Creationism (con) Evolution (Pro)

Please form the arguments in a way that is not all scrunched up. Very hard to read it. Space them out or use click "Rich Text" above the text box in the "Post an argument" field.So this is now like a young vs old earth, but that's fine1. Earth spinningSince the day length is connected with the Moon recession discussed in your next argument a linear equation is too simplistic to model this case as well. Uniformitarianism is usually dismissed for phenomena such as radioactive decay, for which no mechanisms of rate change are known, yet insists on using uniformitarian assumptions in places where they are clearly wrong and there are obvious mechanisms for rate changes.The evidence listed in from tidal rhythmites suggests that 2.45 billion years ago the day was 17.1-18.9 hours long [1]While it is true that the Earth's rotation is slowing down, it is not doing so at a rate that would stop it in a few million years. The constant rate at which leap seconds are added does not demonstrate that the earth is slowing down that quickly.Earth's rotation is slowing down mainly due to the presence of the Moon, which is also receding from Earth. This process is called tidal locking. It did not occur before the Moon was formed, and will not continue to occur after spin-orbit resonance is achieved. That will be when one Earth month is the same as one Earth day (both being 55 "current" days). This will take about 15 billion years to occur. The Sun will not even last that long, so it's a pretty moot point. The rate of the Moon's recession, and also of the Earth's slowing spin, is also decreasing with time.Creationists who use this claim fail to, or refuse to appreciate how slow the rate of slowing actually is... 450 million years ago, days in the Ordovician period were around 22 hours long.[2][3]2. Lunar recessionThe moon is currently receding at 3.8 cm/year[4] and is 3.8*10^10 cm from the Earth. This allows perfectly well for a billion-year time scale.The moon's recession and the Earth's slowing are perfectly consistent with them both being billions of years old. In fact, if you assume that the function is linear (it's not), you end up with an age for both Earth and the moon that is actually quite a lot older than they actually are. This is because the rate of the moon's recession and Earth's slowing spin is, itself, slowing down. Using a linear equation to model Moon recession is too simplistic to give anything even close to correct results. Moving a satellite into a higher orbit, or away from the primary object, requires energy input. Recession of the Moon is caused by tidal friction, which converts the rotational energy of the Earth into the potential energy of the Moon,[5] and tidal friction in turn depends on the layout of the continents, which was different in the past. Evidence from tidal rhythmites — sediment deposits that show a thinly layered structure with each layer corresponding to one Moon orbit, similar to tree rings — indicates that 2.45 billion years ago the Moon was just 10% closer to the Earth than at present.[6] 3.Human growthIf this growth curve was accurate, there were only 13 people in Egypt during the construction of the pyramids We can be certain that 4,500 years ago, there were far more than six people. 2500 BC corresponds to the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt[7] which saw the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza,[8][9] and the Mature Harappan period of the Indus Valley Civilization[10] during which it was most prosperous. Note that these are before the standard Great Flood date of 2348 BC.[11] In fact, a Jesuit missionary, Martino Martini,[12] who was sent to China in the 1650s, was shocked to find that Chinese records chronicled the Imperial dynasty from the first emperor in 2952 BC. An emperor, of course, requires a large population to rule over, not a single individual. Even to a strict Jesuit the Chinese records appeared more reliable and detailed than those of the Jews, they contained no gaps, even the earliest entries were written by contemporary authors, they were strictly factual without any reference to myths or legends, and they could be cross-referenced to the dates of solar eclipses calculated by European astronomers.[13] The linked article says that of course the growth rate has changed, but still fails to consider that in some periods, more people died than were born, which meant the population growth was negative. e.g., the Black Death [14] epidemic in 14th century Europe, which exterminated almost a fourth of humanity. The reality is that, as we see in animals today, the human population was relatively static for much of our history, and determined by the carrying capacity[15] of the environment — quality of soil, fresh water, diseases, weather, and so on. Only our technical advances in agriculture and medicine have allowed us to dramatically expand the carrying capacity of the Earth and thus increase our population Arguments for Old earth!Permafrost The formation of permafrost (frozen ground) is a slow process. To be consistent with the young earth creationist model, which states that all sediment was deposited by the Global Flood, there would have to be absolutely no permafrost present at the end of the flood, because any permafrost that was present at the moment of creation would have been melted during the flood. Because earth is a good insulator and permafrost forms downward from the surface, it would have taken much more than the few thousand years allotted by creation theory to produce some of the deepest permafrost. In the Prudhoe Bay oil fields of Alaska, the permafrost which extends over 600 meters into the ground is believed to have taken over 225,000 years to reach present depth.[16] Radioactive decay Radioactive decay is the constant predictable decay of unstable atoms into more stable isotopes or elements. Measurements of atomic decay are generally considered one of the most accurate ways of measuring the age of an object, and these measurements form the basis for the scientifically accepted age of the Earth. There are many different variations of the radiometric dating technique such as radiocarbon, argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, potassium-argon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, uranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, and uranium-uranium, of which every single one will date objects far older than 10,000 years.[17] Because radiometric dating is one of the most commonly used methods of determining age, these techniques are under constant attack from young earth supporters. A few creationists, armed with only a cursory knowledge and a desire to think that they're better than scientific "experts", may misunderstand the process of radiometric decay and just not believe it works. This is often accompanied by ignoring the high concordance of radiometric methods. However, the most frequently used method of attack is to give examples of objects of known ages that were dated incorrectly. These instances are by far the exception rather than the rule and are usually due to unforeseen contamination or other errors that can be quickly identified and compensated for. This is not "cheating" and forcing results to confirm to expectations as many young earth creationists may claim, it is making the data as accurate and precise as possible (if it is "cheating" then cleaning your camera lens to get a better and clearer picture is also cheating).[1] I didn't have enough space to post all sources, but I uploaded them all to a text hosting sitethey can be viewed here http://tny.cz...[5]http://www.youtube.com... ^ Video on lunar retreat