface proves that the Hawaiian Islands' tallest volcano must've taken about 500,000 years to grow to its present height. [2] With the new crust forming, the rough estimate is at least 1500 million years, far greater than 10,000 years old. [2]
Not only so, "Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years). " [9] If the Earth itself says that it is over 10,000 years old, why should we doubt geology?
Radiometric Dating
Using the half life of various elements, the isotopes of potassium prove that "rise of humans about 2.5 million years ago, the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, the appearance of animals with hard shells starting about 540 million years ago, and other key transitions in life on Earth are usually dated in this way" [2]. A famous expert also cited 7 additional ideas to back up this claim [5]:
- There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
- All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time... The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
- Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
- Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
- A recent survey of the rubidium-strontium method found only about 30 cases, out of tens of thousands of published results, where a date determined using the proper procedures was subsequently found to be in error.
- Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
- The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.
Unless Con refutes the accuracy of radiometric dating, this stands powerfully.
Evolution
Evolution is a theory proven by countless scientists and experts. The most common evidence cited is the fossil record, and evidence plain to the eye. As one study notes, "A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin's finches. The ancestors of these finches appear to have immigrated from the South American mainland to the Galápagos. Today the different species of finches on the island have distinct habitats, diets, and behaviors, but the mechanisms involved in speciation continue to operate." [3] In addition to this, thousands of fossil organisms have proved that microbial life was already in existence 3.5 billion years ago.
The distribution of species prove that, if Earth was only 10,000 years old, we would see brand new species every single day, based on the pattern. Or for no apparent reason, the specie variation stopped and the laws of evolution suddenly decided to change for no apparent reason. This seems beyond absurd to the highest order to me.
In addition, even molecular biology supports evolution. As the same paper notes, "During the next two decades, myoglobin and hemoglobin sequences were determined for dozens of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, worms, and molluscs. All of these sequences were so obviously related that they could be compared with confidence with the three-dimensional structures of two selected standards—whale myoglobin and horse hemoglobin. Even more significantly, the differences between sequences from different organisms could be used to construct a family tree of hemoglobin and myoglobin variation among organisms. This tree agreed completely with observations derived from paleontology and anatomy about the common descent of the corresponding organisms." The molecular clock is so useful that it has been used to go beyond paleontological evidence, providing other animals' relatives and proving evolution beyond a reasonable doubt.
Evolution is so powerful that the Supreme Court ruled that creationism was not fit for teaching, already fulfilling my case even on a legal basis [2]. In addition, 97% of scientists support evolution [6]. In a criminal court case, if 97 out of 100 scientists say a man murdered another man, this is far beyond a reasonable doubt. Keep in mind that even Trial by Jury only requires majority vote with 12 members. It's impossible for con to win here.
Conclusion: The scientific and expert evidence, if presented even in criminal court case, would destroy any opposing lawyer, regardless if they use the Bible, emotional arguments, or otherwise. The rigorous evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth is over 10,000 years old. As I have only used expert sources and true evidence, the opponent cannot use the Bible, as it is written not by experts. The opponent cannot use unfounded claims, news sources, nor even semantic arguments. Because each of my papers use similar words -- strong evidence, strong support, Earth's Age, billions, so on and so forth. I eagerly await his argument.
Question For Con
- Is there any proof of God?
- If God exists, why would he fool us to make the world appear much older than they really are?
- If Creationism is true, how does Evolution actually work?
- If Noah's Ark occurred, why can't we find this Ark? The size must match at least one of our largest ships ever created.
- What would it take to change your mind (or if you are playing devil's advocate, overcome your argument)?
- How old is the universe?
- Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
- Why do you assume that animal death only began to happen after Adam ate the fruit?
- Why/How do you think that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?
- The Genesis flood: Where did all that water come from? Where did it go?
- How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements, and the consistent correlation with objects of known age?
-What scientifically factual information can you supply to support your contention that the universe is less than 10,000 years old?
1. v.gd/doubt
I have changed my profile picture back to Schrodinger just for this debate.
My main syllogism goes like this:
- Quantum Mechanics are observed to be true on Earth
- Quantum Mechanics say that everything you see exists for the sole reason that you are observing it, and it is impossible to understand anything physical in its purest form, for you would need to observe it(Will source later)
- Thus, it is basically impossible to say how old the universe really is, and concluding that the universe is older than 10000 years is meaningless
1. Quantum Mechanics are observed to be true on Earth
I don't need a lot of stuff to prove this one. A single source[1] suffices. Let's have [2] to make sure.
2. The properties of the world, according to Quantum Mechanics
There are two things to make my argument.
The World changes according to observation
According to a research paper, how the world is like is affected by observation[3]. What does that mean? If you don't sense an object, it doesn't exist in your consciousness until you sense it. Another research got the same results[4]
In other words, reality doesn't exist unless we observe it(or if you are blind, hear it, taste it, or sense it, whatever). If a blindfolded deaf person(but has taste and smell) was brought a bowl of rice, with the person not seeing it and sensing it in any other way, the person will think that there is not yet any bowl of rice ahead: That bowl of rice literally doesn't exist for his consciousness. It is not until that people encourage him to eat it then he realizes that it exists.
To use Stirner's words, Reality is a spook.[5]
Not the past, only the present
So now it is proven that even if Pro has enough proof that earth "is" over 10000 years old, it is only proof that when you observe it, it look as if it is 10000 years old. However, it is still not proof that it ISN'T.
Now onto the evidence that the past isn't even real. [6] and [7] demonstrates that time is relative and only the present defines the past, which is equivalent to saying nothing at all since, who knows if the world is created just now?
In other words, what you are left with is the present. The world only exists at the present. The world has no past which means the beginning of its existence is now.
The definition of "age", according to MW dictionary, is:
the length of an existence extending from the beginning to any given time[8]This is the most appropriate definition for this debate here, respond to disagree
Since time doesn't exist and the past doesn't either, nothing have an age: Only it is your memory suggesting that you may have existed before, but it isn't true because, according to science, only the present exists.
Age is a spook. since the universe only exists now, the length of its existence from beginning to now is 0 years, which is less than 10000 years. Sure, it may look as if it is over 10000 years old when you observe it, but at the end, the universe's age, objectively, is always 0.
[4]https://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms
Now onto Pro.
Round 2
Con has dropped all my arguments and opted for quantum physics instead. However, his own source says: ""It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release." But Quantum physics is not the basis of my arguments. Recall that my arguments are based on geology, radiometric dating (atoms still larger than quantum level), evolution theory, all of which are far larger than quantum physics' observation based experimentation.
Remember what the legal basis for "beyond a reasonable doubt" is. Obviously you cannot always have eye witnesses. But countless murderers have been arrested due to blood analysis, DNA analysis, all of which are only indirect observations. Based on Con's logic, we cannot even convict these murders. Remember that my premise is based off of legal analysis. This is clearly absurd. Extend my framework.
Recall:
Evolution is so powerful that the Supreme Court ruled that creationism was not fit for teaching, already fulfilling my case even on a legal basis [2]. In addition, 97% of scientists support evolution [6]. In a criminal court case, if 97 out of 100 scientists say a man murdered another man, this is far beyond a reasonable doubt. Keep in mind that even Trial by Jury only requires majority vote with 12 members. It's impossible for con to win here.
Next con makes an insane argument that only the present exists. But this is only concerning human perception. Obviously we can only experience the present. There is no way to time travel and experience the past or the future. That does not negate the "age" of something that happens. And if the past/future didn't exist, that would mean that causation also doesn't exist. But clearly, if it rains today then it will still be wet "later" (or, in the "present" as con would like to claim). Time being a one way street has zero impact on the "age" of something. His source also supports that the world is based on the observer. We observe the ice layers. We observe evolution happening even now. We observe using radiometric dating. How else would we prove that the earth is older than 10,000 years?
Extend all my arguments supported by thousands of experts, papers, and researchers. Con has not addressed the core of my argument.
New Questions for Con
Should we still convict murderers, since according to his logic, they committed no crime in the past?
What will we do about all the criminals released, since, they have committed no crimes?
Is the legal system now useless?
Should we give up on science, since he thinks nothing can be proven true?
How does Evolution actually work, according to Con?
How do you think that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?
Unaddressed Questions
The Genesis flood: Where did all that water come from? Where did it go?
How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements, and the consistent correlation with objects of known age?
Recall:
- There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
- All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time... The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
- Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
- Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
- A recent survey of the rubidium-strontium method found only about 30 cases, out of tens of thousands of published results, where a date determined using the proper procedures was subsequently found to be in error.
- Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
- The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.
I do not need to address Pro's R1 arguments ever if I can defend this point.
But Quantum physics is not the basis of my arguments. Recall that my arguments are based on geology, radiometric dating (atoms still larger than quantum level), evolution theory, all of which are far larger than quantum physics' observation based experimentation.
This is true if it is based on humans perceive time. There is a difference between how old it appears to humans and how old it really is. It may appear to humans as if it is over 10000 years old, but according to time itself, the time is always 0 because all the world is now and now and now and not the past nor the future. The time between now and now is 0 years, as a result, the age of the universe is always 0.
If the topic is "Earth appears to be older than 10000 years observed by humans", Pro already won. Sadly, when only a time phrase exists in the title, we do not look at it through anyone's eyes: We look at it objectively, and objectively, it is 0.
Obviously you cannot always have eye witnesses. But countless murderers have been arrested due to blood analysis, DNA analysis, all of which are only indirect observations. Based on Con's logic, we cannot even convict these murders. Remember that my premise is based off of legal analysis. This is clearly absurd. Extend my framework.
Murder is a social construct, and time isn't. Using human methods of operation to solve human issues such as murder cases work for all of them. Pro's premise isn't based on legal analysis either: See the description.
I do not understand why people believe in Young Earth, despite the vast majority of evidence saying otherwise. I am extremely comfortable with pro side of topic, even if I have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Where does it say that we must use the method humans perceive the passage of time? You didn't and adding it now is a moving the goalpost fallacy.
Murder cases, and such, are only of Occam's razor, or as how I perceive it. It is much less likely, to most human consciousnesses, that someone else would set it up, replace everything, then leave it without commit any crime, than for a criminal to just kill the person. In objectivity, you cannot convict anyone: The police, court justice, etc only puts the person most likely to have committed the crime according to the human consciousnesses in handcuffs.
When it comes to time, especially when no modifiers are used, we are talking about time itself---not how humans perceives it. Time itself doesn't exist, so obviously the universe is always 0 years old. If Pro never address this point ever in this debate, my point will stand and I will defeat the undefeatable.
Next con makes an insane argument that only the present exists. But this is only concerning human perception. Obviously we can only experience the present. There is no way to time travel and experience the past or the future. That does not negate the "age" of something that happens. And if the past/future didn't exist, that would mean that causation also doesn't exist.
Observation determines the world, and we, as observers, can only experience the present. As a result, the world only exists in the present.
Either way, or that time is a complete spook. Both theories support my point: The universe is 0 years old.
But clearly, if it rains today then it will still be wet "later" (or, in the "present" as con would like to claim). Time being a one way street has zero impact on the "age" of something. His source also supports that the world is based on the observer. We observe the ice layers. We observe evolution happening even now. We observe using radiometric dating. How else would we prove that the earth is older than 10,000 years?
Because what we are observing is what the world is to us, not objectively. I agree 100% wholeheartedly that Earth appears to us as over 10000 years old, but when you take modern science concerning time itself and how spacetime works, it is a different story.
We observe evolution because at every "present", the thing change its state, or it isn't even the thing before due to it is diffent. We just brush it off with Occam's razor saying "How could that be a different thing when I have never taken my eyes off of it, yet it is growing new colors?" We may never know. However according to the science that my opponent didn't even doubt, only the present exists and essentially evolution is only appearing to be true for us. The fact is not that time is a one-way street: We are on an ever-moving car and we do not leave dashes behind.
- Conclusions
- There is no past as we only experience the present, according to the science concerned with spacetime
- My opponent's argument is only about that the world appears to be over 10000 years old to us, but with knowledge in which it is seen true EVERYWHERE, we can essentially know that the universe is 0 years old.
- Vote Con and have a nice day. I rest my case.
Round 3
Con claims that murder is a social construct, while time is not. Yet we defined the time passing relative to the Earth's spinning on its axis, and many criminal cases are based upon actions that took place in the past. Using his iron man that only present exists, it would be near impossible to punish any one for the murderous actions, and they would not have killed someone because "the past doesn't exist", and thus you cannot prove they violated a crime beyond reasonable doubt.
Con tries to say now that time itself doesn't exist, which is completely nonsensical. There is a big difference between experiencing the age of earth (which wouldn't make sense -- every single second, we are living in the "now" of Earth, so Earth's "age" for us would only be 0 as Con claims), and the experts' claims about Earth's history and past. Notice how Con's metaphorical and philosophical nature of "time" does not defeat the scientific Age of Earth. Should we now claim that I am also 0 years old and apply Minor Legality rules because of philosophy? Should we consider that The big Bang occurred 0 seconds ago, rather than 13 billion years ago? Such claims are astounding and absurd. Con has not proven that his ambiguous decision of presentism overcomes the scientific decision over what is age and what is not. Why should we dismiss thousands of papers that note Earth's age high in the billions, and decide arbitrarily that Earth is only 0 Years old? By this logic, I can say that everyone is guilty of pedophilia, since everyone is Zero years old, younger than 18, and hence unable to make the decision of Consent!
The Legal implications are absolutely impossible to accept. Our construct of age and time is based upon our assumption that there is a history, regardless of our experience of the present. We have no way to actually experience the billions of years worth of Earth formation, that is why it seems that Earth is "only zero years old". But regarding my rigorous evidence and in a legal court definition, there is no way that Con won. Because the scientific standard of Age is based upon the assumption of Earth's ruthless rotation around the sun, ignoring our subjective observation, ignoring our opinions. It is a fact that Earth's age is above 10,000 years old.
Conclusion: The opponent concludes that the future and past do not currently exist, but has not defeated the idea that they may have existed before, or perhaps that they will exist. I have established "beyond a reasonable doubt" to fall in line with legal definitions and requirements. In a court case, "age" would be defined on Earth's independent revolution of the sun, regardless of observation. Even if humans were required, our history stretches back far beyond 10,000 years. It's absurd that the universe is zero years old. He has not explained why so many experts and papers would be published and consent that Earth is billions of years old, if it really is only zero years old. The conspiracy he claims has no foundation, and there is absolutely no motivation for why thousands or millions of scientists would agree to a false fact. Therefore, my rigorous evidence holds stronger impact than his arbitrary subjective experience. Remember that quantum physics holds little to no significance due to the way the evidence was drawn. Remember that my argument is supported by only the strongest sources, while he only uses a handful cherry-picked sources to support presentism. He would require just as much hundreds and thousands of papers battling and telling us that Earth is zero years old, but he has no such proof. By the sheer amount of evidence that outweighs his argument, even in a fair jury trial, my 97% of scientists would vote in favor of me, while only his one scientist would vote for him. It is clear: beyond a reasonable doubt, the earth is older than 10,000 years old. I rest my case.
Again, this is something that I probably forgot to mention, but in Quantum mechanics, which is demonstrated by the world to be true and accepted by my opponent to be acceptable, the present influences the past[1]. The past, of course, according to the same field of science which is true, isn't set in stone[2]. What does this mean? Even if time exists and the past exists, the claim that "Earth IS over 10000 years old", which is with 100% certainty, would definitely be impossible to prove. The fact that the world could be created just a minute ago with our sentience inserted in the past minute and our debate account created in the past minute being made as if it were created and enhanced by us(It is plausible, and although you cannot prove it, you cannot disprove it) would just mean that all the expert bazangles you have put on this field would be an Occam's Razor, or that it is just more likely for earth to be created before 10000 years of us than after. It is completely impossible to prove something with IS on the title, because then you will be proving that it 100% happened, in a realm where even if the past exists, it isn't set in stone.
Not to mention, not only General Relativity, but even Quantum Mechanics agrees that time is an illusion and is something exclusive to the living[3], hence we have our own system of time.
Con claims that murder is a social construct, while time is not. Yet we defined the time passing relative to the Earth's spinning on its axis, and many criminal cases are based upon actions that took place in the past. Using his iron man that only present exists, it would be near impossible to punish any one for the murderous actions, and they would not have killed someone because "the past doesn't exist", and thus you cannot prove they violated a crime beyond reasonable doubt.
Of course, it is 100% impossible to prove, with 100% certainty, that one person killed someone else, and so in the court, the exact wording of the resolution to be settled would be something like "Under the regular understanding of time for human beings, it is more logical to conclude John killed Mary's husband and 2 children than that John did not". Because this sounds too boring and too long, this is probably why Schrodinger didn't become a court judge.
However, if the resolution is "On balance, under the regular perception and concept of time for human beings, and on that history is certain, it is more logical to conclude that the Earth is older than 10000 years old compared to that the Earth is younger than 10000 years old", I would possibly agree with you. I have evidence that neither time nor a defined past exist, and Pro did not try to refute them, merely dropped and passed them as "absurd".
Let's see why he thinks so.
There is a big difference between experiencing the age of earth (which wouldn't make sense -- every single second, we are living in the "now" of Earth, so Earth's "age" for us would only be 0 as Con claims), and the experts' claims about Earth's history and past. Notice how Con's metaphorical and philosophical nature of "time" does not defeat the scientific Age of Earth. Should we now claim that I am also 0 years old and apply Minor Legality rules because of philosophy? Should we consider that The big Bang occurred 0 seconds ago, rather than 13 billion years ago? Such claims are astounding and absurd.
Possibly an Appeal to Tradition fallacy. No, we probably shouldn't conclude that the Big Bang occurred 0 second ago, but truth is truth: Science tells us that the most accurate measureent, objectively, for the time of anything, is 0, even if we should not use such a system of measurement in our world. I have said, we are not arguing that "In human perception of time, Earth is older than 10000 years old", but merely that "The earth IS older than 10000 years old" meaning we obviously should take out the humane element within and conclude objectively.
In the Minor Legality rules case, it is an issue concerned with human perception, and as a result, human measurements should be used, but not this one.
This is almost as if Pro has accepted that there is no time, because he has not refuted with any scientifical evidence to match mine, merely to give examples of absurdity that is a whole another category compared to our concerned one.
Because the scientific standard of Age is based upon the assumption of Earth's ruthless rotation around the sun, ignoring our subjective observation, ignoring our opinions. It is a fact that Earth's age is above 10,000 years old.
With an idea unrefuted, One could conclude that 1 year is equivalent to 0 seconds, which is no time. Then to calculate the age of the Earth would be 0/0, which is undefined and could yield any result: More than, equal to and less than 10000 at the same time, calculating! Ignoring our subjective observation, ignoring our opinions, Earth is both more than 10000 years old and not more than 10000 years old, meaning that even a year is not pure time but merely earth's rotation around the sun, Pro would still fail to prove the BoP as it is implied that he has to prove that Earth is not less than 10000 years old, which would mean Pro can NEVER completely prove his BoP, and that Con would be the victor, so, vote con.
Conclusions
- A field of science which my opponent agrees as true demonstrates that the past isn't set in stone, and it is certainly plausible that the world is created just now, making that the resolution, which calls for 100% certainty that the Earth is older than 10000 years, impossible to prove.
- Ironically, the resolution does not call for human understandings of time, so it is rational to use the objective interpretation of time, which --- concludes an illusion. Time doesn't exist, so the universe is 0 years old, making that Pro failed to prove his resolution.
- Pro had given examples of issues that would NEED the human interpretation of time to be solved, while this is an issue in which the objective understanding of time is rather needed. As a result, all he had against the concept "Time doesn't exist(A concept supported by science)" is to be nullified.
- Even if a year is defined as the time for the Earth's full rotation around the sun, it is still impossible to prove that with 100% certainty(implied by the resolution), the Earth is older than 10000 years, because then the Earth is simultaneously more than and not more than 10000 years old, making Pro, whatsoever, IMPOSSIBLE to prove his resolution fully.
- Con has used Science to win against Pro
- Vote CON.
[1]https://www.robertlanza.com/does-the-past-exist-yet-evidence-suggests-your-past-isnt-set-in-stone/
[2]ibid
Round 4
Let's jump back to the bigger picture, the big impacts. Why am I winning, and my opponent is losing? He appeals to one single pop science article, and a Huffington Post article, both addressing experience and smaller Quantum physics based experimentation. While observation can manipulate extremely small particles, he has not proven that this refutes Radiometric dating accuracy, nor geologists, nor the theory of evolution. While presentism seems a plausible philosophy in metaphysical terms, my legal framework is powerful because the standard for "age" depends on our assumption that the past exists. Will con assume that a loving consensual relationship between two legal adults is pedophilia because they are both "zero years old"? Of course not. Will he manage to crack the entirety of science, presuming that all elemental isotopes decayed zero seconds ago?
Recall what I said on the big picture about the scientists. If Con is correct, we accept that somehow, two meager news are able to overturn centuries of evidence. That despite the thousands of researchers agreeing on the billions of years in the past, con wishes to dismantle it all, that our scientific research is wrong by magnitudes of billions. And he has provided no evidence that Quantum Physics researchers disagree significantly on a level that matches my 97% rigorous evidence proving that Earth is far, far older than 10,000 years old.
Voters, which has bigger impact? A vague claim by presentism, quantum physics which only deals with small atoms? Or thousands of researchers working over centuries, supported by radiometric dating, geological records and fossils, along with evolution biology? It seems obvious that my evidence's impact is far more powerful and has not been addressed. Notice how con did not answer any of my questions. How did geologists get it wrong for 300 years? Why is radiometric dating wrong by billions of years? And why are fossils now all zero years old, and hence, no matter what layer they came from, you deny science and say they are the same age? The disparity of age guess is absolutely monstrous and unexplained. All Con has is consciousness and human perception. So let me ask you this: Why do you perceive different layers of fossils to all be the same age? Indeed, Con would spout some nonsense about how there is no transition of fossils, since they only "exist in the present". Con's philosophical consciousness experience destroys everything we know about science and holds a horrible detriment to the standard we have. If you accept Con, you accept any arbitrary picking of experience and agree that merely one man can overturn hundreds of years of research. And that's plainly unacceptable. Vote for pro.
More Evidence, Same argument
He appeals to one single pop science article, and a Huffington Post article, both addressing experience and smaller Quantum physics based experimentation.
Two pop-science articles? Alright, I will give more authentic evidence.
Either Time don't exist, or the world doesn't
(Same stance, More authentic article)
(Explains why My opponent would even create such a topic even though that time doesn't exist is a widely-accepted truth among top scientists)
(Since we are assuming that the world exists, we would assume that there is no time)
(Or if our world doesn't exist, then there is no point in this because then it has no age)
(I don't know if this is sourced before, but this is more authentic than "pop-science")
It is impossible to prove
(The past isn't set in stone)
(Time is relative, and according to a place where time is incredibly slow compared to us, it is possible that our earth still rotated the sun for less than 10,000 times)
I have given many authentic sources backing up the same exact points I have been talking about. Anything else? My opponent's refutation about these forms of science are literally:
- Experts say that (assuming time exists) Earth is over 10000 years old(Appeal-to-authority)
- My sources are just two articles(but my point have completely demolished his, and he has yet to put forth a constructive rebuttal that can defeat my idea)
- It is absurd to assume that time doesn't exist for human lives(Reductio-ad-absurdum, and strawman, which does not defeat my idea as a result)
Let's not get ahead of ourselves and refute them one by one.
my legal framework is powerful because the standard for "age" depends on our assumption that the past exists.
But the resolution is not "According to human perception, earth is over 10,000 years old". There is nothing I can relate to with time so the only rational thing to do is absolute time, which doesn't even exist, proven by my sources and yet to be defeated.
Even if the past exists(if time exists, that is, which, absolute time, it doesn't), it isn't set in stone, meaning it is possible that God created the world just now and inserted memory and conscious so that we think the world is super old.
Will con assume that a loving consensual relationship between two legal adults is pedophilia because they are both "zero years old"? Of course not. Will he manage to crack the entirety of science, presuming that all elemental isotopes decayed zero seconds ago?
Not only the stance of my sources prove that my opponent's stance is wrong, it actually explains why it seems to be correct: For human perceptions. The fact we have a half-life of a few years and one of a few hundred years is purely for comparison: to say, for our observation, Uranium decays faster than Carbon but slower than, say, moscovium. In reality, their half-life is all 0 because absolute time is non-existent and according to spacetime physics---not chemistry nor atomic physics---yes, all of their isotopes decay in 0 seconds.
For spacetime physics, all humans' ages are also 0, but we just don't recognize it as so because how our brain works and how society works. The case will be solved when the 0-year-old person that appears as if he has existed in this world for 50 years cannot marry with a 0-year-old person that appears as if she only existed in this world for 11 years.
The two cases above, for my opponent, are absurd when we interpret them all as 0, which is not how it works. Just because we interpret the age of something as non-zero doesn't mean it isn't zero absolutely and objectively. We are talking about the absolute time objectively, not the relative time of our interpretation, simply because there missed 4 words in the topic title.
My opponent has misinterpreted my argument, and he thinks my sources don't matter because he had ones written by people more qualified as "experts" when their viewpoint is opposed, i.e. What appears to be over 10,000 years old isn't necessarily over 10,000 years old. My opponent has never disproved this because he has confused what appears to be 10,000 years old(to the people as well as the machines) with what IS 10,000 years old, which isn't true ultimately.
I hereby conclude.
- More authentic evidences also agree with my stance
- What appears to be over 10,000 years old isn't necessarily over 10,000 year old, says science itself which can overturn my opponent's evidence
- My opponent never used any evidence with science to disprove my argument, merely Reductio ad absurdum, which is misinterpretation
- My opponent's evidence only proves that the world APPEARS to be over 10,000 years old, despite that time doesn't exist and the "past" isn't even set in stone
- So it is possible that the world is created just now and we think it is that old
- My opponent had made fallacies throughout the conclusion of his entire debate
- My opponent had confused the relative intepretation of time with the objectivity of time, a misinterpretation, which doesn't carry any practical value against my argument
- My opponent failed to disprove me, vote Con
Intell, your opponent in the debate treated the first round as though you were a Christian. I perused your profile. You claim to be an atheist. Thus I did not think you would have any interest in answering those questions about God since they would not apply to your circumstance. I also wanted to test your opponent's (Undefeatable's) 1R in regards to the reasonableness of his truth claims. I want to add my thoughts after the debate vote has concluded. Do you have an objection?
I'm not sure who you are addressing?
What is going on here?
YOU: "[a] also... why do you trust the bible more than scientific experiments? [b] Can you sufficiently reproduce the miracles supposedly performed? [c] Can you actually verify the veracity of the person's statement and the history, [d] like Undefeatable claimed he could prove beyond the LEGAL requirement, [e] as if earth being older than 10,000 was a pedophilia/murder case?"
***
[a] It is a matter of authority. Why do you (supposedly) trust scientific experiments that no one was there to witness, cannot be repeated, that work on models of the most likelihood? You bank on your "authorities" being right. You (possibly/probably) look to exclusively naturalistic explanations. I do not, because, without a God or gods, you run into a completely different problem, as identified by Thomas Aquinas and later added to by Cornelius Van Til, John Frame, and others. That problem is with your presuppositions starting point and what it rests upon. You build upon a more unlikely beginning that deals with no agency, no intent, just pure random chance happenstance. How likely is that? I say very unlikely, more likely impossible.
[b] No, I'm not God. I can't work against the natural order. HE, as a SUPERNATURAL Being, can.
[c] Your statement is vague to me. I'm not following. Which "person" are you speaking of? Do you mean God's words in history? I can do that to a reasonable degree of proof, but it depends on what you will accept with proof. I have learned that a person cannot be convinced against their will. It is like talking to a wall.
[d] 1. With legality, it may be legal but is it right/true to what is real? For instance, abortion is legal but is it right?
2. With legality, the same standard used by a court of law can be used of the eyewitness accounts of the Bible, as demonstrated by Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, and who also wrote an authoritative three-volume work on the law called, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, which set the bar for eyewitness testimony in a court of law. So, if Undefeatable wants to cite a legal standard "beyond doubt," I would note that one as a starter for my case.
[e] What? I do not follow your analogy or whatever it is you are trying to convey.
also... why do you trust the bible more than scientific experiments? Can you sufficiently reproduce the miracles supposedly performed? Can you actually verify the veracity of the person's statement and the history, like Undefeatable claimed he could prove beyond the LEGAL requirement, as if earth being older than 10,000 was a pedophilia/murder case?
https://folk.ntnu.no/krill/bioko-references/Kuhn%201962.pdf
Amendment: "Origins are not one of those things" [that can be repeated].
What scientists measure are scientific models that we believe best correspond to what happened. Thomas Kuhn explains that models can experience paradigm shifts once the anomalies build-up and a better explanation is found.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=thomas+kuhn+you+tube&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3cp6pEzx3uw
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=thomas+kuhn+you+tube&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DL70T4pQv7P8
YOU: "The bible tells nothing about the age of earth. https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~bodla101/religion/ageoftheworld.html"
***
Yes, the Bible does through logical inference. Adam was created at the beginning of creation, per Jesus, who should know.
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, God created them male and female.
John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature because he is a liar and the father of lies.
The devil deceived Eve in the Garden.
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “[ai]Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness;...” 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them...; and it was so. 31 And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.
The man and woman were created on the sixth day of creation. Jesus speaks of Adam as a literal person, not some figurative idea. The genealogies in Luke 3 treat Adam as a literal person and with others in that lineage; we have facts regarding their literal existence. Sin is attributed to an actual person, Adam, and with his sin, death upon humanity.
As for the genealogies, they go back in time only so far, to the beginning of creation. Jesus' lineage is traced back to Adam.
YOU: "And also... mere *bias* to negate geologists? I haven't seen another topic where 97% of experts are slanted towards the wrong way."
***
Science is concerned with the natural realm, with things that are measurable and can be repeated. Origins are not one of those things. Scientists work from a naturalistic perspective. They use quantitative measurements, sensory measurements. They come short on the question of why in many areas of investigation. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why the BB? What agency caused it? Is there something more than the physical realm? How does something devoid of consciousness become conscious?
As for geology, I believe what the science was built upon, uniformitarianism, is wrong. I believe catastrophism offers a better explanation of the fossil record. There are many anomalies with uniformitarianism and a problem with its basic tenant that the present is the key to the past. As for the uniformity of nature, why if there is no God or agency and intention directing the natural world? Things just happen. Why should they be uniform? Why the laws of nature?
https://www.britannica.com/science/uniformitarianism
The bible tells nothing about the age of earth. https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~bodla101/religion/ageoftheworld.html
YOU SAID: "[a] you just directly contradicted yourself. You arbitrarily picked out earth created in six days as literal and a ton of other stuff as figurative.
"No, it is up to the reader to determine where a figurative and historical narrative is being used, as they would with any other document."
***
[a] No, basically I said that there is both literal and figurative language used in the Bible, and a person must determine which kind is used when reading a passage. Genesis 1-11 is mostly narrative. Here is the question again. You quoted my answer above:
Q: Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
Exodus 20:8-11 (NASB)
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your [a]resident who [b]stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
1. If God's days are not the same as His people's days, how long is a Sabbath rest for them?
2. What use does an eternal being have of time? Time is for us, as are days and seasons. They serve as signs in prophecy and a warning that we only have so long on this earth.
Genesis 1:14 Then God said, “Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall [u]serve as signs and for seasons, and days and years; 15 and they [v]shall serve as lights in the [w]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
***
you just directly contradicted yourself. You arbitrarily picked out earth created in six days as literal and a ton of other stuff as figurative.
"No, it is up to the reader to determine where a figurative and historical narrative is being used, as they would with any other document."
And also... mere *bias* to negate geologists? I haven't seen another topic where 97% of experts are slanted towards the wrong way.
As for your questions about God -
"Question For Con"
- Is there any proof of God?
Many proofs. The Bible claims to be a revelation from God. It deals with many historic people, places and events, and prophecies about future events that ring true to the prediction.
- If God exists, why would he fool us to make the world appear much older than they really are?
He did not fool you. The Bible does not state or infer any such thing. It says plainly that He created the heavens and earth, and He created in six days. He made a human being Adam, fully formed, not as a fetus. He created a "garden" with fully formed trees just by speaking these things into existence.
- If Creationism is true, how does Evolution actually work?
It means there is no such thing as macro-evolution (or Darwinian evolution), where we evolve from a common ancestor. We believe we were made as beings who can change within our kind to adapt to our environments through our diets and environmental conditioning (skin pigmentation does not mean we are less human or our different shapes of faces or bodies). We believe as Christians that we are all equally human. Darwinian social evolution creates class divisions. It creates some beings who are "More" human than others.
- If Noah's Ark occurred, why can't we find this Ark? The size must match at least one of our largest ships ever created.
There are lots of things we can't find from antiquity. Just because we can't find it does not necessarily equate to its non-existence.
- What would it take to change your mind (or if you are playing devil's advocate, overcome your argument)?
Proving the Bible does not teach a relatively young universe.
- How old is the universe?
I don't know, yet I believe it is very young. Like you, I was not there for its beginning. I look at the evidence in the present from the past. Unlike you, I do not necessarily believe that the present (what we view the distant past from) is the key to the past. Like you, I realize the evidence is interpreted, and usually from a strictly naturalistic perspective. I do not work from such a view.
- Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
No, it is up to the reader to determine where a figurative and historical narrative is being used, as they would with any other document.
- Why do you assume that animal death only began to happen after Adam ate the fruit?
The Bible states that death came or entered the world from the sin of Adam. Before Adam sinned, the Genesis 1 account records God calling what He made as "very good." I don't know about you, but I do not see death as a good thing. I see life as good.
- Why/How do you think that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?
Presuppositional bias. With the Age of Reason, humanity became the measure of all things. There was a significant shift from God to society. Darwin sealed the verdict with the Theory of Evolution. Now humanity could rationalize away God.
- The Genesis flood: Where did all that water come from? Where did it go?
From the earth and heavens.
- How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements and the consistent correlation with objects of known age?
I question whether the past and the conditions back then are the same as the present. I question uniformitarianism and the geological table. I point to various anomalies around the world that do not fit the dating process and the presuppositional starting points. The focus of science has been in confirming their naturalistic models and theories. I grant that scientists have an abundance of "evidence" that still requires interpretation. It does not come stamped "4.5 billion years old. I also noticed personification presuppositions built into your first round argument when speaking about evolution. As if evolution has human qualities.
While I do not necessarily agree with the 10,000-year-old time frame (too wooden and specific for what I believe the Bible infers), I do find the YEC belief more compelling than the OEC belief, as and for a Christian. Since science looks strictly at the naturalistic perspective, there are many questions that is cannot answer with any more clarity than the basis of a presupposition. After the debate voting is over, I would like to take a stab at your first round of evidence by breaking it down and showing that what you cite as "the facts" (just the facts, ma'am) is not as conclusive as you think it is.
Or rather, the experiments that prove my point has already happened.
I am sorry, but the experiments that support your case never happened.
I can prove that to be false. According to Einstein, time exists but it is a part of the universe.
Therefore, the amount of spacetime that the earth covers is:
- 1,083,206,916,846 cubic kilometers
-4.3 billion years
If we are strictly applying regular scientific methods, then the earth is at least (4.3 x billion x insane number) CkY (cubic kilometer years) XD
Your resolution only works for particles, even Undefeatable understood that your nonexistent "time" is only nonexistent to particles smaller than atoms
That is incorrect, you are detecting the paths and sequences of planks of things of that nature, but to apply that to time is to make the fallacy of composition, time is not reliant on planks or any other particle's paths. It is a force that constructs the fabric of space, furthermore, the studies you cited have been... well, let's say elaborated.
The human mind is wired to think that there is time when there isn't.
Also, just because humans "experience" time, it doesn't mean that time exists. In objectivity, Earth is not over 10,000 years.
In other words, there is no human to interpretation. When someone is convicted of murder, since science tells us that space does not exist, the murder didn't happen, even though our consciousness decided it happened.
It hasn't passed a single second since Earth was created, and it just felt to us it was a long time, even though it is not at all.
Again, We are talking about how old the Earth REALLY IS, not how it felt to humans.
Maybe I would have been a better match for you. I have some understanding of your sneaky tactics.
You proved that "time" does not exist objectively. Yet you said humans experience it. Time exists - as a social construct.
And you yourself admitted that social constructs are applicable to human problems.
Therefore, time is worthy of being proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" in legal terms.
I find the vote fallacious.
We are arguing about how old Earth REALLY IS, not how old it feels like to human researchers. I have proved my BoP.
Your reference to Einstein seemed wrong to me. Time was not disproved, just claimed to be a part of the universe like space. It's called spacetime.
You could literally say just the same way:
Since a line is made out of an infinite amount of points with no extension, therefore length does not exist.
Time does not exist. What a theory. Maybe not for a photon XD
To moderators: Benjamin’s awarding to effort is acceptable in my eyes, despite no category for this. There is no need to remove it.
That final round blitzkrieg... I still don’t think that time’s vagueness disproves “age” of something lol. Not to mention pro already asked one billion questions about God and you never answered
your argument is so gibberish man. It's not that the experience of Earth was over 10,000 years. That's not how you define Age. Reminds me of how seldiora takes this kind of debates lol.
Argument that is so simple but so few can think of yet it can prove something = absurd
That is also absurd.
what an absurd argument; I thought you were better than this. Mister Chris knows quite an amount to actually support con side
Also I forgot to change the 2nd and 3rd point of the syllogism after I have discovered that the past doesn't exist. The correct version should be:
"Quantum mechanics suggests that reality is an illusion, and that the past is an illusion too"
"Thus, Earth is 0 years old"
you could say no one's guilty of anything, but my Framework Expert addressed the equivalent.
(Plus, false information/indoctrination can be a crime, not to mention the Supreme Court decision)
There's also 40% of people statistic, but there's a significant difference between giving evidence in court and having 40% be unconvinced, rather than uninformed public.
If you can think what I am thinking, then perhaps you really are undefeatable.
Good luck. *laughs evilly* You're gonna need it.
I’m impressed by your audacity. Young earth creationism papers are slim to a handful
Nah. Not young earth creationism.