Derek

I am having an over-lunch debate with a xian co-worker on Tuesday. We decided to pick one aspect of his belief/my non-belief in god and stick to it. He picked (can you believe it?) the age of the Earth as the point of his faith he want's to debate.

I figure this is a good way for me to start his beliefs unraveling. Of all the theist arguments, "the Earth is only 10k years old" has to be the easiest to shatter.

So, I throw myself to the mercy of the SecWeb for suggestions/arguments/defences to common theist arguments that I can use. Past topics or other websites that you can refer me to would be helpful as well.

Thanks,
-derek

BLoggins02

You might want to help us out by checking the library and talk.origins first. That way, you can get a good feel for the kind of arguments they'll be throwing at you, and how you can respond.

Also, we wouldn't want to miss anything! Let us all know how it goes.

Coragyps

What BLoggins said, and also the excellent The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple. (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0804723311/qid=1021829288/sr=12-3/104-3109700-2436711" target="_blank">Kinda expensive from Amazon</a>, or free at a better library.) Also, the archives here at II have some fantastic stuff posted by "PS418" - search Evo/Cre by member number 2406. He has a wealth of posts, dealing mainly with geological stuff, that absolutely lay waste to young-earth arguments.

TalkOrigins is <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/" target="_blank">here</a>.

missus_gumby

If your co-worker friend will agree to leave out the supernatural in his argument, I think you should be able to present a rock solid case using the speed of light/distance of remote cosmic objects type argument.

My guess is you will not be able to pin him down to the wild and wacky world of factual evidence to start off with.

Take my advice, go and bang your head against a brick wall instead. It'll feel good when you stop.

Martin

Derek

I went through some of the archived threads of talk.origins, that's good stuff. Thanks to BLoggins02 for the advise to check it out.

I don't have time to pick up the book you recommended Corsgyps, but I'll add it to my reading list as I'm sure it will be good to know.

Missus_Gumby, thanks for the warning: <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

-derek

RufusAtticus

Derek try giving him a copy of this paper.

<a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#The%20Bible%20and%20Science" target="_blank">Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective</a>

~~RvFvS~~

Tim Thompson

Surely there are about a million and one pro young Earth arguments, so preparing blind in advance is kind of like preparing blind in advance for an examination in "physics" (I know, I did it once, but I don't want to relive those memories). See if you can get your opponent to settle on one or a few age related issues that are the "best", that the two of you can concentrate on. The usual creationist tactic of 55 "reasons for a young Earth" on one webpage is just an attempt to impress the audience by quantity over quality, a sure sign that somebody in creation-ville knows they are standing on a weak floor.

Now Hear This: Find Dalrymple's book somewhere, no excuses accepted. It's the only book on the topic which exists, and is a required reference if you are going to talk about the scientific validity of the Earth's old age. It's a cinch that, whether your opponent goes for the "few arguments" or not, radiometric (or radioisotope) dating will be an issue. Unless you want to run out and learn about the physics of radiometric dating methods, and read tomes on radioisotope geology, you will need Dalrymple's book (and you'll probably need it even if you do read all that other stuff).

Another book that will serve you well, and that you really should find somewhere, is Science and Earth History - The Evolution/Creation Controversy, by Arthur N. Strahler (I have the 1987 Prometheus Books edition, there may be a newer one). Its focus is on geology & geophysics, and it is one of the best written science books I have ever seen. You can skip the "creation" parts altogether, and just use the introductory chapters as a text book on geology & earth science. Only after laying down the earth science groundwork, does Strahler examine the creationst claims & show where they fail. Not as focussed as dalrymple's book, but it covers lots of other earth science and age related topics that are outside Dalrymple's scope.

For general reference, the <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html" target="_blank">Talk.Origins Age of the Earth FAQS</a> is a good place to start. Probably about 800,000 of the 1,000,001 creationist arguments are there somewhere. Another good place to look up stuff on radiometric dating is my own <a href="http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html" target="_blank">Radiometric Dating Resource List</a> (I think I have fixed all of the links).

Be prepared to lose the debate in good humor. You should know by now, that no creationist has ever lost a debate with an evolutionist (just ask any creationist and they will tell you so). And no creationist ever will. In the end, if all else fails, they will simply retreat into the safety of the assertion that you must be making some kind of mistake somewhere, even if they can't point it out. After all, it's impossible for them to be wrong (or for you to be right), and they already know this, so minor issues like evidence & reason are of no lasting value.

Such is the way of the creationist world.

Good luck.

Coragyps

Strahler's book that Tim mentions is available at <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573927171/qid=1021927703/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-7241137-8183939" target="_blank">Amazon</a>. The new edition is apparently not revised, just reprinted. Me, I'm going to the library this evening.

Derek

Thanks, I'll bring one with me.
-derek

Derek

Tim and Coragyps: Again, thank you for your suggestions. I will check out the Dalrymple book this week.

To everyone: I will post here tomorrow and let you all know how my little debate turns out. I'm figuring that in the worst possible case, I still get to eat lunch...

-derek