Who settled the debate and if it's settled, why is it still being disputed?
Scientists settled the debate, which is why the "debate" is really just a matter of those who are knowledgeable about the facts arguing with those who are mostly ignorant of them.
Ignorance is why there's still a dispute. Not everyone is aware of all the different ways in which creationism has been disputed; and, even then, a fair number of people have been told by their churches that they have to
ignore whatever evidence they see that contradicts their church's teachings.
Proven wrong by whom?
By the evidence.
Why is this debate ongoing if the debate is over???
It's not. There is no debate. Creationists steadfastly
refuse to take part in the scientific debate; rather, they prefer to use things like the court system to shoehorn a scientifically-disproven model into public school science classes.
That doesn't sound like a debate to me. That sounds like what you do when you're trying to force acceptance of an ideology that can't be supported on its own merits.
Your problem is that you assume that creationists are honest people motivated by a need to generate a model that best fits the facts.
This is untrue. If they were like that they would be evolutionists. At one time they
were like that, and that's how evolution was developed - by
honest creationists who knew that a young earth and special creation simply couldn't be born out by the facts.
Rather, today's creationists are people who are commanded to uphold their model regardless of what evidence is laid before them; because creationism is a position you have to take on faith, not on facts.
Are they based on as many presuppositions as radiometric dating?
Radiometric dating is not based on any presuppositions; rather it is based on sound science and observation. We have observations that confirm the reliability of the method back for at least 2 billion years. It's not any kind of a stretch to assume that the method works further back even than that.
™ Version 4.2