Debate (Re: A young Earth/old Earth classroom debate)

I'm in a tenth grade biology class, and we have a debate coming up. My team's topic is Old Earth Vs. New Earth. What are some good techniques and subjects to use? I should probably add that I'm a born-again Christian and firmly believe that that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. {Added "(Re: A young Earth/old Earth classroom debate)" to the topic title on 5/8/06. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-08-2006 02:47 PM

HI,Since you say: I should probably add that I'm a born-again Christian and firmly believe that that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Then surely you already have more than enough material to support your side of the debate.Why do you think that the Earth is only a few thousand years old ?Brian.

What side are you going to defend in this debate?

(In reply to Brian)It's true that I have more that enough material to support my side of the debate, but our teacher is not going to tell us which side we're debating until the day of the debate, thus we have to prepare arguments for both sides.As to why I believe as I do, almost all of the evidence I have seen and read points to a young earth. The purpose of this topic is not to debate my beliefs, however.[This message has been edited by The Ninja Monkey, 12-08-2003]

Do you want to practice here?If you can handle what will be dished out here then you will be well prepared for the debate.However, perhaps a few warnings will also help you to not get sideswiped if your opponenet is very well prepared.1) Some (many?) of the creationist web sites contain a lot of misinformation. In fact, some lie. You should probably not use any of them without going to talk origins to find out what the rebuttals are.
2) You may have to be a bit versed in many sciences. A well prepared opponent will note that there is support for an old earth from a number of different disciplines and they all tie together.3) If it gets really into the depths you may have to supply a replacement for most of physics, geology and biology. This is a big task that the creationist sites haven't tackled. You'll be a bit on your own. These sites are not really trying to get it right. They are only interested in fooling those who don't know too much.To prepare yoursef you could go the dates and dating and great flood fora and read over what is there.You could for example explain the concordance with many different methods of dating. I have yet to see this explained by any creationists or creationist sites.To be fair, maybe you should direct your opponents here too .Added by edit:Ah! Then if you have to argue either side then you had really better dig into what is here and at talkorigins. That is an excellent way to set up a debate though. Boy! It does make it a lot of work for both teams though. But it should make for an interesting debate.How long do you have to prepare? If you think you know the facts behind the argument then you are way off in your estimate. It is a BIG area since you the facts cross a lot of different disciplines of science.You might note that all the dates and dating threads seem to peter out when the young earthers stop trying. (anyone want to point out where I might have missed one? )[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-08-2003]

This was a way of helping you to organise your arguments, by informing me we could both have worked out your strong points and your weak points, but then I didn't know what your teacher had planned.I have organised dozens of classroom debates and I usually get the students to argue for the position that they are opposed to. But if you are a young earther already then you would still need to look at the weaknesses of the young earth stance.For example the fact that all scientific dating techniques come up with more or less the same results. That there is recorded history going back far longer than the 6000 year that the Bible claims (Jericho for example). I would say the weakest argument for the Bible's chronology is the Flood narratives, this was meant to have happened C. 4400 years ago, but many civilisations,the Egyptians and Chinese for example, have an much longer uninterupted history.Brian.

I am aware that many sites have inaccurate information, so I've tried to avoid everything that is not well-documented. I'm sending the other two students on my debate team a link to this thread. As for my opponents, they're on their own. If they ask, I'll send them here.

Again if you want help it might be useful for you to list your evidence. I would guess that almost all (if not all) of what you think you have has already been discussed here and critised pretty firmly.There are a number of young earth "proofs" that still are put forward by some creationist sites that have been recognized as wrong by others. You might want to avoid those.There are another set that are very old and easily cut to pieces. For example, the moon dust one, the helium one, the sea saltiness one, the magnetic field decrease one and the super novae one.On the other hand if you want to argue a young earth you need to deal with the dating method agreement, SN1987A (the recent supernova), the geologic column (in detail), the ordering of fossils to just give a small start to the problem.

Ha! And why should they ask? Hehehe, you have a secret weapon why expose it too soon (or at all).There are some young earthers here too by the way. They may chime in to help with that side of it.Could you refer to the "well documented" material? That would be interesting if it is new to anyone here. We haven't seen much new.added by edit
Are there any specific ground rules for the debate? How much time to you have to present each step? How will it be judged? Do you know the leanings of your audience?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-08-2003]

Try http://www.talkorigins.comThat should help if you end up debating for the old earth side.------------------
Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

It doesn't matter which side you are debating for that material needs to be looked at anyway. You need to be prepared for what the opponent is going to throw at you.

Cool. Thanks a lot.

They do have the fact that the dust on the moon should be a squillion feet thick if the Earth is billions of years old. Or that the sun should reach all the way to pluto if the universe is old.They actually could use these arguments at this level.Brian

Oh yea, they could. But if the otherside is prepared they will be in something deep but not dust!

LOL, just out of interest Ned, what would be your best argument for a 6007 year old Earth Brian.