Need advice

Agent Fisher · Post by **Agent Fisher** » 2005-09-09 05:22pm

Ok, so I am a virgin when it comes to debating. But now I have gotten myself a debate with a YEC in a week. And since I go to a small christian college, I can bet my fellow christians here are all YEC or dont have the knowledge needed to help me. So, this is an SOS.

Help me, SDnet, your my only hope.

One of his arguements is that Carbon 14 is not accurate past 2000 years. Now, I know that it isnt good past a certain amount of years, but I need help. I am way over my head and I cant back down. Oh, and they also say, depending on if the item was submerged, that affects the results. Also, he is using the evolution doesnt provide morality. And I keep pointing out that morality has nothing to do with wether evolution is true.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-09-09 05:31pm

The accuracy for carbon-14 is reliable up to 50,000 years or so. Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years, so the claim that it's inaccurate past 2000 years is wrong.

As for evolution lacking morality.. that's absolutely true. Evolution is an amoral process, as is gravity, and many small children. Morality doesn't have to be hardwired into reality to be valid.

But besides that, Carbon-14 accuracy may not matter. I believe many fossils are dated by the strata that they're found in. Carbon-14 dating is primarily used by archeologists.

Besides all of this, explain to him that even if evolution can't be proven with absolute certainty, young earth creationism is obviously wrong. If the universe were only 6000 years old, then it's an absolute impossibility that we'd be recieving light from stars further then 6000 light years away. We're recieving light from thingies that are up to 14 billion light years away, so the universe must be at least that old, unless you entirely disreguard the laws of physics, in which case there's no way you can make a logical argument.

Agent Fisher · Post by **Agent Fisher** » 2005-09-09 05:35pm

I didnt think of the light form the stars. Thats a good one. Oh, and I dont know his views on how old the universe is, but he does say 6000 for the Earth, so maybe that wont work on him. Oh, and I just remembered another thing. He was talking about red shift and an ever expanding universe, I didnt get what he was trying to get across. Anyone have any ideas what he might have been trying to convey?

Quadlok · Post by **Quadlok** » 2005-09-09 05:43pm

On the carbon 14 front, point out to him that it is only one of many radioisotopes that can be used to measure the approximate age of an object. Thorium, Uranium, and many other elements have very long half lives that can be used to date objects back between tens of thousands and billions of years. Uranium 238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-09-09 05:51pm

As to red shift, it sounds like he must have been talking about the universal expansion that's occuring in the universe. The red shift is a kind of doppler shift (Sort of...). Because objects are moving away from us, the light from them is shifted towards a longer wavelength and when it's moving towards us, it's shifted towards shorter wavelengths. Objects moving away from us appear red, and it appears that the majority of objects in the universe are moving away from each other in what's apparently a universal expansion.

I don't know why a YEC would talk about this. It supports big bang theory in that it appears the universe is expanding, and Einstein's theory of relativity, when applied to the whole universe, implies that the universe must either begin or end in a singularity.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2005-09-09 06:05pm

You want some advice - save yourself the effort and the frustration. You're not going to change his mind, no matter how good your argument is, and he isn't going to change yours.

anybody_mcc · Post by **anybody_mcc** » 2005-09-09 07:25pm

Zero132132 wrote:I don't know why a YEC would talk about this. It supports big bang theory in that it appears the universe is expanding, and Einstein's theory of relativity, when applied to the whole universe, implies that the universe must either begin or end in a singularity.

But i would not use the part about singularity , since relativity is probably not the best way to describe things in the very early universe ( 10e-44s and "earlier" ).

anybody_mcc · Post by **anybody_mcc** » 2005-09-09 07:28pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote:You want some advice - save yourself the effort and the frustration. You're not going to change his mind, no matter how good your argument is, and he isn't going to change yours.

But he may "plant a seed" , and it may in time have some effect. I have seen that happen more than once. But mostly it is hopeless.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2005-09-09 07:40pm

IIRC, the ancient GREEKS had age estimates for the Earth far older than the 6000 years of the Bible just from erosion and sedimentation rates. In any case, there clearly is far more to dating than just C-14. It isn't even the only element used for radiometric dating.

Agent Fisher · Post by **Agent Fisher** » 2005-09-09 07:51pm

I asked him to clarify if he thought the whole universe or just the earth was only 6000 years old. And he said something to the effect that there is only time bcause man is mortal and there fore needs something to measure, or something.

You know what, fuck it. Its too confusing to debate him, I mean, he isnt even stay consistent with on his views.

Rahvin · Post by **Rahvin** » 2005-09-09 08:01pm

I'm not exactly sure if any advice could help you right now. I mean, from your post, you don't even seem to have a clearly defined topic to debate, aside from "YEC is wrong." There are so many avenues available to disprove such a notion, I'm not sure how a debate like this would proceed.

Is there any way you or he could be more specific about the topic of debate?

kaikatsu · Post by **kaikatsu** » 2005-09-09 08:57pm

You know, as a former YEC (I know, I know...), I would be more than willing to play devil's advocate and show you the kinds of arguments you can expect, as well as how to counter them.

You mentioned you're at a largely YEC school, dealing with a YEC crowd, as such arguments about God can get you further. If you say "God does not exist" people will discount everything else you say, but if you say "It makes no sense for God to do this" you might hit a nerve.

Examples...

Argument: "The Earth only LOOKS Old."

Response1: "That is an unscientific statement, as we cannot test it."
The problem is, people will handwave it away -- they will say "oh, he clearly thinks Science is above God, when in fact God is not bound by Science." Yes... you may run into that thinking.

Response2: "Why would a God of Truth provide information which is, fundamentally, a lie?"
The second response, one which takes their own beliefs and twists it around, tends to work better for a number of reasons -- at least so I've found in my opinion.

Of course, you need to first present the geological reasons. Be careful of saying that fossils are dated by the rocks, however -- because you'll have it turned on you that "so then how do you know how old the rocks are?" as if you have some kind of circular reasoning going on.

If you're interested in a mock debate for practice, I'm well versed in YEC ways and would be happy to give you a target to unload your guns on. Just remember that verbal debate is a lot harder, you can't use the "quote" button to bring someone's arguments back to haunt them.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2005-09-10 01:21pm

Agent Fisher wrote:I asked him to clarify if he thought the whole universe or just the earth was only 6000 years old. And he said something to the effect that there is only time bcause man is mortal and there fore needs something to measure, or something.

So God can do something in ZERO time? Then why did he supposedly need six DAYS to create the Earth, even though man wasn't created until the very end of that period?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2005-09-10 01:21pm

kaikatsu wrote:Just remember that verbal debate is a lot harder, you can't use the "quote" button to bring someone's arguments back to haunt them.

Thats why you ALWAYS bring a tape recorder

kaikatsu · Post by **kaikatsu** » 2005-09-10 03:48pm

Darth Servo wrote:
kaikatsu wrote:Just remember that verbal debate is a lot harder, you can't use the "quote" button to bring someone's arguments back to haunt them.
Thats why you ALWAYS bring a tape recorder

I didn't think those would be practical... really. I mean, it's one thing if there's lot of time between the statement... but trying to go back in the recording and catch the soundbyte in time for your own statement seems like too much effort for the potential gain...

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2005-09-11 07:44pm

kaikatsu wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:
kaikatsu wrote:Just remember that verbal debate is a lot harder, you can't use the "quote" button to bring someone's arguments back to haunt them.
Thats why you ALWAYS bring a tape recorder
I didn't think those would be practical... really. I mean, it's one thing if there's lot of time between the statement... but trying to go back in the recording and catch the soundbyte in time for your own statement seems like too much effort for the potential gain...

You tape the discussion, then play it back for yourself and send them a letter or e-mail.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-09-12 12:09am

You'd have to be pretty obsessed, or facing a Hovind-esque opponent to go to those measures.