UnitedIssues U.S. Political Debates - Debate

"When was the Earth formed?"

Original Opinion by JamesBufkin (25)

Well by some estimates by people who have no idea what they're talking about the Earth is only a few thousand years old. On the other hand all the evidence suggests that the Earth is in fact 4.5 billion years old, at least.

A brief history of the Earth's formation goes a little something like this: There was a semi dense cloud of matter in the fast growing Milky Way Galaxy. This cloud contained mostly Hydrogen and Helium, but vast amounts of heavier elements (Iron, etc.) were present as well. A nearby shock wave, probably from a supernova, caused the cloud to compress and begin to spin and flatten. When most of the Hydrogen and Helium had gathered in a certain point it finally ignited due to gravitational forces and heat. The resulting mass, a Protostar (later to age into the Sun we know today). The flat disk of the proto-solar system began to separate into bands and these began gathering into balls matter as they to formed together and clumped into larger masses. One of these became the Earth. Less massive at this time, it was entirely molten and had no moon.

The moon was formed when early Earth collided with a Mars size object. While the Earth took the planet Theia's core enough of the material from both the Earth and Theia joined to form a new object the Moon. This impact also gave Earth seasons by tilting it on it's axis. Uranium dating techniques have found the oldest rocks in the world to be around 4.35 billion years old, around the time the surface truly began cooling. Thus the Earth-Moon system was formed.

The massive amounts of water that cover the Earth came from the elemental Oxygen and Hydrogen in the atmosphere and molten rocks and also later during bombardments by comets.

As the sun aged it also gained mass and has grown to become a middle aged (5 billion years old), average, yellow star. Life later showed up something like 3.9 billion years ago, but I'll leave that story for an Abiogenesis debate.

Responses

"*sigh*" by Ronws23 (16)

If it was so obvious, i guess that makes 95% of the world who believes in a higher being an idiot, right?

Also, the universe just popped out of thin air right? So there was nothing there before, and randomly something popped up and everything came to exist. Sounds very similar to Genesis

"Only those who ignore the evidence..." by JamesBufkin (25)

If you ignore evidence of natural processes, that is to say OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, then you are by definition ignorant. I never called anyone an idiot nor do I believe that being ignorant makes you stupid, it can make you look stupid, but only if you're stubborn about it.

Another point I'd like to address is that you stated that 95% of the world believes in a, quote-unquote, higher being. It would seem, based on recent polls, that only 83% (this is the best estimate I could come up with from the range of information I found) of the world's population believed in some form of god. But that is besides the point. I find it hilarious that you are trying to pull off the logical fallacy "argument from majority" when those who believe in the same things as you (they share your religion) don't even form a true majority (at best Christianity is the faith of 1/3 of the world's population and half of those are catholic).

Lastly I never mentioned the Big Bang, if you wish to debate that topic then please, be my guest, form a new thread. But instead of speculating without proper evidence I wish to have a debate with you where you can cite your sources.

Source(s):

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_people_are_atheists
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf

"Sure" by Ronws23 (16)

Now I don't want to argue about percentages, but your 17% is a little bit off.

I think we have similar sources, and that includes nonreligious, Agnostics, and Atheists. So the number of die hard Atheists in the world is a few percentage points down, around 10 or below %.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html


So I guess we are both wrong with our numbers.




Anyways, my rebuttal.

Think of it this way: If I told you 1 + 1 = 2, and you wouldn't believe me, how would I prove it?

I would use equations, facts, all that good stuff and eventually by science mathematically prove once and for all 1 + 1 = 2.

This is similar, that Atheists are trying persuade by using science and "natural process" that a God cannot exist.

So my question is why the number of Atheists so low if there is a such a quote, "OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE" ?

Now you will probably say we are stubborn but I know for a fact we are not, as I hear plenty of stories of de-conversions, switching religions, every single day.

I believe it's because there is, and always will be, a giant gap in your arguments, like with the Big Bang Theory ( which I won't get into ).

It just doesn't add up. Scientists have been trying to prove it to us for hundreds of years, and yet they still can't provide one major thing other than Evolution that will persuade the billions of religious people.


And every single day we get evidence to support there being a higher being, and yet you too are just ignoring the facts: http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah%27s_ark.htm


Argue with it all you want, we won't get anywhere, we are arguing facts and theories against facts and theories.




Also, Carbon Testing has been wrong before, just thought I should bring that up.

P.S. Your statement of "Well by some estimates by people who have no idea what they're talking about the Earth is only a few thousand years old" is invalid, there are Christian archeologist's that DO know what they are talking about.



But thanks, this was a fun debate.

"Burden of proof, faith, and hoaxes." by JamesBufkin (25)

Firstly I'd like to state that I'm not finished debating this topic yet.

And on to MY rebuttal. So, you decided to start off with a 1+1=2 argument. Your logic seems a little iffy to me, because if I didn't believe that 1+1 was equal to 2 then you couldn't prove it to me mathematically without first giving a definition for the numbers and the other parts of the equation. Also your analogy to it being what Atheists are trying to do doesn't make sense to me. Any intelligent Atheist knows that they cannot prove a negative therefore why try and also therefore the burden of proof lies with those who can provide evidence to back up their claims.

To answer why the number of Atheists is so low, it is because there are countries where information is muddled by those who don't want their followers to know the truth. The followers are instructed to follow faith which they believe is a virtue though it follows little to no logic. Plus, Atheists do not make up such a small fraction of the population, 10% (not including closet atheists) is rather high for a single demographic. Stubbornness has much to do with it but disinformation effects it more.

Scientists aren't necessarily trying to persuade anyone, they're mainly attempting to find out as much about the natural world as they can. Saying that Evolution is the only main point Scientists has ever made is misleading as well. Look at Geology (plate tectonics, seismography), Astronomy (lives of stars and galaxies, black holes, the accelerating expansion of the Universe, dark matter), Particle Physics (quantum mechanics, electrons, protons, quarks, M-theory (formerly string theory), atomic theory, antimatter), Newtonian Mechanics (kinematics, gravity), General Relativity/Special Relativity (E=mc^2, Space-Time fabric, speed of light), Genetics (DNA, RNA, mutations, modified descent, diseases), just to name a few.

Next I'd like to talk about your "facts" pertaining to the link about Noah's Ark. Sure I find the information intriguing, but has any real nameable scientist (with a Masters or PHD) been consulted? I saw no names and the evidence provided seems merely anecdotal. I'm under the impression that this may be connected to a hoax to increase tourism. The alloys found couldn't possibly have existed back in Noah's day. Besides, even if there was an Ark it doesn't prove there was a worldwide flood or divine intervention or a round number of rainy days for that matter. My problem with the Ark story is that if there were a flood across the ENTIRE EARTH then where did all the water go? Why didn't all the fish die in the brackish water? How could Noah fit every single species out of billions on his boat (not to mention lions eating all the gazelles and whatnot)? If there were only two of each animal how come they didn't die from all the incest (mutations)? Did Noah have access to animals in the Americas as well, or just those in Turkey? And if so how did those animals survive the flood? And finally, if God were all powerful why kill everything in such a roundabout way, why not just make it all disappear and start over? (This question can be modified to ask about anything God does in the Bible, including sending Jesus down).

Another point is that you state that what we argue are facts and theories against more such things. This is flawed in that SCIENTIFIC THEORIES are backed up by mounds of evidence and the facts surrounding them are 100% verifiable. On the other hand the creation side of the debate has meager evidence at best and mainly conjecture based on a book that doesn't even agree with itself.

You point out that Carbon dating isn't always right, and you are correct in this statement because it has a range of error. After 40,00 years its accuracy drops off quite a bit so other dating techniques are used, specifically Uranium dating and dating using other elements with long half-lives.

In closing, Archaeologists are not GEOLOGISTS, and do NOT deal with the age of the Earth. My point was that many evangelical Christians w/o credentials certainly love providing their opinion on the subject of the Earth's age, and these are the ones who know nothing of what they're talking about.

And thank you, I am also having fun in this debate. (Sorry if I'm being unkind, and I apologize for lack of sources in this response, but I feel strongly about this subject and I am well versed in my knowledge pertaining to this debate.)

"when was the earth formed ?" by mrmeangenes (23)

It seems silly to insist our planet was formed only a few thousand years ago, when the evidence otherwise is so clear.

There should be absolutely no conflict with biblical beliefs : presumably God would use whatever method of creation that suited His unknowable purposes; in "days" that might easily be billions of years long.

"Whatever" by Rammstein (8)

The Bible is nothing to take literally. A lot of what happens was written about after the fact. Also, some of the events that happened were impossible to understand by the average layman of the time. Read the book of Ezekiel. It is an attempt by the writer to describe an event that was totally beyond his comprehension.

"The Bible : Hmmm......" by mrmeangenes (23)

IMHO, the Bible was written by sincere and devout men - who then decided they had been Divinely inspired to write such a thing.Others heard of this-and wrote it down: "The Bible is Divinely inspired."

Among the "gems of wisdom" that raise my eyebrows are the notion Man was created in the image of God - which is a left-handed way of saying God was created in the image of Man (!)

Shades of the Greeks, Norse, Romans, etc. with their humanistic Gods : Hera arguing with Zeus in the kitchen, etc., etc.

I try to be as respectful of others' beliefs as possible - but have my reservations.

"Not exclusive" by BassemElghetany (12)

Just because there is scientific evidence, Ronws23, does not mean that the argument says there is no god. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Speaking of which, this has gone from a debate about the age of the earth, to demographics, to Noah's Ark, to the Bible. Off-topic much?

And James, if you ask about animals dying from mutations, what about humans? At one point, no matter how you look at it, there were only two humans of our species. Shouldn't we all be dead, or mutating with some creepy sickness, or all... different in a negative way? Since we are technically relatives.

"In the spirit of keeping on topic..." by JamesBufkin (25)

Bassem, to answer your question about Human mutations and to combat your clear misunderstandings of Evolution I shall create a new thread.

In short though, the processes that led to the eventual Homo sapiens sapiens species of today did involve mutations, some negative, but through natural selection any beneficial mutations lived on and the detrimental ones died out.

I'll go into further detail in my next thread.

"Anyone can have a theory." by OkComputer (12)

It was formed an eternity ago. It will exist for an eternity. That's my theory.