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

Evolution v. 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 784 times Debate No: 67700
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




As Pro, I shall argue for the scientific soundness of evolution and against the scientific soundness of young earth creationism. As Con, you shall argue the reverse.

First round acceptance.


I accept update in due time
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting, Con. I will remind you that you bear the burden of proof in this debate because you are challenging accepted scientific theory.

Contention #1 - The earth is demonstrably old
Young Earth Creationism makes two key claims: 1) that ex nihilo creation gave instantaneous rise to a large number of "kinds" and 2) that the earth and universe are relatively very young (6,000-10,000 years old according to most YECs). Disproving either of these key claims is enough to declare victory. In order to properly defend his or her notion of a young earth, Con will have to not only refute my arguments for deep time but also, as the bearer of the burden of proof, present valid arguments against deep time.

Sub-contention A - Distant starlight is evidence of an old earth
The speed of light has been determined to be finite. That is, light does not travel from its source to the eye instantaneously. Rather, there is a travel time, no matter how brief or imperceptible. To present an example of this principle in action, the light we observe from our own sun takes 8.3 minutes to reach planet Earth.[1]

Enter NASA's Hubble Telescope, which has observed galaxies as far as 13.7 billion lightyears away. In other words, Hubble has recorded light from objects whose light would require billions of years to reach us.[2] This clearly disproves the idea that the earth is mere thousands of years old.

Sub-contention B - Helioseismology is evidence of an old sun
There are constant chemical reactions within our sun, and these variables of composition affect the way that sound behaves inside our nearest star. By constructing models of the pressure waves within the sun, a process called helioseismology, we can make estimates about its age. Scientists have used this method to determine that the earth is 4.57 +/- 0.11 billion years old.[3]

Sub-contention C - Gypsum megacystals are evidence of an old earth
Gypsum megacrystals exceeding eleven meters in length have been discovered. According to crystal growth theory, these would require a minimum of one million years to develop.[4]

Sub-contention D - The human Y chromosome is evidence of an old earth
The only factor affecting the DNA within the Y chromosome is mutation, and so by measuring mutation rate and the state of the chromosome we can determine that our common ancestor lived around 340,000 years ago. It is important to note that this does not indicate that there was a single original male but that one hominid's chromosome outlasted other strains.[5]

Contention #2 - The factors necessary for evolution have been observed
Contrary to YEC rhetoric, all of the factors necessary for evolution have been observed. Gene-duplication makes it possible for additional information to be added to the genome via mutation or other means through the adding of extra "work space."[6] This is pictured below.

Beneficial mutations do indeed exist, such as human lactose tolerance and HbC.[7]

Contention #3 - YEC dogma requires evolution on a major scale
According to Young Earth Creationists, there was no death prior to the Fall of man recorded in the early chapters of Genesis. This means that there were no predatory animals but that all animals were vegetarian. For this to change after the Fall would require major evolutionary changes of the variety that YECs say are impossible. Lions would need to develop entirely new digestive systems, spiders would need to suddenly begin producing silk and spinning webs to catch their prey, and the Tyrannosaurus Rex would have to grow an entirely new set of teeth and jaws. Also, there would have to be a change in behavioral instinct for all predatory creatures.

Let's also consider the developments that prey would have to undergo. The chameleon has no need to camouflage itself in a world with no predators, and the bombardier beetle has no need to be able to project acid at its enemies. These are just a few of the post-Fall developments you must believe in.

I look forward to hearing Con's response to these points.




Excuse me sir I will have to forfeit all rounds due to family reasons that I need not explain. I heavily apologize for the inconvenience but just to say is I read your whole argument and I wanted to debate this so please do excuse me.
Debate Round No. 2


Completely understandable. I extend all arguments.


brutaldubstepa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I extend all arguments.


brutaldubstepa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Mr.Kal 2 years ago
Would have been an interesting argument - if there was a person who tried to argue for YEC.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
One is based in reason the other is based in religion.
It's hard to argue with someone against a position in which reason was not used to form and is not used to maintain.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
The title suggests the two are opposed to each other. The title is Evolution versus YEC, thus pitting the two ideas against each other. The truth is, one can have evolution and a YEC worldview, as the two ideas don't even address the same issue. Evolution deals with how life has diversified since life has existed, and YEC is how life and the universe came about at all.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
The fact that someone would argue against YEC, assumes it has credibility, when it has none.
Posted by PhiloTheist 2 years ago
Actually, the title is meant to suggest that I would like my opponent to be a YEC, not that evolution and YEC are direct opposites.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
This suggests that young earth creationism is the opposite of evolution, which it isn't. YEC is about just that, the process that they believe brought about the planet/universe. Evolution deals with the diversity of life. One is a cosmological matter, and the other is a biological one. The opposing ideas about the event that brought about the beginning of the universe, if such an event even exists, would be creationism (which imnotacop correctly pointed out holds no scientific soundness and is largely rejected by any qualified expert) and the big bang. While there are parts of evolution that disagree with the possibility of a young earth, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Posted by imnotacop 2 years ago
1. the topic makes absolutely no sense.
2. there is no scientific soundness to creationism.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: ff. Will rescind if debaters agree to call it a tie. Just PM me.