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

Evelution vs Young Earth Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 2/8/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,202 times Debate No: 45477
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




This is my first debate one here and I thought this would be an interesting topic.

I will be arguing that the theory of evolution is a more logical explanation of the origins of modern day life than the young earth creationism theory.

First round acceptance.

Like I said this is my first debate so please forgive me if i mess up on any formalities.


I will take the side of con.

I will argue that evolution is not more logical than creationism.

Please don't worry about etiquette, I'd like this to be a casual debate that is enjoyable and fun.

Since I got crapped on on my last debate for this, I'll point out I'm playing devils advocate and will lean on argument rules and logic rather than facts to build my argument. Free hint IceHawk2009.

Any terms you'd like to lay out or a specific source you want to use? I'm okay with Wikipedia.
Debate Round No. 1


You may use any source you would like. It does not matter to me.

Disproving the Yung Earth.

Most Young Earth Creationist argue that the earth and universe is only 6,000-10,000 years old. If this were true how can we see stars that are further than 6,000-10,000 light years away? The farthest star away that we can see is around 13 billion light years away[1]. As we know a light year is a measurement of distance, not time. A light year is the distance light can travel in one year[2]. Knowing this how can it be possible that Earth is less than 13 billion years old?

A second argument against a young earth is the Quaking Aspen colony in Fish Lake National Forest in Utah.[3] This tree colony is the oldest living thing on the planet. Each individual tree is 200 years old; however the root system is 80,000 years old[4]. If the Earth was only 10,000 years old how can this tree have a root system of 80,000 years old?

A third argument would be humans. The oldest human fossil found is about 160,000 years old[5]. On top of that the oldest evidence of civilization goes back 80,000 years in Africa[6]. Know that humans were around 160,00 years ago and the first civilization came into existence 80,000 years ago would disprove that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Fourth and final argument to disprove that we live on a young earth is that the radioactive dating of meteorites date the planet to be about 4.5 billion years. Yes it is true that we can not directly measure core samples of the Earth, but we know that the Earth formed at the same time as the rest of the Solar System[7]. Knowing this we can radioactive date meteorites that have struck the earth and that works out to be about 4.5 billion years[8]

Proving Evolution

The first argument for evolution is DNA. Every living thing on the planet is composed of cells and those cells contain DNA[1]. This would strongly suggest that we came from a single source. DNA can be used to see how two different species are related to each other[2]. Just about all organisms use the same nucleic acid to make up there DNA which would suggest the existence of a single ancestor[3].

The Next argument for evolution is the fossil record. The fossil record shows us that the fossilized remains of simplistic organisms are in the oldest rock layers, and as you move in to the newer rock layers you can see a gradual change in to more complex organisms[4] [5].

Third argument for evolution is the existence of drug resistant organisms such as MRSA. MRSA evolved from S. aureus threw natural selection to be resistant to many different drugs[6].

The fact that the idea of a young Earth is completely disproved by science and that fact that DNA, the fossil record, and the fact that we can observe evolution proves that Evolution is a better explanation for the origins of modern day species.



I commend pro for his (or her) thorough research and very well formatted argument. However I have to apologise as, in true creationist character I am going to ignore all of it and attack a more core principle of your argument. IceHawk and other readers please keep in mind I accepted this debate to prove the conclusion "evolution is not more logical than creationism." I'm sure it could be argued otherwise, but this means that burden of proof lay with pro on his (or her) assertion that "evolution is a more logical explanation of the origins of modern day life than the young earth creationism theory."

All of your research is scientifically reasonable and well sourced. As well, it is backed by experts in their selective fields and for me to take issue with their evidence/research would do my argument no justice as I would be beating my head against a wall. It is also true as you stated at the end of your argument that " the idea of a young Earth is completely disproved by science." This does not mean though that "evolution is a more logical explanation of the origins of modern day life than the young earth creationism theory..." as I will show.

The reason I am dismissing your evidence and majority of your argument is because it is grounded in faith. You have faith in how you perceive the world (through your senses), this is the basis for science. We observe the universe and use reason to derive conclusions from it. This is where your evidence comes from. However, you have no reason to trust that your senses are accurate. FURTHER, you actually DO HAVE reason to accept the fallibility of science based on history, as past discoveries of science have been proven inaccurate or wrong altogether (namely the Aristotelian notions of physics and chemistry and later on Newtonian physics). Yet you have placed faith in the accuracy and truth of science and reason.

I am sure you would agree that basing belief in something (be it science & reason or religion) that is based in faith is illogical in that the only logic involved is circular (we trust our senses because we use them to reinforce the belief that our senses are trustworthy). From these premises I therefore conclude that it is not logical to accept the scientific "explanation of the origins of modern day life."

I do not deny that creationist's faith in God and the biblical accounts of the origins of life are any less grounded in faith than the scientific ones you presented. Fortunately for me I do not have to prove they are more logical as my conclusion was "evolution is not more logical than creationism."

I apologise to pro for taking the debate in a direction he likely did not want it to go.
Debate Round No. 2


I was not expecting to go here and I but what the heck I’ll role with it. Let’s talk about faith. My personal definition for faith that comes from the merriam-webster dictionary is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof”[1] . Another word for proof is evidence and evidence is visual sign of something. After the word faith I fail to follow you. You talk how my evidence is based that on the fact that I have faith my senses are correct? Why would my sense of sight be inaccurate? I can see the fossils and see the links. I can see how the DNA is all related. I am sorry I do not understand this point well enough to responds further.

Yes science has made mistakes. The reason we disprove is we invent new technology and can look at things from a different angel or more indepth. Fore example around I believe the 1400’s people believed that the sun revolved around the earth. When the telescope was invented we were able to disprove that.

If you break stuff down small enough and play with words you can make anything circular. This debate has gone from Science to philosophy which is definitely not what I intended.



Concerning the use of faith, my point was that you place faith in reason and your senses. You cannot objectively know whether or not your senses are trustworthy because the only thing you have by which to test them are you senses. For example, you could be in a coma and this is just an unconscious dream, however your senses (in the dream) tell you what your experiencing is real. Your senses are lying to you but you believe them.

Relating this back to the debate, my point was that you can offer no logical proof that your senses (and therefore scientific proofs) are rooted in a faith in their accuracy/truthfulness. I won't lie, I believe the creationist argument a lost cause and so I am basing my argument on careful language (yours and mine) and philosophy.

This doesn't mean though that my argument is any less reasonable. Both belief in science and religion are rooted in faith and therefore equally illogical (or equally logical).
Debate Round No. 3


OK lets address how we can trust or senses. If I drop a rock do you argue that it does not fall? Its only me who precipices the rock hitting the ground? If I show you a fossil doe is only appear to me and no one else can see it? If I show you lab results do they only appear to me and no one else? You can see the evidence as well as I do.

If I am in a dream it is still my reality that you are a part of. That does not change the fact that we can observe the same thing.


I don't deny what you perceive with your senses, but I am saying that you cannot have certainty in your senses. Senses can be deceived, in the case of a mirage your eyes see heat waves that look identical to water. People who have lost limbs can feel pain where their limb formerly was (phantom limb pain). Since you can't know for certain that your senses are giving you objective data, you take a leap of faith and assume they are. I'm attacking this leap of faith, as I posited earlier I'm sure you'll agree that accepting something on faith is illogical.

Just because we both observe the same thing doesn't necessitate it's truth. If we're both walking in a desert and see water in front of us doesn't mean water is there. It could be a mirage, or maybe (and very outlandishly) we could all be in the matrix. If we perceive something as true in a virtual reality and the virtual reality intends it to appear true does that make it so? No because that means truth is potentially subjective to the context in which it's presented. It could be that outside this virtual reality a divine being does exist, but we can't know because we are subject to the context of our reality (virtual reality).
Debate Round No. 4


Closing argument.

The fact is that it is not logical to think that creationism is equally logical as young earth creationism. I have shown evidence to prove me point where as my opponent simply played with words to prove his side. Not one argument was given in defense of creationism. Not one.


I implore everyone to remember the two arguments being presented here:

IceHawk2009 - "the theory of evolution is a more logical explanation of the origins of modern day life than the young earth creationism theory"

Internationalist - "evolution is not more logical than creationism"

In my argument I have at least tried to show that the scientific evidence IceHawk2009 presented is, at the most fundamental level, also rooted in a leap of faith. Faith in the certainty of our senses and perception of our environment. I have tried to show how this leap, as a leap of faith, is illogical of which I'm sure my opponent would agree with (that is that he would agree a leap of faith is illogical). Lastly, I have tried to show that since there is a leap of faith in trusting our senses (and therefore science) as there is in religious belief (and therefore creationism) than it is at least as illogical as a belief in creationism and therefore sufficient to my conclusion that "evolution is not more logical than creationism."

While the evidence IceHawk2009 presented is relevant to support a belief in evolution rather than creationism it does not provide support for the logic of believing in it. While this is clearly not what IceHawk2009 intended the argument to be about, it is exactly what he stated it to be about.

I wish best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ambassador4christ 2 years ago
Belief in a God is the only rational explanation of the universe. Even if the universe could have evolved the chances are so very slim. Even if the universe is billions of years old, it does not account for how the universe came into existence. The atheist now is making the great leap of faith. It's not a rational problem, the problem is that if there is a God there is a judge now. Men are sinful and do not want a judge. It's a heart issue, not a mind issue.

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
-Romans 1:20

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."
Posted by Internationalist 2 years ago
Nomods I take back what I said.
Posted by Internationalist 2 years ago
While I agree with you I'm not sure what the relevance is to the debate.
Posted by nomods 2 years ago
Young Earth Creationism is based on fideism therefore it is impossible to disprove in the eyes of its supporters. To clarify, faith is belief without need for empirical or logical evidence and as such no falsification using this standard of evidence is sufficient to sway a fideist's conviction.
This incompatibility makes any attempt to debate a fideist doomed to failure and thus pointless. A more suitable course of action is to promote the value of science and to limit the opportunities for religious indoctrination of children. This means not only teaching science in school as we already do, but explaining to students why the scientific method is by far the best approach to understanding reality.
No votes have been placed for this debate.