With the two best arguments now having been tabled, in one case the argument has been met with a rebuttal and in the other case it has not. A debate is meant to be a structured argument, wherein opponents on the battlefield of ideas meet each other on equal terms. The objections I have raised to the material advocated by Dan are these:
1. The authors of the article Dan cited were not equitable with the facts, opting rather to foist a false paradigm onto readers of their material than to be totally honest in their approach
2. Varve counts contain a demonstrable old cosmos bias
3. Circular reasoning: Varve counts and radio carbon dating are being used to calibrate each other
4. The original researchers, according to Dan’s own presentation, had to retract and amend their findings on the order of a nearly 40% adjustment downward. It seems clear this only happened in retrospect and in response to negative attention garnered from young earth creationists
Dan has been given the opportunity to respond to the rebuttal material I have submitted, but at no time have I been granted the same opportunity since Dan has steadfastly refused to interact in any meaningful way with the material tabled in my opening argument. In other words, Dan has refused to abide by the simple format of an actual debate, stating for his answer to this objection that he’s just not interested in the material I’ve submitted because it’s old and isn’t well enough understood. Either Dan has not the foggiest idea what it means to have an actual debate, or he thinks the rules do not apply to him but to other people only. Maybe Dan has confused the average Disqus conversation for actual debate. If so, I’m sure he’s not the only Disqus commentator to strain beneath the weight of that error.
My argument rests on the following premises:
1. The planets in our solar system each have measurable magnetic fields
2. All of the planetary magnetic fields are diminishing in strength and this fact is supported by empirical evidence. In all cases, the magnetic fields of the planets in our solar system have been measured and the majority of them have been measured multiple times. In all cases, a simple reading of the documented facts shows that the fields are weakening over time.
3. In the case of Earth’s magnetic field, if calculated into the past, field strength decay rates indicate the field cannot possibly be older than 10,000 years, because if it were older than that, the intensity of the field would have been sufficient to melt Earth's mantle.
4. While secular scientists acknowledge diminishing field strength, they have proposed that the fields somehow regenerate their strength and spontaneously recharge, in direct violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Secular scientists have never been able to come up with a model of how the fields are regenerating’, but they steadfastly maintain the fields MUST be periodically regenerating, because their model of the cosmos is the correct model. This, again, is the exact opposite of any sound scientific method.
My debate opponent has had nothing to say about any of this, except that he believes the above except that he believes the above claims are confusing and not well enough understood by science. He offers nothing by way of support for that claim, however. He just says so and maintains that my arguments are somehow contrary to good’ science or are otherwise beneath his dignity to address in any meaningful way.
The purpose of this debate is a simple one: The purpose is to show that one model, the Bible’s specified 6000 year-old model of the cosmos, is the correct model and that the preferred model of modern secular science is the incorrect model. I had intended to show that one model can withstand any manner of attack even from a reasonable and seemingly well-educated mind which has adopted belief in an alternate invalid model. Unfortunately, we have been partially cheated of that purpose because Dan has refused to comply with the rules. So be it. Any impartial observer of this debate has seen one side easily undermined by perfectly valid observations rendering the conclusions of the varve study a study in wishful thinking. The method for dating the Earth which the conductors of that study have latched onto, is a wholly useless tool for the purposes they have assigned it. They have guaranteed a false outcome from the outset based entirely upon the invalid presuppositions with which they begin their study. It is little different from the stilted outcomes generated by other flawed presuppositions, namely those which attend the conclusions drawn when supposing light has always and only traveled at a constant, unchanging and unchangeable speed. It’s a spurious assumption and the very scientific community which relies upon that assumption for other ways of supporting its model, has uncovered the proof of its unreliability. A non-constant speed of light is very often addressed in frank discussions within the secular scientific community:
Such is the problem with invalid assumptions and the far-reaching chaos those assumptions can generate.
One model of the cosmos is utterly unaffected by the ever-changing foundations of secular science. That is the biblically-valid model of a 6000 year-old cosmos. The Heavens and the Earth were created by God very nearly 6000 years ago. Scientists who begin with this understanding of our reality are not called upon to continuously conjure up fantastic arguments which, however implausible-sounding, just might provide the sliver of possibility needed to keep their model alive. But each time the so-called experts on the other side with their overwhelming consensus’ come up with what they present to the world as bullet-proof arguments or sets of evidence which demonstrate the validity of their model to the exclusion of any young cosmos model
they are shown to have overplayed their hand every single time. And the example tabled by Dan for the purposes of this debate a debate which never really happened is no exception to that rule.
(Dan is now given the opportunity to respond by hopefully posting his own closing argument and that will conclude this debate.)