Creationism (Pro) vs Evolution (Con)
Full resolution: The Creation Model is a more viable explaination for the complexity and diversity of living things than the Evolutionairy Model.
The Evolutionairy Model:
The Evolutionairy Model states that all organisms diversified through a tree of life which would be displayed below. 
(Note: Con doesn't have to necessarily defend this particular tree of life, but the concept in general)
All life forms on Earth have diversified through purely naturalistic means including but not limited to natural selection and mutation. The Evolutionary Model also states that such diversification has occured over the course of billions of years. Another key idea is that over time through the processes of evolution like natural selection/mutation will make organisms more complex over time.
The Creation Model:
The Creation Model on the other hand states that all organisms we see today, diversified from the original kinds that God has created during the seven days of creation. The diversification is a result of natural selection within biblical kinds. The origin of kinds comes from Genesis 1:11-12
“And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.”And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds” 
Instead of a tree of life, the Creation Model more represents a orchard as seen below.
(Note again: I will not be specifically defending this creation orchard, but rather the concept)
If you look at the creation orchard, you can see a blue line that eliminates all but one line, that is meant to represent the biblical Noah's flood where Noah preserved one from each kind. Genesis 6: 19-20 states below.
" You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." 
In addition to that, the creation model also states that the complexity of organisms is derived from the Biblical God. Instead of evolution's billions of years, the Creation Model states that all organisms diversified within thousands of years. Another prediction of the creation model is that there will be a general decline within living things even as small as on the genetic level due to the post-fall curse.
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Pro refutes Con's arguments in Round 2 and vice versa
Round 4: Both sides defend their original arguments
 The Holy Bible
I accept and look forward to this debate.
I believe my opponent and I can agree that new species can emerge through natural selection as natural selection is included in both the evolution model and the creation model. However, one key difference is the time frame that such diversification can occur. In the creation model, such diversification occurs in a rather short time frame of thousands of years. However, there is substantial evidence that lots of change can occur rather quickly.
For example, researchers in Trinidad relocated guppies from their native waterfall pool where they have many predators to the pools above the waterfalls where previously there haven’t been guppies before. In their new environment, they have no predators with the exception of one which only targets the small guppies. Over the course of four short years, the descendants of the guppies quickly grew larger with each generation. 
An evolutionist even commentated that the guppies “adapted to their new environment in a mere 4 years -- a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record” 
Another prime example, would be dogs. Even though, they are technically part of the same species (Canis familiaris), hundreds of breeds of dogs arose and most of them within the last few centuries. 
Genetic Entropy, an idea put forward by Cornell geneticist, Dr. John C Sanford, I believe provides the most compelling evidence that genetics don’t support evolution but rather the opposite. To begin with, I’ll present the mutation rate for humans.
The current consensus among the genetic community is that point mutations per generation is around 75-175 point mutations added per generation of humans . However, there are more types of mutations than substitutions. It is estimated that for every substitution mutation there is at least one micro-satellite mutation doubling the rate to around 150-350 mutations . There are plenty more types of mutations that get passed down through every generation but to save space, I will not dive into those numbers.
Now how many bad or deleterious mutations are there compared to the beneficial ones. Below is a diagram adapted from population geneticist, Dr. Motoo Kimura which shows the distribution of mutations :
s://lh6.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="624" height="436" />
As seen here, Dr. Kimura shows that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious and more importantly, cannot be selected out of the population which I will get to later on. One might ask, beneficial mutations exist, why aren’t they included in the distribution? That is because deleterious mutations greatly outnumber beneficial mutations to a point where they cannot realistically be shown in the distribution. In a study conducted by Dr. Bergman where he did a simple literature search on Biological Abstracts and Medline with the key word, “mutation”, he found that out of the 453,732 results found, 186 only mentioned the word “beneficial” . There are other estimates that go as low as 1 in a million mutations being beneficial . The proportion becomes even lower if you remove mutations that are only beneficial in context due to a malfunction in the genome (ex. Human lactose intolerance as the result of a malfunctioning LCT gene ) . In fact, I have yet to see a mutation that increases the amount of functional genetic information by creating functional genes. However, even if I were to draw a line on the diagram as seen below to acknowledge beneficial mutations exist blowing the distribution out of proportion, there is an obvious problem.
s://lh5.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="624" height="436" />
With the distribution, it can be deducted that most, if not all mutations that are passed to the next generation are deleterious. Therefore the human genome is losing functionality over time. Natural selection cannot eliminate all the deleterious mutations because as seen in the distribution, most mutations fall within the shaded “no-selection zone” meaning that most mutations are not deleterious or beneficial enough to give an organism a disadvantage or advantage that nature can select. Geneticists are in agreement that the human genome is degrading. The decline of fitness of the human species is calculated to be around 1-2% per generation .
If we were to take Crow’s figures and plot them over 300 generations (6,000-9,000) years, it would look something like this.
s://lh3.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="624" height="385" />
Classic exponential decay. Now if you look at the lifetimes of biblical figures post-Flood, you would see a very similar trend. 
s://lh3.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="624" height="389" />
How does this disprove evolution and prove creation? If genetic information cannot be increased, much less even maintained, it is ridiculous to even say that entire functional genomes of organisms were created through natural selection and mutations making the whole theory moot. Several conclusions from this information can be made to support creation.
1. If functional genomes cannot arise, then the only alternative is that they were designed by an intelligent creator.
2. The rates at which genomes degrade imply a rather recent origin of life.
Another issue with the evolutionary model is living fossils. For example, the horseshoe crab which still exists today remains completely identical to the fossils 445 million years old . The fact that such organisms don’t change in these huge timescales proves a problem for evolution. Dr. Stephan Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist and an evolutionists recognizes this as a problem when he wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”  The fact that modern creatures have coexisted with “ancient” species affirms the creation account that all kinds of animals were created at the same time which brings me to my next point.
Dinosaurs have been used to ridicule creationists as it is seemingly absurd that humans and dinosaurs lived together. In the creation model, one would expect humans to coexist with dinosaurs. However, there is evidence that supports such predictions. For example, evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted lies in soft tissue found in dinosaur bones . The tissue that was found was still able to stretch and retain its shape. However, the structures found like blood vessels, muscle, and skin decay rapidly to decomposers. In addition, proteins have been found in dinosaur bones such as collagen . A report by The Biochemist states that proteins such as these even under the perfect conditions at 0 degrees Celsius the proteins would not last three million years . However, it is believed that dinosaurs lived in warm moist environments that would quickly degrade such proteins.
s://lh5.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="520" height="386" />
Arguments from Design
I'll be brief with this as I'm running very low on characters. Within organisms exist complex features that can't arise through the gradual process of evolution. Some of these features are really complex but they provide no distinct advantage for nature to favorably select such traits. A prime example of this can be seen with human facial muscles.
s://lh6.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="339" height="461" />
On top of performing tasks necessary for survival such as eating and speaking, almost half of those muscles are solely dedicated to creating facial expressions. The problem is that having the ability to smile, frown, or smirk does not aid in the survival of humans. Such traits aren’t features that nature would necessarily select. Yet we see examples of overdesign often when it comes to engineering . Is it really unreasonable that such features are the product of an intelligent designer.
Another prime example of overdesign would be found in the bacteria Deinococcus radiodurans. As the world’s toughest bacteria known to man, it can withstand drought, lack of nutrients, and most importantly insane amounts of radiation. First discovered in a supposedly sterilized can of meat, Deinococcus radiodurans can endure 1,000 times more radiation than the typical human being . The problem is, this is far more radiation ever possible to exist on Earth. This proves no problem within the creation model as such endurance would be a testament to the intelligent designer. However, in the evolution model, why would an organism evolve mechanisms to survive in an environment that never could plausibly exist on Earth.
 Reznick, D.N. et al., Evaluation of the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata), Science 275(5308): 1934 - 1937, 1997
 Kondrashov, A.S. 2002. Direct Estimate of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases. Human Mutation 21:12-27
 Ellegren, H. 2000. Microsatellite mutations in the germline: implications for evolutionary interference. TIG 16:551-558
 Kimura, M. 1979. Model of effective neutral mutations in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444
 Bergman, J. 2004. Research on the deterioration of the genome and Darwinism: why mutations result in degeneration of the genome. Intelligent design Conference, Biola University. April 22-23
 Gerrish, P.J. and R. Lenski. 1998. The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103: 127-144.
 Crow, J.F. 1997. The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? PNAS 94:8380-8386
 Sanford, John C. Genetic Entropy. N.p.: FMS Publications, n.d. Print.
 Gould, S. and Eldredge, N., Punctuated equilibrium comes of age, Nature 366(6452):223–224, 1993.
Creationism states that one species can not over time form into another species. However, there are transitionary fossils which say otherwise.
In this picture (1), skull A (Pan troglodytes) is dated to be 2.7 million years old. Skull M (post-modern Homo Sapiens) is dated to be 30,000 years old, with skull N representing modern day homo sapiens (humans). As you start from A, the fossils start getting younger as you progress and more human-like. Even without scientific dating, one can see that the older skulls look older and more 'broken down' to the contrary of newer skulls.Creation implies that humans existed since the beginning of creation. This however is false, the oldest known fossils of Homo Sapiens have not been older han 200,000 years (2). To the contrary, a Homo Rudolfensis skull (a human private) has been found dating back to 1.9 million years old. Not to note that human primates even older than that exist and have been found. (3)
This is not true for humans, but is also true for other species. (4+5)
The Panderichthys is believed to be a transitionary species from aquatic fish to modern-day reptiles/amphibians.
s://nondiscovery.files.wordpress.com......; alt="" />
There is a correlation with transitionary species, as you progress the fossils slowly happen to start looking more and more different, until a new species comes. This is very strong evidence for Evolution, as Creationary theory implies that one species can't slowly transition to another.
Size of Noah's Ark
Noah's Ark was built around 6000 years ago according to young earth creationism. The amount of modern species in existance today is around 8 million (possibly more if you take the bacteria and micro organisms into consideration) Since there were two of every animal on Noah's ark, that would mean Noah's Ark would need to harbor 16 million different species. The Titanic was the world's largest ship built in the early 20th century, and technology back then was likely much lower than modern-day technology. So Noah's Ark was likely smaller than the Titanic. So how could Noah's Ark possibly fit 16 million different species while having them survive and be cared for? If it was lower than 16 million, how could we get to 16 million species today in just 6000 years without Evolution? We have never witnessed any species being created by god.
Radiometric dating is a commonly used dating methods used by scientists to determine the age of fossils and/or rocks (6 7). Radiometric dating involves a parent and daughter element to be used. The parent atom has a half life; this half life is defined as the amount of time it takes for 50% of the current parent element to decay into the daughter element.
Nitrogen (N14) and Carbon (C14) are examples of parent and daughter elements.
C14 has a half life of 5730 years. This would be "one half life." After another 5730 years or half life, the carbon 14 would half again making the overall percentage to 25% of the original C14 content, making the N14 content three times as high.
Carbon dating would be highly inefficient for rocks as old as 100,000 years. To calculate significantly old rocks, other isotopes are used.
This chart shows several other elements and their half life in billions of years. Uranium-235 to Lead-207 has a half life long enough to measure rocks in which are billions of years old. If a young earth were true, Pro must disprove radiometric dating since it's been used to find rocks and fossils older than the age of the Earth.
True age of the Earth
The oldest rock on Earth is a piece of zircon that is 4.4 billion years old. (8) This is rougly close to the estimate of Earth being 4.6 billion years old. While one may suspect that there may be interference from a rock this old; the findings have shown the dating used was accurate enough:
"The key finding, that lead atoms stick close to home inside this primeval zircon, means age estimates based on uranium-lead dating techniques are accurate, the researchers report. The lead hasn't wiggled around enough to throw off the ages. A typical age measurement, made with a machine called an ion probe, zaps zircon segments that are thousands of times larger than the damage clusters.
"This careful piece of work should settle the debate because it shows that indeed there is some mobility of lead, which was hypothesized to result in dates that were too old, but the scale of mobility is nanometers," said Samuel Bowring, a geochemist at MIT, who was not involved in the study. "Even the smallest volumes analyzed with the ion probe average out the heterogeneities," or variations within the zircon.
The new atom-probe technique, while extremely laborious, can also be used to address questions of reliability at other sites where extremely old rocks have been found, the researchers said. [Have There Always Been Continents?]
"Good zircons are forever, and what this does is help us separate the wheat from the chaff in a way we could never do before," Valley said."
Young Earth Creation theory implies the Earth was created at the same time as the Universe.
However, Starlight has been found that is way older than the supposed 6000 years age of the Earth. A light year is the distance light travels in one year.
The Milky Way Galaxy alone is suspected to be approximately 100,000 light years in diameter. (9) Scientists can map out what the Milky Way is suspected to look like. If the Earth were 6000 years old, one could only examine stars within a 6000 light year distance. This is not true to any extent. The Crab nebula is over 6200 light years from Earth as one example.
Another example is the Andromeda Galaxy (11) (over 2 million lightyears) which can be seen outside at a clear sky with one's own eye.
Young Earth Creation can not account for objects in space seen this far, hence proving the old age of the Earth at billions of years.
Newton's 3rd law of physics
Isaac Newton's 3rd law of physics states that "an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force. An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."
While this may not necessarily be evidence for evolution, the 3rd law of physics does disprove many attempts at attacking radiometric dating, the speed of light, or any other "constants." Creationists for example, may point out that the speed of light may have not remained the same. This may be done in attempt to explain how starlight could go past 6000 lightyears in just 6000 years. When we take Newton's 3rd law of physics into account however, there would need to be an outside force acting upon light. An outside force would also be needed to change the decay rate of specific rocks, which is taken into account when using the method of radiometric dating.
So due to this reason, my opponent will need to prove the existence of an outside force that caused starlight to travel faster than a light year. Otherwise, the starlight argument would directly disprove a young Earth.
Before I finish my arguments, I would like to present one last piece of evidence proving Evolution.
Fossils are arranged in a near-perfect chronological order. Creationary theory can not account for this as the order of organisims is in line with Evolution. Human fossils can not be found as deep as fossils of dinosaurs or ancient invertebrates. If a giant flood were to happen as stated by creationary thinking, the fossils and bones would have to be unevenly thrown around in no particular order.
In addition, the age of such fossils and bones has been determined by taking use of specific dating methods, mainly radiometric dating. The fossil record can be interpreted as a 'graph' of the evolution of species. This 'graph' is nowhere near in line of the young earth creationist model none the less.
Young Earth Creation goes against many recent scientific findings and distorts what we know as Science in many fields. Evolution on the other hand is far more consistent with modern scientific findings.
I now look forward to the next round.
Let me first state that no well-informed creationist would state that speciation cannot occur as it is phenomenon observed today.
Note when looking at the skulls, I have a few legitimate concerns. You assert that the skulls look older and more broken down as you go up to fossil A, however there are plenty of outside factors besides time that could give the skulls their look. What environment was the skull retrieved for instance? Another thing I would like to bring up is what conclusions can be made from these skulls is subjective and up to interpretation. As Harvard paleontologist Dr. Stephan Jay Gould states, "Facts do not "speak for themselves"; they are read in the light of theory" . The paleontologists that unearth these skulls already with the belief that ape-like creatures evolved to modern man will see these skulls as transitional.
However, I can disprove the assertion that man has evolved from ape-like creatures using genetics. If you look at the human genome of around 3 billion base pairs and if let’s say that our genomes were 95% similar to that of chimpanzees you would have a 45,000,000 pair difference. Not to mention that the Y chromosome between humans and chimps are extremely different. A Chimp’s Y chromosome has only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human Y chromosome and only 47% as many protein-coding elements as humans. Also, more than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome and vice versa . Calculations from population geneticist Haldane prove that it is mathematically impossible for this many mutations accumulating in the supposed millions of years we had to diverge from each other .
As with the transitional fossil that is the missing link between fish and amphibious tetrapods can be proven to be wrong. Tetrapod footprints have been found that are older than the supposed age of tiktaalik, one of the transition fossils in Con’s diagram. It can’t be a transitional form if its descendants are older than the transitional form itself .
The Size of Noah’s Ark:
First off, let me first state that God did not tell Noah to bring two of every species on board. But rather in Genesis 6:19-20:
“19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.” 
In the original Hebrew text, the term behemah is used meaning “cattle” or “beast” so typically land vertebrates. The Hebrew that refers to the creatures that “moves along the ground” which is remes is used often to reference reptiles. God also did not necessarily tell Noah to bring every plant whose seeds could survive the flood or in floating vegetation patches. God also didn’t tell Noah to bring the sea creatures, most of which would survive the flood. 
Con also didn’t take into account that the original animals on the ark are free to speciate in their own rights.
The main problem with radioactive dating is that it lies on a bunch of untested assumptions:
There has been evidence that radioactive decay is not always constant as seen with Beryllium . Radioactive decay has also been shown to fail on objects with known dates. Potassium-argon dating of mineral concentrates from the lava dome formed by Mount St. Helens returned ages of millions of years and yet the age of the lava dome is known as the eruption happened just decades ago .
There are also instances where radioactive elements are found in objects assumed way too old to be found in. For instance, Carbon 14 has been found in diamonds assumed to be billions of years old when there should be no Carbon 14 left .
I expect that my opponent might try to counter with isochron dating but this also produces false results on rocks of known age. Radiometric dating along with isochron dating that was used on lava flows of known age that were created during the 20th century have returned astronomical results. Despite decades old, the rocks yielded ages of 133 million years with Rb - Sr, 197 million years with Sm - Nd, and 3.9 billion years with Pb - Pb. 
True age of the Earth:
Quick Note: Con’s source for this is broken it appears (I won’t hold it against you though. Live Science URLs are rather finicky from personal experience).
My response is in the findings of Dr Robert Gentry on the helium retention of zircons. In zircons, uranium decays into lead and helium. And in various zircons, uranium is found that has partially decayed into lead. From dating the uranium, the age of the zircons is believed to be 1.5 billion years. Because of the size and the fact that helium reacts to nothing, helium easily leaks out and should almost be completely absent from the zircons. However, the amount of helium still present is significant. Dating the zircons by the amount of helium still in the minerals yields an age of between 4,000 and 14,000 years consistent with the biblical timescale. 
Part of the answer to Con’s starlight objection can be found in Einstein’s theory of General Relatively which predicts the phenomenon of gravitational time dilation which states that time can be altered with gravity. Take for example the satellites in orbit that travels through time faster than Earth by hundreds of microseconds a day which can add up if the clocks up there don’t adjust themselves. Time dilation also occurs as the fabric of space expands in the universe. The fact that the outermost reaches of the universe travels through time faster than on Earth can help explain stars thousands of light years away.
Since the creation of the sun and the stars, the bible has stated the God has continued to “stretch out the heavens” and if the universe was smaller at the beginning of creation, then starlight isn’t a problem. 
(Note on Newton’s laws: I’m not arguing that light speed was different so this sub-argument is irrelevant to what I am arguing. By the way, you quoted the wrong law. It is actually Newton’s First Law of Motion. )
The Fossil Record:
Con portrayal of the fossil record is over simplistic claiming that it is perfect and there is no mixed up fossils. However, there are fossils that don’t belong. For instance, there was a dog-sized mammal fossil found with a small dinosaur in its stomach. Yet during the time of the dinosaurs, there aren’t supposed to be mammals large enough to eat dinosaurs .
Not to mention, there are mechanisms that can explain the general order of the fossil record that are consistent with the idea of Noah’s flood:
I would go into more detail into these mechanisms but as I am low on time I cannot but I will in later rounds along with my other rebuttals.
On to you Con………………
 Gould, S.J. (1941-2002), Ever Since Darwin, W.W. Norton, New York, NY, pp. 161-162, 1977
 Hughes, J., and 16 others (including David Page), Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463(7280):536–539, 28 January 2010.
 Huh, C.-A., Dependence of the decay rate of 7Be on chemical forms, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 171:325–328, 1999.
 Hu, Y., Meng, J., Wang, Y. & Li, C. “Large Mesozoic mammals fed on young dinosaurs,” Nature 433:149–152, January 13, 2005
 A.J. Jones, ‘How many animals on the Ark?’ Creation Research Society Quarterly 10(2):16–18, 1973.
 The Holy Bible
My opponent claims that researchers relocated guppies in a new environment, and that had allocated for rapid change within a short amount of time. He had then went on to explain how it can provide evidence for Creation and evidence against Evolution since the change was exponentially faster than said by the fossil record.
However, it is also important to note that these researchers artificially relocated guppies. The chance of this happening by nature would be very rare, considering guppies can not jump out of a waterfall and relocate.
I would like to note that my opponent seems to be contradicting themselves. They demon
Now onto disproving this idea...
I would first like to note that the first study listed is very old (published in the year 1979.) Future studies my indicate otherwise. My opponent also does not suggest any concrete evidence for harmful mutations outweighing beneficial mutations. Rather, they use charts and graphics that suggest so, but have no backing to them.
A study by Michael W. Nachman and Susan L. Crowell from the University of Arizona has said otherwise.
"Most previous estimates of the human mutation rate have utilized one of three approaches. Two of these approaches rely on pheno-typic differences associated with diseases and the third approach relies on direct comparison of DNA sequences without function. These phenotypic and molecular methods are fundamentally different and rely on different assumptions." (Quote from the study)
This study has used better and more accurate estimates of finding the human mutation rate. Previous mutations have relied on differences correlated with diseases, and directly comparing DNA without function.
The researchers estimate that 3/175 mutations are harmful; the mast majority of mutations are in fact neutral. An experiment with the bacteria E. Coli also found that 1/150 rising mutations are beneficial, and 1/10 functional mutations are beneficial. Furthermore, harmful mutations usually last a lot shorter than beneficial mutations. Processes such as (but not limited to) natural selection come into play here when weeding out harmful mutations.
Futhermore, the science of epigenetics may provide more evidence for rapid change, and could possibly prove more rapid change within shorter amounts of time.
While 'living fossils' may seem contradicting towards evolution, this does not imply Evolution is false. In a relatively unchanging environment, organisms would likely not change by a good amount. Many environments on Earth, especially in the ocean, have remained relatively unchanged. Furthermore, living fossils are not inheretly subject to no change what so ever despite common misconceptions. A living fossil may seem relatively unchanged, but there might be many micro-evolutionary changes that have occured.
Now onto dinosaur blood, red blood cells were indeed found in a dinosaur bone as proclaimed by my opponent. This doesn't neccessarily prove a young-earth none the less. According to research done on this, Iron had helped preserve the blood vessels for so long.
"he researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, Schweitzer said.
"The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, 'Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that's not going to be there?' and nobody looks," she said.
The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron."
Since I am running low on time, I will refute my opponents' argument on design in the next round. I apologize for my short arguments, as I have had minimal time to prepare my arguments.
Pro's design rebuttal:
I apologize as to the missing images in my beginning arguments. I’ll try reposting them now:
Kimura’s distribution of mutations
Crow’s figures plotted over 300 generations (6000 - 9000 years)
Graph of Biblical lifetimes since Noah
Soft tissue in dinosaurs
Human facial muscles
The purpose of the study was to show that in a different environments, speciation can happen quite rapidly making the creation model plausible. As with Con’s only objection, such species could easily be relocated by nature through extreme weather such as floods, storms, and tornadoes.
It appears that I need to clarify a few things. Speciation can still happen even though functional information in the genome is lost as there is still plenty of functional information to sustain the organism. However, in order for dinosaurs to let’s say evolve into birds, a vast amount of functional information must be introduced to the genome to code features such as functional wings.
Despite the fact that Nachman and Crowell’s numbers are lower than the numbers put forward by Kimura, they still acknowledge the problem. In the very same paper they state :
The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (Muller 1950; Wallace 1981; Crow 1993; Kondrashov 1995; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 - e(to the -u) (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher.
The study also makes some unrealistic assumptions. They assume that, “Silent substitutions are entirely neutral” despite the fact that such mutations affect splicing and mRNA stability .
The authors also acknowledge that their estimate is too low:
In fact, this range is likely to be biased downward because we have considered only nonsynonymous sites as potential targets for deleterious mutations.
Since they haven’t looked at the “silent” mutations for whether or not they’re deleterious or beneficial and that they make up the majority of mutations we must relegate to Kimura’s study. You also attack the methodology that Kimura used to figure out mutation rate but it is not much different as to how Nachman and Crowell arrived to their figures as the paper itself references Kimura’s papers a lot in their study.
Con also concedes the estimates of beneficial mutations with Lenski. He also concedes the rate of degradation within the human genome with Crow’s estimates. And he also concedes that if Crow’s estimates were plotted over 300 generations (6000 - 9000 years), the graph happens to look very similar to the lifetimes of biblical figures supporting the creationism’s thousands of years.
The problem is that such creatures would have had to evolve. Take a look at all the mass extinction events that supposedly took place throughout evolution’s history. Many involve dramatic change in the world’s climate. Marine animals aren’t safe as some mass extinction occur within Earth’s oceans such as the Ireviken event. 
Even not taking into account the climate, such organisms still experience change on the genetic level as mutations still happen. And also, if a select few organisms “do not evolve”, wouldn’t they end up extinct as the organisms around them are evolving, their competition, predators, prey, parasites, pathogens.
The biggest flaw in Schweitzer’s conclusions can be seen by looking at the experiment.
They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years. 
One might question how much iron is in the liquid used to preserve the blood vessels and whether or not this realistically represents the amount of iron in blood vessels. The biggest one however is that somehow a two year experiment justifies 65 million years of preservation. Iron cannot preserve proteins as well as say formaldehyde because formaldehyde can form covalent cross-links between protein chains whereas iron cannot. In addition, recent research has shown that iron generated free hydroxyl radicals that according to Schweitzer should have preserved the soft tissue would more likely help degrade proteins and other organic matter.  
Arguments from design:
“ However, it is important to note that the vast majority of mutations are neutral/cosmetic, and do not help or hurt one's chance of survival.”
----- I’ve addressed this in my genetics argument
“Furthermore, human facial expressions can have aided in survival by sending "signals" to other humans, thus leading humans to survive as a group rather than "ripping" at one another.”
--------- You state why such a system would be beneficial but never explain how such a system could evolve.
“Rather than acting as evidence for Creation, this argument could be used to argue for Theistic Evolution, with a God assisting in evolution.”
---------- I don’t see how this necessarily helps your case, you are arguing for a model that is purely naturalistic.
 DeMassa, J.M. and Boudreaux, E., Dinosaur peptide preservation and degradation, Creation Research Society Quarterly 51:268–285, 2015.
triangle.128k forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|