The "debate" being between two wikis.
One, which has its flaws and isn't by any means perfect, but which strives to be factual and accurate, is called "Wikipedia."
The other is, well...................called "Conservapedia." It mainly appears to have been created as a reaction to Wikipedia. Or, more accurately................reactionARY.
I submit as case in point:
Wikipedia (as defined by Conservapedia) - Wikipedia is a politically left leaning online wiki-based encyclopedia project written and edited by an ad hoc assemblage of mostly anonymous persons who are mostly, according to the Register (UK), teenagers and unemployed persons. Wikipedia editors, unlike their counterparts at Conservapedia, are overwhelmingly young males — a demographic associated with self-centered belief systems and behavior.
To give you the "flavor" of Conservapedia, and its integrity as an information source, Conservapedia Commandment #5 (yes, they're called "Commandments" not "rules") is stated as such:
Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages.Then, their entry for E=mc² contains the following:
Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap.Both Commandment #5 AND this sentence about E=mc² were written by one Andrew Schlafly.........founder of Conservapedia.
I wrote a diary about this, previously.
Now. On to the debate. First, we have Wikipedia:
The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). They go on to support this:
This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.Their source:  "Age of the Earth". U.S. Geological Survey. 1997. Archived from the original on 23 December 2005. Retrieved 2006-01-10.
One can look to the State of Louisiana (!) Department of Natural Resources to find out there are THREE main methods of Earth dating, which agree with one another:
The three primary methods are:Each of which, Wikipedia includes in their "Age of Earth" entry.
And now, Conservapedia..........
WARNING - Empty your mouths of all liquids. And take a deep breath.
The Age of the Earth has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. Yet with circular reasoning and implausible assumptions, liberals insist that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 ± 1%). THEIR source:  - polling
"polling" links to a 2009 CBS News poll about Americans' belief in evolution:
Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.
That's right, campers, their "source" for the "verifiable" age of the Earth is...........a poll about what Americans think of Evolution, called "Majority Reject Evolution."
Moreover, their version of "All verifiable evidence" apparently means what is written in the Christian Bible. Under the heading "Historical Views" we have, from St. Cyril's poem, which according to Conservapedia "brings testimony about the perception of the age of the world [at] that time:"
To the holy Gospels I am the Foreword
for as it was promised by the prophets
Christ comes to gather the nations
for he sheds light on the world entire.
That is what happened in our seventh millennium
As far as I can see, the "debate" ends here.
We have one site stating a current scientific estimate as to the age of the Earth. Brought to you by the scientific method, citing several different methods of age measurement, which all more-or-less corroborate each other.
We have one site stating several historical perceptions of the age of the Earth.............and basically crapping on Liberals. Conservapedia first decides what they believe, and then looks for ways to "prove" it. And then doesn't prove it in the least.
We debate, you decide.