Creation vs. Evolution.

Wait, what do we see? Plagiarism? My opponent plagiarized his whole case, readers note: http://creation.com... Now, I will rebut his case but I think the above shows a lack of character and conduct should go to CON. 1. Defending radiometric dating 1. My opponent’s first argument is that elements, such as carbon, do not have a constant decay. His argument—pressure causes a change in decay—is laughable. Studies have been conducted using pressure techniques and the results are pressures maximum effect is less than 0.2%, which has no impact on dates the size of four billion (my data finds the earth to be 4.55 billion years old, the change, therefore, is nearly nothing and the resolution negated as even the change means the earth is over 4 billion years old). Now, my opponent must assume radioactive decay is not constant and is, on balance, very fast. Scientifically, he has already lost the debate. Radioactive decay occurring at a fast enough rate to cause creationism, the world would melt. A quote, “Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth.”1 2. My opponent’s second point, also, is total hooey. His point is these rocks could have been contaminated and, therefore, their results altered. The parent daughter products cause problems in the results, in other words. Sadly for my opponent, C14’s daughter product is nitrogen, which has no effect in determining an objects age. The main contamination in the specimens is things such as dirt entering the rock. This point does not help my opponent as earthy infestation makes the specimen appear younger, in other words many samples with contamination are older, not younger, so the young earth position is again untenable. So there are only two situations in this argument. 1) The C14 dating is accurate, the world is 4.55 billion years old, resolution negated, or 2) C14 readings are foul, but the contamination almost always makes the age seem younger (so the rock is older), so the earth is over 4.55 billion years old. Either way you view it, young earth creationism is negated as the earth is 4.55 billion years old or slightly higher.2 My opponent criticizes other dating systems (namely uranium). However, many rocks stay “enclosed” and uranium turns into lead 206 (and there is a chain which I will not explain). On balance, the uranium method is accurate as it is confirmed (within 1%) by C14 readings. And due to the fact it is enclosed and turns into lead, even if some does leak out, we can still estimate its age.3 my opponent argues Argon can be contaminated. I don’t see how Argon or uranium are relevant, though, if I have proved C14 proves an old earth and C14 is accurate. So to the voters: point refuted, mainstream dating methods prove an old earth and are accurate. 3. My opponent’s anomalies case is, actually, cherry picking the evidence. The dating on the lava was not dating the lava, rather xenoliths inside the lava. In other words, the laval flow is not that old but the materials in the lava was (and, your argunment makes no sense anyway. Lava from Mt. St. Helens is older then the explosion because it was sitting underground for years…) anyway, my opponents arguments fail because they where not dating the lava itself, rather the other things mixed into it.4And again, this is irrelevant as I have proven C14 to be accurate and C14 proves an old earth. Therefore, I win the debate unless he can disprove C14 dating which he has failed to do. Also, in my opponents case, he accepts the C14 dating (is it 14C? I don’t now…) which states would being 45,000 years old… He just conceded right there as this is over 6000. My opponent then cites the creation institute and throws in the words PHD (I shouldn’t say my opponent, I should be saying the source he plagiarized from). However, the creation institute is highly discredited in scientific communities. 2. Refuting his evidence Dino blood? What is hilarious is the study claiming this was hugely discredited. The study found a well-preserved bone, and no red blood cells where present. The study merely stated something that looked like blood was in the bones, however looking like and being are two different things. The study even concluded more research must be done, and their results are far from conclusive. In reality, creationist websites are cherry picking their claims in order to promote religious ideals. The New York Times noted, “Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed. Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells, although a chemical stain that recognizes DNA picked up something in the holes where the bone cells would have rested.” In other words, abnormal bone cells, not blood, was discovered. My opponents plagiarized argument merely cherry picks data.5 Evidence for the helium claim is based on outdated techniques and flawed methodology.6 A study in 1996 totally destroys my opponents claim. Helium is a very light atom and often rises to the upper atmosphere and reaches a velocity high enough to escape. The thermal escape for helium almost refutes my opponents point; a second one must be accounted for. Helium in the atmosphere is also ionized and follows the earth’s magnetic lines. When ion escape is considered, “he escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements.”7 In other words, 1/1000 is to be expected and my opponents point refuted. My opponent then uses the weak supernova argument. Stage three supernova remnants are common and six scientific papers in the late 80’s and 90’s prove these events occur and the evidence does not prove a young earth. These studies have also shown the creationist arguments are based on cherry picking, mis-quoting, and false paraphrasing. No scientific basis for my opponent’s position exists.8 Mon recession… Actually, the moon currently and in the past has only been moving away .29-2 cm a year—almost nothing—and based on all published evidence the moon position in relation to the earth is what to expect given the old age of the earth (yes, its normal, not abnormal as pro would have you believe). “As for the real science, remember that science is not a static pursuit, and the Earth-moon tidal evolution is not an entirely solved system. There is a lot that we know, and we do know a lot more than we did even 20 years ago. But even if we don't know everything, there are still some arguments which we can definitely rule out. A 10,000 year age (or anything like it) definitely falls in that category, and can be ruled out both by theory and practice.”9 Creationism fails based on the current moon data, and the only sources showing my opponents point where funded by churches and have been refuted by scientists across the world for methodological problems. CONCLUSION: Note, evolution stands undefeated. Also, I would like to note my opponent plagiarized his case… He has given no adequate rebuttal and he has not given any credible or convincing evidence for a young earth. With that, I see it impossible for a pro win and urge a pro vote. http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.talkorigins.org...