Evidence exists that is more logical for creationist than evolutionist conclusions
1st Round for Acceptance/Definitions.
I will be arguing that evidence exists which is more logical from a Creationist point of view than an Evolutionist worldview.
Opponent will be arguing that evidence does not exist which is more logical from a Creationist point of view than an Evolutionist worldview.
My goal is to show that evidence exists which is most reasonable from a Creationist, not Evolutionist, standpoint.
By Creationism I refer to life having been created in the past 20,000 years or so. I accept nonetheless that the world itself may be far older per Gap Theory, with Genesis 1:2 indicating the Earth already existed before the week of Creation. By microevolution I refer to the change between core types of life that can be witnessed today, for example bacteria evolving as bacteria, moths as moths, canines as canines, etc. A Creationist views microevolution as compatible with a Creator designing core categories of life that adapted to their environments. Thus in essence the Creationist viewpoint being presented is that a Creator made original models of life that adapted to their environments to become the varieties we see today.
By Evolution I refer to the theory that life descended from a common ancestor over millions and billions of years. Whereas the Creationism model would see multiple common ancestors created, for example a canine common ancestor, feline common ancestor, etc., the Evolution model would involve everything descending from a single primitive form. By macroevolution I refer to the belief that evolution between clearly different types of life occurs, so that all life came from a common ancestor (pigs, birds, crocodiles, rats, etc.). Unlike microevolution this cannot be witnessed today. This is distinguished from Creationism which believes all rodents originate from a common rodent ancestor, elephants from a common elephant ancestor, canines from a common canines ancestor, but that these different types of life (canines, rodents, elephants) are not related to one another.
Transitional Forms refer to the proposed macroevolutionary links that Charles Darwin claimed exist between core types of life. Darwin for example in "On the Origin of Species" said "Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?... ..Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Catastrophism, should the subject arise, will refer to the theory that geology is largely the result of mass catastrophes that occurred in short periods of time rather than slow geologic processes over long periods of time. This was the prevailing viewpoint before Charles Lyell's Uniformitarianism and was used by Creationists at the time such as William Buckland to argue for a global Flood. Uniformitarianism, by contrast, refers to the theory that the entire fossil record is the result of slow, constant, and gradual geologic processes over long periods of time.
Punctuated Equilibrium should the subject arise will refer to the theory originated by Gould and Eldredge in 1972 proposing that, contrary to Darwin's original model of steady, gradualistic evolution, evolution instead sped up over short time periods, as a way to explain the absence of crucial transitional forms in the fossil record. Gould and Eldredge's paper can be seen here.
I thank my opponent for accepting the debate challenge and will seek to provide proof of evidence that is more reasonable from a Creationist worldview than an Evolutionist worldview. Thus I present the following:
1. Human Population Growth Rates:
A core scientific precept used in radiometric dating is that "the present is the key to the past" or in other words, the rates observed today (including radiometric decay rates) can be assumed constant in the distant past. However, the rates of population growth that we see today are far too rapid for humans to have existed millions of years ago. Annual population growth rates today exceed 1% in the majority of the world's countries, and 51 of the world's 233 countries even have rates above 2%.
At a 1% growth rate (which most countries in the world have) one goes from 8 people (the survivors of Noah's Ark - Genesis 7:13) to 7 billion in just 2,071 years. Human population growth rates seen today are a strong evidence that the Bible is correct that human civilization is young. Even at rates just 1/5 those seen today, 0.2%, human population would still be younger than 7,000 years.
2. Dinosaur Soft Tissue:
Contrary to predictions based on the theory of Evolution, numerous cases of soft tissue have been discovered. Whereas it had been assumed soft tissue could not exist beyond 100,000 years, numerous finds of dinosaur soft tissue, including preserved blood vessels, are being discovered that supposedly date as far back as 65 million years:
Soft tissue was not supposed to be able to exist beyond 100,000 years, that it is being repeatedly discovered to have existed into the very depths of the fossil record is a strong evidence that life is younger, consistent with Creationism.
3. Living Fossils and Lazarus Taxa
From an Evolutionist standpoint it is difficult to explain how creatures can disappear from the fossil record for tens of millions of years, and then be discovered alive today after they'd been presumed long extinct. This is more believable from a Creationist paradigm. Examples include:
4. Microevolutionary Rates:
Again, if the "present is the key to the past" then we should see species adapting consistent with rates that would make them millions of years old. This is not what we see. Rather, microevolution is far more rapid, consistent with adaptation over "decades and tens of meters." Not only does this indicate a much younger date to life, but it raises the question of why, if macroevolution is a reality, can we not witness it occurring today as we can microevolution?
A series of hominid revelations over the past 20 years show the earliest humans weren't similar to modern apes but walked upright and were similar to modern man.
P1 is a deductive mathematical framework by which substance ages are calculated assuming rates of decay, initial and final amounts of the relevant elements, and also assumptions regarding contamination. P2 us trivially shown by citing a cursory search on Google Scholar for the terms “radiometric dating million” yielding over 38,000 results. The first page of results upon checking do all include dates with results over a million years old. 
“It is now quite clear that most zircons quantitatively (completely) exclude Pb when they crystallize from magma and that all the Pb contained in the zircon crystal lattice is from the decay of U.”
As such, the use of zircon crystals allows for control of the initial amounts of lead, giving zero or near-zero amounts. This observation is unanimous throughout the literature. Note that I do not actually need to affirm perfect exclusion of lead, only that significantly more lead is excluded than uranium, as that is enough with the margins of error being so large for this de bate (fiver orders of magnitude). Hence even if lead was only excluded 10 times less than uranium, it would only lead to ages being ~900 million years older than computed (since U238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years, and some rocks with fossils date to over 3 billion years), however our evidence shows that the exclusion is much more efficient than that.[11-14]
Moreover, the use of zircon crystals allows control over environmental factors, due to their exceptional chemical and physical durability:
“Also, zircon is tough physically and is chemically stable, so it doesn't dissolve during low-grade metamorphism and it stands up to being weathered out of an igneous rock and trundled down the rivers into beach sands, where it is incorporated in younger rocks”
My thanks to Con for a well-thought-out and well-written response! First of all I have shown evidence that indicates a younger date to life on Earth in human population growth rates, soft tissue, and microevolutionary rates; and reject the idea that radiometric dating can instantly falsify evidence that contrarily suggests a younger date. My points still stand as evidence that is more compatible with belief in a younger creation, i.e. creationism, than the slow, uniform, and gradual processes initially proposed by Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell.
The essence of the debate is not which side has greater evidence but whether evidence exists that is more reasonable from a Creationist point of view which I have thus far suitably demonstrated. Indeed, I could argue that my evidence falsifies radiometric dating; ultimately the evidence must be taken in totality or not at all. Con by dropping my points seemingly concedes that evidence exists for a younger date to life on Earth.
Nonetheless, in the interest of debate, I will address Con's remarks about radiometric dating and show that radiometric dating is not as definitive a proof against Creationism as is being claimed. Now, does radiometric dating definitively prove life existed over 20,000 years ago? As acknowledged by Con, this will necessarily rest upon whether radiometric dating rests upon "sound assumptions" for if those assumptions can be at all shown to be in question, then radiometric dating is as likely to fall apart as previous attempts at dating the Earth.
For example Dalrymple in 'The Age of the Earth' notes that previous efforts failed by assuming constant rates without taking into account all factors; for example De Maillet incorrectly claimed sea level decline could be used to date the Earth but failed to take into account the uplift and sinking of land areas (pp. 26-27), Kelvin incorrectly dated based on cooling of the Earth but failed in accounting for the complexity of Earth's heat sources (pp. 45-46), Joly miscalculated the age of the Earth by assuming constant salinity rates that are now known to be likely invalid and failed to take into account the complexity of erosion and rainfall variance (pp. 57-58), and George Darwin (Charles Darwin's son) incorrectly dated the age of the earth based on tidal friction without accounting for the complexity of Earth's heat loss. (pp. 50-51) At any rate, many previous efforts at dating the Earth are now known to have been flawed due to incorrectly assuming constant rates and presuming that all relevant factors were known.
With that said, on to radiometric dating.
Radiometric Dating's Faulty Assumptions
Radiometric dating is not as complex as it might seem, in essence one measures the amount of an isotope, for example 238u (a uranium isotope), and what it decays into, 206Pb (a lead isotope). Isotopes such as these actually exist in the atmosphere, 206Pb for example from aerosols. With radiometric dating one must know how much of the initial isotope there was (including what the atmospheric levels were like), whether the radiometric decay rates were constant (and if contaminated be able to prove this occurred), and whether any more of the daughter or parent isotopes were introduced while it was decaying (which would throw off the process).
1. Cherrypicking the Results
First of all it is a major concern to Creationists that Evolutionists discard any discordant dates which do not reach the conclusions they want. To quote Tas Walker of Creation Ministries International, "It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds."
Indeed, by throwing out all dates that disagree with their desired conclusions, the Evolutionist community disqualifies radiometric dating as credible, falsifiable science. If one refuses to acknowledge the evidence that disagrees with their point of view then they commit the fallacy of circular reasoning; and have never truly proven that claim at all.
2. Constant Rates?
Creationists have long argued in favor of Catastrophism rather than Uniformitarianism, that a mass catastrophe is the primary cause for Earth's geology rather than steady, gradual rates. For example, William Buckland (1784-1856), a famous early Geologist, sought to prove that the most recent catastrophe had been a global Flood. After decades of abandoning Catastrophism in favor of Lyellian Uniformitarianism, the scientific community has in recent years finally acknowledged that a catastrophe did in fact kill ancient life worldwide. However, such a catastrophe would have unprecedented effects on everything it fossilized.
As a Creationist I believe a global Flood mixed with underwater volcanism was responsible for much of the fossilization in the fossil record. Evidence of such underwater volcanism playing a role in past extinction has been discovered in recent years. An ancient eruption near modern-day Southwest China produced half a million cubic kilometers of lava, instantly killing and fossilizing marine life worldwide.
The major problem for radiometric dating with all of this is that dating of volcanic ash has proved highly difficult in the past. Ash from the 1980s Mount St. Helens eruption produced widely varying dates, some at over 1 million years. TalkOrigins in attempting to refute this has argued that dating young samples is irrelevant, that the laboratory's equipment "cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old." This argument seems self-defeating to me however.
After all, for radiometric dating to be viable under the scientific method it must be testable, verifiable, and falsifiable; one must be able to test material whose age is known for certain. If one claims radiometric dating can only be used on ancient sources and not recent ones, how then can one be sure the testing of ancient sources is reliable? How can one verify it without testing it on that which is recent and observable? After all if a recent eruption coupled with a global Flood had thrown off all the radiometric ages, would they not similarly appear young like the dacite from Mount St. Helens? An eruption would have carbonizing radioactive effects and introduce radioactive elements from beneath the Earth's surface of the exact same kinds being measured, giving everything an appearance of greater radiometric age.
3. Daughter Isotope Levels
How certain can we be what the initial levels of the isotopes were in the distant past? Carbon-14 dating for example is not uniformly distributed throughout life today, and both upwelling of deep ocean water and volcanic carbon dioxide give it the result of "built-in age." Furthermore, one is expected to believe accurate predictions about what Earth's climate was like millions of years ago can be made when they cannot be made today. Al Gore for example predicted the ice caps would be gone now.
4. Polonium Radiohalos
Finally the Institute for Creation Research has the RATE Project, an analysis of radiometric dating and specifically how helium in Zircon Crystals per the aforementioned Uranium-Lead Dating indicates a rapid acceleration of the decay rate.
Radiometric Dating No Excuse for Dismissing Other Evidence
Con argues radiometric dating can so definitively prove life existed prior to 20,000 years ago that all other evidence can be dismissed. However the debate's premise was simply that evidence exists which is most logically examined from a Creationist point of view. So long as I can show such evidence exists, radiometric dating or anything else is not grounds for dismissal. I address radiometric dating as such simply for the sake of debate, not because it could be grounds for disqualifying evidence for Creationism.
Con 'would' be correct that "presuming all relevant factors are known" would apply to my 1st round arguments if I was in fact claiming all relevant factors were known - which I'm not. Rather than claiming I know all evidence that exists, and that my arguments are definitive the way Con argues radiometric dating is, I simply argue on the basis of reasonability, that given the evidence which exists, the evidence I raise is most logically examined from a Creationist point of view. I do not present this as a case of knowing all factors the way Con presents radiometric dating.
Con argues I am suggesting there's a global conspiracy of some kind, phrasing I never in fact used. I simply pointed out dates which are incompatible with the existing status quo of evolution are excluded from consideration under the methodology of radiometric dating. Nonetheless my understanding is that discordant dates are removed. When a date does not agree with the evolution paradigm it is just a matter of finding an excuse such as weathering or contamination to write it off. Personally I think all dates and methodology should be published, not just those that fit a certain worldview. The argument from incredulity fallacy does not negate the fact that this does indeed appear to be a part of the methodology of radiometric dating.
Original Isotope Levels
I brought up the aerosols to point out that the element which the Uranium isotope decays into, 206Pb, can be found in the atmosphere, and that atmospheric levels of these isotopes vary from year to year. Carbon-14 for example is naturally produced in the atmosphere through cosmic rays, and all living beings tend to have the same amount of it in their bodies as is present in the atmosphere. Thus in essence one must know what the atmospheric levels of Carbon-14 were to know how much Carbon-14 was decaying in the first place. In 2011 it was discovered that giant insects roamed the Earth due to oxygen levels 50% higher than today's levels, resulting in gigantism.
In essence to believe in the infallibility of radiometric dating, one must believe that the atmospheric levels of isotopes millions of years ago can be known precisely. All radiometric dates are "calibrated" to account for what atmospheric levels were believed to be millions of years ago. However, as I previously pointed Al Gore incorrectly predicted that the ice caps would be gone in 5 years, and instead the Antarctic ice cap has grown in both size and volume. The scientific community was unable to correctly predict what would happen to the ice caps over a 5-year time period, yet to believe in radiometric dating one must believe they can precisely know what the atmosphere was like millions of years ago. Furthermore, in the case of Carbon-14 dating each minute little speck of Nitrogen-14 is measured as 5,730 years, so a few isotopes difference results in being off by tens of thousands of years.
I brought up the issue of Catastrophism to point out that catastrophes will have unprecedented effects on decay rates; in the case of a global Flood mixed with underwater supervolcanos, I suspect underwater fossilized material might well see radioactive impact similar to a nuclear bomb. A supervolcano equals the force of 1,000 Hiroshima bombs exploding every single second.
And as I pointed out volcanic ash from the 1980s Mount St. Helens eruption was dated at millions of years old. Thus a supervolcano mixed with a global Flood would have thrown off radiometric decay rates worldwide. As I also previously pointed out, evidence of just such an underwater supervolcano extinguishing life can be seen from the fossil record in ancient China. Encyclopaedia Britannica, which I also cited, mentioned that both upwelling of deepsea ocean water and volcanic carbon dioxide produce the appearance of "built-in age" on fossilized material, and both are exactly what would occur from a global Flood.
I was entirely out of room for that section and could only touch on the subject briefly. However, the AiG article referenced mentioned that helium should not exist in Zircon Crystals if the material being dated is as old as is claimed. Furthermore these radiohalos indicate a rapid process rather than gradual. To quote AiG (which is not a blog post), "However, because the daughter polonium atoms are only short-lived (for example, polonium-218 decays within 3 minutes, compared to 4.47 million years for uranium-238), the polonium radiohalos had to form within hours to a few days."
Human Population Growth Rates
Con is correct that human population could not always have grown this fast or human civilization could be only 2,071 years old. (8 survivors of Noah's Ark reaching 7 billion population) Con's problem however in arguing that technological advancement is behind this increase in growth is that the highest population growth rates are seen in third-world countries such as Lebanon (9.37%), Zimbabwe (4.36%), and South Sudan. (4.12%) These are countries with poor technological advancement and short life expectancies, yet their population is growing rapidly. Thus they remain a strong evidence for Creationism.
Dinosaur Soft Tissue
The discovery such soft tissue existed was highly controversial and completely contradicted conventional thinking in the scientific community. While iron chelatin has recently been discovered to help preserve soft tissue such as blood vessels, as noted by Elizabeth Mitchell of AiG,
"But can iron chelation preserve soft tissue and even keep it soft for millions of years? While a 200-fold delay in the decay of ostrich blood vessels is certainly impressive, even that level of preservation can’t hold a candle to the 99,800,000-fold increase in chemical stability needed in the millions-of-years evolutionary scenario. Schweitzer quite reasonably makes a comparison to the fixation properties of formaldehyde. Many variables influence the degree and duration of the decay-delaying properties of formaldehyde. But specimens preserved in formaldehyde are not preserved perfectly or permanently. While burial conditions likely influence the efficacy of iron as a preservative in any given bone, there is certainly no reason to propose that iron could preserve the molecular structure of soft tissue for millions of years any more than formaldehyde could."
The problem living fossils cause is that they managed to escape notice in the fossil record and get written off as extinct, while remaining substantially the same after all this time. This is more logical from a Creationist viewpoint of thousands of years than an Evolutionist one of millions.
These rates are consistent with life adapting over thousands of years, not millions or billions. They are more consistent with short time scales than long time scales. As with human population growth rates, the evolutionist must claim these rates have sped up for some reason.
Nonetheless suggestive. Out of room.
Con argues that radiometric dating should be considered so conclusive that all the evidence I brought up in round 1 should be written off. However, science should accept all evidence and question existing theories as new evidence comes to light, not cling dogmatically to them. Not even the law of relativity is untouchable, and has come under recent scrutiny.
Altering Decay Rates
As previously addressed both volcanism and upwelling of ocean water give the appearance of radiometric age. Other cases include:
Con claims I have not accounted for external factors when presenting my original arguments, but my rebuttals last round show otherwise. Con brought up concerns about technological advancement with human population growth rates and preservation of soft tissue, both of which are I’m assuming the factors he refers to, and both were addressed.
John Woodmorappe in his 1978 paper “Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised” presented several quotes showing the scientific community does discard dates that it doesn’t agree with.
Answers in Genesis
Con keeps attempting to label Answers in Genesis a “creationist blog” even though it is one of the foremost creationism institutions in the world, and well-known for its creationism museum which recently put on display one of the best-preserved allosaurus skeletons in the world. AiG is no more a blog than TalkOrigins is.
Nonetheless Con did not simply specify uranium-lead dating but referred to radiometric dating in general with his original response, thus my points are relevant that radiometric dating methods can require knowledge of atmospheric concentrations from the distant past. Con overlooks my broader point, that Pb206, the uranium element being dated, is found in the environment, not just the atmosphere but rainwater and petrol as well. Thus the possibility exists that it could seep into the underground lava flows where the zircon crystals form.
Geomagnetic Field Reversals
The Earth’s magnetic field has reversed polarity several times in Earth’s past, as recorded in the lava flows which Zircon Crystals form. Recently the Earth’s magnetic field has been drastically weakening, and since the magnetic field protects us from the sun’s rays, this is cause for some concern.
Now, why is this relevant? Because as previously mentioned, solar flares and magnetism can alter radiometric decay rates. Thus the flips of the Earth’s magnetic field in the past by allowing more solar activity would logically have resulted in decay rate alterations as well.
On top of this, because the Earth’s magnetic field is decaying 5% each century (and even faster in recent years), Creationist Thomas Barnes has pointed out that the magnetic field could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years or it would have melted the Earth. Russell Humphreys has since proposed a Dynamic Decay theory positing that the reversals are due to fluid flow within the Earth (for example the magma in which Zircon Crystals form), and predicted based on it that magnetic reversals should be found within lava flows that have cooled in short time periods (days/weeks), a prediction that has been confirmed.
The study referenced is “Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay” by Humphreys et. al. I still remain unclear as to why Con thinks helium would still exist in Zircon Crystals if they are as old as is claimed.
Human Population Growth Rates
As observed by Don Batten, “If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 10^43 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it... Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history. This stretches credulity to the limits."
I have not conceded anything here, even at rates just 1/10th those seen today human population could not be older than 30,000 years. These rates are strong evidence for Creationism.
What Con neglects to mention is if hydrolysis could explain the preservation of dinosaur soft tissue, why has the scientific community been so shocked at said tissue’s existence? It was widely believed until the past few years that such tissue should not exist under evolutionary models.
Outside of dinosaurs however, many species have remained generally static as seen from the fossil record, and similar to life seen today. The fossil record contains ancient bats (Onychonycteris), octopi (Palaeoctopus), pangolins (Eomanis), swordfish (Eurhinodelphis), pandas (Ailuropoda microta), cockroaches (Aphthoroblattina), otters (Puijila Darwini), etc. That so many types of life, aside from dinosaurs, have remained substantially unchanged is evidence for Creationism.
Actually in Round 2 I did provide a source referring to microevolutionary rates in general. Source 21 from Yale.
In closing I would like to thank Envisage for a thought-provoking debate, for all our disagreement hopefully we presented both sides of an important subject and made each other and the readers think through the evidence involved. Thanks for a good debate!
 Mauger R. L. 1977. K-Ar Ages of Biotites from Tuffs in Eocene Rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. Contributions to Geology 15( 1):37.  https://books.google.com...;
 Armstrong, R. L. and J. Besancon. 1970. A Triassic Time Scale Dilemma: K-Ar Dating of Upper Triassic Mafic Igneous Rocks, Eastern USA and Canada, and Post-Upper Triassic Plutons, Western Idaho, USA. GH 63:21, 3.  Brown, P. E. and J. A. Miller. 1969. Interpretation of isotopic ages in erogenic belts (in Kent et. al. 1969. Time and Place in Orogeny. GL Special Publicatin No. 3), p. 152.  http://tinyurl.com...;
I apologise for loss for formatting, as I am writing this round from my phone.
I already affirmed how immutable decay rates were in my previous rounds (including to sun, heat and pressure). Pro proposes magnetic fields & best decay could alter them (which was news to me), however checking Pro's source shows it makes no statement whatsoever about any decay rate change at all, let alone magnetic/beta induced chances (I advise voters to check the source themselves if they don't believe me).
Hence Pro brings nothing new to the table here when I haven't considered in my opening round. Moreover Pro has not addressed my arguments that assuming decay rates changes enough to account for the data, it would lead to absurd consequences (such as the Earth cooking itself sterile). Note that this increased decay rate would have had to have occurred consistently throughout history, since we have rocks which date to all parts of history (1 million, 10, 100, 1,000, 3,000 etc). All of which have fossils found with them. So positing a one-time decay rate change is not sufficient here, decay rates would literally need to be elevated a constant 100,000x their rates today until very, very recent history.
None of Pro's quotes address the practice of Radiometric dating as a whole. Moreover the one quote I could check is ironically quote mined (cherrypicked in itself!):
"After Dr. Curtis's cautious remarks in early 1961 about the age of determininations from Olduvai 'However much of that section is contaminated ... 'I think the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous.' "
The other quotes I could not check the original sources, but do not relate to the practice of Radiometric dating as a whole, and hence are irrelevant.
Pro's only argument is possible contamination. But I already addressed this in my opening, where zircon crystals quantitatively exclude lead from their crystal structure. They simply do not chemically absorb lead in any manner. Also the crystals are insoluble in water, so you could chuck a crystal in a bucket of lead-water for years and the lead content within the crystal would remain unaffected. Virtually all studies only consider the effect of Pb loss, since Pb is so readily excluded from the crystal lattice, thus the ages that would be given if contamination occurred would be younger, not older than what they really represent.
Furthermore, thick would necessarily have had to happened to *all* crystals on Earth, since they all
Geomagnetic Field Reversals
I already addressed magnetic and beta decay (they do not affect decay rates), moreover Earth's magnetic field doesn't deflect neutrinos anyway, so the number received on earth with no magnetic field at all is the same as it would be now. The *only* way to increase neutrinos reaching Earth is to have the sun (or a nearby star) increase it's output, but since output is proportional to the amount of heat produced it would mean the Earth would get vaporised (a 100,000 deficit is hard to climb).
Also such an output increase would necessarily need to be constant, and not a one-off.
I already explained that helium diffusion relies on an assumption regarding the sub-terrarium pressure (from being squeezes from thousands of tonnes of rock above), and it's affect on diffusion rates. The source I cited demonstrates that this was not taken into account by Pro's source, hence completely invalidating the data as 'evidence' for creationism,
Human Population Growth Rates
Pro completely ignores my dilemma:
1. Either the Human growth rates (1%/annum) are constant, or have changed
2. If the human growth rates are constant, then creationism is false
3. If the human growth rates have changed, then the argument makes a false assumption
C. Either creationism is false, or the argument makes a false assumption
Both horns of the dilemma are bad for Pro. If the growth rates have chances, then they could have been 0% at some point in the past! or even negative with net human loss(!). Pro also ignores my point that virtually all animal species are essentially in population equilibrium (0% growth), so why should humans before technology be any different? I gave positive reasons to this this is true via. The Holding capacity consideration. Pro has ignored this.
Incredulity & surprise is not an argument. Pro does not contest the evidence I gave or reasoning, and thus concedes this argument. I am not at liberty to explain surprise.
No source was cited for the various living fossils, and it doesn't even matter. Since Pro's entire argument relies on the assumption of a complete fossil resort (I.e. We have accurate knowledge of virtually all species in the record, as well as population estimates, etc. I already argued this assumption is naive and dubious. Moreover Pro ignores my arguments as to why some species would not undergo many morphological changes (trade offs) and hence drops this point.
I will let Pro's source speak for itself here:
"Ecology is being transformed by the recognition that ecological and evolutionary timescales are not easily differentiated. A 1999 review of evolutionary rates by Andrew Hendry and Mike Kinnison (The pace of modern life: measuring rates of contemporary microevolution. Evolution 53:1637-1653) provided the striking conclusion that rates of contemporary evolution are much faster than generally appreciated. The fact that genotype frequencies can be expected to change as the environment changes is profoundly important to general ecological understanding as well as our approach to dealing with issues such as global climate change."
Amusingly, Pro has two conflicting contentions here, with arguments for evolutionary stasis as evidence for creationism, or rapid evolution as evidence for creationism. Pro drops this argument as he fails to fulfil a key assumption in his arguments (of expected evolutionary rates, and oversimplification of the factors involved).
Pro drops this argument, however in any case this contention was turned back on Pro as clear evidence for evolution.
Magnetic Field Decay
This argument makes the assumption that the magnetic field does not 'replenish', and hence can only decay. However he contradicts himself in citing magnetic field *reversals*, and it is clearly the case that reversal of the Earth's magnetic field leads to an observation (albeit temporary) of decay. Pro would most likely be making this exact same argument but in reverse if we were on the 'replenishing' phase, too, amusingly.
I hope voters can see the clear contrast here in the level of rigor given in our cases. Pro completely fails to consider external factors, and fails to consider what his core assumptions are in the evidences he provides.
Once the core assumptions are challenged, Pro's case has fallen apart at each and every step. The contention was "evidence exists", yet evidence cannot exist if:
1. Your hypothesis already massively contradicts reality (as it does with Radiometric dating)
2. You have not considered the factors/assumptions that relate the evidence to claims about reality
I believe I have thoroughly demonstrated both horns of this, and Pro has taken to only rebuttals, rather than positively forwarding a case for why we should think Pro's facts have sound assumptions that lead it to becoming evidence for creationism
As such, I encourage readers to vote Con.
Thank you Pro for this debate, it has been fun.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|