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

LOL yourself, You bugger! That's going to take some thinking. I'll get back to you.

Ok, I'll give you a starter. Lots of people are tossing around talkorigins.org. Also look at its creationist counterpart, trueorigins.org.What you should do is start with the creationist argument, since you're more familiar with it. Write down every last "evidence" that you feel points to a young earth. Then, once you've got your list, go to talkorigins.org and look up their rebuttal to each point that you raise (if you have one that's not on there, come back and let us know).Since you're not going to be as familiar with the old earth side, I'll go ahead and give you some things to chew on.Missing Isotopes: Why are they missing? Of course God could create the earth making it look old, but is he one big cosmic prankster?Stellar age limit: It is perfectly possible for stars to live far longer than ~14 billion years. And yet, not a star in the universe is older than that - even though many of them currently out there *will* live longer than that. Is God pulling a joke on us?Distant Stars: Why would God create parts of the universe and make them billions of light years away, but create light "en route" (including star deaths that would place the star's death before he actually created the universe) to make people think that the universe was old? Is he a prankster?Fossil ordering. Why are there *never* crustaceans lower than trilobytes? Why are there never grasses lower than the top few layers? Why are sharks and mammals sorted so that they generally trend to larger the higher up you get, but other lines taking the opposite path? The entire fossil record (literally millions upon millions of fossils) is sorted consistantly without regard to size, shape, and habitat - only with regard to *layer*. It is consistant to the extent that the initial explanation (proposed back when all scientists were creationist) was that there had been "multiple creations", each one made to look like the previous one with slight changes. Why would God make it look that way?Impossible layers: How would a flood deposit footprints, delicate egg cases, age-old coral reefs and their entire delicately balanced ecosystems, water-soluable minerals, chalk, etc? More tricks from God?Isochron dating: Learn about isochron dating, and be prepared to explain why isochron dating, along with mixing tests, ensures that there was not simply a ton of daughter product in the original. Is God trying trick us somehow?Radioisotope confirmation: Why do multiple methods *almost always* confirm each other? Thousands of samples are dated annually, and the method keeps coming back with consistant results (permian dates as permian, precambrian dates as precambrian, etc). We have all sorts of isotopes with different half lives, but *they return the same value* almost always (with known exceptions). Why would they do this? If the answer is "radioisotopes all decayed faster in the past", do realize that this would reduce the planet to molten slag. Is this some cosmic joke?This should be a good start - have at it! In short, God can do anything that he wants, but why would he go to such extents to "fake us out"? That should be your argument as an evolutionist.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

My best argument for a 6K Earth is that apparently is sufficient time for the Sun's intense heat to warp a flat earth into a globe.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-08-2003]

quote:

---

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.

---

I am curious, and a bit disturbed by this post. Why is a biology class having debates at all? And if it is going to be teaching debate skills, why would it not be on something related to biology (OE vs NE is purely geology and physics)?Has the teacher taught you about geology or physics at all, or is this supposed to come from the debates of students?Have they ever mentioned in science classes before this, how people came to date the earth, and how fossils are dated based off of those methods?Where in any of this (including research) is there something learned about biology itself?Do you know what the orientation of you teacher is toward OE vs NE before the debates?What particular NE date are you supposed to be arguing for, the Judeo-Xian one? Where is this source coming from except by injecting Bible literature into the class?Is the victory of one side or the other supposed to have some impact on religious belief, or just scientific belief?And if the NE side comes off better, is the teacher supposed to just ignore this outcome, or worse yet start teaching NE based biology? Not to mention, how is the teacher supposed to continue teaching OE based biology, if rectification is not made?Does that situation not in itself pose a problem for the teacher as the teacher will have to side with one group of students, or give up teaching science as we know it? I mean this is not like debating abortion, or some purely philosophical issue. Science has made a conclusion and OE is it.Essentially this is forcing students to debate something as ridiculous as phlogiston vs combustion, or stationary land masses vs continental drift... or more appropriate to biology homunculi vs genetic material in sperm.To be honest, this sounds like some teacher is doing a very poor job of teaching science, and more specifically biology. Science is not a debate, it is a process of analyzing evidence.And anyway it seems that if the schools had done a good job teaching science when they should have been teaching science, the students wouldn't need to be debating this particular topic IN CLASS at the tenth grade level.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

My best argument for a 6K Earth is that apparently that is sufficient time for the Sun to warp the flat earth into a globe.

---

Well anyone knows that was going to happen anyway, due to the torque forces of the sun going around the earth. What may be more significant, since it is not as obvious, is how long it took for earth's gravity to shape round heads into points.------------------
holmes

Apparently in some cases, gravity dragged the brain out of the cranium and relocated it in a lower, more fatty region.

You asked:
"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?"It's relatively short, only about 5 minutes for an opening statment (x2) 5 for a rebuttal(x2)and 5 for each closing statement.
Our teacher will judge it based on how well prepared we are, not how many people we convince. Our audience, a small class made up of mostly christians, will almost definintely be leaning toward a younger earth.

Wow! Waaaaay too short!Brians request for one best piece of evidence is very, very pertinent to either side.We should pick the best 3 of each. I still haven't figued out any for the young earth side, maybe the creationists can do that.My choice for the old earth side are:1) Agreement of radiometric dating methods
2) The geologic column and it's nature in detail
3) The non radiometric dating methods and their agreement with radiometric.And as a bonus:
4) The nature of the fossil record (the detail that forced the original creationists to postulate multiple creations then more creations then so darn many they had to give it up )

Wow. That's a lot of questions, and I probably can't answer them all, but I'll start here: The class is based from a Creationist perspective ( Private Christian school), and the teacher has been teaching NE based biology. We have also been taught evolution and evolutionary theories, and I think that the purpose of the debate is to see things from both perspectives. I may be wrong, but I believe that that the age of the earth (and thus life) has a lot do with biology (the study of life).

quote:

---

Our audience, a small class made up of mostly christians, will almost definintely be leaning toward a younger earth.

---

You do realize that there are almost as many Christian believers in theistic evolution in the US as there are Christian creationists of all stripes, right? And that belief in young-earth creationism is a fairly isolated phenomina in first-world nations, confined mostly to the US, Australia, and a few other countries? I.e., most Christians worldwide are not creationist - they believe in theistic evolution.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Wow. That's a lot of questions, and I probably can't answer them all, but I'll start here: The class is based from a Creationist perspective ( Private Christian school), and the teacher has been teaching NE based biology.

---

Ahhhhhhhhh... that explains an awful lot. Well, if you want to toast them, as I mentioned, just write down all of your arguments for a Young Earth, and then take notes from all of the talkorigins rebuttals for your arguments. Also add in new arguments, such as the ones I and many others have mentioned above. And, by all means, feel free to come in here and practice debating!------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Oh boy! That would be fun! A teacher and the class stacked against you in the debate. It would be nice to have about 10 times as much time though. But still fun to be there.I guess the context answers all of holmes's questions too. He was very perceptive wasn't he?I guess, Ninja, you wouldn't want to take the young earth side in an ongoing debate here would you? You could get your class and the teacher to help you out. We'd love to have them all pile on! Heck, bring the whole school and all the teachers.

Thank you ninja for being up front about this. I have to say yours is one of the most upsetting posts I have ever read on this forum.I am going to be very candid with you, but I hope you do not take it as something less than serious, or as a direct insult to you (or your faith).Your teacher is not teaching you proper science. While debate occurs within science it is not handled in the same style as debates which take place in English or Philosophy classrooms.Most certainly debates cannot be held in the cavalier style you described in another post. It takes a careful presentation of painstakingly accumulated evidence drawn into a positive model. There is no such thing as delivering strikes against an "opponent's position" in order to build your own case. Your own case must stand on its own merits.More importantly, your teacher has stepped beyond science to claim that (s)he is teaching NE biology. There simply is no such thing. She can certainly try and advance such a position, but it is not the current model and to teach you from that perspective is not just errant, it cheats you and your fellow students of knowledge you will need if you continue with biology.Then to get specific, your teacher is not teaching you proper biology. While an OE does impact what kind of biological models you can create, it is not a part of biology. The evidence comes from wholly separate fields and should not be addressed in a casual manner as some pretext to learning a minor (and controversial) biological model.It is by properly understanding geology, physics, and chemistry that one comes to an understanding of an OE, and from that evolutionary theory is possible. However, evolutionary theory does not drive geology, physics, and chemistry.What's more your teacher has conflated science into the realm of religion. Or as some may argue has reduced religion to science. The truth is that OE theories conflict with Xianity, only if one must read genesis literally.There are many Xians who are evolutionary theorists, and even among Xians who doubt evolutionary theory (ie are creationists) most understand that scientific evidence points toward an OE. You can find such Xians at discovery.org.I hope you take this information seriously and begin to question the validity of what you are being exposed to. The teacher may be nice and well meaning, but the methods and subjects are seriously flawed, and will not help you if you intend to pursue science as a career (even if you decide to remain a Xian, or a creationist).------------------
holmes

You're right, I wouldn't want to take the creationist side in an ongoing debate here, but I can invite the class. That wouldn't be very fair though, would it? A bunch of 15 year-olds and a teacher fresh out of college against you guys? For fun though we could try it the other way around....