Derek

Results are in:

I started by asking my friend to state how old he was arguing the earth to be. Answer: 10k yrs old. I explained that I would be arguing that the earth is 4.5 billion years old (+/- 2%).

I asked if he had any arguments he wanted to bring up to support his claim? Answer: He "had not prepared very well, but remembered enough that he would be able to sufficiently present his case".

So I presented my case for dating methods, and he asked questions when he believed he saw room for error. Every single one of his questions was answered in the articles I had read (and taken notes on) while preparing for our debate. I presented these rebuttals fairly well (considering my novice level of knowlege on the subject).

After I was finished (having answered his arguments while moving through my explanation) I asked if there is ANY reason he would not believe the age of the earth/solar system to be within the standard of error I posed?

He brought up a few common arguments for a young earth (all of which I had found while preparing and had rebuttals noted for). The only one that I couldn't explain to his satisfaction was the "halos in some rocks somewhere argument." I didn't have sufficient notes to explain the entire argument away, but I did win the point regardless by arguing that even if the situation showed the rocks were formed very quickly, they didn't show how recently this had happened. Therefore they were not a good argument for a young-earth.

He asked if there were other reasons for old earth arguments besides dating methods of rocks? We agreed that while observable events fit the theory of old earth, that they also fit the "God created things already matured" scenario. We decided that we would leave those arguments out of the debate. (i.e. light from stars 3 billion light years away arriving at earth now).

His last comment was regarding the number of different dating methods that I referred to during our debate. He had believed (likely from young-earth literature) there were only a few different isotopes used for dating and a total of only 2 or 3 different dating methods using them. That was much different than the 40 or so that I talked about which consistantly resulted in ages that were in agreement of 4.5 billion years. This was of course answered by me presenting him with a copy of the paper RufusAtticus recommended. He was very happy to take it and was already reading it intently in the car on the way back to work.

Final Score:
Science = 1
Young-Earth Creationism = 0

(Next time he proposed that we debate the "theory" of evolution)

Thanks to everyone who helped me out. I think we may have saved this one!

-derek

Dr.GH

Good job!

Bubba

Derek-

Excellent job, dude. If the guy is open to evidence you'll change his mind. I have several friends that are YEC that generally disregard whatever evidence you show them...

Your co-worker however sounds like a bird of a different color...

Bubba
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Daydreamer

Great job!

For the Halos bit -

As I understand it, each isotope emits a slightly different size halo depending on the energy emmited in previous levels of decay. The key to the problem is that its easy to mistake one halo for another if their energy and size are similar. The most common halo argument I see is the Polonium-210 halo, which can be easily mistake for Radon-222 halo, since they differ by only about 3-4%.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos.html</A>

Daydreamer

For evolution -

Be ready! He's going to be much more prepared this time, I guarentee. Not to mention the fact that evolution is much more complex than the age of the earth.

The keys, in my experience, are a) dispeling the 'irriducible complexity' myth, b) basic population genetics and how evolution works, and c) transitional fossils.

The first, though inextricably tied to the second, can be met with explainations of 'Arguments from Ignorance', explainations of a change in function over time, and my personal favorite, the Eye Evolution Sim as told by Dawkins at <a href="http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/peepers.htm" target="_blank">http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/peepers.htm</A>

For the second I recommend The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, though I've heard good stuff about the late, great Gould's Bully For Brontosaurus.

For the third: <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html</A>

Good luck and good science to ya.

Quetzal

Derek: Awesome job! If you have time before the next debate meeting, I STRONGLY urge you to pick up a copy of Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is". I doubt your co-worker can come up with ANY quibble on, or misinterpretation of, evolution that Mayr doesn't cover. If you don't have a lot of time, I recommend getting ahold of Niles Eldredge's book "The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism", which covers most of the cretinist standard main points and is a fairly quick read.

Beyond that, I would really suggest you try and limit the topic. Arguing ToE in toto is like arguing the answer to "Life, the Universe, and Everything" (which is 42 as everyone knows). Try "fact vs theory", common descent/descent with modification, biogeography, transitional fossils as evidence for evolution, etc. as a limited topic. Even these topics may be waaaay too broad for a lunch meeting/debate.

Besides TalkOrigins, there are a couple of good on-line reference lists and web portals you can access fairly easily. <a href="http://www.answersinscience.org/" target="_blank">Answers in Science's website</a> is good, as is Robert Williams's <a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html" target="_blank">Evolution Evidence Page</a>. Once you narrow the topic down, I'll be happy to give you some specific references if I can.

RufusAtticus

Derek, good job. Since you are dealing with a christian who appears to be illinformed when it comes to science, I suggest you check out the papers on <a href="http://www.asa3.org" target="_blank">ASA's Website</a>. They're a Christian Association of Scientists devoted to good science. Some of their papers might be a great benifit to convincing you coworker that Christians don't need to reject the findings of science.

~~RvFvS~~

Answerer

Well, as far as I know, even if a christian loses a argument, his faith will not be lost or diminished, so, I think that debating with them is a waste of time unless of course, there are some prices to be won.

liquid

Well done, I have to say. And do let the theist know that we/you (I don't know if he knows you involve us) admire his openess to evidence, a quality lacking in many religious people.

My advice, and this is a very STRONGLY held opinion, is to ring him up and cut the field of your debate down from evolution. It's far too complex to reach any satisfying sort of resolution. You should go for one area of contention at a time. I suggest transitional species, if he believes that there aren't any.

Calvinist Dude

I have to agree with Rufus, here. In dealing with a Christian, it's best to show him that there are sound Christian alternatives to YECism. I have found that the obstacles to convincing most Christians (not all) of real science are more theological than scientific. Things like death before sin, interpretation of a "day", etc. Usually, if you can overcome those obstacles, you are much more likely to get an objective hearing of the evidence. Once you can convince a Christian that real science does not necessarily conflict with Christian theology, then you have laid the groundwork to argue the evidence.

For those of you who think it's impossible to convince YECs, just remember that there are quite a few of us former YECs out there who were eventually persuaded by the evidence. I, myself, knew Slusher and Barnes personally, had long talks with both them and John Morris about YEC issues, wrote a short booklet promoting YECism, gave presentations to several churches, Sunday schools, and youth groups arguing for the YEC position; in short, I was a staunch defender of the YEC position for about 12 years. It took the breaking down of those theological barriers before I was even willing to objectively listen to the evidence. So it can be done. Glenn Morton is another notable example. His own personal testimony of his transition out of YECism is told at

<a href="http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/transform.htm" target="_blank">The Transformation of a Young-earth Creationist </a>.

For Derek, I would recommend that you give your friend some articles dealing with the theology of old-earth creationism or theistic evolution. Some good ones are:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/days.html" target="_blank">Does the Bible Teach a Young Earth?</a>

<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/co/JesusFreak/day.html" target="_blank">Authenticating The "Day-Age" Theory. </a>

<a href="http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/death.htm" target="_blank">Death Before the Fall: The Theology</a>

<a href="http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html" target="_blank">Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation</a>

<a href="http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html" target="_blank">Is the Young-Earth Interpretation Biblically Sound?</a>

These are just a start. There are many more out there, most of which can be linked from these websites. Like Rufus said, the ASA has some excellent articles on its site also.