The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Creationism (con) Evolution (Pro)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,199 times Debate No: 25731
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Debate between Creationism and Evolution.

Give arguments in first round.


These are juat very simple arguments. i didnt want it to have the complications of all the scientific terms so everyone can understand.1. The Coriolis Effect.... ignore where it says refer to picture.
The earth today is spinning about 1000 mph at its equator! But we got a problem. Its slowing down. The earth is gradually getting slower and slower. That's, a problem. As a matter of fact there's been several times where they've had to add seconds to the clock. (picture #1) they've had to add seconds on to the clocks to make them accurate. Were slowing down, not by much! And if you go back 6000 years no big deal. Adam and Eve might have had a 24 ½ hour day. No big deal, IF creation is true. But you want me to believe that the earth is billions of years old? Now we got a problem because the winds on earth are created by the Coriolis effect because of the earths spinning (picture #2) when you go back just a few million years, the earth would have been spinning so fast that the winds from the Coriolis effect would've been 500mph. So i guess we know what happened to the dinosaurs now right?! (picture #3) they got blown off man! Cant you see it?
.2. Our moon goes around the earth. The moon is what causes our tides. Its a gravitational pull on the earth. You may say, "Well no big deal we have tides these days." But, the moon is getting farther and farther away from the earth. Oh no! Were losing the moon? No, don't worry it's only a few small inches a year. No big deal, but you want me to believe that the earth and the moon are billions of years old? Now we've got a problem! Because you go backwards in time, you see where the moon is today and it keeps getting farther away so that means that the moon use to be what? Closer! You go back in time and the moon would soon way less than billions of years, less than a billion years would drown everything twice a day, that's how close it would be. (picture #1) last time i checked you can only drown once a day, so that creates serious problems for life here on earth. You go back about 1.3 billion years then you have a really serious problem. The moon is skimming the surface of the earth! Just 1.3 billion years ago. Well, i guess that explains what happened to the really tall dinosaurs. (picture #2) they must've got "mooned" to death? They had a serious problem with the moon being that close, a billion years ago. 2. Evidence of a Young Earth (ignore when it says refer to picture)
The Bible clearly puts the age of the earth about 6000 years ago. Not millions of years ago. There are numerous scientific ways to show the universe is not billions of years old. I'm going to go through as many as I can right now, there's a bunch of them. First one, and a really great one: the human population. Back in 1999 the human population crossed the 6 billion mark. (refer to picture #1) There are now more than 6 ½ billion people on the earth, that's a lot of people. Trace the human population backwards and you'll find some really interesting information. In 1985 there were only 5 billion people on the face of the planet earth. Back in 1800 there were only 1 billion alive on planet earth. (refer to picture #2) The human population actually makes a curve on a graph. (refer to picture #2 and 3) and it shows the entire world population started about 4400 years ago. Not millions of years ago. We don't have enough people here on earth to represent people living here millions of years ago. You hear people say the earth is overcrowded? (refer to picture #4) I do not believe that this world is. There is plenty of room, so much room that you know every single person on earth could fit inside the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida. Its only 25 billion square feet. I can't believe people say the earth is overcrowded. Have you ever driven across Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, or Wyoming? So much empty land. Now if it's overcrowded where you are in a city, then move! There is plenty of space out there. Now the world population is very distinct, because at the time of christ there was only a quarter of a billion people. (refer to picture #5) that means human population teaches us that mankind, if you trace it back: has only been here for 4400 years. Not millions or billions of years. If evolution is true, if man has been here for 3 million years as evolution claims; how many people should be on planet earth in 3 million years? You do the math on that, and there should be 150,000 people per square inch. Now that's crowded. Encyclopedia did an interesting study: if you were to go backwards in time from today's population, now our growth population right now is 1.7%. They lowered that down to where our growth population was only .5% annually. If you go back in time at only .5% annually the result would be a handful of people 4500 years ago. Just the same as it would be at the time of Noah's flood! Now they said, if you were to go back a million years ago and a million years ago was when the first ape stood up right and declared himself human, "AHA the first human!" And then made somebody else stand up and said, "okay your gonna be my wife I'm gonna be a human and your gonna be a human were gonna make humans!" Okay so, they did that a million years ago, and you were to have a population growth rate of .01% just a little tiny insignificant number. That would mean at that rate it would be a doubling of the people every... 7000... years... so you start a million years ago with 2 people. 7000 thousand years later you now have four. 7000 years after that you get eight. 7000 years after that you get 16. 7000 years after that you get 32. You do this for ONE million years (out of three as said by the theory) you have an astonishing 142 doublings that would take place. And there should be on planet earth right now, 10 to the 43rd power. That's a ten followed by 43 0's. That's how many people would be here at that incredibly slow growth rate. No, we haven't been here for millions of years. The evidence is clear only a few thousand years. So the human population is a great way to show how long we've actually been here.
Debate Round No. 1


Please form the arguments in a way that is not all scrunched up. Very hard to read it. Space them out or use click "Rich Text" above the text box in the "Post an argument" field.

So this is now like a young vs old earth, but that's fine

1. Earth spinning

Since the day length is connected with the Moon recession discussed in your next argument a linear equation is too simplistic to model this case as well. Uniformitarianism is usually dismissed for phenomena such as radioactive decay, for which no mechanisms of rate change are known, yet insists on using uniformitarian assumptions in places where they are clearly wrong and there are obvious mechanisms for rate changes.The evidence listed in from tidal rhythmites suggests that 2.45 billion years ago the day was 17.1-18.9 hours long [1]

While it is true that the Earth's rotation is slowing down, it is not doing so at a rate that would stop it in a few million years. The constant rate at which leap seconds are added does not demonstrate that the earth is slowing down that quickly.

Earth's rotation is slowing down mainly due to the presence of the Moon, which is also receding from Earth. This process is called tidal locking. It did not occur before the Moon was formed, and will not continue to occur after spin-orbit resonance is achieved. That will be when one Earth month is the same as one Earth day (both being 55 "current" days). This will take about 15 billion years to occur. The Sun will not even last that long, so it's a pretty moot point. The rate of the Moon's recession, and also of the Earth's slowing spin, is also decreasing with time.

Creationists who use this claim fail to, or refuse to appreciate how slow the rate of slowing actually is... 450 million years ago, days in the Ordovician period were around 22 hours long.[2][3]

2. Lunar recession

The moon is currently receding at 3.8 cm/year[4] and is 3.8*10^10 cm from the Earth. This allows perfectly well for a billion-year time scale.

The moon's recession and the Earth's slowing are perfectly consistent with them both being billions of years old. In fact, if you assume that the function is linear (it's not), you end up with an age for both Earth and the moon that is actually quite a lot older than they actually are. This is because the rate of the moon's recession and Earth's slowing spin is, itself, slowing down.

Using a linear equation to model Moon recession is too simplistic to give anything even close to correct results.

Moving a satellite into a higher orbit, or away from the primary object, requires energy input. Recession of the Moon is caused by tidal friction, which converts the rotational energy of the Earth into the potential energy of the Moon,[5] and tidal friction in turn depends on the layout of the continents, which was different in the past.

Evidence from tidal rhythmites sediment deposits that show a thinly layered structure with each layer corresponding to one Moon orbit, similar to tree rings — indicates that 2.45 billion years ago the Moon was just 10% closer to the Earth than at present.[6]

3.Human growth

If this growth curve was accurate, there were only 13 people in Egypt during the construction of the pyramids

We can be certain that 4,500 years ago, there were far more than six people. 2500 BC corresponds to the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt[7] which saw the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza,[8][9] and the Mature Harappan period of the Indus Valley Civilization[10] during which it was most prosperous. Note that these are before the standard Great Flood date of 2348 BC.[11]

In fact, a Jesuit missionary, Martino Martini,[12] who was sent to China in the 1650s, was shocked to find that Chinese records chronicled the Imperial dynasty from the first emperor in 2952 BC. An emperor, of course, requires a large population to rule over, not a single individual. Even to a strict Jesuit the Chinese records appeared more reliable and detailed than those of the Jews, they contained no gaps, even the earliest entries were written by contemporary authors, they were strictly factual without any reference to myths or legends, and they could be cross-referenced to the dates of solar eclipses calculated by European astronomers.[13]

The linked article says that of course the growth rate has changed, but still fails to consider that in some periods, more people died than were born, which meant the population growth was negative. e.g., the Black Death [14] epidemic in 14th century Europe, which exterminated almost a fourth of humanity.

The reality is that, as we see in animals today, the human population was relatively static for much of our history, and determined by the carrying capacity[15] of the environment — quality of soil, fresh water, diseases, weather, and so on. Only our technical advances in agriculture and medicine have allowed us to dramatically expand the carrying capacity of the Earth and thus increase our population

Arguments for Old earth!


The formation of permafrost (frozen ground) is a slow process. To be consistent with the young earth creationist model, which states that all sediment was deposited by the Global Flood, there would have to be absolutely no permafrost present at the end of the flood, because any permafrost that was present at the moment of creation would have been melted during the flood.

Because earth is a good insulator and permafrost forms downward from the surface, it would have taken much more than the few thousand years allotted by creation theory to produce some of the deepest permafrost. In the Prudhoe Bay oil fields of Alaska, the permafrost which extends over 600 meters into the ground is believed to have taken over 225,000 years to reach present depth.[16]

Radioactive decay

Radioactive decay is the constant predictable decay of unstable atoms into more stable isotopes or elements. Measurements of atomic decay are generally considered one of the most accurate ways of measuring the age of an object, and these measurements form the basis for the scientifically accepted age of the Earth. There are many different variations of the radiometric dating technique such as radiocarbon, argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, potassium-argon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, uranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, and uranium-uranium, of which every single one will date objects far older than 10,000 years.[17]

Because radiometric dating is one of the most commonly used methods of determining age, these techniques are under constant attack from young earth supporters. A few creationists, armed with only a cursory knowledge and a desire to think that they're better than scientific "experts", may misunderstand the process of radiometric decay and just not believe it works. This is often accompanied by ignoring the high concordance of radiometric methods.

However, the most frequently used method of attack is to give examples of objects of known ages that were dated incorrectly. These instances are by far the exception rather than the rule and are usually due to unforeseen contamination or other errors that can be quickly identified and compensated for. This is not "cheating" and forcing results to confirm to expectations as many young earth creationists may claim, it is making the data as accurate and precise as possible (if it is "cheating" then cleaning your camera lens to get a better and clearer picture is also cheating).

[1] I didn't have enough space to post all sources, but I uploaded them all to a text hosting site

they can be viewed here


^ Video on lunar retreat


Lunar recession

Friction by the tides is slowing the earth’s rotation, so the length of a day is increasing by 0.002 seconds per century. This means that the earth is losing angular momentum.7 The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum says that the angular momentum the earth loses must be gained by the moon. Thus the moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm (1½ inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance.8 NB: this is the maximum possible age—far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks)—not the actual age.

Refrences and notes
Fred Pearce, ‘Catching the tide’, New Scientist158(2139):38–41, June 20, 1998.

Human population growth

According to the now-prevailing view, the first humans lived over a million years ago. If that is really so, where are all the trillions of people who should either be alive, or whose buried remains, potentially fossilized, should be found in vast graveyards scattered around the world?

"I worked out how many times the world’s population had doubled since the first man and woman. Allowing for past diseases, famines, pestilence, wars and infant mortality, the population would probably have doubled at about the rate of once every couple of hundred years, allowing for it to be much slower than the sixty to seventy years it took to double last time. Multiplying the number of times that the population doubled by a couple of hundred years should give a rough idea, give or take a few thousand years, of when the first two humans were either created or evolved.

Believe it or not, the world’s population has doubled only 31½ times since the first human couple appeared on earth. This gives 6,500 years. You can by Text-Enhance" href="#">work it out for yourself on your own calculator.

A lecturer on evolution once told me that there were never just two people because a whole population would have evolved. If that were so, then that would mean that the human population has doubled far less than 31½ times. But, to maximize believability of the evolutionary scenario, let’s say that the population started with only four people a million years ago. This would mean that the average time that the world’s population took to double was about 33,000 years (30.5 doublings). So it would have taken that many years to get to eight people, and another 33,000 years before the world’s population rose to 16. That is rather slow growth—by comparison, a Maori lady died in New Zealand in December 1984 at the age of 112, leaving 450 descendants.

Population growth is increasing currently at a rate of approximately 1.8% per annum (World Book Encyclopaedia), or doubling every 39 years.

Even if the average time that the population doubled in the past was as slow as once every thousand years (that is one twenty-fifth of the present growth rate), this would put the first pair of humans on Earth only 31,500 years ago.

Some people, not willing to believe that mankind was created only a few thousand years ago, claim that the world’s population has been almost wiped out many times. Clearly it has never been wiped out entirely. While some people will assert that the human population has been almost wiped out a number of times, without their providing any evidence to back it up, these same people get very agitated if we suggest that the population was nearly wiped out once by a great Flood in the time of Noah.

The world’s population was approximately 600 million in the year 1650 and increased to about 2,400 million by 1950. This means that it would have doubled twice in 300 years, at an average rate of once every 150 years.

Thanks to the Bible, we can trace the lineages of Jews and Arabs right back to the same patriarch, Abraham, who was born about 2167 BC and had six sons. His first son, Ishmael, was the father of the Arabs, and his second son, Isaac, was the father of Jacob, later called Israel, from whose twelve sons came the 12 tribes of Israel, better known as the Jews.

The World Book of Knowledge says that there are approximately 200 million Arabs in the world and about 18 million Jews.

This means that since Abraham’s time, his descendants through only two sons have doubled roughly 28 times at an average rate of about once every 150 years.

Now the Jewish people have undergone a tremendous amount of persecution and slaughter over the centuries. Hitler murdered over six million in concentration camps alone during the Second World War.

They must have lost many members through disease, infant mortality and starvation over the centuries just as other people groups have. Their history is replete with stories of battles and loss of life because of wars. Yet we find that their numbers have doubled a minimum of 23 times, at an average rate of once every 182 years.

We can calculate the rate of population growth starting from about 4,500 years ago, when, from the historical details found in the Bible, Noah and his family—eight in total—survived the deluge. That population has to double 29½ times to get the current world’s population of six and a half billion, at an average doubling rate of once every 152 years. Interesting, isn’t it? The Bible’s timeframe of history fits the data." - Silvio Famularo visit the article Where are all the people?. I think you will find that the corroborating evidence there will fill in any gaps. At (creation ministries, inc).

The flood and the Ice Age

There is strong evidence that, following the Flood, for a time ice and snow covered much of Canada and northern USA, northwestern Eurasia, Greenland and Antarctica. Evolutionists believe there were many ice ages, but it’s more likely they were advance/retreat cycles within a single Ice Age.

Evolutionists find the cause of the Ice Age a mystery. Obviously the climate would need to be colder. But global cooling by itself is not enough, because then there would be less evaporation, so less snow. How is it possible to have both a cold climate and lots of evaporation?

The creationist meteorologist Michael Oard proposed that the Ice Age [possibly referred to in Job 37:10 and 38:22] was an aftermath of Noah’s Flood.18,19 When ‘all the fountains of the great deep’broke up, much hot water and lava would have poured directly into the oceans. This would have warmed the oceans, increasing evaporation. At the same time, much volcanic ash in the air after the Flood would have blocked out much sunlight, cooling the land. So the Flood would have produced the necessary combination of lots of evaporation from the warmed oceans and cool continental climate from the volcanic ash ‘sunblock’. This would have resulted in increased snowfall over the continents. With the snow falling faster than it melted, ice sheets would have built up.

Austin, S., Ed., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, pp. 94–95, ICR, Santee, CA, USA, 1994. Return to text.
  • Ref. 1, pp. 46–47. Return to text.
  • Wieland, C., Tackling the big freeze: An interview with creationism’s ‘Mr Ice Age’ — weather scientist Michael Oard, Creation19(1):42–43, 1996. Return to text.
visit here for a article of 101 evidences for a young age earth. i cant post here because of the character limit. I might mention a few later.
Debate Round No. 2


Earth's slowing rotation.

Not addressed.

Lunar recession you just posted the argument again. I gave you a video and links in my sources explained how the arrangement of the continents effected the rotation and recession of the moon. All ignored.

Since my response was ignored here is some more refutations of this argument

Lunar recession actually disproves Young earth creationism

Geologist Ken Eriksson studied these South African rocks and found that they had tidal deposits that showed at one time in the past the moon orbited 25% closer to earth than today [1]. The distance from the earth to the moon is 384,403 kilometers. In order for Ken Erikssons findings to be consistent with YECism the moon would need to be receding at about 15 kilometers a year. Yet its only 3.8 cm a year.

if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth,

From the how good are those YEC arguments

"It may surprise you to learn that Charles Darwin's second son, George Darwin, regarded by many as the father of geophysics, studied the Moon's tidal effects in great detail. He came up with the idea that the Moon broke away from the earth due to rapid rotation (the fission theory), and estimated that at least 56 million years would be required for the Moon to have reached its present distance. George Darwin regarded his view of the Moon's origin as nothing more than a good guess, and he considered his time estimate to be nothing more than a lower limit. In the nineteenth century such a calculation of the earth's age was a reasonable scientific exercise. Today, in the light of what we now know, it's an exercise in futility. Too bad "scientific" creationists don't keep up with these little details. For more insight into the problem"

Human growth

First, Every living thing doesn't get fossilized

Second, Population growth would not be constant in history. Depending on the environment, human actions,ect population growth would become faster, slower, wouldn't grow at all or even drop. The quote you gave doesn't dispute this. Since at the end it claims it only measured it from 2 humans

Third, The environment can only support so many people. You can only get so much food out of an area of land. This restricts population growth.

Forth, accepting that the population increase was 0.5 percent per year as claimed in your original post. Lets start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E.

The population after N years is given by

P(N) = 8 × (1.005)N

The Pyramids of Giza were constructed before 2490 B.C.E., even before the proposed Flood date. Even if we assume they were built 100 years after the flood, then the world population for their construction was 13 people. [2]

The reason why we have a spike in population growth is due primarily to advances in agricultural technology and that extrapolating this growth rate indefinitely into the past is completely unjustified.

Ice age

Oh yes I remember that part of Genesis, about the ice age,all the volcanic ash,hot water,lava, the blockage of sunlight and the snow.

  1. The only way you can get enough water to flood the entire planet would be to melt all of the polar caps and pray for enough rain to leave the atmosphere relatively devoid of any appreciable moisture, a difficult thing to do since the moisture referenced in this article is apparently falling from the sky while it is being returned to the sky. Typical rainfall originates above the immediate ground layer, where moisture from a rainfall can be trapped. The upper atmosphere, where the moisture needs to be in order to circulate on a scale sufficient to bring it back to the poles, is typically left in a much more arid state than before the rainfall. Even the notion that a planet entirely covered with water would result in much more evaporation (and thus the formation of more clouds and rain) cannot explain the fact that the polar regions would need to be relatively warm for the basic premise to be true, meaning that rainfall would be exactly that, and not snowfall.
  2. The Bible nowhere refers to an ice age after the Flood.
  3. All scientific evidence points to an ice age much longer ago than the Flood.[3]

visit here for a article of 101 evidences for a young age earth. i cant post here because of the character limit. I might mention a few later.

Please don't. They've been refuted[4]

Almost all my arguments and my rebuttals were ignored

Vote Pro




thetruthexists forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.