Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#5155

Young Earth is the Truth

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Twelve hours
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1522
rating
18
debates
58.33%
won
Description

I believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, I am a follower of Christ and take the bible as fact, so I believe that the Earth is 10,000 years or younger.

-->
@BUTTERBEAN

I agree that the way many scientists today interpret the radiocarbon dating of fossils is flawed, but you completely missed the mark on the most damning piece of evidence against it. And I think I know why.

When scientists look at the amount of carbon in a fossil, they're checking for how much carbon-12 and carbon-14 there is. The ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere today is 1/1,000,000,000,000. So, when they look at the amount of carbon-12 in a fossil, all they need to do is divide that by 1 trillion, and that's the amount of carbon-14 there was in the fossil when it died. Compare that to the amount there is today, and you can determine how old it is based on how long it would have taken for that starting amount of carbon-14 to have decayed into the current amount of carbon-14.

But it is the assumption that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere has been 1/1,000,000,000,000 for millions of years that distorts scientists' conclusions. In reality, there was significantly less carbon-14 and significantly more carbon-12 in the atmosphere back then. Why? Because the earth's magnetic field was stronger back then, causing it to deflect more cosmic rays, so less cosmic rays end up turning nitrogen-14 into carbon-14, thus there is less carbon-14 in the atmosphere. And there was very likely more animal life back then, all land animals of which exhaling carbon dioxide, which would all consist of carbon-12, increasing the amount of carbon-12 in the atmosphere back then.

So the resulting fossils have more carbon-12 and less carbon-14 than what scientists assume for a fossil that is as old as it actually is, because they think that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has been 1/1,000,000,000,000 all that time ago, even though it was actually a lot smaller than that.

I suspect that the reason you missed this was because you didn't actually do enough research to adequately argue for your point. All you had was a handful of pieces of knowledge you remembered, and tried your absolute hardest to make the most out of those few, not very convincing pieces of evidence. I suspected this because I've done it in the past.

Bump

These arguments are just a poor excuse for a reason.

The yapping is profoundly concentrated in extraordinary amounts within this debate.

-->
@BUTTERBEAN

"carbon-14 is a radioactive element that is supposed to break down in a few thousand years, according to modern science. This element is found in diamonds and fossils, which means that fossils can not be millions of years old"

Woah! What a conclusion! So crazy..
Let me just say that "carbon-14" which is an "element" is not only found in diamonds and fossils.... shocking.
It is also naturally formed in the upper atmosphere through the interaction of cosmic rays with nitrogen atoms. (What relevant sources say)

So much for conspiracy theories.. now it's my turn to make a conclusion. Your argument is a failed argument and a fallacy as well.. and to spice things up a bit.. your argument is not only a failed argument and a fallacy as well..

Let that confuse you.. but the pattern is directly relevant to the way of how I made the conclusion.