Age of The Earth (Team Debate)

Argument From Genetic EntropyPoint mutations per generation are around 75-175 novel mutating per generation of humans [1]. However, there are more types of mutations than substitutions. It is estimated that for every substitution mutation there is at least one micro-satellite mutation doubling the rate to around 150-350 mutations [2].Now how many bad or deleterious mutations are there compared to the beneficial ones. Below is a diagram adapted from population geneticist, Dr. Motoo Kimura which shows the distribution of mutations. [3]image1As seen here, Dr. Kimura shows that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious and more importantly, cannot be selected out of the population. With the distribution, it can be deducted that most, if not all mutations that are passed to the next generation are deleterious. Therefore the human genome is losing functionality over time. Natural selection cannot eliminate all the deleterious mutations because as seen in the distribution, most mutations fall within the shaded region meaning that most mutations are not deleterious or beneficial enough to give an organism a disadvantage or advantage that nature can select. Geneticists are in agreement that the human genome is degrading. The decline of fitness of the human species is calculated to be around 1-2% per generation according to a study by Dr. Crow. [4]If we were to take Crow's figures and plot them over 300 generations (6,000-9,000) years, it would look something like this.Image 2Classic exponential decay. Now if you look at the lifetimes of biblical figures post-Flood, you would see a very similar trend. [5]Image 3Given the extremely low chance that the ancient authors of the Bible would fabricate a biological decay curve the data is consistent with the Biblical timeline of the Earth. Argument From Gravitational Lunar RecessionThe argument from genetic entropy in conjunction with lunar gravitational recession shall lend further support for the Biblical age of the Earth.Quite simply the moon has been accurately measured to be moving away from the Earth about 1.5 inches every year due to both tidal and gravitational interactions. Since the moon is moving away, going toward the past would result in the recession of the moon at an exponential rate as the gravitational force of the Earth would "pull" the moon in at a faster rate as it came closer.Since the moon is currently spiralling away, in the past it would have been much closer within a timeframe much shorter than 4.5Gy. At less than 1.5Gy ago the moon would have reached the Rouche Limit, a point at which life would not be able to exist on Earth and which the moon could not exist. [6]Image 4According to astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle, "Six thousand years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet (250 m) closer to the earth (which is not much of a change considering the moon is a quarter of a million miles, or 400,000 km, away). So this “spiraling away” of the moon is not a problem over the biblical timescale of six thousand years." [7]Argument From Planetary Magnetic Field DecayPlanetary magnetic field decay describes the process by which Earth's magnetic field, which is produced via current in the metallic core, decays or diminishes in strength over time. This decay is accepted by both secular and creation scientists. "Ever since scientists generated the first global model of Earth’s magnetic field nearly 180 years ago, its strength has decreased by some 10 percent." [8] The key issue of whether or not this supports a young Earth is how the magnetic field could maintain itself for more than thousands of years. Recent records of the International Geomagnetic Reference Field, the most accurate ever taken, show a net energy loss of 1.4% in just three decades (1970–2000). This means that the field’s energy has halved every 1,465 years or so. At this rate, the Earth cannot be much older than about 10 or 20,000 years, which is consistent with the Bible's historical timeframe of the Earth. [9]Image 5Our argument from planetary magnetic field decay greatly supports our case and is consistent the other two arguments. We will be happy to expand on and defend our case in the next round. We look forward to our opponent's case.Our images did not show up so we left image 1, 2 etc. and will try to include them in subsequent rounds.References1: Kondrashov, A.S. 2002. Direct Estimate of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases. Human Mutation 21:12-272: Ellegren, H. 2000. Microsatellite mutations in the germline: implications for evolutionary interference. TIG 16:551-5583: Kimura, M. 1979. Model of effective neutral mutations in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-34444: Crow, J.F. 1997. The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? PNAS 94:8380-83865: http://tinyurl.com...6: https://answersingenesis.org...7: https://answersingenesis.org...8: https://www.sciencenews.org...9: https://answersingenesis.org...