Evolution is more likely than Young Earth Creationism
Debate Rounds (5)
Evolution will be defined as the process through which older life forms adapted to their environments and slowly became more modern life forms. The world is over 4 billion years old.
Young Earth Creationism states that God created the world with life forms exactly as it is today (i.e., if dinosaurs existed, they existed alongside humanity, etc.), the Bible is interpreted completely literally, and the world is 10,000 years old or less.
The Burden of Proof is shared. Each side has the burden to prove that their side is more likely. Good Luck.
I accept this debate, as well as the rules, structure, and definitions that you gave. Good luck to you as well, and avodah! 
Avodah is the Hebrew term for doing all work as worship for the Lord. I think we can both start this debate by agreeing that we will do that through our arguments/words, correct?
Evolution is an infinitely more likely occurrence than Young Earth Creationism. It is backed by a plethora of scientific evidence as well as the church, and does not deny the existence of a God, whether it be a deistic, Jewish, or Christian interpretation. Let's start with scientific evidence.
1) The Earth is Billions of Years Old
Young Earth Creationism takes its interpretation of the word of the Bible as a fact over all of science. Unfortunately for them, the Bible is a document allowing many interpretations. For example, the Bible has been used to justify slavery. Does this mean the Bible condones slavery? No. But it didn't stop confederates. However, there is strong scientific evidence to suggest the world is billions of years old.
A) Fossils have been found that existed during the Cambrian period. These fossils have been dated to 500 million years old or more .
B) Rocks have been found dating billions of years old. The most significant of these was discovered in Canada in 1999. It was dated at just over 4 billion years old .
C) By radiometrically dating asteroids that have impacted earth, and therefore have been unaffected by plate tectonics which make it hard to tell the full age of the earth, scientists have found the earth to be about 4.54 billion years old .
Therefore, scientific findings confirm the earth as billions of years old. Due to the Bible's interpretable nature, and due to the fact that the Bible never expressly states the age of the earth, only the lineages of humanity, the Bible is not a valid resource on the earth's age.
2) Evolution is a true process
A) Darwin found fossils preserved in layers of sedimentary rock. The lower layers contained old organisms, many of which were unrecognizable to Darwin. As the layers went up, he noticed the fossilized plants and animals became more and more familiar until they were a similar to present life forms. The organisms also tended to become more and more complex .
B) Many animals existing today share very similar DNA, behavior, and appearances. However, slight differences appear which provide adaptive advantages. For example, the seagull and the pelican share very similar DNA, but the pelican has a wide bill for scooping up fish, while the seagull has a small bill for picking up insects, small fish and crustaceans, and people's food outside the odd Walmart . These advantages have been proven to be as a result of mutations. Mutations occur, and those that are advantageous cause the organism they occured to to survive . This is what drives the evolutionary process. And "Modern research both mathematically and empirically confirms that rates of mutation occur at around 0.1-1.5 per zygote, which is to say every embryo has between 1/10th and 1.5 mutations on average, depending on species" .
C) Ancestors for many animals have been found fossilized. They share similar DNA with the modern versions of these animals (although they are less complex). The most prevalent case of this is the ancestors of humans. A long chain of human ancestors exists, demonstrated in this family tree . All of these ancestors share varying amounts of DNA with us, homo sapiens, and become gradually more similar to us in appearance and bone structure. The Homo heidelbergensis, the closest ancestor to the modern human, astounds me the most. It has quite similar DNA to us, looks almost like a human, and is obviously a human ancestor, yet it is not quite human. Fossils of these and all other steps on the human family tree exist and make it almost impossible to disprove evolution.
If scientific evidence alone does not sway you or the voters that evolution is more likely than Young Earth Creationism, there is another argument. We must break down the likelihood of each event.
First: YEC. What does it assume?
1. There is a God.
For YEC to work, a God must exist. Now, you and I believe there is a God. I do not dispute this fact. But God is unproven. It is possible that a God does not exist. Atheists and their theories are thrown out the window here. Therefore, we alienate something that is maybe not true, but possible. This detracts slightly from the likelihood of YEC.
2. This God is the Abrahamic God of the Bible.
YEC rides pretty much only the Bible as its positive sources of information. This detracts from most deist beliefs, again, not what you or I believe, but a possibility. A God of nature, a non-Abrahamic God has the possibility of existing. We cannot prove definitively that God is the exact God of our beliefs.
3. The Bible is to be interpreted literally and it contains all worldly information.
This is the fact I dispute, as does the Catholic Church, which I belong to. Pope Benedict spoke for the church when he said: "They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other. This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such" . The Bible has the possibility, the strong possibility, of being at least partially metaphorical, especially Genesis. One thing contested by many Young Earth Creationists is that the Bible says the world was created in 6 days. However, 2 Peter 3:9 says, "A day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day." In other words, God exists outside of time. Then the 6 day creation story, combined with scientific findings, must be considered a metaphor.
This seems like a lot of assumptions made by YEC. It excludes a lot of valid theories made by a large chunk of the world. Now what assumptions are made by the theory of evolution?
1. The Bible is not completely literal
Well, that's about it. It does not deny atheism, deism, Judaism, or Christianity. It simply denies a literal interpretation of the Bible. Without any proof to deny or promote any of these religions/philosophies, it seems more reasonable that an explanation for the world that does not deny any of these is more likely, especially one supported by substantial scientific proof.
In conclusion, evolution and the old earth theory are far more likely due to science and logic than YEC. My opponent will not be able to prove otherwise using sound logic.
Thank you for your time, and God Bless. Good Luck next round.
#1. Young Earth Theory
The main concept is that the world was created by a higher deity at around 10-6,000 years ago. In other words, it is the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.  Sadly, many people misinterpret the Young Earth theory by saying it is all based upon the Bible and that this "religious" Book tops all scientific evidence. This is not too far from correct. But I, and most Creationists, believe that science is based upon the Bible, and we can explore them both in order to reach higher levels of knowledge in the world. This is quite an amazing phenomenon, that an old book works along side with modern day science and the science does not refute it. I will rebut what you said about YET in the next round. For now, though, I will explain how Young Earth has well-substantial evidence and is more probable than the Old Earth idea.
First, a definition. Science is defined as "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Too often, "science" and "naturalism" are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Neither Creationism nor naturalism is falsifiable, but we are talking about facts that represent both theories. And although facts are facts, there is no such thing as a fact that absolutely requires a single interpretation. The divide between creationism and secular naturalism rests entirely on different interpretations. Regarding the evolution vs. creation debate specifically, Charles Darwin himself made this point. In the introduction to The Origin of Species, he stated, "I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived." 
A). The earth's age is taken from knowing the genealogies of people in the Bible and then finding scientific evidence that supports it. There is much proof of people who lived to be around 700 years old in Biblical times, so I will not get in to that unless you address it. Old Earth Theory is based on assumptions with a few pieces of scientific evidence, but no historical evidence at all. I also have a few questions for it (such as, when did the first humans start to evolve and what were they, why did it take so long for humans to evolve into what they are now, how come we lost our huge amounts of body hair like apes--our common ancestors--have, etc.), but those are for later. The point is, we have actual prophecies fulfilled, song books and diaries/journals from around 5,000 years ago, and all of these are either prophesies and commandments told from a Creator to people which were later fulfilled, praise songs to a Creator, or journals which show real encounters with miracles and/or a supernatural being (Creator). The funny thing is, all these historic "journals" are backed up with scientific and observable evidence that prove the things that happened in the journals. Of-course all these journals, commandments and prophesies, and song books are part of the Creation theory's main source: the Bible.
B). There is nothing wrong with believing the Bible, when there is scientific evidence to prove it, but if you only take the easy-to-believe stories in the Bible and make them your religion and beliefs the Bible is of less validity and credibility.
C). Scientific proof for OEC and YEC...
There is substantial evidence for the Flood.
-There is evidence for the Red Sea being split.
-There are real places that the Bible mentions (Elim, found in Exodus, The Pool at Bethesda, found in John 5, etc.)
-Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter"no errors. 
#2. Logic says...
When we think of the Big Bang, most of us have a picture of
And it seems easy to think, 'Sooner or later something would exist, expand, and become something like earth.' But when has anything like this been proven to happen? Never. Anything like it, and nothing happens. When any one scientist has tried to do an experiment to prove the Big Bang could happen, their 'nothing' stays nothing, and doesn't become anything different and DEFINITELY not better. Anyways, admit it: logic will never tell you that something can form out of nothing, even if anything was proven in this subject. Physical science will never be capable enough to explain the non-physical.
It is the same with evolution. To start with, Charles Darwin did not use logic when he wrote his book 'On the Origin of Species.' Many holes and unanswered questions fill that book anyway, which I might get in to later. The man who started the thought of Evolution didn't have a lot of proof for it at all--just assumptions and a fossil which sparked the idea--but now it is a highly respected theory. Why? My personal opinion used to be that a lot of people hate the thought of us being created or that there's a Higher Being, and the Big Bang and/or Evolution is a good way to get rid of that thought, or a good excuse to tell people when they say a Creator is the only option. But my opponent here is a Christian. He believes in the Christian Creator God, but to him the better theory between YEC and Evolution, is Evolution. So, my question for my Christian opponent is, why couldn't have God had the strength and the power enough to make the earth in 6 days?
What would you think of a person who saw a computer chip with millions of transistors that were self-connected into a computer and it all worked--who said, "You know that spontaneous events formed that computer chip by electrical and mineral activity -- multiprocessing program included? It is scientific fact that the chip obviously had no designer, no plan or maker! Oh, that is explained by billions of years of processes by pressures of nature..." It's the same with the evolutionists who essentially say that's how the optic center in the brain came to exist, and that is a more interdependent processor than the most advanced computer chip ever made. So they say that the optic nerves, the eye and the retina all happened by a series of natural events that we can call ad hoc mistake--"formed in one particular moment without ability to consider any application." Is this logical? 
#3. Young Earth Creationists take the Bible literally, and proof better backs up this
I believe that the Bible specifically says "all creatures were made of their own kind." As a Christian who takes the Bible literally (because it is God's Word, or Message, to us), I also believe that on the 7th day (after God created the earth and everything in it) He said He was finished and He saw that it was good. This is big proof to me, besides the fact that he made all creatures OF THEIR OWN KIND so that they wouldn't evolve, since a lot of times Christian evolutionists dismiss that part of the Bible quickly, and I like to think that "if humans had evolved yet God created them, He would still be working on the creatures in nature and it would not be 'finished.' 
Things that contradict OEC:
-The Bible says creatures were created of their own kind, not to be evolved from one kind to another.
-"Evening came, and then morning" seems to indicate a literal day (Gn. 1:5, etc.)
-Sabbath rest (Ex 20:11) seems to imply six literal days of work, during the Creation week.
-The sun wasn't created until Day 4 in the Bible, but there was life on Day 3 which cannot exist for long times without sunlight
-If death is an enemy (1Co 15:54) was God's original plan of paradise free from killing, or was it filled with violence, decay, and death? Man was not permitted to eat animals until after the Flood (Gn 9:2-3).
-God saw that "it was good and finished" at the end of His creating, not to keep evolving in to different.
When you look at the differences between OEC and YEC the only ones are the EVOLVING part and the NOT LITERAL Bible which is what we are debating right now! So far, though, I have proven that OEC contradicts the Bible and this is not good for a Christian evolutionist.
Thank-you, and avodah!!
1. Young Earth Theory
My opponent states early on: "Sadly, many people misinterpret the Young Earth theory by saying it is all based upon the Bible and that this "religious" Book tops all scientific evidence."
Yet in the very next claim says "This is not too far from correct." Basically, in her first paragraph, my opponent is conceding that the Bible's literal interpretation is more important than scientific findings in YEC. In essence, only scientific findings that coincide with a literal interpretation of the Bible are considered.
My opponent defines science here. I agree to this definition. My opponent then talks about how naturalism and science are separate entities. I agree. Naturalism will be defined as "the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual" . Both Naturalism and Creationism are philosophical viewpoints (Though I do not quite agree with either). Neither one can claim to be science, rather, only explanations for science's findings. This debate is not, however, about "Which theory is unequivocally correct" but "Which theory is more likely and reasonable." Using Occam's Razor (the same process used in the acceptance of Einstein's theory of time-space continuum)  , we can deduce that more than likely, 4 billion year old rocks were not placed on the earth by God in order to fool us, and rather are actually 4 billion years old. Almost every YEC argument violates Occam's razor, meaning that while they cannot fully be disproven, they are far, far less likely.
"And although facts are facts, there is no such thing as a fact that absolutely requires a single interpretation." This statement delves a bit into relativism. However, if this is to be taken into account, it also applies to the Bible. I have shown, using science, how a literal interpretation of the Bible is less likely than an evolutionist interpretation. The Charles Darwin statements at the end prove nothing. Darwin was merely acknowledging that his theories could have doubters, as technology was not as strong in his time as it is today (DNA testing was nonexistant). Many of his theories have now been confirmed [3, 4].
A) I'd like proof of those ages, such as a source (not the Bible). This doesn't matter, however, as it doesn't deny evolution. The only part of the Bible that is at odds with evolution is the creation stories. As Pope Benedict XVI states, "[The Creation Stories are] pagan creation accounts on which the biblical story is in part based" . They only explain that God created the world and that humanity at some point rebelled against God. Nowhere does it deny or exclude evolution unless it is taken completely literally.
"Old Earth Theory is based on assumptions with a few pieces of scientific evidence, but no historical evidence at all." This statement is extremely fallacious. If no humans existed to write history, how could there be historical evidence? Furthermore, Genesis was not written by Adam and Eve, but rather later Hebrew authors, who never met Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noah, etc. . This has no more historicity and much less scientific authenticity than the Old Earth Theory.
B) "There is nothing wrong with believing the Bible, when there is scientific evidence to prove it, but if you only take the easy-to-believe stories in the Bible and make them your religion and beliefs the Bible is of less validity and credibility."
Correct. This is why YEC is incorrect. No scientific evidence supports your creation story.
C) Although only one of these claims is sourced, none of them prove YEC, but rather that the Bible contains an at least partially correct historical record. None of these disprove that evolution happened before these events, nor that the world is old. These have no bearing on the argument.
2. I'm not sure how the big bang has any relevance to this argument. The big bang is a possibility, but the big bang didn't need to happen for evolution to happen. Therefore, it is irrelevant.
"The man who started the thought of Evolution didn't have a lot of proof for it at all--just assumptions and a fossil which sparked the idea--but now it is a highly respected theory. Why? My personal opinion used to be that a lot of people hate the thought of us being created or that there's a Higher Being, and the Big Bang and/or Evolution is a good way to get rid of that thought, or a good excuse to tell people when they say a Creator is the only option."
Darwin may not have had proof, only evidence and conjecture, but the reason it is respected now is because NOW they have proof [3,4]. He also DID use logic. Darwin used inductive reasoning, a type of logic, to create a theory based on his findings . My opponent seems to think evolutionary science started and ended with Darwin. It didn't.
"So, my question for my Christian opponent is, why couldn't have God had the strength and the power enough to make the earth in 6 days?"
My opponent supposes evolution is an underestimation of God's power. Evolution has tons of scientific evidence. I don't believe in it because I underestimate God. This question could be just as well turned upon my opponent: Why couldn't God have the power to adhere to His own rules of the universe? If mutations exist, why would God allow them to if the world was already created exactly as He intended? Why couldn't he have created the world through evolution? The honest Young Earth Creationist's answer to all of these is: because the Bible, in my interpretation, tells me he didn't.
My opponent's entire next argument stems from false analogy. A computer is not prone to mutations, does not adapt to its environment. I do not claim there was no plan or maker to life or evolution, so again, this argument is irrelevant. Whether God set evolution in motion, or it was a naturalistic force, it is not a false idea.
"I believe that the Bible specifically says 'all creatures were made of their own kind.'" No it doesn't .
"He said He was finished and He saw that it was good."
This is actually a fairly compelling argument. However, this could refer to the eventual development of homo sapiens through evolution and not the initial "BAM, everything suddenly is just as it is in modern day and scientific evidence is ignored" theory.
-"The Bible says creatures were created of their own kind, not to be evolved from one kind to another." Nope.
-"'Evening came, and then morning' seems to indicate a literal day (Gn. 1:5, etc.)"
How could literal evening and morning come if the sun didn't exist yet according to your literalist account?
-"Sabbath rest (Ex 20:11) seems to imply six literal days of work, during the Creation week."
This is a non sequitur. The Sabbath rest was created as a result of the creation story, not the other way around. This further perpetuates the Israelite need for a "six day creation" metaphor, in order to explain why they were to rest on the seventh day.
-"The sun wasn't created until Day 4 in the Bible, but there was life on Day 3 which cannot exist for long times without sunlight"
I have already explained this cannot be interpeted literally. Plants couldn't survive at all without the capability to perform photosynthesis.
-"If death is an enemy (1Co 15:54) was God's original plan of paradise free from killing, or was it filled with violence, decay, and death? Man was not permitted to eat animals until after the Flood (Gn 9:2-3)."
"Death" here actually refers to sin, which was conquered in Christian ideals by Jesus Christ. If God permitted humans to eat animals before Corinthians, part of the New Testament, was written, then eating them was not a sin and therefore was not referred to as "the enemy" here.
-"God saw that "it was good and finished" at the end of His creating, not to keep evolving in to different."
I have already rebutted the first Part of this statement, and the second part makes no sense.
My opponent has cited only the Bible, which is not a credible scientific book, as her only resource to prove YEC. All of her other sources go to prove the Bible as correct in instances that have no relevance to YEC. I have cited many scientific and credible resources and rebutted her arguments fully. My resolution stands, only in a literal interpretation of the Bible would YEC be valid. I have given proof that this is not possible. There is only one way to vote, with pro. Thanks.
Avodah, and back to you.
Sources will be in the comments section, as they don't fit here.
REBUTTALS OF 1
"It--" (evolution) "--is backed by a plethora of scientific evidence as well as the church, and does not deny the existence of a God, whether it be a deistic, Jewish, or Christian interpretation." I have given many reasons that the Christian Bible disproves Evolution.
"Young Earth Creationism takes its interpretation of the word of the Bible as a fact over all of science." Yes, but most of the interpretations in the Bible have science to back it up. I won't give examples since my opponent said no new arguments.
My opponent thinks that the Bible promotes slavery. First, we need to remember that slavery in those ages was an aspect of the economic conditions of the day. In fact, most slave situations were not primarily due to a person being taken against his will, but because poor people either sold themselves or their children into slavery. In Leviticus 25:38-43, God says things that are in control by Him--but He gives some advice and suggestions for the people, too--saying how slavery could be done. Slavery was designed so that the poor could seek protection, this is noted in the passage of Leviticus. Verse 40 states "He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you". 
REBUTTAL OF 1A
"Fossils have been found that existed during the Cambrian period. These fossils have been dated to 500 million years old or more." Did you know that most of fossils which are "proven" to be millions of years old, aren't actually complete? Here's one bit of example: fossil of the largest flying bird was identified, to be 20-24 feet in width and which lived 25,000,000 years ago was found in South Carolina. Called 'Pelagornis sandersi.' The problem? The press hasn't gotten it public yet, but as you see the website  you'll find a picture of the fossil, some bones dull white and others bright white. I'm not much for paleoanthropology, but I read that the bright white represents the fossils actually found in the same spot with the same kinds. Yet people still fall for this story: "largest flying bird found!!!" without knowing that it's all evolutionary fraudulence.
REBUTTAL FOR 1B and 1C
"Rocks have been found dating billions of years old. The most significant of these was discovered in Canada in 1999. It was dated at just over 4 billion years old." I would like to say a thing or two about radiometric dating and how people came up with dates of a rock. One common dating system, Carbon-14, is said to disprove YEC. Most people, however, do not know that a critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating is used, and often. It has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. Keep in mind that this happens with a LOT of dating methods. 
"Due to the Bible's interpretable nature, and due to the fact that the Bible never expressly states the age of the earth, only the lineages of humanity, the Bible is not a valid resource on the earth's age." Do you know how Creationists even use the Bible to interpret the age of the earth? Three ways: genealogies, prayer, and research. According to the both of us, these are pretty stable ways, and I have stated reasons they are safe to use in the last round.
REBUTTAL OF 2A/2C
There are reasons fossils are different in different layers of sediment. Darwin started a whole lot of research which led scientists to wonder if his hypothesis is credible or not. As I said last time, though, facts are facts but there is not one fact that can only be interpreted in just one way. I've explained, and I'm sure you've heard of fossils that prove to be from the Bible and Its times (although I'm not supposed to provide new arguments).
When we examine the Evolutionary Tree we find that all of these species (or their counterparts) for the most part, are living today. So what really do we see in the fossil record? When we go to a museum of "natural history", we primarily find only fossils of extinct creatures. This of course gives the impression (especially with the commentary supplied) that things have been changing for the better over long periods of time, and that all creatures found in the fossil record are very old, outdated and extinct creatures that have long ago ceased to exist. But, if we were to see the whole of the fossil record, and we were not influenced from years of evolutionary training in the science class, and bombarded with evolutionary biased programs, journals and magazines etc, and if we were to go out into the field and examine the evidence for ourselves, I think we would come up with a totally different conclusion. So what we need to do, as the Bible instructs us to do, is to "Prove all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). 
And might I point out that there is plenty of DNA proof leading towards YEC, in case you didn't know, besides the fact that there is a lot of evidence for God, in DNA too. 
REBUTTAL OF 2B
On the topic of animals and their DNA, behavior and appearances, my opponent:
"However, slight differences appear which provide adaptive advantages. For example, the seagull and the pelican share very similar DNA, but the pelican has a wide bill for scooping up fish, while the seagull has a small bill for picking up insects, small fish and crustaceans, etc..."
Exactly. Humans share 50% bound DNA with bananas, but do I look like a banana? My opponent later says: "The Homo heidelbergensis, the closest ancestor to the modern human...has quite similar DNA to us, looks almost like a human, and is obviously a human ancestor, yet it is not quite human."
Like your analogy with the pelican and seagull, there are differences in personalities, too. The problem is, fossils do not explain what that particular creature's personality was (especially if it's "extinct" and not for sure an ancestor to us). The human family tree, you say, is almost impossible to disprove. Actually, most of the human fossils that Darwin and evolutionists based their "family tree" on have been refuted already. They were nothing but old types of apes that are extinct; some of them are larger and strongly built ("robust"), while others are smaller and delicate ("gracile"). 
I apologize for the long rounds. Notice how my opponent had to put sources in the comments section! (I nearly ran out of characters too.) But alas, there is so much to be proven and it is surely hard to prove it all in a debate online. Still, I hope the readers got something out of it and were somewhat persuaded to think more of YEC. I wish good luck to my opponent during the next round and conclude my rebuttals.
1) "I have given many reasons that the Christian Bible disproves Evolution." These have been rebutted.
"My opponent thinks that the Bible promotes slavery." I never claimed this. I actually claimed the opposite. I cited that SOME people believed the Bible promotes slavery due to their interpretations of scripture. This exposes the problem that scripture can be incorrectly interpreted, and therefore is not a valid resource for scientific claims.
1A. "Did you know that most of fossils which are "proven" to be millions of years old, aren't actually complete?"
My opponent is guilty of a non sequitur here. She claims that since skeletons are not always found in their entirety, they cannot be as old as scientists claim them to be. This is faulty reasoning. The bones found for this skeleton were tested for there age and found to be 25,000,000 years old. The availability of bones is in no way a detriment to the discovery of their age. Furthermore, enough bones were found to determine the size and shape of the bird. Several more complete skeletons have been found . However, the incompleteness of most skeletons proves that sediment was probably not deposited rapidly through a great flood on all of these skeletons, but was rather slowly deposited.
1B & 1C. "If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years."
80,000 years is more than 10,000 years. While C-14 dating can, as my opponent stated, only date fossils to about 80,000 years, this still disproves YEC, as YEC bases itself on a 10,000 year timeframe. Furthermore, C-14 dating is not used in dating more ancient fossils, asteroids or rocks, as rocks and especially asteroids usually contain little organic material for C-14 dating to work with. These samples are typically dated using Uranium-238 dating, which is accurate up to billions of years . Therefore my cited examples DO prove an old earth. In addition, my opponent's source claims that C-14 levels would falsely indicate older ages of fossils due to the great flood, which isn't true, as a flood would indicate C-14 dated ages to be less than the actual age of the fossil . My opponent has not even offered evidence for a flood. It also fails to take into account scientific corrections for the C-14 dating system . The source is therefore fallacious.
2. "...Three ways: genealogies, prayer, and research."
-Genealogies do not disprove evolution, they merely are a historical record of humanity. Humanity did not exist before this point, and could not provide historical records. My opponent has also failed to provide a source for the ages of those in the Bible.
-I'll let voters decide if prayer is an effective means of scientific discovery.
-Unfortunately, all research given to me thus far is fallacious.
2A-2C. My opponent here is basically stating that although museums and the geologic record seem to indicate evolution is true, this is a byproduct of pro-evolution schooling. She then claims if we went out into the field ourselves, we would figure out something different. She ends with a Bible verse saying to "prove all things." This is ironic when you realize that the entire argument proved nothing. It simply states that evolution is incorrect, and the only reason we think it's correct is because we have been slammed with evolutionist propaganda. There is no evidence in her argument to suggest this claim is true. Therefore, it proves nothing. The source she cites, while denying evolution, affirms that certain animals are relatives of other animals. Well, how do you get a relative? By sharing a common ancestor, of course. If my opponent denies this, I ask her to name a blood relative she has that does not share a common ancestor. This article unwittingly affirms evolution.
"And might I point out that there is plenty of DNA proof leading towards YEC, in case you didn't know, besides the fact that there is a lot of evidence for God, in DNA too."
The article cited here, once again, offers no proof. It basically asserts, over and over, that evolutionists are wrong because they deny God, and a naturalist approach is incorrect simply because it is. No proof of DNA supporting YEC whatsoever is given in this source. I have proven that evolutionism does not deny the existence of God, while YEC necessitates it.
"Humans share 50% bound DNA with bananas, but do I look like a banana?"
Humans also share 99.84% of DNA with Neanderthals  (not a direct ancestor, but one who shares a common ancestor) and roughly 96% with chimps . This is obviously more than a banana, so it seems we are much more closely related to chimps and Neanderthals than bananas.This perfectly supports the "human family tree" idea, as chimps branched off far earlier than Neanderthals (as Neanderthals are part of the homo genus).
"They were nothing but old types of apes that are extinct"
Actually, if my opponent had fully read the article, she would've realized that these descriptors only refer to Australopithecus, the most primitive, apelike descendant of humanity. It also attempts to make the claim "Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens existed at the same time, so Neanderthals cannot be ancestors of Homo Sapiens." Unfortunately, this claim is null as Neanderthals were never claimed to be ancestors of Homo Sapiens, but rather share a common ancestor . Therefore, this is another fallacious article.
My opponent's arguments stem only from the Bible and fallacious "science." She has failed to refute my points as of now and has not even proven evolution to be in conflict with Christianity, let alone less likely than YEC. Due to overwhelming scientific evidence, evolution is the more likely theory.
Thanks for your arguments. I'm looking forward to next round. Good Luck!
1. I assumed that my opponent thinks the Bible promotes slavery because of what he had displayed in previous rounds. His rebuttal was: " I never claimed this. I actually claimed the opposite. I cited that SOME people believed the Bible promotes slavery due to their interpretations of scripture. This exposes the problem that scripture can be incorrectly interpreted, and therefore is not a valid resource for scientific claims."
You're forgetting something. If the scientific claims are TRUE and have been PROVEN, then THAT is the evidence that the Bible's claims are true. Besides, this is irrelevant to the fact that the culture in the Bible-times did promote slavery. This by the way, does not mean God himself promotes it. Saying "the Bible promotes" doesn't actually work because there are many writers of the Bible, not all the stories told and happenings in that time was "God-breathed" rather plain events that needed to be told to us even now.
2. How do people date fossils and why are you so sure that the dates are correct?
3. "80,000 years is more than 10,000 years. While C-14 dating can, as my opponent stated, only date fossils to about 80,000 years, this still disproves YEC, as YEC bases itself on a 10,000 year timeframe." This does not apply to OEC either, and is MORE LIKELY to point towards the Young Earth Theory.
4. "Genealogies do not disprove evolution, they merely are a historical record of humanity. Humanity did not exist before this point, and could not provide historical records. My opponent has also failed to provide a source for the ages of those in the Bible." My only goal is not to disprove evolution, in this case it's to show you how the Bible's genealogies can prove how YEC is more probable than OEC or evolution, and this I have done.
5. "My opponent here is basically stating that although museums and the geologic record seem to indicate evolution is true, this is a byproduct of pro-evolution schooling. She then claims if we went out into the field ourselves, we would figure out something different. She ends with a Bible verse saying to "prove all things."'
I am simply reminding you that just because the majority believes so doesn't mean it's true. The whole reason people believe Old Earth Creationism/evolution more than Young Earth Creationism is because your theory sounds more reasonable and even sounds more probable. Also, I believe evolution should not be the only theory taught in public schools because this is another factor that the majority believes in evolution: they were born into the world with all the voices around them saying it's fact, and that's NOT a certainty, even Richard Dawkins can say that.
Please accept these as the best I could do due to time and Internet error. I will *debunk* the rest of your round in my last. Thank you for waiting, Phoenix, and good luck.
1. My opponent states that we cannot take Biblical claims as true unless backed by scientific evidence: "If the scientific claims are TRUE and have been PROVEN, then THAT is the evidence that the Bible's claims are true." She also states that not all of the Bible is God's actual word, but rather much of it is the words of people. I ask her to present solid positive scientific proof (as she has stated the Bible alone cannot be proven true without scientific evidence) that creation transpired in the exact way described in Genesis (positive evidence is evidence that attempts to prove YEC and not simply disprove the Old Earth Evolutionary Theory). This first argument actually helped my side a lot.
2. This is a complicated process to explain, but I'll try to make it as basic as possible. Many rocks contain radioactive isotopes of various elements. "Some of the atoms [of these isotopes] eventually change from one element to another by a process called radioactive decay. If there are a lot of atoms of the original element, called the parent element, the atoms decay to another element, called the daughter element, at a predictable rate. The passage of time can be charted by the reduction in the number of parent atoms, and the increase in the number of daughter atoms" . Scientists find a specific isotope whose half-life (the time it takes for half of a given isotope to decay) is known in a rock that they wish to date. They use a logarithmic equation (this varies depending on the type of dating done) to determine how long the isotope has been decaying based on the ratio of parent to daughter atoms in the isotope. Keep in mind that this dating process has been being conducted for over 50 years, at many labs around the world, using many different elements, and the results have been the same on the age of the earth and other old materials .
3. A dating system that can only be accurate up to 80,000 years and is recognized by evolutionist scientists to be so helps YEC's case how? It is not the dating system that was used to determine the age of fossils older than 80,000 years. Furthermore, any age of a rock found to be over 10,000 years old disproves YEC.
4. Duly noted. However, my opponent never actually explained how genealogies prove YEC more likely than Evolution, or cited any evidence for the genealogies even being correct. She also never stated how genealogies, if correct, in any way exclude evolutions existence. She just stated that "The earth's age is taken from knowing the genealogies of people in the Bible and then finding scientific evidence that supports it." Genealogies, even if scientifically proven correct (which I have yet to see) do not exclude evolution in any way, as Adam and Eve could simply be the first humans to have evolved.
5."The whole reason people believe Old Earth Creationism/evolution more than Young Earth Creationism is because your theory sounds more reasonable and even sounds more probable."
Probably because it is more probable and reasonable.
"Also, I believe evolution should not be the only theory taught in public schools because this is another factor that the majority believes in evolution: they were born into the world with all the voices around them saying it's fact, and that's NOT a certainty, even Richard Dawkins can say that."
The public school debate is irrelevant. My opponent claims that popularity should not be the reason evolution is seen as the more likely theory, I wholeheartedly agree. However, as I stated before, the facts dictate that evolution is far more likely, as no positive scientific evidence exists for creationism, creationists simply believe what the Bible says is literal and search for ways to make other theories seem incredible. Although evolution is not an absolute certainty, neither is any theory. In fact, gravity is "just a theory" as well. In addition, Richard Dawkins holds that "evolution is a fact" .
I believe I have without a doubt demonstrated the likelihood of evolution. It is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and unrefuted by religion. I will leave you with a cool quote from an article I found (Read the whole article, you'll learn something).
"Evolution, as defined by Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes in their textbook, "Biology," is "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." It is beyond me how accepting this fact of science could possibly undermine one's faith in Jesus, from whom originated all things which science is capable of exploring.
Christ is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Therefore, if evolution is true, as everything we know about biology, and a number of overlapping fields of inquiry indicate, then it is incapable of conflicting with the God-breathed truth of sacred scripture. If there appears to be a disagreement between the two, then the interpretation of the passage in question must be incorrect. For the Bible-believing Christian, there is no other option" .
I hope, along with proving to the voters that evolution is the more likely theory, have convinced my opponent to see it in a different light. Thank you.
JasperFrancisShickadance forfeited this round.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture and Pro provided more sources than Con so he gets that point. The rest of the RFD to come later.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
|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:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.